Another “victorious” initiative is actively spreading online—Petition No. 41/009215-26ep calling for the abolition of bail for so-called “top corrupt officials” during martial law.

The public, which disapproves of suspects being released from pretrial detention centers so quickly, is actively signing it, viewing it as a breakthrough in the fight against corruption.

Let’s take off the rose-colored glasses of populism and look at this initiative realistically. Behind the slogans about ending impunity lies plain legal illiteracy, which undermines the justice system as a whole.

The petition’s authors and ardent supporters are making a fundamental and fatal legal error. They refer to bail as an “indulgence,” a “buyout option,” and a “ticket to freedom.”

Ladies and gentlemen, a pretrial measure is NOT a punishment. It has a single purpose: to ensure the suspect’s participation in legal proceedings and to prevent risks (such as absconding, pressuring witnesses, or destroying evidence). It is a tool to facilitate the investigation, not a sentence!

When a suspect pays bail, they are not released from criminal liability. They are not acquitted. They simply await the court’s verdict—not behind bars in a pretrial detention center (the state’s costs for which, by the way, are also paid for with our tax dollars), but under strict procedural restrictions. To call bail a “bribe” is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the criminal process.

Indeed, the Yermak case was the trigger for this wave of discussion. But the irony lies in the fact that the petition’s text clearly lists the articles for which bail is proposed to be abolished: Article 191 (embezzlement), Article 364 (abuse of power), Articles 368 and 369 (bribery), Article 369-2 (abuse of influence), and Article 368-5 (illegal enrichment).

But where is Article 209 (legalization/laundering of property obtained by criminal means), under which Yermak has been notified of suspicion? In other words, even if this populist bill were passed today, the defendants charged under Article 209 in the so-called “Dynasty” case would still be able to walk free on bail. This is just one example of how laws are proposed under the influence of emotion.

Okay. Let’s assume that bail has been abolished. What happens next?

Bail is just one of several preventive measures. If the court cannot set bail and there are insufficient grounds for detention, other preventive measures will be applied.

Suspects would be released under house arrest, on the guarantee of a third party, or on their own recognizance. In other words, absolutely free of charge! Not a single kopeck will go into the treasury accounts as bail, and the suspect will sit at home on the couch—and most often only at night.

When it finally dawns on the Facebook “experts” (if they even get around to reading about the other articles of the Criminal Procedure Code) that corrupt officials are getting off scot-free without bail, we’ll see a new wave of petitions. “Abolish house arrest!” “Abolish personal recognizance!” and finally—“Ban lawyers!”

There used to be a trend: after every high-profile traffic accident, the authorities would immediately start clamoring about the need to raise fines for speeding. Without analyzing the condition of the roads, without changing the system for recording violations, without tackling corruption in the agencies that issue driver’s licenses. Just raise the fines to show they care.

Now, civic activists have caught the bug of this cheap state populism. Proposing simple solutions to complex systemic problems is a convenient way to rack up likes, signatures, and grants.

Let me remind you of a historical and legal fact. The state has already attempted to play the “no-alternative arrest” card. Article 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine was once amended with a fifth part that prohibited alternative preventive measures (in particular, bail) for suspects in crimes against national security and terrorism (Articles 109–114-1, 258–258-5, etc.).

What was the outcome? The Constitutional Court of Ukraine, in Decision No. 7-r/2019 dated June 25, 2019, stated: mandatory pretrial detention without an assessment of the specific circumstances of the case and the possibility of applying less severe measures directly contradicts Articles 3, 8, and 29 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The Court emphasized that such a formalistic decision undermines the very essence of justice.

Any attempt to introduce a similar provision for corrupt officials will inevitably result in the same verdict from the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

Now let’s move on to the most important point (for those who have read this far). Why is this petition not about justice, but about a banal desire to put on a show by detaining suspects during the investigation phase, since the case will ultimately fizzle out anyway?

Take a look at these sobering statistics from OpenDataBot: according to an analysis of the Register of Corrupt Officials, in 97% of cases last year, the punishment for corrupt officials was… a simple FINE! (link in the comments)

So what is the real goal of this petition?

Let’s call a spade a spade. Since actual investigations drag on for years, and final sentences in most cases result in fines (which are often even less than the amount of damages caused to the state), the proponents of these changes may (whether consciously or not) turn the pretrial investigation into a tool of reprisal.

The goal is to keep a person in pretrial detention indefinitely without a court verdict, knowing full well that, in the end, there will most likely be no actual prison sentence. This is an attempt to substitute a court verdict with a pretrial measure.

The true inevitability of punishment lies in the court’s issuance of a lawful, well-founded, and reasoned verdict, based on a comprehensive assessment of the severity of the offense committed, the personality of the guilty party, as well as a balance of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and taking into account many other factors that are incomprehensible to Facebook activists. It is not a fine of 34,000 hryvnias after two years in pretrial detention.