Yuriy Zhovtan, attorney, partner at Barristers, LLC, member of the Criminal Law and Procedure Committee of the Odesa Regional Bar Association, Ph.D.

The fight against corruption is one of the state’s most important tasks. Corruption offenses undermine trust in government authorities and hinder socioeconomic development. In today’s environment, the institution of plea agreements is rapidly evolving; it is viewed as a mechanism for streamlining criminal proceedings, with the goal of reducing the burden on the judicial system and effectively uncovering large-scale criminal schemes. At the same time, from an analytical perspective, the broader implementation of this institution may also have negative consequences.

First and foremost, it is important to note that an agreement between a prosecutor and a suspect or defendant is a form of compromise between the parties that involves mutual concessions: the defendant admits guilt and cooperates with the prosecution, while the prosecution proposes to the court a reduced sentence. This procedure is governed by Section VI of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

A plea agreement between a prosecutor and a suspect or defendant may be entered into in proceedings concerning corruption-related criminal offenses and criminal offenses associated with corruption, provided that the suspect or defendant incriminates another person (or persons) in the commission of any corruption-related criminal offense or criminal offense related to corruption, and provided that the information regarding the commission of a criminal offense by such person(s) is corroborated by evidence, subject to full or partial (taking into account the nature and extent of the person’s involvement in the commission of the crime) compensation by the suspect or accused for the losses incurred or damage caused (if such losses or damage were incurred).

Plea agreements in corruption cases have a significant impact on the efficiency of criminal proceedings and the fight against corruption. One of the advantages of this approach is the reduction of procedural timeframes. Streamlining the criminal process helps reduce the burden on courts and investigative authorities. This promotes the prompt administration of justice and ensures a more efficient use of and savings in public resources.

The practice in the United States of America is well known, where a large number of cases are concluded through plea agreements, which makes it possible to effectively expose large-scale criminal schemes.

In other words, plea agreements offer our country the opportunity to expose larger-scale corruption schemes. Cooperation by a suspect or defendant often makes it possible to obtain important information about influential (key) members of a criminal group, as well as to gather additional evidence against the organizers of corruption offenses. As a result, the pretrial investigation becomes more focused and effective.

However, the use of plea agreements in corruption cases also carries certain risks; one of the most significant is the possibility of avoiding a punishment severe enough to serve as a deterrent. Entering into plea agreements with mid-level officials can create the impression of excessive leniency toward corruption, which undermines public trust in the justice system.

Another threat is inequality in sentencing. The use of plea agreements can lead to a situation where some participants in a corruption scheme receive significant leniency, while others—who were unable or unwilling to cooperate with the investigation—face “full” criminal liability; and this approach may be perceived as unfair, especially if the individuals who entered into a plea agreement actually played a central role in the crime, yet their punishment turned out to be significantly lighter than that of lower-level perpetrators.

Furthermore, there is a risk of abuse of authority in entering into plea agreements. In some cases, this mechanism may be used not only as an investigative tool but also as a means of political pressure or manipulation in criminal proceedings. Plea agreements can become the subject of “bargaining” with investigators, where suspects are willing to provide testimony favorable to the prosecution in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Such practices can lead to a distortion of justice, where the investigation focuses not on establishing the objective truth but on achieving favorable procedural outcomes.

Thus, although plea agreements are a powerful tool in the fight against corruption, their use requires clear oversight mechanisms to prevent manipulation, ensure equality before the law, and preserve trust in the justice system.

The effectiveness of plea agreements depends to a large extent on the transparency of their conclusion and proper judicial oversight; clear regulation of the procedure for concluding an agreement; a thorough analysis of its compliance with the law; the interests of the state and the public interest are important factors determining the fairness and appropriateness of this mechanism. The absence of proper legislative regulation may result in plea agreements becoming a mere formality rather than an effective tool in the fight against corruption.

To improve the application of plea agreements in corruption cases, it is necessary to strengthen the role of the court, which must carefully verify not only formal legality but also the validity and genuine voluntariness of the plea agreement, its significance for the criminal proceedings, and its overall impact on the administration of justice. An important step would be to establish clear criteria for cooperation, which would make it possible to determine the minimum amount of information the defendant must provide in order to enter into a cooperation agreement. This will help prevent cases where agreements are concluded without providing any real benefit to the investigation.

Making agreements public in cases of public interest will help increase public trust in the justice system. Disclosing the terms of agreements—to the extent that it does not interfere with the pretrial investigation—will help prevent manipulation in the criminal process, although it is also important to note that excessive transparency could affect both the course of the pretrial investigation and the identification of other individuals involved in the criminal offense; furthermore, attention must be paid to the personal safety of the suspect (defendant) who has agreed to or expressed a desire to enter into a plea agreement. Striking the right balance in this regard is a crucial component, as is a systematic legal approach to improving this mechanism, which will ensure its effectiveness in the fight against corruption.

In our view, plea agreements in corruption cases can be an effective tool for combating corruption, provided that the principles of fairness, transparency, and oversight are upheld. The main goal of this institution is not only to punish those responsible but also to expose large-scale corruption schemes and their organizers.