The 7th International Criminal Law Forum, organized by the publishing house “Yuridichna Praktika,” served as a platform for discussion on important issues in criminal law, with plea agreements in corruption cases being one of the central topics. Yuriy Radzievsky, an attorney and partner at the law firm Barristers, shared his views on current issues related to these agreements and opportunities to improve their mechanisms.

Legislative Changes and Unresolved Issues

One of the main topics of the presentation was a discussion of Law No. 4033-IX, which took effect on November 1, 2024, and changes the procedure for entering into plea agreements. Mr. Radzievsky noted that this law establishes new rules of the game but, at the same time, leaves many unclear points. As practice has shown, more than half of the High Anti-Corruption Court’s (HACC) in corruption cases are handed down on the basis of plea agreements, which causes a number of problems, particularly those related to the manipulation of res judicata—when a verdict based on a plea agreement may affect individuals not involved in the specific proceedings.

Problems with the Quality of Plea Agreements: Manipulation and Defects in Judicial Practice

Yuriy Radzievsky also drew attention to a number of cases in which the HACC refused to approve plea agreements due to their incompatibility with the public interest. For example, in its ruling of September 13, 2019, the HACC in Kyiv, in Case No. 4910/20/19-k, refused to approve a plea agreement, noting that the agreement was contrary to the public interest and that the charges had been incorrectly classified. Subsequently, in its ruling of December 9, 2020, in Case No. 991/2593/19, the High Anti-Corruption Court found the individual not guilty of the charge brought under Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and acquitted him..

According to Mr. Radzievsky, the refusal to approve plea agreements is an important indicator of the need to improve judicial practice and lower the standards of proof. It is not uncommon for plea agreements to be concluded despite the lack of sufficient evidence or errors in the classification of the crime.

Manipulation of the Economic Effect: Risks of Abuse

The expert also emphasized that plea agreements can be used not only as an instrument of justice but also to create an artificial economic effect. In particular, according to Yuriy Radzievsky, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) often focus on the amount of funds recovered, which can lead to manipulation when concluding agreements. This, according to Radzievsky, undermines the legal foundations of such agreements and results in economic benefits for the state without proper legal justification.

The Need for Reforms and Higher Standards of Oversight

Yuriy Radzievsky emphasized the need to improve the mechanism for concluding plea agreements. He called for raising the standards of proof and preventing manipulation in the process of concluding such agreements. It is important to ensure that plea agreements remain an effective tool of justice, rather than a means of pressure or political manipulation. It is also necessary to address the issue of res judicata, which can negatively affect individuals who are not parties to a specific proceeding, and to increase prosecutors’ accountability for the correct classification of crimes.

Outlook: Further Discussions and Refinement of the Mechanism

A partner at the law firm Barristers concluded that the issue of plea agreements in corruption criminal cases remains contentious and will likely require further discussion. Although the new law partially improves the situation, there are still many gaps in the legal framework that create new risks. The plea bargain mechanism needs to be refined to ensure the effectiveness of justice and compliance with high legal standards.