Alexander Tananakin, an attorney at BARRISTERS, LLC, spoke to the audience at Legal High School about the rights of third parties to challenge the terms of a settlement agreement and an agreement with investigators

Alexander Tananakin, an attorney at Barristers Law Firm, spoke to the audience at Legal High School about the rights of third parties to challenge the terms of plea agreements and agreements with investigators. The lecturer noted that a plea agreement can be entered into not only at the preliminary hearing stage. He defined a plea agreement and, citing examples from his own practice, concluded that the essence of the agreement is to streamline the trial process. If proving certain aspects of the offense in court is problematic, the prosecutor himself initiates the conclusion of a plea agreement.

The lecturer emphasized that in his practice there have been cases where, alongside charges of economic crimes, the defendant was also charged with supporting terrorism—a charge that mandates pretrial detention. And so, after a certain period of pretrial detention, such a defendant will gladly agree to a plea bargain in order to be released.

Furthermore, to initiate a plea bargain, the defendant must not only admit guilt but also actively assist the investigation in solving the crime of which they are accused, as well as other crimes of which they may have knowledge—that is, they must provide testimony against other individuals.

According to the law, a plea agreement cannot be entered into for particularly serious crimes or for crimes involving a victim. Based on his own experience, the lecturer noted that there are exceptions to this rule, which is why he advises Legal High School students to offer a plea agreement to the court even in such cases.

Oleksandr Tananakin reminded the audience that by pleading guilty as part of a plea agreement, the defendant forfeits the opportunity to prove his innocence in court. The essence of the plea agreement is that the suspect agrees to crimes committed by others because they are forced to sign an agreement prepared by the prosecutor. The lecturer cited examples of cases in which a person was charged with fictitious business operations. This is particularly telling when a person registers a company for a certain fee and subsequently has no connection to it whatsoever, only for it to later emerge that the company served as a front for a money-laundering operation, a “tax shelter,” or something similar. In such a case, finding the company’s founder is not a problem, so he will gladly sign a plea agreement without delving too deeply into the accompanying text. However, the agreement may mention dozens, if not hundreds, of contracting companies against which criminal cases can be brought once the agreement is approved by the court.

The lecturer warned Legal High School attendees that the consequence of a plea agreement is the inability to subsequently appeal the sentence; so when agreeing to a lenient sentence proposed by the prosecutor, one must be prepared for the court to reject such an agreement, since determining the sentence is the court’s prerogative. Furthermore, a plea agreement can be submitted only once; therefore, one should not be careless and agree to any proposals made by the prosecutor in the early stages of the proceedings, especially since the case may ultimately result in an acquittal.

Speaking about entering into a settlement agreement, the lecturer emphasized that it can also be concluded at any time. According to Oleksandr Tananakin, reconciliation agreements are most commonly used in cases involving traffic accidents, where the at-fault party agrees to compensate the victim for material and emotional damages.