We all support the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the face of Russia's full-scale aggression. This is an axiom. But let's be honest: when a prosecutor sets a donation as an actual prerequisite for offering a deal, and without money, he simply takes the paper and says \"then go to court in the general procedure\", this is no longer helping the army. This is indirect discrimination based on property status.<\/p>\n
Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine clearly prohibits any discrimination, including on the basis of property. The Law \"On Principles of Preventing and Combating Discrimination in Ukraine\" explicitly defines indirect discrimination: when a formally neutral condition (such as a \"voluntary contribution\") puts some people in a worse position precisely because of their financial situation.<\/p>\n
Now look at the practice. In 2025, the High Anti-Corruption Court delivered 109 verdicts, 72 of which (i.e., two-thirds!) were based on plea agreements. Thanks to these agreements, more than UAH 321 million was allocated to the needs of the Armed Forces. For the entire period from 2019 to 2025, this amounted to more than 682 million.<\/p>\n
We all support helping the army. But there is an important \"but\" here. By definition, a donation is a voluntary contribution, not a mandatory condition of a procedural agreement. In addition, when determining such a \"voluntary\" amount, the property status of the suspect or accused should be taken into account. When a contribution to the Armed Forces becomes an actual condition for signing an agreement, and without it, the prosecutor simply takes the offer and goes to court... this smells not of help to the army, but of a simple property requirement.<\/p>\n
A vivid example from our legal practice. In one of the cases where we provide legal aid, the total number of suspects was 8 people. They were suspected under Part 3 of Article 27, Part 3 of Article 28, Part 1 of Article 111-2, Part 2 of Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. During the pre-trial investigation, six suspects made a deal and paid a bribe of UAH 1 million each. Of course, they gave the incriminating testimony requested by the prosecutor and pointed to the case file, which is generally contradictory... The prosecutor also offered our clients a deal, but on the condition that they pay the same donation of UAH 1 million. The clients did not have such a sum - they had barely raised 100 minimum incomes for bail. They were denied the deal precisely because they were unable to pay the required amount. In addition, the prosecutor insisted that the clients give testimony that was not supported by any case files or evidence. In fact, they were required to admit circumstances that simply did not exist in the case.<\/p>\n
The result: six solvent suspects received lenient sentences, while our clients had to undergo a full pre-trial investigation and prepare for trial in the usual way. The difference in approach is purely financial.<\/p>\n
A wealthy defendant pays and gets a suspended sentence and peace of mind. Poorer or middle-income defendants risk a real sentence. This is the classic property qualification for access to the procedural privilege provided for in Chapter 35 of the CPC.<\/p>\n
At the same time, Article 474 of the CPC obliges the court to verify that the agreement was concluded voluntarily, without coercion, threats or other circumstances. But how can one verify voluntariness if all the pressure occurs at the pre-trial stage, and the court at the preparatory hearing usually limits itself to the formal question \"Did you sign voluntarily?\" and the answer \"Yes.\" Ten minutes later, the deal is approved.<\/p>\n
The situation looks especially cynical when incriminating testimony is added to a \"voluntary\" donation. The prosecutor said: \"Write it exactly like this, otherwise the deal will not go up.\" And \"upstairs\" means to the head of the prosecutor's office, and then to the Prosecutor General's Office. The approval can take a month or two. And during this time, the accused is offered to sign a version of events that sometimes cannot be put on his head.<\/p>\n
The result: a person under stress, often in custody or under suspicion, is forced to choose between \"paying and lying\" or \"not paying and going to trial.\" Where is the voluntariness here? Where is the equality of the parties, which is mentioned in Article 52 of the CPC?<\/p>\n
These are not isolated cases. This practice has already become systemic both in corruption cases in the HACC and in proceedings under Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (obstruction of the activities of the Armed Forces and other military formations). In cases against the foundations of national security, the pressure is particularly noticeable, as high-level approval is almost always required.<\/p>\n
Formally, the prosecutor has discretion (Article 469 of the CPC) - he decides whom to offer a deal to. But this discretion cannot be turned into an instrument of property selection. The punishment must be fair (Article 65 of the Criminal Code), and not depend on the size of the wallet.<\/p>\n
If the donation is truly voluntary, why does its absence automatically block the very possibility of a transaction? Why is the person's property status, income, dependents, and real ability to pay without disrupting the family's life not taken into account?<\/p>\n
It is here that the violation of the principle of equality before the law is hidden. The rich are \"bought off\" with a lenient punishment under the guise of patriotism. The poorer pays the full price of the criminal process.<\/p>\n
We are not against helping the Armed Forces. On the contrary, every conscious citizen supports it. However, the donation should remain a voluntary contribution, not a hidden \"tariff\" for a lenient punishment. Its amount should take into account the real property status of a person, his or her income, dependents and capabilities, and not become a prerequisite for access to procedural privilege.<\/p>\n
If we want the institution of plea bargaining to work effectively and fairly, and not turn into a \"sale\" of lenient punishment to the wealthy, changes are needed today. Otherwise, instead of procedural savings, we will get a new form of inequality before the law.<\/p>\n
Ukrainian justice should be not only fast, but also fair. Even (and especially) in times of war.<\/p>\n\n\n