How and why courts reduce bail for VIP corrupt officials, allowing them to escape justice

Recently, the High Anti-Corruption Court reduced the bail of the former head of the Supreme Court Vsevolod Knyazyev from 20 to 18 million hryvnia. The next day they paid the appropriate amount - he was released from the pre-trial detention center.

There have been more and more such cases in NABU cases lately. But why do judges reduce alternative bail? And why are they prescribed at all? The publication LB.ua looked into this in detail.

Bail is a type of preventive measure that is not associated with restricting the freedom of a suspect or accused. A preventive measure is a restriction on human rights that is applied to ensure that the offender complies with procedural obligations, does not commit additional violations and does not influence the investigation or the course of the case in court (for example, does not put pressure on witnesses and does not destroy evidence, appears when summoned to appear in court, etc.) .P.).

That is, bail is a guarantee that the suspect will fulfill the duties assigned to him by the court. To determine the amount of bail, the court considers various factors. In particular, how large the bribe was or what potential losses the crime could entail. However, these factors are not the main ones.

As a rule, the court determines the amount of bail based on the circumstances and severity of the crime, property and marital status of the suspect. The court also considers risks, including that the person involved may flee, destroy evidence, or influence witnesses.

In corruption crimes, bail is often prescribed as an alternative to detention. That is, if a person was sent into custody, he can leave the pre-trial detention center by paying a certain amount of money. At the same time, the amount of bail should be moderate so that the defendant has a real alternative to imprisonment.

The amount of bail should encourage the defendant to fulfill his duties, but should not be a punishment for him. However, if he violates the rules, the deposit or part of it is taken to the state and is not returned. In this case, the judge may increase the amount of bail or choose a different measure of restraint.

For example, Maksym Mykytas was charged UAH 30 million for communicating with another defendant in the case of the seizure of National Guard property. Kyiv City Council deputy Vladyslav Trubitsyn was charged with UAH 9.8 million in bail after he fled abroad. Oligarch Vadym Alperin lost 35 million hryvnias of bail because he did not hand over his Israeli passport, which he allegedly lost (although he had to hand over all the documents that allow him to travel abroad).

That is, the amount of bail must be such that the suspect/accused does not want to violate his procedural duties, hide or interfere with the investigation.

However, the deposit can be reviewed - reduced or increased. As a rule, for top corrupt officials, fairly large bails are set, which are reduced over time.

Bails that the courts reduced

Courts often review bail amounts for defendants. There are several other interesting cases during which the pledges changed beyond recognition.

Reducing deposits

18 million instead of 107: the Knyazyev case

In May 2023, NABU and SAPO detained the then head of the Supreme Court, Vsevolod Knyazyev, on suspicion of receiving a bribe of $1.8 million. After this, investigator Judge Oleh Fedorov took Knyazyev into custody and set bail, taking into account the following risks:

being at large, Knyazyev could distort the evidence. After all, he committed a probable crime with other judges, which gave reason to believe that they could destroy existing documents. In addition, during the search, Knyazyev said that the discovered mobile phone did not belong to him, and later, contrary to the instructions of the detectives, he tried to turn it off;
the defendant could illegally influence witnesses. In particular, investigators recorded the following words from Knyazyev: “Well, damn it, you’re communicating with the head of the judiciary. Everyone seems to consider you their own person. This is very good. You can solve any problem” ;
Knyazyev could have hidden the evidence. NABU detectives did not find part of the bribe in the amount of more than 450 thousand dollars;
Knyazyev could have committed or planned another criminal offense .

In addition, factors such as high property status, close ties with law enforcement officers in high positions and relatives living abroad indicated that Knyazyev could escape and hide from the investigation. Taking into account all these risks, the judge set bail at more than 107 million hryvnia.

The HACC Appeals Chamber agreed with the findings of the investigating judge. However, she still reduced the bail amount to 75 million. According to the court, the investigating judge, when determining the amount of bail, did not indicate why the defendant could post a bail of 107 million, but only stated the risks. According to the appeal judges, a statement of risks without taking into account the circumstances of the case and Knyazev’s personal situation is not and cannot be the only factor in determining the amount of bail.

Knyazyev at a court hearing. Photo: Lattice

Also, the appeal judges found that part of the real estate specified in the determination does not belong to Knyazyev’s wife, and all other property was arrested and cannot be used to post bail. The judges took into account that more than a million dollars were found in Knyazyev’s work. This money was not part of a bribe, but Knyazyev’s lawyers did not prove the legal origin of these funds. Also, during the search, detectives were unable to find more than 308 thousand dollars, which Knyazyev indicated in his declaration for 2021.

Subsequently, the bail continued to be reduced - first to 55 million hryvnia, and then to 45, 35, and finally to 27 million hryvnia. The court justified these decisions on various grounds.

Firstly , Knyazyev’s suspicion was changed - now he was accused not of a crime as part of an organized group, but of participation in a crime by prior conspiracy. And such a crime is supposedly less socially dangerous and causes less harm.

Secondly , the judge indicated that the risk of committing another criminal offense is minimal. After all, detectives have not yet provided evidence of the probable commission of such a crime.

Thirdly , for seven months in the pre-trial detention center, Knyazyev fulfilled all the duties determined by the court. In addition, at that time he had possible health problems and needed medical attention.

Subsequently, the Appeals Chamber reduced the bail to UAH 20 million. Finally, the HACC investigating judge Larysa Zadorozhna decided to reduce it to 18 million, which allowed Knyazyev to be released from jail.

Vsevolod Knyazyev, former head of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, is released from the Lukianivske SIZO. Photo: Facebook/Maxym Drozdenko

Bail reduced by over 450 million: Nasirov’s case

In October 2022, HACC investigating judge Nataliya Movchan took former head of the State Fiscal Service Roman Nasirov into custody for taking a bribe of more than UAH 722 million. Nasirov was granted bail of UAH 523 million.

This amount of collateral was justified by the following risks:

Nasirov could have gone abroad and hidden from the investigation . This was evidenced by the fact that he applied to Israel to obtain a repatriate visa, and his children live abroad;
he could influence witnesses, obstruct criminal proceedings, commit another or continue this criminal offense .

However, seven months after the conclusion, another investigative judge, Larysa Zadorozhna, reduced the bail amount five times - to 107 million hryvnia. So the judge felt sorry for Nasirov, because at that time he had been in custody for seven months, and this, in her opinion, is a significant period to change the amount of bail so much.

As in the Knyazyev case, the judge indicated that the risks had decreased. She also took into account that Nasirov had been performing duties throughout his imprisonment, was in poor health and could not pay such a large bail.

However, the HACC appeal overturned Zadorozhna’s decision and left the bail at 523 million.

Roman Nasirov during a court hearing

Roman Nasirov during a court hearing. Photo: Lb.ua

Later, Nasirov’s bail was repeatedly reduced. First, it was reduced to 261 million, then immediately to 130 million, then to 120, then to 100, and last time to 70. The judges made this decision due to the fact that the accused has been in custody for more than a year, and The preparatory meeting has been completed.

At the same time, the defence constantly insists on reducing the bail to 10 million hryvnia. Defenders complain about Nasirov’s poor health. At this rate of lowering the bail amount, he will be able to leave the pre-trial detention center this year.

Bail reduced by 13 times: Mykytas case

In October 2022, HACC investigating judge Vitaliy Dubas took former MP and developer Maksym Mykytas into custody. The latter is accused of offering €22 million in bribes to Dnipro Mayor Borys Filatov. The judge granted Mykytas bail of 260 million hryvnias, although the SAPO prosecutor had asked for 200 million.

This was associated with the following risks:

Mykytas could be hiding from the investigation . The defendant’s income for 2012–2022 was more than 79 million hryvnia and more than 415 million declared for 2013–2017 gave him the opportunity to live on this money in Ukraine or abroad without working;
the offender could go abroad despite martial law restrictions. In 2022, he already left Ukraine by car;
Mykytas could influence witnesses . Investigators found a recording in which the person involved encouraged cooperation with the following words: “I’m nowhere here. And it won’t. Well, physically. I know how to manage from under this...”;
the defendant could distort or destroy evidence or interfere with criminal proceedings .

However, the HACC Appeals Chamber subsequently reduced the bail to 100 million hryvnia, noting that the investigating judge mistakenly went beyond the bail amount stated by the prosecutor.

In addition, the board noted that all of Mykytas’s property was arrested, which means he cannot use it as collateral. Also, his property situation was affected by the fact that he allegedly separated from his wife.

Subsequently, HACC judges reduced the bail to 85 million hryvnia. They agreed that the risks were still relevant. But the bail was reduced because the prisoner had not paid the previously determined amount during three months in custody. This means that the judges came to the conclusion that these were allegedly unaffordable means for Mykytas.

Mykytas (left) in court. Photo: Word and deed

Later, for the same reasons, the bail was reduced to 80 million, and subsequently to 40. Why the judges immediately reduced the bail by half is, by definition, unclear. In fact, they determined the amount at random and did not properly justify their decision. At the same time, the defence asked for bail to be set at 7 million hryvnia.

Later, the judges again reduced the bail by 20 million hryvnia. They explained this by the fact that they did not pay bail for Mykytas, which means that this amount is beyond his means. The judges also indicated that Mikitas’s property status remained the same, and due to the seizure of property, he would not be able to use it to post bail. The defence asked for bail to be set at 10 million hryvnia.

Interestingly, Mykytas appears in two more corruption cases. He is accused of participating in a corruption scheme with apartments for the National Guard worth more than 81 million hryvnia and possible theft of 312 million hryvnia during the construction of Ministry of Defence warehouses. However, a bail of 20 million hryvnia was paid for him - and Mikitas was released from the pre-trial detention center.

As can be seen from these data, bails from hundreds of millions are often reduced to tens, and the defendants pay them in a matter of hours. As a result, those suspected or accused of corruption easily leave the pre-trial detention center. And after that, some easily escape abroad. Such cases can hardly be called true justice.

The main reasons for the permanent review of bail are usually indicated by HACC judges:

the defendant has been in custody for a long time;
he or his pledgors failed to post bail during this time, which allegedly indicates that the amount of the bail was exorbitant;
the person involved adheres to his duties and behaves accordingly;
there is no new compelling evidence to substantiate the defendant’s property status, allowing him to post bail in the previously determined amount;
the defendant’s health condition has deteriorated, he needs access to medical care, which is not always possible to obtain in a pre-trial detention center;
the pre-trial investigation has been completed, and the materials are already available to the defense, which reduces some of the risks.

At the same time, HACC decisions usually do not properly explain or justify why the deposit is immediately reduced by several times or by tens of millions of hryvnia. At the same time, no one bears any responsibility when suspects or accused flee the country after being granted bail.

HACC should analyze its practice in detail and more carefully justify the amount by which judges reduce bail. The decisions should make it clear not only why the deposit needs to be reduced, but also why it is reduced by a certain amount of funds. Direct confidence in the court and its decisions depends on this.

Author: Roman Verbovskyy, lawyer at the Anti-Corruption Center

Source: LB.ua