When we hear about high-level corruption cases, many assume that trials drag on for years and the guilty always find a way to avoid punishment. But that is not always true. Today, plea bargains in corruption cases are increasingly being used — allowing verdicts to be delivered faster, corrupt officials to face punishment, victims to receive compensation, and investigators to gain valuable information about other offenders.

But what exactly are these agreements? Who can conclude and approve them? And most importantly, are plea bargains a way to buy one’s way out of responsibility? Let’s break it down.

What is a plea bargain and what makes it special?

A plea bargain is a written agreement between a suspect or defendant and a prosecutor, under which the person admits guilt in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Since the improvements to this procedure in November 2024, anyone wishing to make such an agreement in a corruption case must not only admit guilt but also compensate for the damages and disclose accomplices (if any). In addition to the main sentence, the court may impose asset confiscation and a fine of up to UAH 204 million (12 million tax-free minimum incomes).

For example, in the high-profile case of Odesa Airport, damages of UAH 150 million were compensated, 2,500 airport assets were returned to municipal ownership, and some defendants were fined UAH 100 million and 200 million respectively.

Because of these same legislative updates on plea agreements, the defendants in the case became able to serve actual prison terms, albeit reduced ones. This is what happened in the case of the former prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office who, ironically, was accused of taking a bribe in exchange for concluding a plea agreement with a suspended sentence, yet will still serve a real one-year term of imprisonment.

How does a plea bargain become a court verdict?

Either side — the prosecution or the defense — may initiate a plea bargain. But the agreement itself does not automatically become a verdict. To take effect, it must be approved by a court, and in corruption cases, that means the High Anti-Corruption Court.

It is important to note that not every agreement can be approved. For example, if someone accused of embezzling UAH 15 million were to receive only a minimum fine of UAH 17,000 without compensating any losses, such a deal would clearly be unjust. For this reason, the HACC once refused to approve an agreement involving a former head of the State Innovative Financial and Credit Institution.

Before approving a plea bargain, the court must ensure that its terms serve the public interest, striking a balance between a lighter punishment for the accused and society’s demand for accountability and restitution.

Are plea bargains a way to buy one’s way out of prison?

No! The claim that plea bargains are a way to buy one’s way out of punishment is generally untrue. Only in the wrong hands can this tool for achieving justice turn into a means of evading it.

Plea bargains (also known as agreement with investigation) are among the best international practices, established long before their introduction in Ukraine.

Today, nearly 45% of HACC verdicts are based on plea bargains. This reduces the duration of proceedings from years to mere days and saves the state substantial resources that would otherwise be spent on proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the efficiency of justice increases, especially in complex corruption cases.

Those convicted under plea bargains do not escape accountability: they risk imprisonment for any new offense, lose the right to hold public office, surrender illicit gains, and often help expose “big fish.” A good example is the plea agreement made with the lawyer-accomplice of the former Supreme Court chairman accused of bribery, under which he agreed to testify against the top judge.

Of course, legislation and practice around plea bargains are not flawless. Their effectiveness would improve if courts more carefully examined the fairness of compensation amounts, and if Parliament made special confiscation mandatory where applicable.

Nonetheless, plea bargains remain an effective instrument of justice, making it not only fair but also mutually beneficial for all parties involved.