Practices
Company
UK

Bail as a Preventive Measure: Specifics of Determining Bail Amounts in NABU High Anti-Corruption Court Proceedings and Potential Consequences for the Bail Provider

Author: Maksym Tsaryk, Lawyer, Grain Law Firm

General provisions on bail. Bail as a preventive measure

Bail is one of the preventive measures provided for in Article 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – the CPC of Ukraine).

Pursuant to Article 182 of the CPC of Ukraine, bail consists of depositing funds in the national currency of Ukraine into a special account established in accordance with the procedure defined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, for the purpose of ensuring that a suspect or accused fulfills the procedural obligations imposed under Article 177 of the CPC of Ukraine, with the understanding that such funds may be forfeited to the State budget in the event of non-compliance with these obligations.

When a person is subject to detention as a preventive measure, bail is set as an alternative preventive measure. The investigating judge or court is obliged to determine bail in an amount sufficient to ensure the suspect’s or accused’s compliance with procedural obligations. However, the court may decide not to set bail in cases involving:

  1. crimes committed with violence or threats of violence;
  2. crimes resulting in a person’s death;
  3. cases where bail was previously imposed but violated by the suspect/accused;
  4. offences under Articles 255–255-3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine;
  5. particularly serious drug-related offences (Part 3–4 of Article 183 CPC of Ukraine).

Under Part 6 of Article 182 CPC of Ukraine, a suspect or accused who is not in custody must, within five days of the application of bail, deposit the funds into the relevant account or ensure that they are deposited by a bail provider.

Where detention is applied as a preventive measure, the suspect, accused, or bail provider has the right to pay bail at any time within the validity period of the court order in the amount specified therein.

Who may provide bail

Bail may be provided either by the suspect/accused or by any other individual or legal entity, as the CPC of Ukraine does not restrict the number or identity of bail providers.

At the same time, the law establishes the following restrictions: bail may not be provided by:

  1. legal entities owned by the state or municipalities, or those financed from state, local, or the Autonomous Republic of Crimea budgets;
  2. legal entities with state or municipal ownership shares in their authorized capital, or those owned by state/municipal business entities.

Accordingly, bail may be provided by private individuals and private legal entities, while public authorities and state-related entities are excluded.

How the bail amount is determined

The bail amount is determined taking into account:

  1. the circumstances of the criminal offence;
  2. the property and family status of the suspect/accused and other personal data;
  3. the risks provided for in Article 177(1) of the CPC of Ukraine.

The law stipulates that bail must be sufficient to ensure proper procedural conduct and must not be manifestly excessive (Article 182(4) CPC of Ukraine).

Regarding statutory limits, bail is calculated based on the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons.

For 2026, the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons is set at UAH 3,328 under the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2026”.

Accordingly, the statutory ranges are:

  1. Minor offences: 1–20 subsistence minimums (UAH 3,328 – 66,560)
  2. Serious offences: 20–80 subsistence minimums (UAH 66,560 – 266,240)
  3. Especially serious offences: 80–300 subsistence minimums (UAH 266,240 – 998,400)

Thus, the maximum statutory threshold is UAH 998,400. Only where the court finds that such bail is insufficient to ensure compliance with procedural obligations may it exceed these limits.

Determining bail amounts in the practice of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC)

In practice, bail amounts in certain cases significantly exceed statutory limits, sometimes by hundreds or even thousands of times. This is particularly common in proceedings under the jurisdiction of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) pursuant to Article 33-1 of the CPC of Ukraine.

Examples include:

  1. Case No. 991/6280/25 (19 June 2025): the investigating judge imposed detention with alternative bail of UAH 200 million (approximately 66,051 subsistence minimums). The prosecution requested UAH 1,059,800,000. The court considered the suspect’s financial status, the gravity of the offence, alleged involvement in a criminal organization, and the scale of potential damages.
  2. Case No. 991/9164/25 (11 September 2025): bail was set at UAH 100 million (approximately 33,026 subsistence minimums). The prosecution requested UAH 302,800,000. The court considered the suspect’s role as organizer, financial status, risk factors, and damages of UAH 160,013,390.

The court also noted the suspect’s financial contributions to the Armed Forces of Ukraine as part of its reasoning.

  1. Case No. 991/560/25 (24 January 2025): bail was set at UAH 60 million (approximately 18,815 subsistence minimums), while the prosecution requested UAH 129,053,360. The court emphasized the suspect’s financial capacity through dividends, assets, and corporate interests.

The HACC Appeals Chamber in case No. 991/7052/25 (20 August 2025) explained such practice by noting that corruption cases under HACC jurisdiction are of an exceptional nature, which justifies exceptional bail amounts.

Judicial practice: reductions of bail

In some cases, HACC courts reduce bail amounts. For example, in case No. 991/8549/25 (20 October 2025), bail was reduced from UAH 302 million to UAH 20 million, as the court found the original amount disproportionate to the suspect’s actual financial capacity and accumulated assets.

Consequences for the bail provider

After providing bail, the bail provider assumes procedural responsibilities related to ensuring the suspect’s proper conduct and appearance before investigators, prosecutors, or courts.

The bail provider must also be informed of the criminal offence with which the person is charged and the potential penalties.

A key risk for the bail provider is forfeiture of the bail to the State budget. Under Part 8 of Article 182 CPC of Ukraine, bail is forfeited if the suspect or accused fails to comply with procedural obligations, including failure to appear without valid reasons.

An example is the HACC Appeals Chamber ruling in case No. 991/1870/22 (20 October 2025), where bail in the amount of UAH 3,405,000 was forfeited due to repeated unjustified non-appearance of the accused in court hearings.

Given the high-profile nature of HACC cases, bail providers may also face reputational risks, including public attention, association with the accused, and potential external pressure from media or third parties.

Cases when bail is returned

Under the CPC of Ukraine, bail must be returned to the bail provider if:

  1. it has not been forfeited to the State after termination of the preventive measure (with certain exceptions allowing it to be applied to enforcement of a sentence with the provider’s consent);
  2. the preventive measure expires, is revoked, or the criminal proceedings are closed, or an acquittal is issued (Articles 182(11) and 203 CPC of Ukraine).
view source