Adjudication of Anti-Corruption Cases by Ukrainian Courts During Wartime

The High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine commenced its operation on 5 September, 2019, as a result of which the majority of corruption cases in Ukraine are adjudicated by this specialised higher court.

Pursuant to the statutory rules of subject-matter jurisdiction, this court is competent to hear high-level corruption criminal cases. At the same time, all other corruption cases that do not fall within the jurisdiction of the High Anti-Corruption Court under the applicable legal criteria are considered by local courts of general jurisdiction in accordance with the rules of territorial and instance jurisdiction.

Given that the armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine has been ongoing since February 2014, the period from 2014 to February 2022 did not materially affect the adjudication of corruption cases by Ukrainian courts.

However, following the full-scale invasion launched on 24 February 2022, and still continuing, anti-corruption adjudication has undergone substantial changes. The introduction of martial law in Ukraine, as well as the announcement and implementation of general mobilisation, necessitated legislative amendments that inevitably impacted, inter alia, the sphere of anti-corruption justice.

During the first months of the full-scale war, the vast majority of court proceedings pending before Ukrainian courts, including the High Anti-Corruption Court, were effectively stalled.

Until approximately April 2022 court hearings were in most cases adjourned due to the absence of parties to criminal proceedings (whose participation is mandatory), or were conducted via videoconference using the technical means of participants.

At present, however, Ukrainian courts, including the High Anti-Corruption Court, have fully adapted to wartime conditions and continue to administer justice with a view to ensuring that the objectives of criminal proceedings are achieved within a reasonable time.

Such adaptation is evidenced by official statistics on judgments delivered by the High Anti-Corruption Court, which demonstrate that, compared to the pre-war period, the court has not only maintained its ability to hear cases and deliver judgments, but has also significantly increased the intensity of adjudication following the full-scale invasion.

According to official data, the High Anti-Corruption Court delivered a total of 68 judgments between 5 September, 2019 and 24 February, 2022, whereas from the beginning of the full-scale invasion until April 2026 it delivered 313 judgments.

This has only been made possible due to the effective adaptation of judicial authorities, together with participants in court proceedings, to the operating conditions shaped by the armed aggression of the russian federation.

For instance, amid prolonged power outages caused by large-scale attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, courts have been equipped with independent external power sources, ensuring the continuity of hearings in compliance with legal requirements, including the technical recording of hearings and their broadcasting via the official “Judicial Power of Ukraine” web portal or official YouTube channels.

At the same time, in the event of an air raid alert, judges do not always suspend hearings to relocate participants to shelters.

For example, the High Anti-Corruption Court has developed a practice whereby, following an air raid alert, judges ask the parties whether to proceed with the hearing or to declare a recess for the duration of the alert, sometimes justifying this by the possibility of monitoring the level of threat in real time; if the danger is confirmed, the hearing is suspended and participants proceed to shelter.

However, there are also instances where courts do not react to the commencement of an air raid alert and continue hearings by default, disregarding such warnings and, in some cases, their own internal regulations governing conduct in such situations.

The onset of the full-scale invasion also triggered a mass outflow of the population abroad. As a result, a widespread practice has emerged in anti-corruption cases whereby notices of suspicion are served on individuals who had left Ukraine long before such procedural actions, obtained temporary protection and/or registered with consular authorities.

This often leads to indictments being considered in absentia, where the defence counsel is effectively the only person present in the courtroom capable of safeguarding the defendant’s rights, and whose participation is mandatory in such cases.

At the same time, this practice has evolved in recent years, particularly within the High Anti-Corruption Court, which, in order to ensure the Convention right to defence, increasingly allows defendants in in absentia proceedings to participate directly in hearings via videoconference using their own technical means. Accordingly, while defence counsel and prosecutors are physically present in Kyiv, the accused may join the same hearing remotely.

Another widespread practice relates to the application of detention as an exceptional preventive measure, with bail determined as an alternative, including at the trial stage, despite the absence in detention facilities, including the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre, of adequate shelters, bomb shelters, or effective safety protocols for detainees in the event of air raid alerts.

A notable legislative development in wartime anti-corruption adjudication is the introduction of specific provisions governing pre-trial investigation and trial under martial law (Chapter IX-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine).

Given the ongoing need to replenish mobilisation resources, the law introduced the possibility of releasing an accused person from custody in order to perform military service during mobilisation or under contract (Article 616 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine), provided that statutory grounds are met.

However, this provision does not apply universally. It establishes an exhaustive list of exceptions, including individuals accused of particularly grave corruption offences or those who held especially high-ranking public positions, as defined by the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Similarly, amendments to the Criminal Code introduced Article 81-1, providing for conditional early release from serving a sentence for the purpose of military service. The grounds and limitations largely mirror those set out in Article 616 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

At the same time, not all anti-corruption cases currently pending before courts, including the High Anti-Corruption Court, proceed with the same level of intensity.

Under Ukrainian law, including Resolution No. 560 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 16 May 2024, individuals accused of corruption offences may be mobilised during trial, regardless of the gravity of the offence. Accordingly, the mere fact of ongoing criminal proceedings does not preclude mobilisation.

In this context, amendments to Article 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code introduced the possibility of suspending proceedings against an accused person called up for military service during mobilisation, until their discharge, while allowing proceedings against co-defendants to continue.

As a result, a number of cases, including those before the High Anti-Corruption Court, have been suspended with regard to mobilised defendants. There are also instances where defendants were mobilised after conviction at first instance, at the appellate stage, provided that no custodial measure was imposed.

Importantly, suspension of proceedings does not interrupt the limitation periods for criminal liability.

By the end of 2025, nearly 20,000 criminal proceedings across Ukraine had been suspended due to mobilisation, including approximately 48 cases before the High Anti-Corruption Court.

While at the initial stage of the full-scale invasion the mere fact of mobilisation was sufficient to suspend proceedings, over the past year and a half there has been a trend towards resumption of such cases.

This shift followed legislative amendments, including Law No. 4496-IX of 17 June 2025, which introduced additional provisions allowing courts to suspend proceedings only where a mobilised defendant is objectively unable to participate in hearings, including remotely.

Courts now assess such inability based on documentary evidence confirming the defendant’s direct involvement in defence activities. If such involvement ceases, proceedings may be resumed.

Thus, the formal status of military service is no longer sufficient grounds for suspension; the key consideration is whether the defendant is objectively unable to participate, including via videoconference.

In practice, judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court may request information from the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine or military units to verify whether such participation is feasible.

Overall, anti-corruption adjudication in Ukraine during the full-scale war has not been suspended or undermined but has instead undergone rapid adaptation.

The High Anti-Corruption Court has, along with other courts, continued to administer justice under extremely challenging conditions, balancing procedural safeguards with the realities of martial law, mobilisation, shelling, power outages and security constraints.

At the same time, the war has significantly transformed the practice of handling anti-corruption cases. Some proceedings have been suspended, hearings adjourned, and procedural mechanisms—such as in absentia proceedings, detention, mobilisation and suspension—have gained increased practical relevance.

This demonstrates that anti-corruption justice has not only been preserved but also evolved in response to wartime conditions.

The practice of the High Anti-Corruption Court shows that the judiciary has gradually developed mechanisms to sustain proceedings even during war, including the use of videoconferencing, technical resilience during power outages, and a more flexible procedural approach to mobilisation-related issues. In certain cases, such adaptation has prevented a complete halt of proceedings.

By way of conclusion, martial law has not abolished anti-corruption justice but has required it to operate within a new framework—more flexible, technologically-equipped, and procedurally balanced.

At the same time, such adaptation must not undermine fundamental guarantees of a fair trial, the right to defence, and the principle of reasonable time, as the balance between efficiency, procedural fairness and human rights ultimately determines the quality of anti-corruption justice in wartime.