2 million in non-high-profile cases, 150 million in high-profile political cases: an analysis of bail amounts in NABU cases
26 August 16:58
The amounts of bail set in NABU cases vary significantly, even in cases involving comparable procedural roles and risks. Former SAPO prosecutor Stanislav Bronevitsky analyzed the practice of the High Anti-Corruption Court and questioned the logic behind setting bail amounts in various NABU cases, reports "Komersant Ukrainian", citing the author’s post.
By law, when setting bail, the court must take into account the circumstances of the criminal offense, the suspect’s financial and family situation, other information about the suspect, and the established procedural risks. This is explicitly stated in Part 4 of Article 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
As Bonevitsky notes, the Constitutional Court has also emphasized the need for proper justification of the bail amount: the court must assess the individual’s financial situation, social and international ties, and explain why the specific amount determined can ensure proper conduct during the proceedings.
Watch us on YouTube: important topics – without censorship
At the same time, an analysis of the High Anti-Corruption Court’s decisions, presented by the former prosecutor of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, reveals a somewhat different logic for determining bail amounts.
“Midas,” “Dynasty,” “Forrest Gump”
In the “Midas” case, Herman Galushchenko was initially ordered to post bail of 200 million UAH, which was later reduced to 150 million. Ihor Myronyuk was set at 126 million hryvnia, Ihor Fursenko at 95 million, Oleksiy Chernyshov at 51.6 million, Dmytro Basov— 40 million, Lesya Ustymenko— 25 million, and Lyudmyla Zorina— 12 million hryvnias.
In the “Dynasty” case, bail was set at 140 million hryvnias for Yermak, 20 million for Serhiy Siranchuk, Marina Medvedeva—15 million, Gennadiy Opalchuk—10.6 million, and Lilia Lysenko—9.9 million.
In the “Forest Gump” case, Maksym Mykytas was granted bail of 30 million UAH, Valentin Yelizarov—20 million, and Viktor Dubovyk—7 million. Iryna Mudra was granted bail of 20 million UAH.
Bonevitsky separately compared the bail amounts for Mykytas and Lesya Ustymenko with those in the “Midas” case. According to him, Mykytas has a long history of criminal proceedings by NABU and the SAPO, as well as previous periods of pretrial detention and bail. At the same time, in the new case, his bail was set at 30 million UAH.
Read us on Telegram: important topics – without censorship
Ustymenko, on the other hand, who has a completely different financial situation, was granted bail of 25 million hryvnias.
“Mykitas faces a host of procedural risks and has a certain financial situation, as does Ustymenko. The amounts are incomparable, as are the roles attributed to them by the investigation in the offenses committed. Yet the bail amounts are nearly identical,” notes Bonevitsky.
He cites another example involving Iryna Mudra and Serhiy Siranchuk. Both were ordered to post bail of 20 million hryvnias, even though their procedural statuses and circumstances differ.
“Iryna Mudra was set a bail of 20 million hryvnias. She is now the former deputy head of the Presidential Office and former deputy minister of justice, whom investigators allege played a role in a money-laundering scheme involving 150 million hryvnias. Her declared assets include significant foreign currency savings, government bonds, securities, real estate, and jewelry.
At the same time, in the same ‘Midas’ case, a 20 million hryvnia bail has been set for Serhiy Siranchuk—the director of a cooperative whom investigators link to a separate money-laundering episode,” he explained.
“Less High-Profile” Cases
For example, in the Golovko case involving a bribe, the bail was 805,200 UAH, and in the Melesh case involving embezzlement from the Ministry of Defense’s food supply, it was 1.2 million UAH.
In the cases involving the procurement of drones and electronic warfare equipment, the bail amounts were:
- 2 million UAH each for Mishansky and Sidelnikova,
- 3 million for Sokolyuk,
- Shulmeister—4 million,
- Deshpekt — 5 million,
- Yurchenko—6 million,
- Kuznetsov—8 million,
- Gaidai—10 million,
- Marchenko – 15 million hryvnias.
In the Pivovarsky case involving losses from port fees—approximately 10 million UAH; in the Gladkovsky case— 10.6 million UAH; in the Knyazev case— 18.8 million UAH.
Meanwhile, in the “DZVIN” case, which involves the embezzlement of 246 million UAH, bail amounts for individual defendants were set at only about 2 million UAH.
“In a case that doesn’t get media attention, an accomplice to an especially serious corruption crime may be ordered to post bail of 2–3 million hryvnias. But in a case that has been on the front pages for weeks, a person with a comparable procedural role—and in some cases a significantly worse financial situation—is granted 20–30 million,” summarizes Bonevitsky.
He adds:
“In the ‘Midas’ case, however, that figure easily rises to 50, 100, or 150 million hryvnia under the same criteria.”
READ ALSO: Tsivinsky was mentioned in reports by “Forest Gump”
