Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine Acquittal

      The Supreme Court reasonably upheld the decision of the appellate court, confirming the acquittal of a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — namely, receiving an unlawful benefit for influencing the decision of an official authorized to perform state functions.

The court, supporting the appellate decision, applied the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the Constitution of Ukraine, specifically Part 3 of Article 62 of the Constitution, Articles 87, 94, and 246 of the CPC, and justifiably found that the pre-trial investigation body had artificially entered data into the URPI under Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code to obtain permission for covert investigative actions (an abuse of power). Furthermore, the court established and confirmed the fact of an unlawful search of a residence without court permission or voluntary consent. Accordingly, the court ruled such evidence, and any derivative evidence, inadmissible — following the doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

• The Supreme Court clearly emphasized that covert investigative actions may only be conducted for serious/especially serious crimes (Art. 346 CPC);
• At the time of conducting the covert actions, there were no legal grounds to qualify the offense as serious/especially serious, leading to the inadmissibility of the resulting evidence (Art. 87 CPC);
• The qualification was changed by the investigative body from Part 3 of Art. 368 to Part 2 of Art. 369-2 of the Criminal Code only after unlawful evidence was obtained — which constitutes an abuse of law;
• The search of the residence was conducted in violation of CPC requirements, namely without a judge’s permission (Part 3, Art. 233 CPC); the statement of consent was obtained hours after the search;
• The court noted that an audio recording made by a private individual can generally be admissible, but in this case, it could not compensate for the inadmissibility of the core evidence;
• The Supreme Court appropriately applied the standard of proof: if the objective side of the offense is not proven, the question of provocation becomes irrelevant.

⚖️ Thus, the Supreme Court, applying the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”, consistently protected human rights and properly applied ECHR practice on the inadmissibility of artificially creating grounds for operational actions.

If you’re familiar with such situations — it’s better to talk in advance. One timely consultation can prevent many legal problems.

WINNER Law Firm is among Ukraine’s leading firms in tax, criminal, administrative, commercial law, and litigation.

Our contact: +38 067-755-55-13

Below, WINNER Law Firm attorneys are defending a client in court under Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine