Bail, the Borysov high-profile case, and systemic risks in anti-corruption practice

In July 2023, Yevhen Borysov was first detained on suspicion of illicit enrichment, abuse of office during mobilization, and a number of other official crimes. The court immediately chose a preventive measure—detention with the right to bail set at UAH 150 million. Over time, the bail amount was significantly reduced to UAH 12 million, which was paid, and Borysov was to be released. However, immediately upon leaving the detention center, he was re-arrested with a new suspicion involving over UAH 142 million for money laundering.

The high-profile detention was accompanied by scandalous revelations that the accused’s family had acquired real estate abroad worth millions of euros—far exceeding his official income. These revelations became possible thanks to media investigations, NACP analytics, cooperation of law enforcement from Ukraine and Spain, and the actions of the State Bureau of Investigation.

Legal analysis of bail in Ukrainian realities
Bail in criminal proceedings serves as an alternative preventive measure to custody according to Article 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Its essence is to deposit funds to guarantee the defendant’s performance of obligations and ensure appearance before investigators. The funds can be seized by the state if procedural duties are violated.

The bail amount is determined by the investigating judge based on:

• nature of the alleged offense,
• defendant’s property status,
• family circumstances,
• assessment of risks of flight or influence on pre-trial investigation.

For especially serious crimes, bail may reach up to 300 subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons, or more in exceptional cases. Such differentiation is intended to minimize the risk of absconding or pressure by the defendant.

Risks illustrated by the Borysov case

• Risk of escape: The Borysov case shows that, despite a huge bail amount (UAH 12 million), the defendant intended to leave Ukraine immediately after release. This calls for systemic assessment of bail’s adequacy as a deterrent for certain category crimes during wartime.
• Social justice: Public outrage was sparked by the gap between income and the actual bail paid—such a measure is impossible for ordinary citizens, while financial crime figures can find the necessary funds even after asset seizure.
• Manipulation via judicial practice: Reduction of bail from UAH 150 to 12 million raises questions about predictability and objectivity of rulings, and the defendant’s ability to influence court decisions.

Practical and doctrinal conclusions

• The court, determining the bail amount (per the CPC), must consider not only the defendant’s assets but also the gravity of the offense, public resonance, available assets (including foreign property), risk of escape, and realities of wartime.
• The re-arrest mechanism after release on a new suspicion is a safeguard against significant criminal risks (such as fleeing abroad). However, effective reaction before release is necessary to prevent defendant absconding.
• Questions of confiscation or transfer of bail funds to the state require efficient enforcement procedures in case of breach of obligations, with stricter agency oversight.

Prospects for reform
The Borysov case clearly demonstrated the need to update the approach to bail for those suspected of serious corruption and official crimes during war.
Stricter regulation of bail criteria (including restricting release for public officials with substantial assets), improved monitoring of defendant’s movements after bail, and transparent court procedures are needed to build public trust in bail as a fair and effective preventive measure.

This case exemplifies systemic challenges of law application amid social and legal transformation during wartime and underscores the need for high-quality advocacy, procedural, and judicial work—protecting public interests, controlling bail abuses, and ensuring justice.
Author: Yevhenii Murchenko, head of criminal law and procedure practice at WINNER Law Firm.
If you have issues or questions related to bail appeals, selection or change of preventive measures, or defense in corruption/official crimes—contact WINNER Law Firm for comprehensive support, risk minimization, and rights protection, even during wartime.