Recently, the media reported that in 2024, the Supreme Court repeatedly overturned acquittals, in approximately 50% cases. We analyzed several decisions of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court to find out what violations were the basis for the overturn and what circumstances were ignored by the courts of first and appellate instance.
In all cases, the courts of first instance chose an acquittal position, focusing on the lack of direct proof of guilt, the dubiousness of the victims' testimonies, or the interpretation of the conflict as civil law. The main arguments were: failure to prove intent, lack of a direct connection between the accused and the criminal consequence, and inconsistency of the prosecution evidence.
The Supreme Court took the opposite position: it considered the evidence not in isolation, but in aggregate. The Supreme Court paid particular attention to:
- assessment of the accused's motive;
- behavior after committing an action;
- logical sequence of events;
- the obligation of the court to provide justification for why certain evidence is declared invalid.
The Supreme Court did not agree with a superficial or formal approach to the standard of proof. If the court ignores witnesses, expert opinions, or simply recognizes the event as a “commercial dispute” without analyzing intent, such a verdict is overturned. Let’s consider several cases as an example.
- Case No. 757/24443/19-k (Supreme Court decision dated 11.01.2024)
Plot: charges under Part 4 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code regarding the use of a forged lease agreement when applying to a bank.
Reason for acquittal: The court of first instance concluded that the accused could have submitted the document by mistake, not realizing that it was forged, and therefore there was no intent to use a forgery.
Reasons for cancellation:
- The court did not establish who created the forged document and under what circumstances.
- The court actually went beyond the accusation, creating a new version of events (wrongful actions, but without intent).
- The totality of evidence was not assessed: in particular, the use of forgery in the bank, witness statements, and the circumstances of the creation of the contract.
The Supreme Court indicated that the court cannot independently formulate an alternative charge and must provide a full assessment of the evidence, rather than rejecting key evidence without explanation.
2. Case No. 757/24443/19-k (Supreme Court decision dated 11.01.2024)
Plot: charges under Part 4 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code regarding the use of a forged lease agreement when applying to a bank.
Reason for acquittal: The court of first instance concluded that the accused could have submitted the document by mistake, not realizing that it was forged, and therefore there was no intent to use a forgery.
Reasons for cancellation:
- The court did not establish who created the forged document and under what circumstances.
- The court actually went beyond the accusation, creating a new version of events.
- The totality of evidence was not assessed: in particular, the use of forgery in the bank, witness statements, and the circumstances of the creation of the contract.
As in the previous case, the Supreme Court indicated that the court cannot independently formulate an alternative charge and must provide a full assessment of the evidence, rather than rejecting key evidence without explanation.
3. Case No. 727/1633/21 (Supreme Court decision dated 07.02.2024)
Plot: The defendant is accused of fraud in obtaining funds for uncompleted repairs.
Reason for acquittal: The court decided that there was only a commercial dispute between the parties, and that there was insufficient evidence of intentional misappropriation of funds.
Reasons for cancellation:
- The court did not investigate or evaluate the testimony of the victim and key witnesses.
- There is no justification as to why the court considers the victim's testimony unreliable.
- The court's conclusions are inconsistent with the evidence collected.
The Supreme Court emphasized: the court is obliged to motivate the rejection of certain evidence, especially if it is the testimony of victims that has procedural significance.
4. Case No. 214/2506/18 (Supreme Court decision dated 01.02.2024)
Plot: forgery of signatures in documents for the use of premises, which had property consequences.
Reason for acquittal: The court noted that there was no direct evidence that the accused committed the forgery, and therefore guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasons for cancellation:
- The expert opinion and witness testimony regarding the circumstances of the submission of documents were not taken into account.
- The court did not examine the technical possibility of the defendant creating the forgery.
- The court effectively ignored the prosecution's evidence.
The Supreme Court noted that the court must evaluate the evidence in its entirety, taking into account the motive, access, and logic of the events.
5. Case No. 686/7229/20 (Supreme Court decision dated 01.03.2024)
Plot: The defendant was charged with official forgery with the aim of misappropriating budget funds. The court ruled that this was a civil dispute.
Reason for acquittal: The court found that the defendant's actions did not go beyond the scope of commercial legal relations, and the dispute should have been considered in commercial jurisdiction.
Reasons for cancellation:
- Misinterpretation of actions as a commercial dispute.
- The court did not take into account the intent and systematic nature of actions to provide false information.
- There is no analysis of documents that confirm false information.
The Supreme Court emphasized: declaring documents invalid in a civil proceeding does not exclude the presence of a crime if there is intent to seize property.
6. Case No. 127/14157/20 (Supreme Court decision dated 14.02.2024)
Plot: charges of robbery. The court found the victim unreliable and acquitted the defendants.
Reason for acquittal: The court decided that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and contradictory, and therefore could not be the basis for a guilty verdict.
Reasons for cancellation:
- The testimonies of two other witnesses, who partially confirmed the victim's version, were completely ignored.
- The court did not explain why it considered the victim biased.
- There is no analysis of the chronology of events.
The Supreme Court pointed out that even if the victim has a personal interest, this is not a reason to automatically reject his testimony without proper analysis and comparison with other evidence.
7. Case No. 295/8879/21 (Supreme Court decision dated 23.02.2024)
Plot: The defendant is accused of threatening to kill after a conflict with a woman.
Reason for acquittal: The court concluded that the statements were of a domestic, emotional nature and did not cause the victim to have a real fear for her life.
Reasons for cancellation:
- The court actually went beyond the accusation, creating its own version of events.
- The existing conflict, motive, and emotional state of the accused were completely ignored.
- The court did not assess the duration, content and intensity of the threats.
The Supreme Court indicated: the victim's fear is an objective element of the crime, which should be analyzed in light of the evidence, and not dismissed out of distrust without explanation.
Conclusions. An acquittal on appeal is not final. The Supreme Court often reviews such a decision and points out the courts' incorrect approach to examining the evidence and motives for acquittal. The Supreme Court systematically requires a full analysis of the evidence as a whole, and ignoring even one key piece of evidence without justification is grounds for annulment.
For defense attorneys, this is a sign that they need to not only analyze all the evidence in detail and prove their position to the court, but also work to support the client's version with their own evidence. Only then, in conjunction with other evidence, will the cassation instance uphold the decision.
