Exemption from criminal liability: procedure and judicial practice

In the practice of our law firm, situations have arisen where, after studying the client's case, the conclusions were discouraging. The evidence has been gathered, the fact of the offense is difficult to deny, and the prospect of getting a criminal record or real punishment seems inevitable. But it is precisely in such moments that we offer an option such as release from criminal liability.

From our experience, clients often confuse this procedure with acquittal. However, it is somewhat different: the state officially recognizes that a crime was committed, but due to certain positive actions of the accused or objective circumstances, it essentially forgives it. As a result, the person leaves the courtroom a free and legally unconvicted. As if there were no criminal case.

What you need to know about this mechanism, how it works in practice, and how the Supreme Court views it? Let's figure it out using real cases.

Grounds for dismissal: how it works in courts

The Criminal Code provides for five general and a number of special grounds. Judicial practice regarding each of them is very dynamic.

1. Effective repentance (Art. 45 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)

Suitable for misdemeanors and minor crimes of negligence (committed for the first time).

• In practice:Currently, judicial practice proceeds from the fact that it is no longer sufficient, as before, to simply say “I'm sorry, I plead guilty, I am sincerely remorseful.” Judges demand real actions. For example, in the ruling of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated September 5, 2024, in case No. 166/37/24, the court overturned the decision to release a person who had inflicted minor bodily injuries. The accused apologized, but did not compensate for the damage. The lawyers argued that the victim had not even filed a civil lawsuit. However, the Supreme Court emphasized: compensation for the damage caused is a mandatory condition, regardless of whether the victim asked for it.

2. Reconciliation with the victim (Article 46 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine))

If you have found common ground with the victim and compensated for the damages, the court obliged You are fired.

• In practice:Prosecutors often resist in car accident cases, claiming that a crash is a violation of the “public interest” (traffic safety), and therefore exemption from liability on this ground is impermissible. The Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court put an end to this long-standing debate in case No. 629/612/25 (published on June 15, 2026). The judges ruled that the list of conditions in the law is exhaustive. If the driver was sober, caused the accident for the first time, compensated for the damage, and the victim has no claims, the court is obliged to close the case. Prosecutors“ references to an abstract ”public interest" are unlawful.

3. Transfer to bail (Article 47 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)

An individual may be transferred to the custody of an enterprise's collective for re-education.

• In practice:From our experience, clients often ask to “find some public organization” to take them on bail. This does not work. In the ruling of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court dated January 28, 2025, in case No. 442/685/24, the court canceled the release of a person who was released on bail to the NGO “City Council.” The court emphasized that a guarantor can be exclusively the collective with which the person has actual labor or educational relations, because this is the only way to ensure constant control over her behavior.

4. Change of circumstances (Article 48 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)

It applies if the act or person has ceased to be socially dangerous. This is a right of the court, not an obligation.

• In practice:Clients often ask: “And if I join the Armed Forces, will the case definitely be closed?”. Not always. In the ruling of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court dated March 5, 2026, in case No. 581/4/24, the court refused to close the case of a draft dodger who voluntarily mobilized after the verdict. The court recognized that mobilization after sentencing is not a “change of circumstances” within the meaning of Article 48 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (although it became the basis for releasing him from serving his sentence with probation under Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, i.e., on a different basis where the criminal record is retained).

5. Expiration of limitation periods (Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)

Depending on the severity, sentences range from 2 to 15 years.

• In practice:There are two crucial nuances here. Firstly, the victim's consent to such closure not needed. This was clearly confirmed by the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court in its ruling of January 14, 2026, in case No. 454/3997/24. Secondly, what to do if a person was in hiding? The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in its ruling of February 2, 2023, in case No. 735/1121/20 explained: in the event of evasion of investigation, the general 15-year term does not apply automatically; the differentiated term is simply extended by the period of evasion.

Special wartime rule: AWOL and desertion (Articles 401, 407, 408 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)

Currently, a special forgiveness algorithm is in operation for service members for their first unauthorized departure from a unit.

In practice, according to the resolution of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated July 31, 2025, in case No. 183/12595/23, a serviceman who has abandoned their unit for the first time may be exempt from criminal liability. Two key things are required for this: voluntary appeal to the investigator or the court and written consent of the commander of the military unit for the continuation of service.

How does this happen procedurally?

1. Initiative.A motion can be filed by the prosecutor during the pre-trial investigation stage or by a defense attorney directly during the court hearing.
2. Consent of the accused.Since dismissal does not make you “crystal clear” in the eyes of the law (a non-rehabilitating ground), the court will certainly ask for your consent. If you categorically disagree (want to prove complete innocence), the court will refuse to close the case, and it will be reviewed in the standard manner.
3. Ruling.If all conditions are met, the court issues a ruling to close the criminal proceedings. The decision can be appealed.

What are the exceptions that preclude release from criminal liability?

The law contains exceptions—circumstances under which the court has no right to release from criminal liability under any circumstances:

1. Corruption and drunk driving are not forgiven.None of the general grounds (repentance, surety, reconciliation, change of circumstances) apply if you have committed a corruption offense or violated traffic rules while intoxicated by alcohol or drugs. This is the strict stance of the law.
2. Who pays for the expert examinations?In practice, clients are often afraid of multi-thousand-dollar bills for forensic examinations. And here is the good news: the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, in its ruling of September 12, 2022, in case No. 203/241/17, clearly determined that if a case is closed due to the expiration of the limitation period (or other non-rehabilitating grounds), the procedural costs for investigative examinations are not collected from the person, and are covered by the state.

Summarizing our experienceThe institution of release from criminal liability is an effective legal tool. However, it requires not just a formal approach, but real compensation for damages, proper conduct, and flawless procedural paperwork. The slightest mistake or attempt to circumvent the law can lead to the court's refusal to grant the motion for release from liability.