At the end of the fourth year of the Ukrainian people’s existential struggle against a treacherous external enemy, it might seem that nothing could divert attention from the horrific news from the front and the deep social crisis. Yet this is not the case. Internal threats also continue to undermine the foundations of Ukrainian statehood and sovereignty — and the most dangerous of them is corruption.
On 2 December 2025, the III Legal Anti-Corruption Forum took place, traditionally bringing together representatives of the legal profession, state institutions and business to discuss key challenges in the field of anti-corruption prevention. Benchers Law Firm acted as both the initiator and the general partner of the event.
The first session was moderated by Oleh Valendiuk, Managing Partner of Benchers Law Firm. Opening the forum and setting the tone for the discussion, he noted that the corruption situation had significantly worsened. Internal corruption, he stressed, is destroying the foundations of Ukrainian statehood and sovereignty no less seriously than external aggression.
The discussion was joined by the Chair of the High Anti-Corruption Court, a representative of the Office of the Prosecutor General, and leading members of the legal community.
Summing up the session, Oleh Valendiuk emphasised that the need for such professional discussions would only continue to grow. At the same time, he expressed hope that the further development of the anti-corruption system would allow the situation to be viewed with greater optimism.
Within the session “Criminal Law Aspects of Corruption”, Pavlo Otvinovskyi, Partner at Benchers Law Firm, delivered a presentation on the role of public interest in plea agreements in corruption-related criminal offences. According to him, the fate of the entire criminal proceeding referred to court through a plea agreement depends on whether the parties properly understand and prove that its terms comply with the public interest.
He also recalled that in November last year amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, adopted under Law No. 4033, entered into force to improve the institution of plea agreements in corruption-related cases. These changes significantly affected court practice, including that of the High Anti-Corruption Court, as well as approaches to negotiating and approving plea agreements.
Among other things, the amendments made it possible to offer more favourable conditions to individuals who agree to cooperate with law enforcement in exchange for a plea deal. As a result, the number of plea agreements concluded and approved by courts has increased.
At present, plea agreements remain an important instrument for both the prosecution and the defence, as they allow for shorter trial times, reduce the workload on law enforcement bodies, and save both state resources and the parties’ resources.
According to statistics, over its five years of operation, the High Anti-Corruption Court has delivered 207 verdicts, 80 of which were based on plea agreements — approximately 39% of all cases. After the recent legislative amendments, the situation changed dramatically: in just the first half of the year, out of 52 verdicts, 35 were delivered on the basis of plea agreements.
If these trends continue, it is forecast that, on average, around 80% of High Anti-Corruption Court verdicts will be issued on the basis of plea agreements.
However, there are also certain obstacles. In particular, the Criminal Procedure Code does not define what constitutes “public interest” in the context of plea agreements, nor does it set out relevant criteria. This may lead to difficulties due to differing interpretations of this concept by the parties involved in negotiating and approving such agreements.
The discussion continued in the session “NACP Audits and Civil Confiscation”, where Olha Shapovalova, Partner at Benchers Law Firm, focused on the current state of criminal liability of legal entities. She noted that this mechanism remains ineffective and is rarely applied in practice.
Among the key obstacles, the speaker identified the former legislative restriction under which a legal entity could only be prosecuted alongside a natural person as the direct perpetrator, as well as the general passivity of law enforcement agencies. Despite certain positive amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code expanding the possibilities for prosecuting legal entities, the practice remains extremely limited — since the update of the law, only one relevant verdict has been recorded.
Olha Shapovalova emphasised that the institution continues to operate below its full potential due to existing legislative and institutional barriers.
We thank our colleagues for a fruitful discussion and look forward to meeting again for further professional exchanges.
