The motion by the Chief Rabbi of Kyiv, Yonatan Markovych, for personal surety on behalf of former Deputy Head of the Office of the President, Iryna Mudra, filed with the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), has drawn attention to one of the least discussed yet legally significant mechanisms of Ukrainian procedural law. While the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) insists on a preventive measure in the form of detention with the right to release against a bail of 150 million hryvnias, the defense is offering the court an alternative — personal surety by a high-ranking public-religious figure. The difference between the two positions is not merely a matter of amount: it exposes the structural limitations of the surety institution enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
What the CPC Provides: A Fine as the Sole Consequence
In public discourse, a persistent perception endures that the surety bears joint liability for the defendant and, in the event of their flight, may be detained in their place. The current wording of Part 5 of Article 180 of the CPC of Ukraine contains no such provision. Under this norm, if the person released on personal surety breaches the obligations they have undertaken — in particular, evades the investigation or the court, destroys evidence, or fails to appear when summoned — the court is empowered to apply to the surety only one sanctioning consequence: the imposition of a monetary fine. Criminal liability for "aiding in escape" or "harboring" does not arise automatically for the surety and may be considered only upon separate evidence that the guarantor personally participated in organizing the suspect's movement or prepared documents for them.
The Size of the Fine and Its Link to the Subsistence Minimum
The amount of the fine for the surety in cases of grave and especially grave corruption offenses is regulated by law and tied to the subsistence minimum. The maximum amount of the levy ranges from 20 to 50 subsistence minimums. In 2026 calculations this corresponds to a range of approximately 60,000 to 150,000 hryvnias, which at the exchange rate amounts to roughly 1,500–3,500 US dollars. Thus, the maximum financial liability of the surety in a corruption case is capped at a sum that, for a person of the corresponding social and economic status, does not pose a significant financial risk. Neither imprisonment, nor a non-appearing undertaking, nor any other procedural restrictions for the guarantor are provided for by law.
The Context of the Mudra Case and the Positions of the Parties
According to the data set forth in the procedural documents and statements of the parties, Iryna Mudra, who held the position of Deputy Head of the Office of the President, is involved in the HACC proceedings on charges related to corruption offenses. The SAPO prosecutor's office is petitioning for arrest with the right to release against bail of 150 million hryvnias. The defense, in turn, is proposing that the court adopt a preventive measure in the form of personal surety, offering Yonatan Markovych as the guarantor. The case materials, according to the prosecution, contain information on undeclared assets in an amount that, by various estimates, reaches up to 250 million hryvnias, as well as on regular payments not reflected in official income. These figures are cited in procedural statements and are not the subject of separate judicial establishment at the current stage.
HACC Practice and the Attitude Toward Personal Surety
In recent years, the practice of the High Anti-Corruption Court has demonstrated a cautious attitude toward granting motions for personal surety in cases involving a large amount of damage. Judicial decisions in similar proceedings indicate that judges frequently reject such motions, citing the insufficiency of guarantees of procedural control over the suspect. Legal analysis indicates that the norm on surety, in its current wording, does not provide a full preventive effect: the minimum size of the fine sanction does not create a sufficient incentive for the surety to exercise actual supervision over the suspect, and the absence of other procedural consequences reduces the effectiveness of the measure as a tool for ensuring appearance.
Contradictory Data
The case materials and public statements of the parties contain discrepancies in assessing the adequacy of the proposed preventive measure. The SAPO prosecutor's office argues the necessity of bail of 150 million hryvnias by the amount of damage and the risk of the suspect fleeing beyond the jurisdiction, citing the existence of documents allowing her to cross the border. The defense, conversely, points to the disproportionality of such bail and offers surety as a sufficient guarantee. Meanwhile, in the public domain, none of the versions regarding the specific circumstances that could indicate a real intention of the suspect to leave the territory of Ukraine has been confirmed. Information on undeclared assets and additional payments is cited in procedural documents and, at the time of preparing this material, was not the subject of a separate judicial hearing confirming or refuting them in full.
From the standpoint of procedural law, the HACC's decision on Markovych's motion will be of precedential character for the practice of considering motions for personal surety in corruption cases involving high-ranking officials. The court's choice between granting the motion and rejecting it will depend on the assessment of the specific procedural circumstances of the case, not on the public status of the surety. In any event, the final court decision will remain subject to appeal in the manner established by law.
