Suspension of Statutes of Limitations During Mobilization: How Statutes of Limitations Will Change for NABU and SACPO Corruption Cases

The parliament has registered another draft law No. 15354, which, according to its initiators, is aimed at fulfilling Ukraine's commitments to combat corruption. The official purpose of the document is to ensure the inevitability of punishment for intentional corruption crimes and to eliminate the possibility of artificially delaying processes. However, the proposed amendments to Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine raise serious concerns among the legal community due to a potential conflict with the norms of the Constitution and recent Supreme Court rulings.

Two tools against statutes of limitations: how this will affect practice

The draft law proposes to restate part two of Article 49 of the Criminal Code in a new edition.

Military service as a ground for suspension of limitation periods

This applies exclusively to cases investigated by NABU detectives or where the prosecution is supported by the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SACPO). If such a defendant is mobilized or enlisted under contract service, and the court suspends proceedings in the case — the statutes of limitations are also suspended until the moment of their release or the resumption of the court.

Suspension from the moment of transfer to the court

For serious and especially serious corruption crimes, the statute of limitations is suspended automatically at the moment the indictment is sent to the court. It is resumed only if the indictment is returned to the prosecutor due to deficiencies.

Recall that under the general rule provided by Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a person is exempted from criminal liability if the legally established statute of limitations—from 2 to 15 years depending on the severity of the offense—has passed from the moment the criminal offense was committed until the verdict comes into legal force.

The project initiators call the existing approach generally justified but note that the current regulatory model creates risks of abuse of procedural rights. In particular, the defense side may deliberately delay pre-trial investigation or court proceedings, violating procedural obligations to prevent the adoption of a verdict before the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal liability.

Initiative against established judicial practice

Interestingly, current judicial practice, on the contrary, boils down to the fact that the mere suspension of court proceedings due to the defendant's military service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine does not suspend the statute of limitations for criminal liability.

According to Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the statute of limitations is suspended only in cases of evasion by the person from pre-trial investigation or court, and military service during mobilization itself is not such evasion. Moreover, Article 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allows suspending court proceedings due to the defendant's mobilization, does not provide for automatic suspension of statutes of limitations.

This approach is reflected in the resolution of the United Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court dated April 5, 2021, in case No. 328/1109/19, the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated February 2, 2023, in case No. 735/1121/20, and also confirmed by the resolution of the Second Judicial Chamber of the CCJ dated May 12, 2026, in case No. 607/15056/21, which clarified the procedure for calculating statutes of limitations in cases of evasion from investigation or court.

The proposed changes are actually intended to change this approach by directly providing for the suspension of the statute of limitations during the period of service.

Fighting process delays or narrowing procedural guarantees: risks of the draft law

The draft law links military service by certain categories of defendants with the suspension of statutes of limitations, which may lead to less favorable procedural consequences compared to persons not serving in the military. According to Article 65 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the defense of the Fatherland is a constitutional duty of citizens. This means that fulfilling military duty may lead to less favorable procedural consequences compared to persons not serving in the military, which may be subject to evaluation in terms of the principles of fairness and proportionality of legal regulation.

The authors of the draft law call fictitious mobilization to the Defense Forces of Ukraine one of the common negative examples of how the defense side deliberately delays the process of pre-trial investigation or court proceedings. Indeed, such cases occur and require legislative regulation, but the statute of limitations exists not to exempt the guilty from responsibility but to ensure a balance between the state's interests in criminal prosecution and the person's right to legal certainty and consideration of the case within a reasonable time.

As for the suspension of statutes of limitations from the moment the indictment is transferred to the court, the proposed mechanism may also affect compliance with the principle of a reasonable time for court proceedings. If the statute of limitations is suspended from the moment the indictment is sent to the court, this potentially reduces the significance of statutes of limitations as a procedural guarantee and may weaken incentives for the prompt consideration of criminal proceedings. In conditions of prolonged court proceedings caused by court overload or other objective reasons, the accused may remain in a state of legal uncertainty for a long time, which may violate the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms regarding the consideration of cases within a reasonable time.

The proposed changes may significantly alter the balance between the state's interests in ensuring the inevitability of criminal liability and the procedural guarantees of the person enshrined in Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Whether such interference is necessary and proportionate to the stated goal will likely become the subject of professional discussion during the consideration of the draft law in parliament.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.