The Supreme Court's Grand Chamber determined the procedure for sentencing if new identical crimes are discovered after the verdict

When determining the final sentence, the time of commission of the criminal offenses – before or after the previous verdict – is of significant importance. The provisions of part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine must be applied regardless of whether the criminal offenses, some of which were committed before the previous verdict, and others after its issuance, are identical.

These conclusions were made by the Supreme Court’s Grand Chamber.

In this case, a citizen of Ukraine was charged under part 2 of Article 190, part 3 of Article 190, part 4 of Article 190, part 3 of Article 15, part 2 of Article 190, part 3 of Article 15, part 3 of Article 190, and part 1 of Article 353 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. By the verdict, the court found him guilty and imposed a sentence applying parts 1 and 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The final sentence for the totality of verdicts was imprisonment for 9 years with confiscation of all property owned by him.

The appellate court amended the first instance court’s verdict regarding the resolution of civil claims of the victims, leaving the rest unchanged.

The convicted person and the prosecutor appealed these court decisions to the Supreme Court.

The issue before the Supreme Court’s Grand Chamber was the application of the rules of part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine when a person is convicted of several identical criminal offenses, some of which were committed before the previous verdict, and others after, as well as the qualification of such offenses in the context of applying the norms defined in part 4 of Article 70, part 5 of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in connection with the provisions of part 1 of Article 32 and Article 33 of this Code.

The Supreme Court’s Grand Chamber first noted that the issues of criminal-legal qualification of identical criminal offenses and the issues of sentencing for their commission are not identical in content. The identity of criminal offenses may affect their qualification but does not by itself change the criminal law procedure for sentencing a person when some of these offenses were committed before the previous verdict.

The application of part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is solely determined by the temporal criterion of the commission of criminal offenses – the presence of episodes committed before the previous verdict that were not covered by it.

The Grand Chamber emphasized that it is erroneous for a court, having established that a person committed several identical criminal offenses, some before and others after the previous verdict, not to apply the rules of part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to those offenses committed before the previous verdict.

Based on the above, the Supreme Court’s Grand Chamber concluded that if after the issuance of a verdict in a case (hereinafter – verdict 1) it is established that the convicted person is guilty of several criminal offenses, some committed before verdict 1, and others after, the final sentence is imposed applying the rules of both Article 70 and Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the following sequence:

• first, a sentence is imposed for each criminal offense committed before verdict 1 separately;
• then, according to part 1 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a sentence is determined for the totality of criminal offenses committed before verdict 1; after that – according to part 4 of Article 70;
• next, a sentence is imposed for each criminal offense committed after verdict 1 separately;
• then, according to part 1 of Article 70, a sentence is determined for the totality of criminal offenses committed after verdict 1;
• afterwards, according to Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the final sentence for the totality of verdicts is determined, namely, the sentence determined in point 4 is fully or partially joined with the unserved part of the sentence determined in point 2.

If two verdicts have been issued regarding a person (hereinafter – verdict 1 and verdict 2), and it is established that the person committed criminal offenses before verdict 1, after it, and after verdict 2, the sentence is imposed considering the above order.

In this case, the Supreme Court’s Grand Chamber satisfied the prosecutor’s complaint and partially satisfied the convicted person’s complaint, amending the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling. The Grand Chamber ordered the convicted person to be released from punishment under part 1 of Article 353 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to expiration of the statute of limitations, and also changed the sentence imposed by the first instance court applying the mechanism for sentencing established in this case, leaving the final sentence for the totality of verdicts unchanged.

The decision of the Supreme Court’s Grand Chamber dated June 24, 2026, in case No. 607/9097/20 can be found at this link.

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