After a three-year hiatus, the Supreme Court has announced new charges against judges in a $2.7 million bribery case
The investigation into the high-profile $2.7 million bribery case at the Supreme Court has taken a new turn. Three years after the scheme was exposed, law enforcement officials have officially charged four more individuals—three sitting judges and one retired judge.
The legal community and the public learned of the new charges against the highest-ranking judges under rather unusual circumstances.
Despite the fact that marked bills were found during searches in 2023 in the offices and homes of the Grand Chamber judges, they continued to work, issue rulings, and influence the development of judicial practice throughout this entire period.
In the spring of 2023, NABU and the SAPO uncovered a scheme involving the transfer of illicit benefits in exchange for rulings in favor of the owner of a large financial and industrial group.
During searches, funds were seized from several judges whose serial numbers matched those listed in the case files as part of the bribe.
However, even after the discovery of the marked money, no charges were filed at that time.
The SAPO explained the delay by the need to prove not only the existence of the funds but also the so-called “intellectual component” of the crime:
- the existence of agreements among the participants
- the division of roles
- the link between the funds received and a specific court decision
During this time, law enforcement officials questioned dozens of witnesses, analyzed the results of covert investigative actions, studied communications between the individuals involved, and awaited the conclusion of cases involving intermediaries.
In particular, the indictment against one of the intermediaries was not submitted to the court until May 2026.
The fact that judges found to have received marked money were not suspended from duty between 2023 and 2026 has raised the most questions among the public.
Throughout this time, they participated in Grand Chamber hearings, ruled on high-profile cases, and shaped the country’s legal practice.
Critics of the anti-corruption system believe that such a prolonged pause either indicates the weakness of the investigation or creates risks of covert influence on the judges.
An interesting detail is that the initial classification of the crime was changed.
Initially, the investigation treated the case as the activity of an organized group, which carries harsher penalties.
However, the charges were later reclassified as “committing a crime by a group of persons acting in concert.”
According to prosecutors, there was insufficient evidence to confirm the existence of an organized group.
Information about the new charges emerged on May 19—the day the full text of the verdict was released regarding a well-known civil society activist in the case of the beating of a journalist and his high-profile discharge from military service.
This coincidence sparked debate over whether the intensification of these cases is a real step toward justice or an attempt to shift the media’s focus.
Lawyers note that investigations into corruption crimes of this magnitude traditionally take years due to the high standards of proof in the High Anti-Corruption Court, the difficulty of proving conspiracy in a collegial body, and the need to gather a large body of evidence
At the same time, experts acknowledge that the prolonged tenure of potential suspects in their positions undermines trust in the anti-corruption system.
At the same time, a disciplinary complaint on behalf of Alona Volodymyrivna Shevtsova is pending before the High Council of Justice regarding Judge Volodymyr Yaroslavovych Marmash of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv, who committed gross violations bordering on disciplinary and criminal liability during, in particular, the consideration of a motion by BEB detectives to conduct a special pre-trial investigation regarding Alona V. Shevtsova.
According to the response from Lilia Yakimyak, Deputy Head of the Secretariat of the High Council of Justice, to a corresponding journalistic inquiry, no specific timeline has been provided for the completion of the review of the disciplinary complaint against Volodymyr Yaroslavovych Marmash, a judge of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv. Such a prolonged delay in reviewing the complaint may be a demonstration of collusion and a reluctance to hold accountable a “convenient” judge who willingly carries out tasks assigned by unscrupulous law enforcement officials.
The complaint against Marmash is that he issued his decision after the pre-trial investigation period had already expired, making it impossible to grant the relevant motion. The only lawful option in such a situation was to return the motion; however, Judge V.Y. Marmash failed to comply with the requirements of the law.
