The appeal stage in the Chaus case has concluded — our analysis and key takeaways

The case of Mykola Chaus, a judge of the Dnipro District Court of Kyiv who was exposed in 2016 for accepting a bribe of $150,000, has recently taken a new turn. After two years of consideration, the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine reviewed the first-instance verdict and reduced the sentence. Chaus remains convicted of accepting a bribe, but his prison sentence was reduced from 10 years to 8.5 years.

Has recent Ukrainian history seen a more dramatic and loud judicial epic? Unlikely — this one had it all. Chaus’s flight to Moldova, the convoluted story of his abduction, return to Ukraine, claims of provocation, talk of “hara-kiri” and “treacherous friends,” a bizarre car chase, finally, the actual trial on the merits — all of it kept the press and the public thoroughly entertained.

Over the past two years, the appeal trial continued, where Chaus attempted to prove his innocence and claimed provocation by the investigation. SAPO, on the other hand, sought to have the court consider evidence that had been dismissed by the first instance. This ultimately led to a commutation of the sentence. However, Chaus was not satisfied with the outcome either, so the case has now moved to the cassation stage — it was only a matter of time.

What arguments did the parties present in their appeals? How did the court examine the evidence and arguments presented by the parties? Did the court find evidence of provocation, and what were the grounds for reducing the term of imprisonment?

We conducted a detailed examination of all stages of the Chaus case proceedings and formulated our conclusions. In our opinion, the proceedings illustrate how differently courts may assess the presence or absence of provocation and underscore the importance of a thorough judicial analysis of the participants’ conduct. 

A detailed analysis of the appeal stage of this judicial saga is available in our article on the platform monitoring the work of the Anti-Corruption Court, HACC Decided.