Release from criminal liability because the limitation period (statute of limitations) has expired is the court's duty. It applies if the period set by Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (CC) has passed since the crime, the period was not suspended or interrupted, and the accused agrees to the release. Most disputes are about the period itself. In a case where I defended an accused under Part 1 of Article 204 of the CC, the prosecutor insisted that the penalty is only a fine, so the limitation period is five years. The court agreed with the defence that a three-year period applies. On 15.07.2026 the Industrialnyi District Court of Kharkiv closed the proceedings on that charge. Here I explain how to count the limitation period, why a fine "fits" into three years, and what such a closure means for the accused.
In brief: 6 key points
- The limitation period is the time from the day the crime was committed to the day the judgment enters into force. If it has expired, the person is released from criminal liability (Article 49 of the CC).
- For a non-grave crime (a "minor crime" under Ukrainian law), the law sets three or five years. It is three years if the crime carries imprisonment of no more than two years (paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 49), and five years in other cases (paragraph 3).
- In case No. 644/860/24 the court concluded that if the penalty is only a fine, the three-year period applies, because a fine is a milder penalty than two years of imprisonment (Article 51 of the CC).
- The limitation period can expire at any stage, both during the pre-trial investigation and during the trial. Procedural steps do not suspend it.
- The period is suspended if the person evades the investigation or the court, and interrupted if the person commits a new crime. Without these circumstances, release is mandatory.
- Release because of the limitation period is possible only with the consent of the accused and is a non-exonerating ground: the case is closed without a judgment, but also without an acquittal.
What the limitation period means in a criminal case
The state has limited time to prove guilt and obtain a judgment. If the judgment has not entered into force before the limitation period expires, the person is released from criminal liability, even if the case is already in court. The court in our case put it this way: the limitation period runs out during the pre-trial investigation, during the trial, and after a guilty verdict is announced. Any procedural steps taken during these periods do not stop them from running.
There is a practical consequence that people often underestimate: a long trial works in favour of the accused. Every postponed hearing and every break brings closer the date after which a judgment under this article can no longer be issued.
The court divided the grounds for release into two groups. The substantive grounds are the expiry of the periods under Part 1 of Article 49 of the CC and the absence of circumstances that disrupt them. The procedural grounds are that the person has the status of an accused and agrees to release on this ground (Articles 284–288 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC)).
Limitation periods under Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine
The period depends on the gravity of the criminal offence and on the penalty provided by the article.
| Paragraph of Part 1 of Article 49 of the CC | Offences covered | Limitation period |
|---|---|---|
| paragraph 1 | criminal misdemeanour with a penalty milder than restriction of liberty | two years |
| paragraph 2 | criminal misdemeanour with restriction of liberty, or a non-grave crime with imprisonment of no more than two years | three years |
| paragraph 3 | non-grave crime, except the case in paragraph 2 | five years |
| paragraph 4 | grave crime | ten years |
| paragraph 5 | especially grave crime | fifteen years |
Gravity is defined by Article 12 of the CC. Under Part 4 of that article, a non-grave crime is an act for which the main penalty is a fine of no more than ten thousand tax-free minimum incomes of citizens, or imprisonment of no more than five years. This is why a crime under Part 1 of Article 204 of the CC is non-grave. In the version in force when it was committed, its penalty was a fine of five to ten thousand tax-free minimum incomes.
Check the version of the article that applied on the date of the act. Penalties and the classification of offences have changed, and the limitation period is counted under the law that applied at that time.
Three or five years if the penalty is only a fine
This was the main dispute in our case. The prosecutor reasoned as follows. Paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 49 of the CC speaks of a non-grave crime carrying imprisonment of no more than two years. The penalty under Part 1 of Article 204 of the CC does not include imprisonment at all, only a fine. So paragraph 2 does not apply, and the general rule of paragraph 3 applies: five years.
The defence argued for a different reading, and the court agreed. The court's reasoning had three steps:
- Penalties form a system. Article 51 of the CC contains a closed list of types of penalty, arranged from the milder to the more severe. This order is universal and applies to all penalties in the Special Part of the CC.
- A fine is the mildest penalty. It comes earlier in the list than imprisonment for a fixed term, so it is milder than two years of imprisonment.
- Paragraph 3 is for more serious crimes. The legislator set the five-year period for non-grave crimes whose penalty is more severe than two years of imprisonment. A crime that carries only a fine is not one of them.
The court's conclusion: the prosecutor's position that paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 49 of the CC cannot apply is not based on the requirements of the law, and a three-year limitation period applies to Part 1 of Article 204 of the CC.
The Supreme Court supports this logic too. A panel of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, in its ruling of 22.07.2026 in case No. 721/396/26 (proceedings No. 51-2874ск26), noted that the limitation periods in Part 1 of Article 49 of the CC are graded on the principle of proportionality: they increase step by step as the gravity of the offence increases. It follows from this principle that a crime punishable only by a fine cannot have a longer limitation period than a crime punishable by up to two years of imprisonment.
This is the conclusion of a court of first instance in one case. The prosecution consistently takes the opposite position. So it is worth preparing in advance on the limitation period for crimes with a fine-only penalty: rely on Supreme Court practice, in particular the ruling of the Criminal Cassation Court of 22.07.2026 in case No. 721/396/26, and set out your arguments in a written motion.
Case No. 644/860/24: timeline
My client was accused of acquiring, storing and transporting illegally produced alcoholic drinks for sale, and of selling them, as part of a group of persons. The charges were Part 3 of Article 28 and Part 1 of Article 204 of the CC, and separately Part 1 of Article 199 of the CC. The case was heard together for three accused.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 2022 — 04.03.2023 | period during which, according to the indictment, the act under Part 1 of Article 204 of the CC was committed |
| 23.11.2022 | the information was entered into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations |
| 04.03.2026 | the three-year limitation period expired, counted from the last date given in the indictment |
| 19.05.2026 | a motion for release from criminal liability was made at the hearing; the accused gave his consent |
| 15.07.2026 | ruling: release from criminal liability under Part 3 of Article 28 and Part 1 of Article 204 of the CC and closure of the proceedings on that charge |
The other accused and the defence lawyer of one of them also supported the motion. Only the prosecutor objected. The hearing was held by video conference.
This is a first-instance court ruling that has not entered into legal force as of the date of publication: an appeal has been filed against it. This article will be updated after the appeal is decided.
When the limitation period is suspended or interrupted
Release because of the limitation period is possible only if the period ran without disruption. Article 49 of the CC covers two such situations.
- Suspension (Part 2 of Article 49). If the person evaded the pre-trial investigation or the court, the period is suspended. It resumes from the day the person appears and confesses, or is detained. In that case the person is released from liability only if fifteen years have passed since the crime.
- Interruption (Part 3 of Article 49). If the person commits a new crime before the period ends, the period is interrupted. The exception is a non-grave crime with imprisonment of no more than two years.
In our case the court found that my client was not wanted by the authorities and had committed no crimes after 04.03.2023. The prosecution offered no evidence that the period was suspended or interrupted. In these circumstances the court stated directly: meeting the conditions of Parts 1–3 of Article 49 of the CC is unconditional, and release from liability is mandatory.
Consent of the accused and the non-exonerating ground
The proceedings cannot be closed because of the limitation period without the consent of the accused. If the accused objects, the court continues the trial. This is not a formality but a choice that should be made consciously.
| Question | Release because of the limitation period | Acquittal |
|---|---|---|
| Is guilt established | no, the case is closed without a judgment | the court finds the person not guilty |
| Nature of the ground | non-exonerating | exonerating |
| Criminal record | does not arise | does not arise |
| Timing | decided at once, without a trial on the merits | a full trial is needed, often months or years |
An accused who is sure of his innocence and wants an acquittal may refuse release because of the limitation period. But then he takes a risk: the trial continues, and the result depends on how the evidence is assessed. In our case my client did not insist on exoneration and consented to the closure of the proceedings.
The court also pointed to another side of the issue. Refusing release when all the grounds exist would violate the rights of the accused. It could also lead to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which concerns trial within a reasonable time.
What comes next: the case is not always closed in full
The limitation period is counted separately for each criminal offence. So closing the proceedings under one article does not end the case.
In our case the court closed the proceedings against my client only under Part 3 of Article 28 and Part 1 of Article 204 of the CC. The court continued the trial of the charge against him under Part 1 of Article 199 of the CC, and of the charges against the two other persons under Article 204 of the CC. For the same reason, the ruling did not decide on a preventive measure, physical evidence or procedural costs.
The conclusion for the defence: count the limitation period for each episode and each article separately, using the dates given in the indictment. Sometimes the expiry of the period under one article opens the way to negotiations or a change of strategy on the remaining charges. More about defence in criminal proceedings is on the page of the criminal defence lawyer.
How to file a motion for release because of the limitation period
- Count the period. Count from the date the act was committed. If the act was continuing, count from the last date given in the indictment or the notice of suspicion.
- Identify the paragraph of Article 49 of the CC from the penalty in the version in force at the time of the act: two, three, five, ten or fifteen years.
- Check that the period was not suspended or interrupted: whether the person was put on a wanted list and whether there are new proceedings against the accused.
- Discuss the consequences with the client (the non-exonerating ground) and get consent.
- File the motion depending on the stage: during the pre-trial investigation, through the prosecutor, who sends a motion for release to the court if the grounds exist; during the trial, directly to the court; with written arguments on the period, especially if a dispute is expected, as in our case.
Release because of the limitation period is possible at any stage, from the pre-trial investigation to the appeal review, but only until the judgment enters into force. If the suspicion involves unlawful seizure of property or an arrest of accounts, these issues should be addressed in parallel. Lifting an arrest in criminal proceedings is covered in the article on the arrest of a card after a P2P transaction on a crypto exchange.
Common mistakes
- Counting the period from the date of the notice of suspicion. The period runs from the day the offence was committed, not from the start of the investigation.
- Automatically accepting five years when the penalty is only a fine. As our case shows, the court may apply a three-year period.
- Using the current version of the article. The penalty that applied when the act was committed is what counts.
- Not checking for a wanted notice. Even a short period when the person was considered to be evading the authorities can suspend the limitation period.
- Agreeing to release without understanding the consequences. It is not an acquittal. For some people, for example those who care about reputation or a civil service career, the difference matters.
Frequently asked questions
What is the limitation period for a non-grave crime that carries only a fine?
In case No. 644/860/24 the court concluded that it is three years. Paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 49 of the CC sets a three-year period for a non-grave crime with imprisonment of no more than two years. Paragraph 3 sets a five-year period for other non-grave crimes. The prosecutor held that because the penalty under Part 1 of Article 204 of the CC does not include imprisonment at all, paragraph 3 applies. The court disagreed. Article 51 of the CC arranges penalties from the milder to the more severe, and a fine comes earlier in that list than imprisonment, so it is milder than two years of imprisonment. The legislator linked the five-year period to crimes with a more severe penalty. This approach is consistent with the position of the Criminal Cassation Court: in its ruling of 22.07.2026 in case No. 721/396/26 it noted that the limitation periods in Part 1 of Article 49 of the CC increase step by step as the gravity of the offence increases. The prosecution often takes the opposite position, so the arguments should be prepared in writing.
Can a case be closed because of the limitation period if it is already in court?
Yes. The limitation period runs from the day the criminal offence was committed to the day the judgment enters into force. So it can expire during the pre-trial investigation, during the trial, and even after the judgment is announced, if it has not yet entered into force. Procedural steps such as scheduling hearings, questioning witnesses and ordering expert examinations do not suspend the period. In case No. 644/860/24 the Industrialnyi District Court of Kharkiv was already hearing the indictment when the three-year period expired. It was counted from the last date given in the indictment, 04.03.2023. The motion was made at the hearing on 19.05.2026, and on 15.07.2026 the court closed the proceedings on that charge. The court stressed that, when all the grounds exist, release is mandatory at any stage of the proceedings, up to the appeal review.
What does "non-exonerating ground" mean, and will I have a criminal record?
A non-exonerating ground means the case is closed not because the court found the person not guilty, but because the period during which the state could hold the person liable has passed. Guilt is not established. There is no judgment, so there is no punishment. A criminal record does not arise in this case. At the same time, this is not an acquittal. In some situations, for example during checks when applying for civil service, the very fact that a case was closed on a non-exonerating ground may matter. That is why the law requires the consent of the accused: if the accused objects to closure, the court continues the trial on the merits. In case No. 644/860/24 my client did not insist on exoneration and consented to release from criminal liability. The court recorded this consent separately in its ruling.
What can suspend or interrupt the limitation period?
Article 49 of the CC provides for two such circumstances. The period is suspended if the person evaded the pre-trial investigation or the court, that is, hid or was wanted by the authorities. The period then resumes from the day the person appears and confesses, or is detained. Release is possible only if fifteen years have passed since the crime. The period is interrupted if the person commits a new crime before it ends, except for a non-grave crime with imprisonment of no more than two years. In case No. 644/860/24 the court found that my client was not wanted by the authorities and had committed no new crimes after 04.03.2023. The prosecutor provided no evidence to the contrary. So the court held that the period was not disrupted and released him from criminal liability.
Is the whole case closed if the limitation period expires under one article?
No, only the part for which the period has expired. The limitation period is counted separately for each criminal offence and for each accused. In case No. 644/860/24 my client was charged under Part 3 of Article 28 and Part 1 of Article 204 of the CC, and separately under Part 1 of Article 199 of the CC. The court released him from liability and closed the proceedings only on the first charge. It continued the trial under Part 1 of Article 199 of the CC. The court also continued the trial of the two other accused, who agreed with the motion, but the limitation period was not decided for them in this ruling. For this reason the court did not decide on a preventive measure, physical evidence or procedural costs either. So the periods must be counted for each episode separately, and the defence strategy must take all the charges into account.
Can the ruling on release from criminal liability be appealed?
Yes. A ruling of a court of first instance on release from criminal liability and closure of the proceedings can be appealed. In case No. 644/860/24 the court stated that the ruling can be appealed to the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, through the Industrialnyi District Court of Kharkiv, within seven days of the day it was announced. If no appeal is filed, the ruling enters into force when this period ends. If an appeal is filed, it enters into force after the decision of the court of appeal, unless the ruling is set aside. In practice it is usually the prosecutor who appeals, when he or she disagrees with the calculation of the period, and in this case the prosecutor already objected to the release in the court of first instance. So the defence should set out its arguments on the limitation period in writing right away: the court of appeal will assess exactly those arguments.
This material is based on the ruling of the Industrialnyi District Court of Kharkiv of 15.07.2026 in case No. 644/860/24, where I defended one of the accused. The text of the ruling is available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. The personal data of the participants is not given. This article is for information only and is not legal advice for your situation. Please check separately whether the norms mentioned are in force and what their version was on the date of the act.
Are you accused of a non-grave crime, and the case has dragged on for years? Write to me. We will count the limitation period for each charge and decide whether the proceedings can be closed now. Consultations are held in Ukrainian or Russian; written communication in English is available.