Personal Recognizance Applied Instead of House Arrest (The Least Burdensome Pretrial Restriction)

An attempt was made to turn the business of our Client—a director of several private enterprises—into a “criminal case.” He was notified of suspicion by an investigator of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and a prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office under three articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine simultaneously: Part 3 of Article 358, Part 4 of Article 358, and Part 2 of Article 384 (forgery of documents, use thereof, and knowingly making false statements).

The prosecution insisted on applying a pretrial restriction to the Client in the form of 24-hour house arrest, which would have effectively blocked his ability to manage the business.

During the court hearing, the defense challenged the substantiation of the suspicion and completely refuted the existence of procedural risks. The Grain Law Firm attorneys demonstrated that the investigation’s arguments were based on assumptions rather than on irrefutable facts or material evidence. The court concurred with the defense’s position that there were no grounds for a severe restriction of the individual’s liberty.

The Result:
The investigating judge denied the prosecutor’s motion to select 24-hour house arrest. Instead, the least burdensome pretrial restriction—personal recognizance—was applied to the Client. This enabled the Client to preserve his freedom of movement at an early stage of the proceedings and to continue the operational management of his enterprises.

The Client’s defense is conducted by Oleksandr Teleshetskyi, Attorney-at-Law and Partner at Grain Law Firm.

The full text of the court ruling will be available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions under Case No. 761/13951/25.