Brief and important
The Appeal Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court annulled the verdict concerning Mykhailo Holovko insofar as the charge of declaring inaccurate information. The decision took legal effect from the moment it was pronounced and reopens the discussion about the limits of legal responsibility for officials and the role of legislative changes.
What the court decided
«… the panel of judges of the Appeal Chamber of the HACC partially satisfied the defense’s appeal, annulled the HACC verdict and closed the criminal proceedings against the accused due to a finding that the event of a criminal offense was absent. The remainder of the appeal was denied»
— Press service of the Appeal Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court
In other words, the appeal found that, with respect to the episode concerning undeclared property, there was no event of a criminal offense, so the proceedings were closed. The decision can be appealed to the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court.
Facts of the case
According to the investigation, Holovko did not include in his 2022–2023 declarations information about an apartment of 201.9 sq. m (formally owned by his mother but used by him), funds in a bank account and several non-residential premises — in total about UAH 2.2 million for 2022 and more than UAH 2 million for 2023.
The case regarding the 2023 declaration was closed due to a change in legislation: the threshold for criminal liability was raised from 500 to 750 subsistence minimums, which effectively improved the accused’s legal position.
Context and unresolved episodes
It is worth noting that other verdicts and episodes involving Holovko are still under consideration. In particular, in June 2025 he was handed a verdict on charges of receiving a bribe of over UAH 600,000 — that verdict has not yet taken effect and is under appeal. Thus, the annulment of one episode does not equal a complete dismissal of all accusations.
Why this matters
The appeal decision has several implications:
- Legal precedent: the court confirmed that formal changes in the law and the quality of evidence affect the outcomes of anti-corruption proceedings.
- Trust in institutions: it is important for the public to see that cases are considered in accordance with law and procedure, while simultaneously critically monitoring that legislative “gaps” do not become loopholes for evading responsibility.
- Political signal: a former member of parliament and head of the regional council is a public figure; the court’s decision is perceived in the context of officials’ accountability to society.
What’s next
Now the matter is up to the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court — its position will determine the final judicial outcome regarding the annulled part of the case. Meanwhile, appeal proceedings on other episodes continue, which may significantly alter the ultimate picture of Holovko’s responsibility.
Analytical conclusion: the appeal decision demonstrates that anti-corruption justice operates within the legal framework, but strengthening public trust requires not only convictions but also consistent, transparent rules and high-quality evidence. While the case continues, the key question remains the same — can institutions ensure a balance between protecting the rights of suspects and steadfastly holding those who breach public trust to account?
