{"id":1603,"date":"2026-05-27T05:42:15","date_gmt":"2026-05-27T02:42:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/002.svaroglaw.com\/military-lawyer\/advokat-po-szch-ta-dezertyrstvu\/"},"modified":"2026-07-14T11:21:51","modified_gmt":"2026-07-14T08:21:51","slug":"advokat-po-szch-ta-dezertyrstvu","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/svaroglaw.com\/en\/military-lawyer\/advokat-po-szch-ta-dezertyrstvu\/","title":{"rendered":"Lawyer for AWOL and Desertion Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"

The penalty under Article 407 of the Criminal Code during martial law is imprisonment for a term of between 5 and 10 years<\/strong>, and under Article 408 (desertion) \u2014 between 5 and 12 years<\/strong>. These are actual, not suspended, sentences: the courts impose precisely these penalties, and the Supreme Court overturns sentences where the term was more lenient than that prescribed by law.<\/p>\n

But the law provides a way out. Under paragraph 5 of Article 401 of the Criminal Code<\/strong>, a person who for the first time<\/strong> commits an offence under Article 407 or 408 during martial law may be exempted from criminal liability<\/strong> \u2014 provided all three of the following conditions are met simultaneously: a voluntary application, the intention to continue service and the written consent of the commander<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

This is precisely where a lawyer specialising in military criminal law is needed: not for \u2018repentance\u2019 in court, but to bring these three elements together in the correct order and form. Verbal agreements with the commander are not sufficient \u2014 a written document is required.<\/p>\n

+38 095 554-54-24<\/a> \u2014 legal advice<\/strong><\/p>\n

What changed in 2025\u20132026<\/h2>\n

The simplified return procedure ended on 30 August 2025.<\/strong> Law No. 4392-IX allowed service personnel to return to a designated unit and receive the commander\u2019s decision within 72 hours. This \u2018window\u2019 no longer exists \u2014 and websites that still refer to it are misleading people.<\/p>\n

The standard procedure<\/strong> under Part 5 of Article 401 of the Criminal Code (Law No. 3902-IX, in force since 7 September 2024) now applies: a voluntary application \u2192 written consent from the commander \u2192 a court decision<\/strong> on exemption from criminal liability.<\/p>\n

The trend is clear: exemptions are being narrowed, whilst liability is being tightened. The longer a person delays, the fewer options they have.<\/p>\n

Unauthorised absence or desertion: the difference is everything<\/h2>\n

Article 407 of the Criminal Code \u2014 unauthorised absence from unit.<\/strong> Temporary evasion: a serviceman is absent for more than three days<\/strong> without valid reasons, but did not intend to evade service permanently.<\/p>\n

Article 408 of the Criminal Code \u2014 desertion.<\/strong> The key distinction is the direct intention to evade military service permanently<\/strong>. It is punished more severely.<\/p>\n

This distinction is the main focus of the defence\u2019s work. Proving the absence of intent to evade service permanently (the person was receiving medical treatment, caring for a relative, seeking a way to return, or maintaining contact) means keeping the case within the scope of Article 407 rather than 408.<\/p>\n

Valid reasons<\/strong> (serious illness requiring hospitalisation, the death of a close relative, a natural disaster) may rule out the offence altogether \u2014 but only if they are documented<\/strong>. Claims of \u2018compelling circumstances\u2019 without evidence will not stand up.<\/p>\n

\"Lawyer<\/a><\/p>\n

Mechanism for exemption from liability<\/h2>\n

Conditions under Part 5 of Article 401 of the Criminal Code \u2014 all of the following must be met simultaneously<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. an offence under Articles 407 or 408 committed for the first time<\/strong>;<\/li>\n
  2. a voluntary<\/strong> application to the investigating officer, prosecutor or court expressing the intention to return to service;<\/li>\n
  3. written consent from the commander<\/strong> of a military unit (either their own or another) to continue service \u2014 the so-called letter of recommendation;<\/li>\n
  4. a court decision<\/strong> on exemption from criminal liability.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Repeated military service \u2014 this mechanism does not apply.<\/strong> Here, the defence is based on other factors: reclassification of the offence, mitigating circumstances (Article 66 of the Criminal Code), and negotiating the severity of the sentence.<\/p>\n

    Important news from case law:<\/strong> The Supreme Court has recognised that acquittal is possible even at the cassation stage<\/strong> \u2014 when a verdict has already been handed down. In other words, the existence of a verdict does not always mean the end.<\/p>\n

    Algorithm for reinstatement<\/h2>\n
      \n
    1. Establish the procedural status<\/strong> \u2014 whether criminal proceedings are underway, whether a wanted notice has been issued, or whether a notice of suspicion has been served. This determines all subsequent steps.<\/li>\n
    2. Find a unit willing to accept you<\/strong> \u2014 your own or another. Obtain written consent from the commander<\/strong>. Without this document, the process will not work.<\/li>\n
    3. Submit a petition<\/strong> \u2014 to the investigator, prosecutor or court, stating your intention to continue service.<\/li>\n
    4. Court hearing<\/strong> \u2014 the court verifies: that this is the first offence, that it is voluntary, and that the commander\u2019s consent has been obtained.<\/li>\n
    5. A ruling on exemption<\/strong> from criminal liability and the closure of proceedings.<\/li>\n
    6. Actual arrival<\/strong> at the unit and the resumption of payments, status and social guarantees.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Simply turning up at the unit \u2014 is not enough<\/strong> if proceedings have already been opened. Arrival without a procedural application does not remove criminal risks.<\/p>\n

      Why delay is life-threatening<\/h2>\n

      Whilst a person is \u2018thinking\u2019, the case follows the standard course: suspicion \u2192 search \u2192 preventive measure \u2192 indictment \u2192 verdict. At each subsequent stage, there are fewer options.<\/p>\n

      Voluntariness is a legal concept. It applies before<\/strong> the person is found. If a service member has been detained, \u2018voluntary return\u2019 no longer appears voluntary, and the court recognises this.<\/p>\n

      What a lawyer does<\/h2>\n