Escape abroad during wartime: Government proposes prison instead of fines

For many, fleeing abroad during wartime seemed like a quick way to avoid mobilization. As long as such actions only resulted in administrative fines, the risk appeared acceptable. However, the situation may soon change. Draft Law No. 13673 proposes to significantly tighten liability: replacing administrative penalties with criminal prosecution, a criminal record, and even actual imprisonment.

The draft, prepared by the Cabinet of Ministers, aims to close all “grey zones”: from illegal border crossing through unmonitored routes (“green paths”) to forged documents and overstayed permits abroad. The government expects that these measures will act as a deterrent for potential evaders and strengthen mobilization discipline across the country. When exactly Parliament will consider the draft law remains unknown.

Consequences of Adopting Draft Law No. 13673

If adopted, the legislation would significantly tighten rules against illegal departure abroad by men of conscription age.

Key changes and consequences include:

• New Article 332-2(4) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Criminal liability for illegal border crossing during wartime or a state of emergency outside official checkpoints (or an attempt thereof) will carry up to 3 years’ imprisonment. The same applies to crossing at a checkpoint without proper documents, using forged papers, or presenting documents containing false personal data, or without official authorization. Previously, such acts were punishable only by administrative fines or arrest. In practice, Ukrainians were not prosecuted under Article 332-2 of the Criminal Code, as special administrative liability existed under the Code of Administrative Offenses (Article 204-1). Criminal liability primarily applied to foreigners and stateless persons. The draft law now directly extends such liability to Ukrainian citizens.

• Jurisdiction. The draft introduces part 4 of Article 332 of the Criminal Code, specifically targeting Ukrainian citizens during wartime or a state of emergency. Accordingly, cases under Articles 332(1)–(3) remain under the jurisdiction of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), while cases under Article 332(4) would be investigated by the National Police.

• Possibility of exemption from liability. The draft law allows for release from criminal liability if a person who illegally crossed the border voluntarily returns to Ukraine within three months and reports the offense to law enforcement before being notified of suspicion. In effect, this offers an “amnesty” for those who quickly reconsider and come back. However, if the attempt is discovered after the law comes into force, leniency will not apply.

• New Criminal Code provisions.

  • Article 332-3: Obstructing, damaging, or destroying border infrastructure – punishable by up to 3 years’ imprisonment; up to 5 years if repeated or committed by a group; up to 8 years if accompanied by violence, use of weapons, or threats thereof.

  • Article 337-1: Violation of the permitted period of stay abroad by conscripts, reservists, or military service liable individuals – punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment. For example, leaving with official permission but failing to return on time.

• Changes to administrative proceedings. The draft repeals Article 204-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (partially unconstitutional per the Constitutional Court) and transfers the consideration of cases under Article 204-1 directly to the State Border Guard Service, bypassing courts. This should speed up sanctions and ease court workload. Border guards would thus be able to impose fines directly. However, the emphasis now shifts toward criminal rather than administrative liability.

In summary, Draft Law No. 13673 establishes a new mechanism of punishment for attempts to flee abroad during wartime. Violators will face criminal liability, a criminal record, and possible imprisonment. Authorities hope this will strengthen order at the border and improve mobilization discipline. The ultimate effectiveness, however, will depend on how consistently law enforcement proves guilt and whether courts and investigators can handle the increased caseload.

2. Will the law apply retroactively to those who fled before its adoption?

Criminal law has no retroactive effect. Therefore, actions committed before the law’s adoption will not be punishable under the new provisions. For example, a person who crossed the border illegally between 2022 and late 2025 (prior to enactment) cannot be prosecuted retroactively.

Although the draft contains a general exemption for voluntary return within 3 months, this applies only to new cases after enactment. Those who fled earlier are outside the scope, as their actions were not criminal offenses at the time.

Thus, Ukrainian citizens who left before the law enters into force will not fall under the new criminal provisions. However, they may still face liability under other obligations, such as Article 336 of the Criminal Code (draft evasion), if applicable. Illegal departure does not exempt one from possible liability for draft evasion. Importantly, the law will target future violations only, not retroactively criminalize past acts.

3. Why introduce this initiative now, in the fourth year of the war?

Several factors prompted the proposal at this stage:

• Scale of the problem and public demand. Illegal departures became widespread: tens of thousands of men attempted to flee mobilization. Growing numbers of violators threaten state mobilization resources and fuel societal demands for fairness and equal rules.

• Ineffectiveness of current penalties. Fines and administrative arrests proved insufficient deterrents.

• Duration of the war and mobilization needs. Initially, authorities likely hoped the war would end sooner, making mass flight irrelevant. But prolonged conflict and losses have forced stricter measures to retain manpower.

• Political will and public support. A new government is seeking decisive solutions. Earlier attempts were ineffective; now, stricter sanctions are framed as necessary and broadly supported.

• Comprehensive approach. The draft law closes multiple loopholes: clandestine crossings, forged documents, and overstays abroad. This thorough approach may explain the timing.

4. Draft evasion vs. illegal departure: will evaders choose the “lesser evil”?

Currently, draft evasion (Article 336) carries 3–5 years’ imprisonment, while the draft proposes illegal border crossing (Article 332-2) to carry up to 3 years. On the surface, this may appear to encourage illegal departure as the “lesser evil.”

However, there are important legal nuances:

• Article 336 applies only after official service of summons. Many avoid this by hiding or leaving early. The new law fills this gap by punishing even pre-summons attempts to flee.

• Cumulative liability is possible. A person may be charged both with draft evasion and illegal crossing, depending on circumstances. Using forged documents adds further charges. Punishment in combination could be significantly harsher.

• Increased risk of being caught. With criminal liability introduced, border procedures and consequences will be stricter. Unlike administrative fines, a criminal record and imprisonment are serious deterrents.

Therefore, while some may still perceive illegal departure as a safer option, in practice they may face multiple criminal charges simultaneously, eliminating the notion of a “lesser evil.”