In the currently effective Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the issue of collection of procedural expenses is codified in a somewhat ambiguous form. So the scholars discuss whether the list provided in Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is exhaustive, how “procedural” and “court” expenses should be construed, and whether a collection of procedural expenses in a criminal proceeding qualifies as a civil law action. It is not surprising that, in this situation, the judicial practice in the mentioned sphere of issues can vary significantly.The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court practically bound the courts to resolve the issues of distribution of judicial expenses in any resolution that finalizes any criminal trial proceeding. This also includes the relevant decision in a ruling on closing a criminal proceeding due to exemption of a person from criminal liability.For this reason, an attempt is made to prove that Part 3 of Article 285 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine needs to be amended by adding a phrase to the effect that a suspect or an accused needs to be informed that in cases where he or she is exempted from criminal liability, and the criminal proceeding related to them is closed due to this reason (which does not constitute rehabilitation), the court would still collect certain procedural expenses from this person.Because in its current wording, and also in the cases where the legislator, in Article 124 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular in its Parts 1 and 2, applies only the approach that it is possible to collect procedural expenses from the accused “in case of a judgment of conviction,” I do not consider it possible to collect from a person who is “factually acquitted” from a criminal liability the procedural expenses that are mentioned in Parts 1-2 of Article 124 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.