The Verkhovna Rada has approved a bill to protect businesses from law enforcement, but there are potential risks involved.

“Support” was voted for by 249 deputies.

This was reported by the Judicial and Legal Newspaper.

The bill aims to protect businesses from arbitrary actions by law enforcement agencies. It proposes to introduce regulations regarding the duration of property seizure orders, the procedure for lifting such seizures, to expand the list of rulings by investigative judges that can be appealed during the pre-trial investigation stage, and to establish a clear timeline for the return of property after the seizure is lifted, among other changes.

A number of business associations in Ukraine have called upon Members of Parliament and the relevant Committee to support draft law No. 12439. The joint statement was signed by the Federation of Employers of Ukraine, the Union of Ukrainian Entrepreneurs, Manifest-42, the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Ukrainian CCI), the Ukrainian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (USPP), the Association of Veteran Entrepreneurs of ATO, the Union of Employers Organizations of Ukraine, Diia.City United, and the Board.

What does the list contain?

• The legal status of victims in criminal proceedings has been clarified by granting them the right to receive written information about the nature of the suspicion and charges, to gather evidence, and to promptly obtain an extract from the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, as well as a ruling on the initiation of a pre-trial investigation (amendments to Articles 56, 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• The procedural order for recognizing a material object as physical evidence has been specified, along with the deadlines for issuing the relevant ruling (amendments to Article 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• The appendices to the protocol have been clearly defined, which may include an inventory of items and originals or copies of documents seized during temporary access to items and documents or searches (amendments to Article 105 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• The method of recording the progress and results of a search has been clarified, with provisions added to grant the right to unobstructed recording of the progress and results of a search via audio or video recording to the defender, the victim, their representative, or legal representative using all available means (amendments to Article 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• The general rules for applying measures to secure criminal proceedings have been improved:

The right of the investigative judge or court during the consideration of a motion for applying relevant measures to secure criminal proceedings, either at the request of the parties or on their own initiative, to interrogate the suspect, accused, witness, victim, expert, or to examine any items or documents relevant to the resolution of the motion has been detailed.

It is stipulated that a repeated consideration of such a motion cannot take place if it has been denied without new circumstances and evidence that were not examined by the investigative judge or court.

• It has been established that if the investigator, inquirer, or prosecutor fails to appear at the court session without valid reasons and has been duly notified of the date, time, and place of the session, the investigative judge or court will issue a ruling to leave such a motion without consideration (amendments to Article 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• The list of information that must be included in the motion for temporary access to items and documents has been expanded, and the procedure for considering such a motion has been clarified (amendments to Article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• The procedure for executing the ruling of the investigative judge or court on temporary access to items and documents has been specified, whereby following access to items and documents, the relevant participant in the criminal proceedings must prepare a protocol, which will include an inventory of the seized copies of documents, and the owner will receive a copy of the protocol and the inventory of documents seized in execution of the ruling (amendments to Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• The grounds for terminating temporary seizure of property and returning temporarily seized property have been clarified (amendments to Article 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• The list of documents required to be attached to the motion for property seizure has been supplemented, particularly documents confirming the provision/sending of a copy of the motion for property seizure to the suspect, accused, other owner or holder of the property, their defender, legal representative, representative, or civil claimant (amendments to Article 171 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• It has been established that the failure of the investigator, inquirer, or prosecutor to appear at the court session without valid reasons is grounds for denying the motion for property seizure, while the non-appearance of other parties at the court session does not impede its consideration (amendments to Article 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• It is stipulated that property seizures are carried out based on a ruling of the investigative judge or court for a period not exceeding two months. The duration of property seizure at the pre-trial investigation stage can be extended within the timeframe of the pre-trial investigation, while at the trial stage – within the timeframe of the trial (amendments to Articles 174 and 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• It has been determined that the investigator, inquirer, or prosecutor must promptly, but no later than 24 hours after receiving a statement or report about a committed criminal offense, containing sufficient data about the circumstances that may indicate the commission of a criminal offense, or after independently identifying any circumstances from any source that may indicate the commission of a criminal offense, must enter the relevant information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, initiate the investigation, and provide the applicant with information within 24 hours from the time of entry (amendments to Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• It has been established that the suspect, their defender, or the representative of the legal entity involved in the proceedings, upon discovering during the pre-trial investigation circumstances confirming a violation of the jurisdiction of the criminal offense, may submit a motion to change the jurisdiction to a higher-level prosecutor (amendments to Article 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine).


• The procedure for familiarizing oneself with the materials of the pre-trial investigation before its completion has been specified (amendments to Article 221 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• Mandatory participation of specialists in conducting searches, during which electronic information systems, computer systems, or their components, mobile terminals are to be searched, has been provided (amendments to Article 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• Provisions regarding the consequences of the non-appearance of parties in criminal proceedings at the court session for participation in the consideration by the investigative judge of the motion for conducting an expert examination have been supplemented (amendments to Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• The procedure for considering the motion for permission to conduct covert investigative (search) actions (CISA) has been detailed:

The participation of the person who submitted the motion is mandatory.

A motion submitted without adhering to legal requirements or with violations of jurisdiction rules will be returned to the applicant.

• If the investigator or prosecutor fails to appear at the court session without valid reasons or fails to provide explanations for their non-appearance, the investigative judge will issue a ruling to leave the motion without consideration (amendments to Article 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• The list of decisions that can be appealed during the pre-trial investigation has been expanded, particularly decisions by the investigator, inquirer, or prosecutor denying a motion for access to the materials of the pre-trial investigation (amendments to Article 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• The list of rulings by the investigative judge that can be appealed during the pre-trial investigation has been expanded, particularly rulings on the refusal to lift property seizures, refusal to involve an expert at the request of the defense, satisfaction of the motion for establishing a timeframe for familiarization with the materials, and refusal to satisfy the motion (amendments to Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code).


• A new Article 372-1 has been added concerning a separate ruling by the investigative judge or court issued in case of violation of procedural duties or improper fulfillment thereof by participants in the criminal proceedings.

What is the risk?

The Anti-Corruption Center noted that the draft law contains risky provisions that could become tools for corrupt individuals. In particular, some provisions allow suspects to evade property seizures and destroy crucial evidence in cases.

Property Seizure and Potential Threats

One of the key changes is the revision of the property seizure procedure. It is expected that even before the court decision on the seizure is made, the suspect and the owner of the assets should be notified. This could give them the opportunity to transfer funds or convey ownership to third parties. The draft law also proposes to limit the seizure period to two months, after which it must be extended through the court each time.

According to the Deputy Executive Director of the CPC, Elena Shcherban, such changes may hinder investigations into corruption cases and make it impossible to confiscate illegally acquired property: