In Ukraine, criminal offences are divided into two main categories: crimes and misdemeanours.
Crimes are further classified by severity into minor, serious, and particularly serious offences, with the classification determined by the punishment prescribed in law.
Every crime must contain certain essential elements:
The presence of a specific purpose or motive within the subjective aspect is not necessary for an act to be recognised as a crime.
Importantly, criminal liability is not limited to completed offences. Attempts to commit a crime – whether successful or not – and, in certain circumstances, preparations for committing a crime are also punishable under Ukrainian law.
In all criminal proceedings, including those concerning white-collar offences, the burden of proof rests exclusively with the prosecution.
This principle is enshrined in Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which affirms that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. No individual may be subjected to criminal penalties unless their guilt is established through due legal process, and the accused bears no obligation to prove their innocence.
While Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation does not expressly define the standard of proof in criminal cases, established judicial practice applies the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. This requires that the evidence presented must eliminate all reasonable alternative explanations, leaving only the conclusion that the accused committed the alleged offence.
Ukrainian legislation allows for the prosecution of individuals for criminal offences, and provides for the application of criminal law measures to legal entities.
The Criminal Code of Ukraine outlines statutes of limitations both for individuals (Article 49) and for legal entities regarding criminal liability.
Statute of Limitations for Prosecution of Individuals
The statute of limitations varies according to the severity of the offence:
The statute of limitations begins from the date the offence is completed and continues until a court sentence enters into force. Notably, there are no special provisions regarding ongoing offences in relation to the statute of limitations.
Additionally, certain offences are exempt from the statute of limitations entirely. These include:
Statute of Limitations for Applying Criminal Law Measures to Legal Entities
The statute of limitations for legal entities also depends on the gravity of the offence, as follows:
This period begins from the date the authorised person committed the offence that serves as the basis for applying measures to the legal entity.
Extraterritorial Reach
In addition to its domestic applicability, Ukrainian criminal legislation extends to actions committed outside Ukraine under the following conditions:
Cross-Border Co-Operation
Ukraine participates in approximately 100 bilateral and multilateral treaties that address mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and extradition. Key multilateral treaties include:
These treaties facilitate co-operation and mutual legal assistance in criminal investigations and proceedings, enhancing Ukraine’s ability to address cross-border crime effectively.
Involvement in International Task Forces
Criminal Law Measures
Ukrainian legislation employs the term “criminal law measures” rather than “criminal liability” in relation to legal entities. This distinction arises because legal entities are not defined as subjects of crime per se; however, certain measures can be applied to them in specific circumstances.
The criminal law measures applicable to legal entities include:
These measures may be imposed under the following conditions.
Criminal acts committed by authorised persons
When committed by authorised persons on behalf, and in the interests, of a legal entity, crimes included are:
Failure to prevent corruption
This occurs where authorised persons fail to fulfil their duties regarding corruption prevention, resulting in the commission of any of the aforementioned crimes.
Crimes against national and public security
These include certain crimes committed by authorised persons on behalf of a legal entity that affect national security, public security or international legal order, or that involve terrorist activities.
Crimes against sexual integrity and public morality
These include crimes committed by authorised persons related to a minor, concerning sexual freedom, public order and morality, when done in the interests of the legal entity.
Crimes are deemed to be committed in the interests of a legal entity if they:
Importantly, the imposition of criminal law measures does not preclude the direct criminal liability of the authorised persons within the legal entity.
In cases of reorganisation, criminal law measures may also be applied to the legal successors who inherit the property, rights and obligations related to the criminal offences.
Liability of parent, subsidiary and group companies
In Ukraine, a legal entity bears liability only for those criminal offences committed by its authorised representatives on its behalf and in its interests.
Liability of a parent company for the actions of its subsidiary, or of a subsidiary for the actions of its parent company, is not provided for under national legislation and may only be established within internal policies and corporate governance rules.
In Ukraine, there are no distinct sentencing guidelines specifically for white-collar crimes. Judges follow general sentencing principles as outlined in the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Under Ukrainian law, the court imposes sentences within the range established by the legal provisions applicable to the offence committed. The court considers several factors when determining the appropriate sentence, including:
Legislation allows both for less severe and more severe sentences than those prescribed by the standard sanction for a crime:
Additionally, if the court approves a reconciliation agreement (between the accused and the victim) or a plea agreement (between the accused and the prosecutor), it will impose a sentence that reflects the terms agreed upon by the parties involved.
Mitigating Factors
The factors considered for the mitigation of punishment are listed in Article 66 of the Criminal Code. This list is not exhaustive. In the sphere of white-collar crime, the following may apply.
In addition, the court may take into account other circumstances that mitigate punishment, depending on the specific facts of the case.
In Ukraine, a civil claim for damages arising from a crime may be brought in one of two forums:
If a civil court dismisses the claim, the claimant may not subsequently pursue the same claim within the criminal proceedings. Likewise, if a criminal court rejects the claim, the claimant loses the right to seek compensation in civil proceedings.
However, if no civil claim is filed during the criminal proceedings, or if such a claim remains unresolved, the claimant retains the right to bring the matter before a civil court.
Where multiple individuals suffer damage from the same crime, each must file a separate civil claim, as Ukrainian law does not provide for collective actions in these circumstances.
Ukrainian legislation does not specifically categorise crimes as “white-collar”. Instead, such offences are generally classified under economic crimes, corruption offences and crimes committed by officials.
Corruption Crimes
Corruption crimes and those related to corruption hold a significant position within this category. Ukraine has established a specialised anti-corruption framework to address these crimes.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) is responsible for investigating corruption offences and related crimes. NABU detectives investigate cases involving:
They also handle crimes associated with the provision of public services.
The Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) works alongside NABU in prosecuting corruption-related cases.
The High Anti-Corruption Court handles first-instance trials for corruption crimes. The Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court addresses appeals in corruption cases.
Other Law Enforcement Agencies
The Economic Security Bureau (ESB) investigates economic crimes including embezzlement and misuse of budget funds, particularly when involving budgetary compensation or regulatory acts that unlawfully affect budget revenues or expenditures. The ESB also handles bribery of employees in non-public legal entities and abuse of power in specific cases.
The State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) investigates crimes committed by high-ranking officials, including former presidents, prime ministers, government members, people’s deputies and high-ranking prosecutors. The SBI also addresses crimes against the military service order, except for state secrets-related disclosures.
The National Police of Ukraine investigates crimes not under the jurisdiction of NABU, the ESB, the SBI or the Security Service of Ukraine.
Procedural Oversight
Prosecutors of the Prosecutor General’s Office oversee pre-trial investigations and public indictments for cases handled by the ESB, SBI and National Police.
Prosecutors of the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office manage cases investigated by NABU.
Court Proceedings
The High Anti-Corruption Court prosecutes corruption and related crimes.
Courts of general jurisdiction handle other white-collar crimes not specifically related to corruption.
Institutional Developments in 2025
In 2025, no global changes occurred that would affect enforcement. Although attempts were made to limit the powers of NABU and SAPO, public pressure led to the reversal of these changes, and the authorities regained their full scope of functions. At the same time, a new Prosecutor General was appointed in 2025, who now co-ordinates the activities of prosecutors.
State policy and political pressure may influence investigative priorities and the timing of enforcement, as well as affect the allocation of resources and prioritisation of cases. Nevertheless, the authorities continue to exercise their powers in accordance with the law.
Ukrainian criminal procedural law provides several grounds for initiating an investigation.
Any information indicating the possible commission of a crime must be entered into the Unified State Register of Pretrial Investigations within 24 hours of receiving the application or discovering the evidence.
Law enforcement agencies, operating under the procedural oversight of the Prosecutor General’s Office or the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, are authorised to undertake a range of actions necessary for crime investigation. Their powers include the following.
Demanding Evidence
Agencies can request documents and items essential for the investigation from individuals, legal entities, state authorities and other entities. Such requests (made by detectives) do not require prior approval from a prosecutor or investigating judge.
Interrogating Witnesses
Agencies are empowered to interrogate witnesses, with legal limitations on the duration of interrogation (no more than two hours at a time and eight hours per day). There is no limit on the number of times a person can be interrogated. Witnesses have the right to refuse to testify against themselves, their close relatives or family members, and the right to withhold legally protected secrets (eg, confessions, medical records, notarial and lawyer–client communications). Providing false testimony may result in criminal liability.
Conducting Searches
Searches of individuals or legal entities require a permit from an investigating judge. The judge’s order must specify the investigators authorised to conduct the search and the items or documents that can be seized. The prosecution must demonstrate that the items or documents are crucial for the investigation and are located at the premises, and that the search is the most effective course of action. Search permits are valid for up to one month and can be used only once. A new permit is required for any subsequent searches.
Performing Secret Investigative Actions
These actions may include monitoring private communications, overseeing criminal activities and real-time surveillance of bank accounts. Such measures are carried out based on decisions made by investigators, prosecutors or investigating judges, depending on the type of action.
Tracing, Freezing and Seizure of Digital Assets
Ukraine does not have specific legislative regulation for the tracing, freezing, and seizure of digital assets.
At the same time, law enforcement authorities actively trace, arrest (freeze), and seize cryptocurrencies, tokens, and other digital assets, relying on general provisions, in particular the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the Laws on Prevention and Counteraction to Legalisation (Laundering) of the Proceeds of Crime and on Financial Monitoring. Such measures are applied where digital assets constitute physical evidence, have been obtained unlawfully, or are subject to confiscation.
Ukrainian legislation does not currently regulate the use of artificial intelligence by law enforcement authorities, nor does it prohibit it. Accordingly, the application of such technologies in the investigation of economic or “white-collar” crimes remains at the discretion of law enforcement and state authorities.
Reports from law enforcement bodies do not provide information on whether artificial intelligence is used or not.
The practice of conducting internal investigations is evolving in Ukraine. Currently, there is no specific legislative framework governing internal investigations within private companies. However, it is increasingly common for companies, particularly international ones operating in Ukraine, to establish their own internal policies and procedures for managing these investigations.
These internal policies typically address the protocols and procedures for conducting investigations, reflecting a growing trend towards formalising investigative practices within the corporate sector.
In Ukraine, internal corporate investigations are primarily influenced by data protection and labour legislation.
With regards to interaction with law enforcement authorities, companies are not legally obliged to provide the results of their internal investigations.
The pre-trial investigation concludes with the investigator preparing an indictment, which must be approved by the prosecutor before being submitted to the court. In exceptional cases, the prosecutor may prepare the indictment if they disagree with the version submitted by the investigator.
Once the indictment is filed, the prosecutor represents the public prosecution in court. For corruption-related crimes, the prosecution is led by a prosecutor from the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. For other white-collar crimes not involving corruption, the Prosecutor General’s Office handles the prosecution. The role of the prosecutor is to present and substantiate the charges in court to secure the criminal liability of the accused.
If, during the trial, the prosecutor determines that the evidence does not support the indictment, they are obligated (in consultation with a higher-level prosecutor) to withdraw the indictment.
The court is responsible for deciding whether an individual will be held criminally liable or whether criminal law measures will be applied to a legal entity, based on the merits of the case.
Deferred prosecution agreements do not currently exist under Ukrainian law, and their introduction into Ukraine in the near future seems unlikely.
Ukrainian legislation does not specifically address corporate fraud offences separately from general criminal law. However, within the corporate context, the following general offences are commonly encountered.
Fraud (Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Fraud involves deceitfully taking someone else’s property or acquiring property rights through deception or breach of trust.
Aggravating circumstances include:
Depending on the existence of aggravating circumstances, the punishment for fraud ranges from three to 12 years’ imprisonment, or a fine from UAH34,000 (EUR700) to UAH136,000 (EUR2,800).
Depending on the presence of aggravating factors, the penalty for fraud is three to 12 years of imprisonment or a fine of between UAH3.028 million (EUR66,400) and UAH12.112 million (EUR265,800).
Misappropriation, Embezzlement or Seizure of Property (Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Misappropriation
This involves illegally retaining or withholding property that was lawfully possessed by another, intending to use it for personal gain or the benefit of others.
Embezzlement
This involves unlawfully spending or transferring property entrusted to or managed by the offender.
Appropriation
This involves illegally transferring property for personal use that was not originally entrusted to the offender but that was managed owing to their official position.
Aggravating factors include:
The punishment for these offences ranges from three to 12 years’ imprisonment, or fines from UAH34,000 (EUR700) to UAH85,000 (EUR1,700).
Forgery (Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Forgery involves:
Aggravating circumstances include grave consequences resulting from the forgery.
Sanctions for forgery include a fine of up to UAH68,000 (EUR1,400) or imprisonment for up to five years, together with an additional prohibition on engaging in certain activities for a period of up to three years.
Ukrainian criminal procedural legislation addresses active and passive bribery, applicable in both the public and private sectors.
Public Sector Bribery
Bribery in the public sector involves:
This applies to officials of state or local self-government bodies in Ukraine, as well as to officials of foreign states, international organisations and foreign judges.
The offence also involves offering or promising an unlawful benefit to auditors, notaries, appraisers or other professionals engaged in public services, including:
Criminal liability arises for offering, promising or providing such benefits, or for the acceptance of such offers or benefits by these professionals.
Private Sector Bribery
In the private sector, criminal liability arises for:
Abuse of Influence
Criminal liability extends to both active and passive forms of abuse of influence. This includes offering, promising or providing an improper benefit to a person with the intent to influence decisions made by individuals authorised to perform state or local self-government functions. Acceptance of such offers or benefits also constitutes grounds for criminal liability.
In summary, Ukrainian legislation criminalises both the act of offering or promising unlawful benefits and the acceptance of such benefits, encompassing both public and private sectors and extending to various forms of influence abuse.
There are no legislative requirements obliging private individuals or employees of private companies to report corruption. For them, it is a right rather than an obligation. At the same time, if a person conceals information in a situation where they are themselves a participant in a corruption scheme, such behaviour may be regarded as complicity in the offence.
The situation differs for public officials: the Law on Prevention of Corruption obliges them to report an offer of unlawful benefit (Article 24) and conflicts of interest (Article 28). Failure to do so entails disciplinary sanctions, up to and including dismissal.
Consequences of failure to report:
Criminal liability in Ukraine arises only for active concealment of a serious crime; mere failure to report is not treated as such.
Insider Dealing
Under Article 232-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, criminal liability for insider dealing arises in the following cases.
The maximum penalty for such actions is a fine of up to UAH170,000 (EUR3,500), as well as disqualification from holding certain positions or engaging in specific activities for up to three years.
Market Abuse
Articles 222-1 and 222-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine address criminal liability for market manipulation.
For manipulation on organised markets, criminal liability arises if manipulative actions result in:
The maximum penalty for market manipulation on organised markets includes a fine of up to UAH170,000 (EUR3,500) and a prohibition on holding certain positions or engaging in specified activities for up to three years.
For manipulations in the energy market, the sanctions are stricter, with a maximum fine of up to UAH1.4 million (EUR29,000).
Criminal Banking Law
Criminal offences related to banking activities include:
These offences carry significant legal consequences aimed at maintaining the integrity of banking and financial systems in Ukraine.
Tax Evasion (Article 212 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Article 212 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine addresses criminal liability for intentional tax evasion, specifically for evading taxes, fees, or mandatory payments within the taxation system. Criminal liability arises where such actions result in significant non-payment to state budgets or special-purpose funds, defined as amounts exceeding UAH4.5 million (EUR93,000).
Aggravating circumstances include:
The maximum sanction includes a fine of up to UAH425,000 (EUR8,700) and disqualification from holding certain positions or engaging in specific activities for up to three years. Confiscation of property is also possible. Notably, imprisonment is not prescribed as a sanction for this offence.
Relief from liability – a person may be exempted from criminal liability if, before being formally notified of suspicion, they pay the outstanding taxes and compensate for any damages caused to the state.
Obligations to Prevent Tax Evasion
The Tax Code of Ukraine explicitly requires taxpayers to pay taxes fully and on time, maintain proper records, file returns, and retain primary documentation.
Legal entities have additional internal obligations, including ensuring accurate accounting and maintaining internal controls.
Reporting Requirements
Failure to Prevent Tax Evasion
Sanctions
In Ukraine, companies are required to maintain accurate accounting records and financial statements that reflect their financial condition and operational results. However, direct criminal liability for improper accounting or inaccurate financial statements is generally not established.
Exceptions for Financial Institutions
Falsification of financial documents
For financial institutions, criminal liability arises under Article 220-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in cases of:
Constituent elements of the offence
Sanctions
The maximum penalty is restriction of liberty for up to four years, together with disqualification from holding certain positions or engaging in specific activities for up to three years.
Liability for Non-Financial Entities
Officials of non-financial legal entities may incur criminal liability under the following provisions.
Official negligence (Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Liability arises for failure to perform, or improper performance of, official duties due to negligence, resulting in significant damage to protected rights, freedoms, public or state interests, or the interests of legal entities.
Constituent elements of the offence
The maximum penalty is imprisonment for up to eight years, along with disqualification from holding certain positions or engaging in specific activities for up to three years.
Official forgery (Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
This encompasses preparing and issuing knowingly false official documents, or entering knowingly false information into official records.
Constituent elements of the offence
The maximum penalty is imprisonment for up to five years, together with disqualification from holding certain positions or engaging in specific activities for up to three years.
In Ukraine, criminal liability is not specifically established for breaches of economic competition law. However, the Law of Ukraine on Protection of Economic Competition provides for a range of penalties for non-compliance, including the following.
1. Anti-competitive concerted practices – these include:
The constituent elements of the offence may be defined as follows.
2. Abuse of a dominant position – engaging in practices that exploit a monopoly position in the market.
The constituent elements of the offence are as follows.
3. Failure to comply with AMCU decisions – non-implementation or partial implementation of decisions issued by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
The constituent elements of the offence are as follows.
4. Unauthorised concentration – mergers or acquisitions requiring AMCU approval but carried out without such approval.
The constituent elements of the offence are as follows.
5. Submission of false information – providing incorrect or misleading information to the AMCU or other authorities.
The constituent elements of the offence are as follows.
Sanctions for Violations
Fines
The maximum fine is 10% of the revenue from product sales in the year preceding the fine’s imposition. If the unlawful profit exceeds 10% of this revenue, the fine can be up to three times the amount of the illicit profit.
Forced division
This sanction is applied in cases of monopoly abuse, requiring the division of the business entity. However, it is not applicable if organisational or territorial separation is impossible, or if there are significant technological interconnections between the enterprises or their divisions.
Damage compensation
Individuals or entities harmed by violations of competition laws can seek compensation through commercial courts.
These measures aim to enforce compliance and address anti-competitive practices effectively.
Ukrainian criminal legislation prescribes liability for various offences relating to the protection of consumer rights. These include the following.
Introduction of Dangerous Products
This offence involves the intentional placing on the Ukrainian market of products which do not comply with established safety standards. Such products may be either foodstuffs or non-food items.
Criminal liability arises where the total value of the dangerous products exceeds UAH757,000 (EUR15,670).
Constituent elements of the offence
The penalty for this offence may include a fine of up to UAH136,000 (approximately EUR2,800), as well as a prohibition on holding certain positions or engaging in certain activities for up to three years.
Sale of Radioactively Contaminated Products
This offence covers the procurement, processing, transportation or sale of foodstuffs or other products contaminated with radioactive substances beyond permissible levels, which pose a risk of death or injury, or which have in fact caused death or injury.
Constituent elements of the offence
The maximum penalty for this crime is imprisonment for up to five years.
Falsification of Medicinal Products
This offence includes the manufacture, acquisition, transportation, transfer, storage for the purpose of sale, or sale of counterfeit medicinal products.
Constituent elements of the offence
The maximum sanction for this crime is imprisonment from ten to 15 years, or life imprisonment if the falsified products result in death or serious consequences, or if they involve particularly large quantities.
Ukrainian criminal law addresses various offences related to cybersecurity, including the following.
Unauthorised Interference in Computers and Networks (Article 361 of the Criminal Code)
This crime involves unauthorised actions affecting computers, computer systems and telecommunications networks.
Aggravating factors include:
The maximum penalty is 15 years of imprisonment, with an additional ban on holding certain positions or engaging in specific activities for up to three years.
Creation and Distribution of Malicious Software (Article 361-1 of the Criminal Code)
This covers the development, distribution or sale of malware and other harmful technical means.
Aggravating factors include:
The maximum penalty is five years of imprisonment.
Unlawful Sale or Distribution of Restricted-Access Information (Article 361-2 of the Criminal Code)
This involves the unauthorised sale or distribution of restricted information stored in computers or other media.
Aggravating factors include:
The maximum penalty is five years of imprisonment.
Unlawful Actions With Information (Article 362 of the Criminal Code)
This includes unauthorised alteration, blocking, destruction, interception or copying of information processed or stored in computers and networks.
Aggravating factors include:
The maximum penalty is six years of imprisonment, with an additional ban on holding certain positions or engaging in specific activities for up to three years.
Violation of Computer Operation Rules (Article 363 of the Criminal Code)
This covers violations of rules for operating computers, systems and networks, or for protecting information processed by them.
Mandatory conditions include causing significant damage and the perpetrator being responsible for the exploitation of the systems.
The maximum penalty is three years of restriction of freedom, with an additional ban on holding certain positions or engaging in specific activities for the same period.
Intentional Mass Distribution of Unsolicited Messages (Article 363-1 of the Criminal Code)
This involves sending mass unsolicited messages that disrupt or terminate the operation of computers, networks or telecommunications systems.
Aggravating factors include:
The maximum penalty is five years of imprisonment, with an additional ban on holding certain positions or engaging in specific activities for up to three years.
Ukrainian legislation does not currently provide for any liability, whether administrative or criminal, for the violation or circumvention of sanctions. However, Ukraine is expected to introduce criminal liability for such acts in the near future.
Under Ukrainian law, criminal liability arises for the concealment of serious or especially serious crimes that were not prearranged (Article 396 of the Criminal Code).
Such concealment includes:
The constituent elements of the offence are as follows.
The maximum penalty for such concealment is imprisonment for up to three years.
Where an individual has pre-emptively agreed to conceal a crime – regardless of its severity – they are considered an accomplice. In such cases, the penalty is determined in accordance with the nature of the underlying offence.
Under Ukrainian criminal law, liability extends beyond the direct perpetrator of an offence to include individuals who “direct” or “facilitate” the commission of a crime. Such individuals are considered accomplices and are subject to the same penalties as the principal offender or instigator of the offence. This principle also applies to offences for which legal entities may incur criminal liability.
As these persons are regarded as accomplices and subject to the same sanctions as the primary perpetrator or instigator, the constituent elements of the offence are determined by the specific type of criminal act in which they participated.
Under Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the legalisation of property obtained through criminal means constitutes a criminal offence. This encompasses the following.
A key requirement is that the individual knew, or ought to have known, that the property was obtained directly or indirectly through criminal means.
The constituent elements of the offence of legalisation (money laundering) are as follows.
The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for up to 12 years, together with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in specific activities for up to three years, and confiscation of the property.
Additionally, intentional breaches of anti-money laundering regulations – such as failure to submit, late submission, or submission of false information regarding financial transactions subject to monitoring – are also criminalised. Penalties for such breaches include:
In Ukraine, criminal offences exist that may be classified as environmental, social and governance (ESG) violations, although there is no direct ESG classification in legislation. The main categories are as follows.
Environmental Offences
Violations of environmental safety rules and duties to prevent environmental harm
Criminal Code Articles: 236, 237, 253 and 254.
Constituent elements
Object: environmental safety, natural resources, and public health.
Objective element: breach of environmental safety rules, failure to take measures to eliminate damage, design or operation of facilities without environmental protection, and mismanagement of land.
Subject: natural and legal persons.
Subjective element: intent or negligence.
Sanctions: fines of up to UAH170,000 (approximately EUR3,500) and restriction or imprisonment for up to ten years, with disqualification from holding certain positions or engaging in certain activities for up to three years.
Pollution and degradation of natural resources
Criminal Code Articles: 239, 241 and 243.
Constituent elements
Object: land, water, and air resources; the environment.
Objective element: pollution or degradation of resources causing substantial harm to ecology or public health.
Subject: natural and legal persons.
Subjective element: intent or negligence.
Sanctions: fines of up to UAH85,000 (approximately EUR1,800) and restriction or imprisonment for up to five years, with disqualification for up to three years.
Illegal appropriation or use of natural resources
Criminal Code Articles: 239-2, 240, 240-1, 242 and 244.
Constituent elements
Object: land, water, subsoil resources, and continental shelf.
Objective element: illegal acquisition, extraction, sale or use of natural resources, and breach of protection rules.
Subject: natural and legal persons.
Subjective element: intent.
Sanctions: fines of up to UAH170,000 (approximately EUR3,500) and restriction or imprisonment for up to eight years, with disqualification for up to three years.
Violations of plant and animal protection rules
Criminal Code Articles: 245–252.
Constituent elements
Object: flora, fauna, protected areas, fish and wildlife resources.
Objective element: illegal logging, hunting, fishing, destruction or damage to protected territories, breach of veterinary rules, and unauthorised use of explosives.
Subject: natural and legal persons.
Subjective element: intent or negligence.
Sanctions: fines of up to UAH153,000 (approximately EUR3,200) and restriction or imprisonment for up to ten years.
Additionally, the Criminal Code provides penalties for crimes against peace, human security, and international order, including ecocide (Article 441) – encompassing mass destruction of flora or fauna, poisoning of the atmosphere or water resources, or other acts potentially causing ecological catastrophe.
Sanction: unconditional imprisonment for up to 15 years.
Social Offences
Human trafficking and forced labour
Criminal Code Articles: 149, 150 and 150-1.
Constituent elements
Object: human rights and freedoms, dignity, labour freedom, and child protection.
Objective element: recruitment, transportation, retention or coercion into work or services, or use of children for begging.
Subject: natural persons.
Subjective element: intent.
Sanctions: imprisonment for up to 15 years.
Violations of personal rights and violent acts
Criminal Code Articles: 146, 151 and 151-2.
Constituent elements
Object: personal integrity, freedom, marital rights, and protection from unlawful deprivation of liberty.
Objective element:
Subject: natural persons.
Subjective element: intent.
Sanctions: imprisonment for up to ten years, with disqualification for up to three years.
Violation of labour rights
Criminal Code Articles: 172 and 175.
Constituent elements
Object: labour rights, lawful interests of employees, and social payments.
Objective element: gross violation of labour laws, or non-payment of wages, pensions, or other legally established payments.
Subject: natural persons – employers or officials.
Subjective element: intent or negligence.
Sanctions: fines of up to UAH85,000 (approximately EUR1,800), and restriction or imprisonment for up to five years, with disqualification for up to three years.
Serious crimes against humanity
Criminal Code Articles: 442 and 442-1.
Constituent elements
Object: life, health, dignity, and international human rights.
Objective element:
Subject: natural persons.
Subjective element: intent.
Sanctions: imprisonment for up to 15 years or life imprisonment.
Governance/Corporate Offences
In Ukraine, these may manifest as:
The constituent elements of governance offences are as follows.
Object:
Objective element:
Subject: natural or legal persons holding official functions or controlling the company.
Subjective element: intent, often motivated by personal gain or hidden benefit.
Sanctions: fines (up to UAH425,000 – approximately EUR8,800), restriction or imprisonment for up to 12 years, disqualification for up to three years, and often confiscation of property.
Companies in Ukraine are not obliged to monitor their suppliers in case of criminality, but they are expected to implement ESG policies, auditing, and supply chain monitoring to minimise risks of labour, environmental, and governance violations, as well as to avoid administrative, civil, or reputational liability.
Currently, Ukrainian legislation does not establish any distinct criminal or administrative offences related to the misuse of artificial intelligence, algorithmic trading, or automated decision-making in financial or commercial contexts.
Classification of Crypto-Assets
In Ukraine, crypto-assets are not recognised as legal tender, but they are considered property or financial assets. Depending on their characteristics, they may be classified as securities, property, or goods, which determines the applicable law and potential sanctions.
Although crypto-assets are currently not recognised as legal tender in Ukraine and are not directly regulated as currency or securities, this does not preclude liability for unlawful activities involving them. Specific criminal offences have not yet been established, but violations may take the following forms.
Fraud involving crypto-assets (criminal liability – Article 190 of the Criminal Code)
Object: property rights.
Objective element: obtaining crypto-assets through deception or abuse of trust.
Subject: a legally competent individual.
Subjective element: direct intent, with a motive for personal gain.
Penalties for this offence may include a fine of up to UAH136,000 (approximately EUR2,800), as well as restriction or imprisonment for up to 12 years.
Legalisation (money laundering) of criminally obtained income (if crypto-assets are used for the circulation of criminal proceeds – Article 209 of the Criminal Code)
Object: economic security and the legally established order of income circulation.
Objective element: use of crypto-assets to conceal, legalise, or circulate income obtained through criminal means.
Subject: a legally competent individual (including officials).
Subjective element: direct intent.
Sanctions may include imprisonment for up to 12 years, deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in specific activities for up to three years, and potential confiscation of property.
In Ukraine, there are no specific defences tailored for white-collar offences. As a result, the standard defence strategy typically involves arguing that the essential elements of the alleged offence have not been established.
The Criminal Code of Ukraine provides that an act or omission may – despite formally meeting the criteria for a crime or misdemeanour – not constitute a criminal offence if it does not present a significant public danger. This means that if the act causes no substantial harm or risk to individuals, legal entities, society or the state, it is considered insignificant and therefore not punishable. This principle applies universally, without restrictions to specific industries or sectors.
Under Ukrainian criminal procedural legislation, suspects and accused individuals have the option to enter into a plea bargain with the investigation. The plea bargain typically includes:
For a plea bargain to be valid, the following criteria must be met:
Under the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption”, whistle-blowers and their relatives are entitled to state protection. This protection includes the following.
Regarding incentives, whistle-blowers may receive a financial reward if the value of the reported corruption offence or the related losses exceeds UAH7.5 million (approximately EUR155,000). The reward amounts to 10% of the monetary value of the crime or the damage caused, but shall not exceed UAH24 million (approximately EUR496,000) as of 2025.
An anonymous report of an offence can be submitted electronically via forms available on the official web portals of all law enforcement agencies, the Prosecutor’s Office, and the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NACP). These forms ensure and guarantee the confidentiality of the whistle-blower and protection of their identity.
Impact of Different Jurisdictions on Defence Strategy
Limitations of International Co-Operation
Some jurisdictions do not fully, or only partially, recognise evidence obtained abroad, particularly if it was collected in breach of local procedural rules.
Political or diplomatic factors may delay or restrict inter-state co-operation (eg, delays in providing information or refusals due to domestic political interests or strained relations with another country).
Over the coming year, Ukraine is not expected to implement large-scale reforms or experience high-profile political events specifically in the area of white-collar crime. At the same time, a series of legal and institutional updates are anticipated, aimed at strengthening the response to economic offences and white-collar crime.
Overhaul of Key Anti-Corruption and Economic Institutions
Implementation of Procedural Reforms
A series of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code adopted in 2024–2025 will take full effect in 2025–2026. Notably, the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) is already hearing cases with a single judge rather than a three-judge panel, expediting proceedings. An expansion of the HACC judicial staff is also anticipated to reduce the burden on individual judges.
Reforms in the Office of the Prosecutor General
The new Prosecutor General, R. Kravchenko, has initiated structural changes: new commissions are being established, the functions of existing units are being reviewed, and oversight of business rights compliance is being strengthened. A policy direction has been declared to reduce pressure on business, including a moratorium on unlawful inspections, closure of groundless criminal proceedings, and enhanced transparency of processes.
Law Enforcement Priorities
Porch 13,
BC Bashnya #5
Rybalska Street, 22
Kyiv
01011
Ukraine
+380 44 581 1633
office@vbpartners.ua www.vbpartners.ua/en/Combating Corruption and Coercive Methods in Ukraine
The year 2025 has been marked by the dynamic development of white-collar crime practice in Ukraine, driven by a combination of domestic reforms, European integration processes, and the impact of the full-scale war.
Key trends include:
The legislative process has become significantly more active, in particular with regard to (i) the criminalisation of sanctions evasion, and (ii) the reduction of pressure on businesses from law enforcement authorities.
The scope of international co-operation is steadily increasing and mutually beneficial. There has been a marked growth in the exchange of information, both from foreign law enforcement agencies to their Ukrainian counterparts and vice versa.
Competent authorities in foreign jurisdictions have begun more frequently extraditing suspects to Ukraine, notwithstanding the risks posed by the war. This development has been strongly facilitated by the position taken by the Ukrainian government.
Attempt to Restrict the Procedural Independence of Anti-Corruption Bodies
Following 2014, anti-corruption institutions were established with institutional independence in order to minimise political influence. These bodies have proven their effectiveness – during their operation, dozens of high-ranking officials have been served with notices of suspicion in connection with criminal offences.
From their inception, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) enjoyed procedural independence from the General Prosecutor’s Office.
In particular, the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine provided for rules prohibiting the delegation of investigations of offences falling within the jurisdiction of NABU to other investigative authorities (the State Bureau of Investigation, the Security Service of Ukraine, the National Police, or the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine).
This separation made it possible to minimise the risks of political interference in the work of bodies investigating systemic high-level corruption.
In July 2025, however, reverse processes began, which curtailed the procedural independence of NABU and SAPO.
On 22 July 2025, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a Law that restricted the procedural independence of NABU and SAPO, effectively subordinating them to the Prosecutor General.
In particular, the Prosecutor General was granted the exclusive authority to:
Society perceived the law as a rollback of anti-corruption reform, which sparked widespread protests. This ultimately led to the repeal of the law and the restoration of the previous powers of NABU and SAPO.
It is expected that, following these developments, the number of proceedings concerning high-level corruption will increase, as NABU and SAPO seek to demonstrate their effectiveness to the public.
Reset of the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine
Another pre-trial investigation authority specialising in the investigation of certain white-collar crime cases is the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine (ESBU). It was established as the sole body responsible for combating economic crime, designed to combine both law enforcement and analytical functions.
However, during its operation ESBU has demonstrated systemic shortcomings, including:
Instead of employing analytical instruments, the Bureau has resorted to coercive measures (such as searches, seizures of property, and confiscation of documents). Particular attention from ESBU detectives has been directed towards the gambling industry, retail chains, and the tobacco sector.
In response, in July 2024 the Parliament of Ukraine adopted a law providing for a reset of ESBU. The core element of the reform is the renewal of competitive procedures for staff recruitment.
All employees who refuse to undergo, or who fail, the attestation process are subject to dismissal. The attestation will be conducted in stages – first covering the senior management of the central office and regional departments, and subsequently all other ESBU employees.
In the first half of 2025, a competition was held to fill the position of head of ESBU. A selection commission of six members was established to oversee the process. Notably, half of its membership – three representatives – were delegated by international partners, whose votes proved decisive. This arrangement was introduced to ensure transparency and independence in the selection procedure.
As a result of the competition, the commission selected a winner and submitted his candidacy to the cabinet of ministers of Ukraine for approval.
However, contrary to the provisions of the law, the cabinet of ministers did not confirm the winner’s appointment and instead demanded that the commission submit alternative candidates for consideration. This breach of the law provoked criticism of the government from the public, members of Parliament, anti-corruption activists, and the media.
The commission publicly refused to propose alternative candidates to the government, which resulted in a prolonged period of uncertainty regarding the outcome of the competition.
Only after sustained criticism, the potential derailment of Ukraine’s international commitments, and controversy surrounding the restriction of NABU and SAPO’s procedural independence did the government approve the appointment of the selected candidate as head of ESBU.
Upon taking office, the new head of ESBU established the following key priorities for the Bureau’s future activities:
Reform of ARMA
The National Agency of Ukraine for the Detection, Tracing and Management of Assets Derived from Corruption and Other Crimes (commonly referred to as the Asset Recovery and Management Agency, or ARMA) is one of the key institutions in the development of white-collar crime practice in Ukraine.
ARMA was established in 2016 as part of the anti-corruption reform programme, which itself formed part of Ukraine’s commitments to the European Union. The Agency’s principal functions are as follows.
ARMA’s performance has faced criticism, particularly due to the low effectiveness of its asset management in certain cases and the presence of corruption risks. This created a demand for ARMA’s reform, with the aim of ensuring transparency in its operations and strengthening its powers in asset management.
The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a Law to this effect, which provides the following.
Thus, ARMA’s scope of activity is set to expand further – from more effective management of corporate rights to the administration of virtual assets (cryptocurrencies), which was previously impossible or significantly hindered.
Criminalisation of sanctions evasion
The sanctions regime has existed in Ukraine since 2014, following the adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions”.
However, Ukrainian legislation currently does not provide for legal liability for breaches of sanctions. This poses a significant problem, given Ukraine’s active role in imposing sanctions in the context of armed aggression.
A key step towards the criminalisation of sanctions violations and evasion in Ukraine was the adoption by the European Union in April 2024 of Directive No 2024/1226, which defined acts constituting breaches of EU sanctions as criminal offences and set out the corresponding penalties.
At the beginning of 2025, the President of Ukraine submitted to Parliament a draft law establishing liability for violations of special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions). This draft law has already passed its first reading in the Verkhovna Rada and is expected to be adopted in early Autumn 2025.
The key provisions of the draft law are as follows.
Acts constituting sanctions evasion will be defined in the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions” and will include any actions aimed at circumventing the enforcement of listed sanctions.
The introduction of specific criminal liability is expected to:
Accordingly, by the end of 2025, the practice of white-collar crime is expected to undergo significant development in relation to the investigation of potential offences involving the breach or evasion of sanctions.
Combating the use of coercive methods of pressure on business
The years 2024–2025 have been marked by increased pressure from law enforcement agencies on businesses.
Entrepreneurs most frequently report the following instances of unlawful conduct by law enforcement officers:
This issue reached catastrophic proportions, prompting the National Security and Defence Council (NSDC) to intervene on two occasions.
At the beginning of 2024, the President of Ukraine, by Decree, enacted the NSDC Decision “On Urgent Measures to Ensure Economic Security during the Period of Martial Law”. The Decree provided the following.
However, by the end of 2024, law enforcement authorities had failed to conduct a meaningful audit of criminal proceedings, and Parliament had not introduced the legislative amendments necessary to prevent pressure on business.
Accordingly, in 2025:
In July 2025, the President of Ukraine enacted the NSDC’s decision introducing a one-year moratorium on business inspections. The aim was to reduce administrative pressure, stimulate economic growth, and enhance confidence in the business environment.
In June 2025, the Verkhovna Rada appointed a new Prosecutor General, Ruslan Kravchenko, who was tasked with ensuring safeguards in cases involving businesses.
An audit of criminal proceedings carried out by the General Prosecutor’s Office identified more than 23,000 cases against businesses.
Following the review, a decision was taken to close over 8,100 proceedings (approximately 35%). The sheer number of cases terminated underscores the reality of systematic pressure on entrepreneurs and the fact that many proceedings were unfounded.
Furthermore, in September 2025, the General Prosecutor’s Office launched the online platform “StopPressure”. This service enables entrepreneurs to report instances of unlawful interference by law enforcement agencies directly to the Prosecutor General’s Office.
Continued intensification of the use of international legal assistance mechanisms
Extradition Processes of European integration, as well as the impact of the full-scale war, have contributed to the strengthening of international co-operation. Over the past three years, Ukraine has taken more steps to build relations with foreign states than during the entire preceding period of its independence.
On the development of international co-operation
The following features are characteristic of international co-operation in white-collar crime cases.
1. Expansion of the geographical scope of co-operation.
In addition to “traditional jurisdictions” (EU member states, the United Kingdom, Türkiye, Georgia, the United Arab Emirates, and others), mutual legal assistance is now being sought from countries in Central America, Africa and the Far East.
2. Significant reduction in the time required to obtain legal assistance from law enforcement authorities in other jurisdictions.
Previously, the execution of requests could take an extended period of time. At present, the timeframe has been reduced to several weeks, or at most a few months.
3. Active use of alternatives to formal international legal assistance.
Instead of relying solely on bilateral and multilateral treaties on mutual assistance, memoranda of co-operation with specific law enforcement bodies are increasingly utilised.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) has proved particularly active in seeking such alternatives.
NABU co-operates with the GlobE Network, a global network of anti-corruption law enforcement authorities established under the auspices of the United Nations in 2021. Within this platform, NABU informally exchanges information with anti-corruption bodies from more than 67 countries for the purpose of detecting and investigating cross-border corruption offences and recovering diverted assets.
Another important area has been NABU’s co-operation with the Basel Institute on Governance and UNODC in enhancing the capacity of its detectives to conduct financial investigations.
The National Bureau has also played a pivotal role in preparing Ukraine’s application to accede to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which the government formally submitted in February of this year.
On extradition
Securing the extradition of suspects and defendants, particularly in high-profile white-collar crime cases, has been and remains one of the priorities of law enforcement authorities.
During 2022–2023, courts in foreign jurisdictions refused to grant extraditions to Ukraine owing to the consequences of the full-scale invasion:
In 2024–2025, however, the position of competent authorities in foreign jurisdictions changed: requests began to be granted, and individuals started to be extradited to Ukraine.
Several factors contributed to this shift.
1. Throughout 2024, the General Prosecutor’s Office, together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, engaged in formal and informal dialogue with the competent authorities of foreign states, persuading them of the feasibility of granting extradition requests to Ukraine.
2. The General Prosecutor’s Office provided individualised assurances regarding the rights of extradited persons:
3. Ukraine commenced the construction of penal and pre-trial detention facilities specifically for holding extradited individuals.
As a result, the number of extraditions during 2024–2025 increased four-fold compared with 2022–2023. In particular, 75 individuals were extradited to Ukraine in 2024, and 26 more during the first two months of 2025. This demonstrates that the trend towards extradition to Ukraine is strengthening, and that the risks of war are no longer regarded by foreign courts as sufficient grounds for refusing extradition.
In the first half of 2025, the General Prosecutor’s Office prepared 155 extradition requests to Ukraine. Extradition therefore remains a priority area of work for Ukrainian law enforcement authorities.
Porch 13,
BC Bashnya #5
Rybalska Street, 22
Kyiv
01011
Ukraine
+380 44 581 1633
office@vbpartners.ua www.vbpartners.ua/en/