SAPO lawsuit regarding unjustified assets of the State Customs Service head: key details and legal implications

2025 has become another stage in strengthening anti-corruption efforts among civil servants in Ukraine. The main focus of society and experts is on systemic violations within large public agencies, particularly the activities of the State Customs Service, traditionally considered one of the most vulnerable sectors for abuse. One of the most high-profile cases was the SAPO’s announcement of a claim to the HACC regarding unjustified assets, which, according to NABU materials, were used by the current head of the State Customs Service, Serhii Zviahintsev, amounting to over 3.2 million UAH.

Essence of the case: defining unjustified assets
The claim concerns real estate — a residential house of 236.8 sq.m and a land plot near Kyiv. Officially, this property was registered in the name of a close relative of the official’s wife, but, according to investigators, it was Zviahintsev and his family who were its actual users and managers. An analysis of cash flows, the level of legal income, and total family expenditures did not allow for a reasonable explanation of the source of these assets. This approach matches a new procedure for establishing the objective inconsistency between assets and income, without the need for a criminal finding of guilt.

Court proceedings and asset seizure mechanism
At the preparatory stage, the HACC (High Anti-Corruption Court) decided to “seize” disputed assets as a measure to secure the claim. This is standard practice for such cases, preventing potential alienation or concealment of property during judicial review. The attachment is imposed based on an SAPO prosecutor’s motion, and the state is represented in court by anti-corruption prosecutors.

Legal basis: what are unjustified assets
The legal category of “unjustified assets” entered Ukrainian legislation with the adoption of a package of anti-corruption norms. These norms provide not only for prosecution for illegal enrichment within criminal proceedings but also for civil confiscation of property through the courts if an official cannot confirm the legality of acquiring substantial assets. Under the law, any assets the official or their family cannot verify with legitimate sources of income can be recognized as unjustified and recovered for the benefit of the state in civil proceedings.

Investigation practice and evidence
In the case of the Customs Service head, NABU materials and financial-analytical monitoring were decisive. The following were carefully investigated:
— Real estate purchase transactions
— Financial flows among the subject, relatives, and persons with similar social ties
— Official declarations inconsistent with actual well-being
— The objective value of assets was correlated with real income
The evidentiary standard here is lower than in criminal cases: it is sufficient to show a gap between income and acquired property.

Asset seizure: legal and social consequences
Asset seizure at the prosecutor’s request is not just a precaution, but also a signal to all government actors regarding increased accountability. If the claim is upheld, this practice allows eventual confiscation of assets for the benefit of the state, not just penalties for individual officials. Society sees this as a significant step toward real de-oligarchization of the customs system and gradual cleansing of the state apparatus.

Significance for the anti-corruption system
The SAPO claim against the head of the State Customs Service has become a test for the entire anti-corruption judiciary and the practice of civil asset confiscation in wartime. Importantly, the decision was prepared with the new standards of transparency in income declaration and spending oversight in mind, reflecting ongoing sector reforms. A decision for the state would significantly enhance both SAPO’s and HACC’s work and create a precedent for further cases of this type.

Prospects after the court decision
If the claim is satisfied and the assets are finally declared unjustified, the property will be transferred to the state, but respondents will retain the right of appeal. The practice of such court decisions demonstrates how governmental de-oligarchization is not just declared, but produces real results.

Risks and challenges
At the same time, such cases carry risks:
— Possibility of the mechanism being used for political pressure on opponents
— Uncertainty over final property rights in case of appeals and ECHR review
— Potential conflicts in valuing assets and sources of income
It should be remembered that the civil confiscation mechanism is based on the presumption of innocence; thus, to seize assets, it is sufficient to fail to prove the legality of means, rather than prove a crime.

Conclusion
The SAPO claim and the HACC’s response regarding the seizure of the head of the Customs Service’s assets is a powerful signal for the entire system of state governance. This precedent-setting case is crucial for cleaning up the government and establishing true anti-corruption justice in Ukraine. Successful resolution in favor of the state will mark a landmark in customs reform and strengthen public trust in anti-corruption institutions.

Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner of “WINNER” Law Firm, PhD in Law.