Author name: admin

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку What is the issue?    Unlawful appropriation of cryptoassets is not a separate type of crime; rather, it is a method of committing already recognised criminal offences. Most commonly, such cases involve fraud, unlawful interference with information systems, laundering of criminally obtained proceeds, or other offences, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. The primary legal classification may be fraud committed through unlawful operations involving electronic computing technology, as provided for in Part 4 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The sanction under this provision is imprisonment for a term of three to eight years. If the fraud is committed on a particularly large scale or by an organised group, Part 5 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine may apply, providing for imprisonment from five to twelve years with confiscation of property. Depending on the method used and the subsequent movement of funds, the following provisions may also be considered: Article 361 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — unauthorised interference with information or electronic communications systems; Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — laundering of property obtained through criminal means; Article 200 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — where the case involves unlawful acts involving payment cards, electronic money, or other payment instruments; other provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — depending on the particular scheme, the method of accessing the assets, and the actions of those involved. A cryptoasset itself does not create a new corpus delicti. It merely makes it more difficult to identify the owner, trace the movement of funds, determine the amount of damage, and establish the method by which property was unlawfully obtained. Legal status of cryptoassets Ukraine’s Law “On Virtual Assets” has been adopted but, as of August 2026, has not entered into force. Its implementation is linked to the entry into force of certain amendments to the Tax Code of Ukraine. At the same time, the absence of an effective special law does not mean that cryptoassets cannot have evidentiary or proprietary significance in criminal proceedings. Courts already consider issues concerning their seizure, recognition as physical evidence, special confiscation, and compensation for damage. In such cases, it is important to distinguish between: the virtual asset itself; a crypto wallet or an account on an exchange; an information storage device on which private keys may be held; blockchain transaction data; property or funds for which cryptoassets were exchanged. It is therefore incorrect to claim that every seizure of a crypto wallet is unlawful or, conversely, that the mere discovery of a crypto wallet address automatically proves that the assets belong to a particular person. The role of counsel for the suspect Challenging the seizure of assets and property Counsel verifies whether there were lawful grounds for the seizure of cryptoassets, funds, bank accounts, devices, and other data storage media. The investigation must substantiate the precise purpose of the seizure: preservation of evidence, securing special confiscation, confiscation of property, or compensation for the victim’s damage. Seizure cannot be imposed merely “just in case.” Case law includes instances in which courts have refused to recognise cryptocurrency as physical evidence or have lifted a seizure because its connection to a criminal offence was insufficiently substantiated. However, the existence of differing case law does not mean that the seizure of cryptoassets is always unlawful. Verifying ownership of cryptoassets One of the key issues is who actually owns the assets. To establish a connection between a person and a crypto wallet, the following may be analysed: access to private keys; correspondence and email; data from an exchange or crypto service; account login history; IP addresses and devices; witness testimony; transfers between bank accounts and crypto wallets; blockchain-analysis results. The presence of a crypto wallet on a phone or computer does not necessarily prove that all assets in it belong to the user of that device. The defence may challenge both control over the wallet and the amount, origin, and connection of the assets to the alleged criminal offence. Correct legal classification of conduct A single chain of events may contain elements of several criminal offences: unlawfully obtaining access to an account, appropriating cryptoassets, transferring funds to other wallets, exchanging them for fiat money, and their subsequent use. At the same time, the existence of several stages does not mean that each of them automatically constitutes a separate crime. Counsel assesses: whether each alleged offence has an independent corpus delicti; whether separate acts are covered by a single criminal offence; whether intent to launder funds has been proven; whether the amount of damage was correctly determined; whether the accusation is based solely on assumptions. Reviewing digital evidence Digital evidence may include data from exchanges, electronic correspondence, CCTV footage, login records, screenshots, information from mobile phones, and blockchain-analysis results. Counsel assesses: how the device or information was seized; whether search requirements were observed; whether the data were copied and preserved correctly; whether the integrity of electronic files can be established; who conducted the blockchain analysis and which methods were used; whether those data support the specific prosecution theory advanced. A transaction screenshot alone does not always establish the identity of the sender or recipient. It may be only one item of evidence considered together with other materials. The role of counsel for the victim Proving the fact and amount of damage The victim must prove that the cryptoassets belonged to them, how they were lost, and the amount of damage caused. The following may be used for this purpose: blockchain transaction history; data from a cryptocurrency exchange; confirmations of account funding; bank statements; electronic correspondence; recordings of conversations; screenshots and video recordings; an opinion from a blockchain-analysis specialist or expert. Particular attention should be paid to valuation of the assets. Due to exchange-rate fluctuations, the claim should clearly state the date as of which the loss is calculated: the date of appropriation, the date of filing the claim, the date of the judgment,

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку In drug-related cases, people tend to think that the substance itself is what matters most: whether it was found and how many grams were involved. Yet few pay attention to the fact that the entire foundation of the prosecution often rests on one document — the forensic chemical examination report. And it is precisely this document that most often goes unchallenged, simply because it appears “scientific” and, at first glance, indisputable. The weight “at the scene” is not a verdict When police seize a substance, the first weighing is carried out directly at the place of detention — often approximately, without specialised equipment. This is only a preliminary result. The final, legally significant net weight can be established only through forensic examination. It is this figure that determines the legal classification: whether the conduct constitutes an administrative offence or criminal liability, and, if criminal, under which part of the relevant article. A difference of just a few tenths of a gram may mean the difference between a fine and an actual prison sentence. That difference depends not only on chemistry, but also on how the substance was packaged, stored, and transported to the laboratory. When equipment is not proof of intent The Supreme Court has repeatedly noted in its case law that the presence of scales, zip-lock bags, or other “typical” items does not, by itself, constitute conclusive evidence of intent to distribute. Such evidence may be important, but it is only one element among many. If the defence demonstrates that the rest of the evidentiary picture does not support the allegation, reclassification to an offence involving possession may be possible where the relevant grounds exist. At the same time, the same case law reveals the other side: where the evidence has been gathered comprehensively and consistently, courts apply a stricter approach without leniency. Even sincere remorse or positive character references do not alter the assessment of the social danger of the conduct. This means one thing: the outcome of a case is often determined not by general impressions, but by how rigorously each piece of evidence — including the forensic examination — has been reviewed for procedural reliability. A right often overlooked Few suspects know that the defence is entitled not merely to “accept” the prosecution’s expert report, but to commission its own independent examination or obtain a professional review of it. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently stressed that a fair trial requires equality of arms: neither party should be placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with the other, including in matters involving expert evidence. There have even been cases in which the ECtHR found a violation of the right to a fair trial because an examination had been conducted by a departmental institution linked to the prosecution, while doubts about the expert’s impartiality were never resolved. In practice, this gives the defence an opportunity that is rarely used: to challenge not only the conclusion itself, but also the expert’s qualifications, the methodology used, and the integrity of the substance’s packaging from seizure to laboratory examination. Only part of the picture The issue of forensic examination is only one of the procedural factors that may determine the outcome of a drug case. Other questions include when to engage an independent specialist, how to formulate a motion for a repeat examination so that the court does not dismiss it, and which procedural violations should be documented at the seizure stage. These are details that depend on the specific circumstances of each case. This is precisely where the difference between a standard defence and a well-considered defence becomes apparent. If an expert report is involved in your case, it is worth not treating it as a final fact, but examining whether it can withstand scrutiny. Sometimes, that review can determine the outcome of the case. Contact WINNER — we will help assess the situation, develop a legal position, and select the best defence strategy for your particular case. Author: Nazar Al-Mzirawi, Attorney-at-Law, WINNER Law Firm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Rdi6CWE1s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Just five years ago, drug dealing in Ukraine looked like a meeting on a street corner. Today it is a Telegram channel, a bot administrator, a cryptocurrency wallet, and a “stash” hidden in a pipe under a bench. The scheme has changed, and with it the defence tactics have changed as well. Case one: when “dealing” turns out to be “possession” A man was detained in a car — the police found a substance on the front passenger seat. The investigation immediately classified this as dealing: a substantial quantity, packaged in portions, everything “by the textbook”. But the defence asked a simple question: how do we know that the defendant even knew the substance was in the car? It turned out the car had recently been sold and not yet re-registered, other people had been in the vehicle, and the prosecution had no direct evidence that the defendant was aware of the substance. The court agreed: intent to deal was not proven. The charge was reclassified to possession, and instead of a custodial sentence the client received a fine (given the specific circumstances of the case). This is not a rare situation. Article 307 (dealing) and Article 309 (possession) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine differ not by the substance itself, but by the proven intent. And it is intent that is the weakest link in the prosecution’s case in the vast majority of proceedings. Case two: when the “buyer” creates the crime The second story is about a line that law‑enforcement officers sometimes cross. An undercover agent spent months calling, arranging meetings, and persuading the person to “help get” the substance. Someone who had never been involved in anything of the kind eventually agreed — and found himself under investigation. The defence was built around one question: would the defendant have committed this crime if he had not been pushed into it? The European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Ramanauskas v. Lithuania, set out a clear criterion: if law‑enforcement officers do not merely observe a crime but actually initiate and incite it themselves, this is provocation, not investigation. The Supreme Court of Ukraine consistently follows this approach: if the prosecution cannot prove that a person was ready to commit the crime without the agent’s intervention, all evidence obtained through such a “test purchase” is deemed inadmissible. The trial court found that provocation had occurred, and the court of appeal agreed — the charges were dismissed not at the stage of assessing the merits of the evidence, but at the stage of assessing its admissibility. 2026: new channels, same principles In the summer of this year, the police uncovered another inter‑regional channel for distributing psychotropic substances that operated exclusively via Telegram: buyers would message a bot, receive the coordinates of a stash, and pay in cryptocurrency. Similar stories now occur regularly. At the same time, law‑enforcement agencies are developing their own proactive tools: chatbots such as “DrugHunters” or “StopDrugs”, where anyone can anonymously send the geolocation of a suspicious place. For the defence this means a new category of evidence: screenshots of chats, geo‑tags, IP addresses, data from crypto‑wallets. And a new category of questions. Who administered the channel? Has it been proven that it was the defendant who was writing from the specific account? Was the procedure for seizing and examining devices properly followed? A digital trail is not automatically evidence against a particular person, and challenging its attribution and admissibility often becomes the key battleground in such cases. What really determines the outcome of the case Based on recent years’ practice, several lines of argument can be identified that consistently work in favour of the defence: Challenging intent to deal, where the quantity or circumstances do not unequivocally prove an intention to sell rather than to use. Verifying the lawfulness of covert investigative actions; controlled purchases, special operations, and crime‑scene simulations have clear procedural limits, and breaches of those limits “destroy” the evidence. Checking for provocation, especially where the initiative in communication came from the “buyer” or agent rather than from the defendant. Voluntary surrender of the substance, which is a separate ground for exemption from liability; courts carefully distinguish between a person truly surrendering the substance of their own free will and merely confessing after being stopped. Attribution of digital evidence, which often becomes decisive in cases involving Telegram channels. Key takeaway The model of drug‑related offences has shifted — from the street to the messenger app. But the essence of the defence remains the same: not to deny facts for the sake of denial, but to test whether the prosecution has proven every element of the offence as required by law. Often it is precisely where the investigation feels most confident that the weak point of the case is hidden. If you or your relatives find yourselves in a similar situation, it is crucial to contact a lawyer as soon as possible, even before the first questioning. Author: Nazar Al-Mzirawi, attorney at law, Law Firm “WINNER”. A properly constructed defence strategy from the very first hours of the case has a substantial impact on its outcome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Rdi6CWE1s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Telegram has ceased to be just a messenger. Today it is a powerful communication platform used by businesses, media, bloggers, and ordinary users. At the same time, due to its relative anonymity, the platform is often used for unlawful activities, including the advertising and sale of prohibited substances. In practice, those at risk may include not only the organisers of “drug shops” but also Telegram channel administrators, marketers, and business owners who place advertising or moderate communities. In this article, I explain what liability is provided for by Ukrainian law for actions related to narcotic drugs on Telegram and how to minimise the risks. What liability may arise Ukrainian law distinguishes between: direct dealing and organising the circulation of prohibited substances; inciting their use; advertising and disseminating information that may facilitate the circulation of such substances; involving minors in unlawful activity. Depending on the circumstances, criminal, administrative, and other forms of liability may arise. Criminal liability (Criminal Code of Ukraine) This is the most severe type of liability and applies where the elements of a crime under the Criminal Code of Ukraine are present. Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for liability for the unlawful production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, shipment, or dealing of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, or their analogues. How this may relate to Telegram: selling via Telegram bots, channels, or private messages; organising “stashes” while using the messenger for communication; aiding and abetting dealing, for example by publishing advertisements, if intent and a link to the dealing can be proven. For such actions, especially when electronic communication channels are used or when there is prior conspiracy by a group of persons, the penalty is imprisonment for a term of 6 to 10 years, and where qualifying circumstances are present (organised group, large quantities, etc.), from 9 to 12 years’ imprisonment, often with confiscation of property. Article 315 of the Criminal Code establishes liability for inciting the use of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, or their analogues. How this may relate to Telegram: publishing content that calls on people to try a substance; disseminating materials that portray use as a “positive experience” or as normal; detailed instructions on how to use substances in public channels or chats, where such actions may be qualified as incitement. Such actions may be punishable by restriction of liberty for up to 5 years or imprisonment for 2 to 5 years, depending on the circumstances. Article 304 of the Criminal Code provides for liability for involving minors in unlawful activities, including those related to the circulation of prohibited substances. How this may relate to Telegram: engaging teenagers to distribute information about narcotic drugs; using minors for actions related to “stashes”, QR codes, links to channels or bots; other forms of involving minors in activities that may be recognised as unlawful. Where the elements of the offence are present, the penalty is imprisonment for a term of 5 to 10 years. Administrative and other liability Even if the actions do not contain all the elements of a criminal offence, they may still violate advertising and public health legislation. Breaches of advertising law In Ukraine, advertising of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, and precursors is prohibited (the Law of Ukraine “On Advertising” and special legislation on the circulation of such substances). For publishing prohibited advertising, the following may be imposed: administrative and economic fines on advertisers and distributors of advertising; orders to cease the violation; other measures within administrative proceedings. Access restrictions and seizure of property Within criminal proceedings, an investigator or prosecutor may apply to the court for: seizure of property such as devices, server equipment, domains, and bank accounts used for unlawful activity or settlements; measures aimed at restricting access to resources used for dealing or advertising prohibited substances. A Telegram channel as such is not “property” in the classical sense, but the assets and technical resources linked to it may be subject to procedural decisions. Where risks commonly arise for channel administrators and businesses In practice, law‑enforcement bodies may focus not only on obvious “drug shops” but also on ordinary channels and media if there are grounds to believe that they facilitate the circulation of prohibited substances. Risk No. 1: unvetted advertising An advertiser may purchase a promotional post with a link to an external resource, bot, or “giveaway”, which later redirects the user to the sale of prohibited substances. If evidence of intent or gross negligence is found, the channel owner may become a suspect as an accomplice to dealing (including under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Risk No. 2: lack of comment moderation In comments under posts, spam bots or users may share links to Telegram bots selling substances. If the channel administration consistently ignores such messages, this may be used as evidence that the platform was provided for the dissemination of information related to dealing. How to protect your business and Telegram channel: a legal checklist To reduce risks, I recommend using the following practices. Regular moderation Use moderation bots to automatically remove: stop‑words related to narcotic drugs; suspicious links to external bots; QR codes and short links in comments and chats. Put in place a rule for prompt response to user complaints. Pre‑audit of advertising creatives Before publishing any promotional post: check the final link and where it leads; assess the advertiser’s profile: account history, topic, and any suspicious activity; avoid advertising with vague descriptions of services, “earnings in Telegram”, or “crypto giveaways” without clear information about the project. Community rules and disclaimers In pinned messages or a separate post, clearly state: a ban on any information about narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, and precursors; a ban on posting links to bots and resources that may be related to such substances; the consequences of breaching the rules (blocking, deletion, reporting to law‑enforcement authorities). Disclaimer wording does not automatically release you from liability, but it helps document your position that such activities are unacceptable. Responding to requests and complaints When

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Imagine a typical situation. A young person receives a call from an acquaintance who asks to “help get” a certain substance — saying it is urgently needed and money is not an issue. The person agrees, finds the substance, hands it over — and within minutes ends up in handcuffs. The “acquaintance” turns out to be an undercover police agent who has just fulfilled a quota for solving a crime. This is not a rare scenario. It is one of the most common ways in which cases are brought in Ukraine under Article 307 of the Criminal Code — illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation or sale of narcotic drugs. And in exactly such cases the lawyer’s task is not merely to “mitigate” the punishment, but often to determine whether there will be any conviction at all. Why Article 307 is not about “caught, therefore guilty”People tend to believe that a drug case is almost automatically a losing battle for the defence: there is a substance, there is an expert report, there is a search record. What is there to challenge? In reality, Article 307 is one of the most complex provisions in terms of proof, for a simple reason: a significant share of such cases is built on the results of covert investigative measures — controlled purchases, undercover operations, the involvement of undercover agents. Wherever hidden investigation methods are used, there is always a risk that law enforcement did not uncover a crime but rather provoked it. The difference between Article 307 (sale — a serious offence, up to 12 years’ imprisonment in aggravating circumstances) and Article 309 (possession without intent to sell — significantly lighter liability) often depends on one question: has the prosecution proved an actual intent to sell, rather than mere possession for personal use? This is the second key line of defence, alongside entrapment. Entrapment: what does the European Court of Human Rights say?The prohibition of entrapment is not a fiction invented by Ukrainian lawyers to delay proceedings. It is an established principle that has been shaped over years by the ECtHR. The Court’s case-law contains several landmark judgments that have effectively set the rules of the game for all of Europe, including Ukraine. In a case against Portugal, the Court found a violation of the right to a fair trial where police agents themselves initiated contact with a person who previously had no involvement in drug trafficking and effectively pushed that person into committing a crime which would not have occurred without their intervention. The key test that emerged from this case-law is the test of “passive” investigation. Law enforcement may record a crime that is already taking place or being prepared independently of them. But they may not create a crime that would not exist without their initiative. And what does the Supreme Court of Ukraine say?Recent Ukrainian case-law actively implements these standards. In its decisions (including case No. 303/7389/23 of 14 January 2025 and case No. 759/2271/18 of 17 October 2024), the Supreme Court consistently stresses that the mere fact of a person’s prior conviction or confidential cooperation with the police in the past is not, by itself, proof that there was no entrapment. Each such situation must be examined separately and in detail. The Court has also repeatedly reminded lower courts of the prosecutor’s duty: any decision to monitor the commission of a crime must expressly set out circumstances confirming the absence of provocation, not merely state that an undercover purchase took place. In practice, this means that if, when reviewing the case file, a defence lawyer sees that the initiative for selling the substance, the discussion of the price or the meeting place originated from the “buyer” — the agent — rather than the defendant, this is already a basis for challenging the admissibility of evidence obtained through such covert investigative action. And inadmissible evidence can collapse the entire evidentiary foundation of the prosecution. What a lawyer actually does in such a caseDefence work under Article 307 rarely boils down to a speech in court. It starts much earlier: Analysing the lawfulness of covert investigative actions. Was the investigating judge’s authorisation issued before or after the controlled purchase actually began? Does the prosecutor’s decision comply with Article 271 §7 of the CPC in substantiating the absence of entrapment? Reconstructing the timeline of contacts. Who initiated contact first, who proposed the amount and subject of the “deal”, were there repeated insistent requests from the agent — all this is reflected in records and billing data, and the lawyer builds a full picture from it. Challenging the legal qualification of the act. Quite often what the investigation qualifies as sale under Article 307, in fact amounts to acquisition and possession for personal use under Article 309 — which is a dramatic difference in years of imprisonment. Working with expert evidence. The quantity and purity of the substance, proper seizure and packaging of physical evidence — any procedural breach at this stage may justify declaring the evidence inadmissible. Being present from the very first minute of detention to prevent pressure, self-incrimination or statements given without a lawyer, which are difficult to “undo” later in court. The key takeawayA case under Article 307 is not a formality with a predetermined outcome. It is a complex evidentiary construct that rests on the procedural impeccability of law enforcement actions. Scrutinising that impeccability is the lawyer’s main job: not to “negotiate a shorter sentence”, but to challenge the very lawfulness of how the case ended up in court in the first place. If you or your loved one are suspected or accused under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the window of time in which the outcome can be influenced is measured in hours, not weeks. The earlier a lawyer enters the case, the greater the chance to record procedural violations before they are “fixed” retrospectively. Contact WINNER — we will help assess the situation, define the legal position

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Being detained on suspicion of a drug-related offence almost never happens at a convenient time. It is usually at night, on weekends, or sometimes on a public holiday — a moment when a person is least prepared to make decisions, while law enforcement officers are most interested in having those decisions made quickly and without witnesses. That is why the formula “lawyer 24/7” is not a marketing slogan, but a reflection of how the criminal process actually works: the first hours after detention shape the course of the case more than any court hearing that will take place months later. The “golden hour” of criminal proceedings.In defence practice there is an unwritten rule: what happens in the first 2–3 hours after detention is often more important than all the subsequent months of investigation. It is during this period that: officers may try to question the person “informally”, even before an official detention record is made; they suggest “just explaining the situation”, promising that this will be to the person’s benefit; the first statements are recorded, which are then very difficult to withdraw in court; it is decided whether a request for a lawyer will be made at all, or whether the person will “voluntarily waive” this right under the pressure of the moment. Every mistake made during this hour is then corrected for years on appeal — and not always successfully. What does the European Court of Human Rights say about this?The right to a lawyer from the first minute of detention is not a Ukrainian peculiarity, but a standard established back in 2008 in an ECtHR judgment in a case against Turkey. The Court set out a principle that later became known as the “golden rule” of European criminal procedure: restricting access to a defence lawyer at the initial stages of an investigation is, in itself, capable of rendering the subsequent trial unfair — even if all later procedural steps appear flawless on paper. The logic is simple: statements obtained without a lawyer in the first hours then run through the entire case as evidence, and even if the person later retracts them, it is psychologically difficult for the court to completely disregard them. And what does the Supreme Court of Ukraine say?Ukrainian case-law has directly adopted this logic. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared inadmissible evidence obtained as a result of questioning or “conversations” with a detained person before they were actually granted access to a defence lawyer — regardless of whether such communication was formally called an interrogation or took place in the form of “explanations”. For the Court, the wording of the record is secondary; what matters first is whether the person had a real opportunity to remain silent and consult a lawyer before they started speaking. In practice this means: if a lawyer appears not on the first day of the investigation, but only several hours after detention, they often find that the key evidence has already been “fixed” — and they are working not proactively, but trying to repair the damage. Why is round-the-clock availability a strategy rather than a service? Because it is not about convenience.When a lawyer is available 24/7, it changes the very dynamics of detention: the person immediately receives the right to remain silent and legal advice instead of “negotiating” with investigators one-on-one; the moment of actual detention is recorded, which is critical if the real time does not match the time stated in the official record; the lawfulness of the personal search and seizure of substances is monitored — procedural violations are most frequent at this stage; motions are filed at a stage when it is easier to submit them than later to challenge investigative inactivity. In short: round-the-clock defence is not about comfort; it is about making sure the “golden hour” works for the client, not against them. Contact WINNER — we will help assess the situation, define the legal position, and choose the best defence strategy for your specific case. Author: Nazar Al-Mzirawi, attorney at law, Law Firm “WINNER”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Rdi6CWE1s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку The equestrian business in Ukraine is steadily expanding: racing, show jumping, horse rental, hippotherapy, private stables. Along with this, the number of disputes around horse boarding agreements is also growing — “the stable failed to provide proper care,” “the owner did not pay,” “who is liable if the horse fell ill or was injured.” Almost always, the root of the conflict is the same: an agreement concluded “verbally” or copied from the internet without any understanding of what exactly it governs. If you board your horse for stabling, care or training — or, conversely, you run a stable and accept horses owned by others — a properly drafted horse boarding agreement is not a mere formality. It is your only real protection when something goes wrong. Horse boarding agreement: not one contract, but at least two in one. The main legal trap in the “sent the horse to the stable” situation is an incorrect determination of the nature of the relationship. Under the Civil Code of Ukraine, horse boarding may simultaneously fall under several legal regimes: Storage agreement (Chapter 66 of the Civil Code, Articles 936–955) — where the focus is on preserving the animal as property. Services agreement (Chapter 63 of the Civil Code, Articles 901–907) — where the stable additionally feeds, exercises, trains or treats the horse. Mixed agreement — which is the most common option, since actual boarding almost always combines both storage and services. It is also important to keep in mind Article 180 of the Civil Code of Ukraine: animals are a special object of civil rights, and they are subject to the legal regime of things, taking into account the requirements of humane treatment; this directly affects how the parties’ liability provisions must be drafted. The contractual structure you choose determines: which party must prove what in the event of a dispute; who bears the burden of liability for damage; which time limits and claim procedures will apply. A mistake in the legal qualification of the contract is a case lost in advance, even if, in substance, you are right. What you need to check before signing — and what people usually overlook We will not set out here a full list of wording options (that is an individual task for a specific agreement), but the key risk areas you should focus on are the following: Horse handover and acceptance certificate.Without recording the horse’s health status, weight, behavioural specifics, existing injuries or chronic conditions at the moment of transfer, it is almost impossible later to prove who is responsible for any deterioration. Allocation of liability for death, injury or illness.The general Civil Code rules on storage allow the bailee to be released from liability under certain conditions — yet the wording in specific contracts is often either too vague or, on the contrary, unjustifiably shifts all risks to one party. Standard of keeping and care.“Proper care” is not a legal term. The diet, number of feedings, exercise regime, veterinary support, vaccination and deworming must all be specified in detail; otherwise, the parties will have different understandings of what is included in the price. Who pays for the veterinarian and who makes decisions.A typical conflict scenario: the horse’s condition deteriorates, the stable calls a vet without coordinating with the owner, and afterwards there is a dispute about who is to blame and who must pay. It is not always clear whose liability is insured — the owner’s, the stable’s or no one’s at all. This is critical when dealing with expensive sport horses or breeding stock. Proof of ownership and horse documentation.The horse’s passport, pedigree data, identification chip — their absence or inconsistency creates risks not only in disputes with the stable, but also later upon sale or participation in competitions. Liability for damage to third parties.If a horse injures a person or another animal on the stable’s premises, who is liable: the horse’s owner or the stable as the party that actually exercised control over the animal? This is a separate and quite complex issue that depends on the specific circumstances. Force majeure and termination procedure.Epizootic disease outbreaks, fire, military actions, the stable’s insolvency — without clear conditions for the horse’s return and financial settlements, the owner may end up in a very weak position. A common mistake of both owners and stables Horse owners often sign a standard form agreement found online, without adapting it to the particular animal and conditions. Stables, in turn, frequently use templates that either excessively protect only their own interests (and are therefore easily found invalid or unfair by a court in contentious clauses), or, on the contrary, leave basic risks unaddressed — and at the first serious incident, the business loses both money and reputation. In both cases, the result is the same: when a real dispute arises, the agreement fails to protect either party to the extent it should. What should be done Each situation — a specific horse, a specific stable, specific arrangements on training, competition participation or breeding — requires an individual approach to the contract. There is no universal template that covers everything, and that is precisely why a “downloaded from the internet contract” so often fails when a real dispute arises. WINNER Law Firm provides legal support in drafting and reviewing horse boarding, keeping and care agreements — both for horse owners and for stable and equestrian club owners, from choosing the correct legal structure of the agreement to elaborating clauses on liability, insurance and dispute resolution. If you already have a contract and doubt its reliability, or you are only planning to board your horse or accept someone else’s animal at your stable, contact the WINNER team for consultation and document review before signing, not after the problem has occurred. WINNER Law Firm📞 Phone: +380 96 574 81 02✉️ Email: info@uk-winner.com🌐 Website: uk-winner.com Book a consultation — we will review or draft your horse boarding agreement so that it truly protects your interests. Author: Ihor Yasko,

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку When a couple announces their engagement, the last thing they want to talk about is a legal document for a possible divorce. The topic of a prenuptial agreement is still seen in our society as something cynical — a sign of distrust, a “divorce planned in advance”. But the truth is much more prosaic and, at the same time, more important: you already have a contract. The only question is who wrote it. The default contract nobody has readWhen you get married without a prenuptial agreement, you automatically accept the terms set out in the Family Code and other legal provisions. This is your “default contract” — a standard agreement, identical for millions of people with completely different incomes, professions, businesses, children from previous relationships, parents’ apartments, loans and plans for the future. The problem is that no standard document can reflect the individual situation of a particular family. It does not know that the wife gives up her career for the sake of a child and loses income for several years. It does not know that the husband invests inherited capital into the joint business. It does not know which spouse will continue paying off a mortgage arranged before the marriage. A typical agreement decides everything “averagely” — and average solutions in family matters almost always turn out to be unfair to at least one person. Divorce statistics, which every family‑law lawyer deals with, clearly show that the “default” agreement works poorly. Property disputes during divorce are one of the most exhausting, lengthy and destructive parts of the breakup, often more painful than the emotional experience itself. Why a “contract” is about maturity, not mistrustThe main myth that stops people from signing a prenuptial agreement is the idea that it “assumes” a divorce. In reality, the logic is the opposite. A couple that sits down at the negotiating table and openly discusses their financial expectations, future assets, cost sharing, plans for business or real estate is a couple learning to negotiate before the stakes become real. A prenuptial agreement is not about mistrust between partners. It is about mistrust in the idea that an abstract legal rule will handle your unique circumstances better than you can yourselves. Think of it like business. No serious partner enters a joint venture without founding documents that define ownership shares, exit procedures, and the allocation of profits and losses. No one sees this as a sign of distrust — it is viewed as basic business literacy. Marriage is also a joint venture, only with far higher emotional and financial stakes, and yet for some reason this is precisely where people tend to rely on “it will somehow work out”. What you can actually set out in an individual agreementThe flexibility of a prenuptial agreement is something the typical “default agreement” completely lacks. In it, spouses can agree on: the status of assets acquired before marriage, including business shares and intellectual property; how inherited assets and family gifts may be used; a mechanism to compensate the spouse who pauses their career for children or to care for relatives; the allocation of debt obligations and responsibility for loans taken individually; conditions relating to a joint business — who manages it, how profits are shared, what happens in case of divorce; arrangements for spousal and child support if the marriage does break down; mechanisms for reviewing the agreement — for example, after five or ten years, when life circumstances have significantly changed. Importantly, a good prenuptial agreement is not a one‑sided document protecting the “wealthier” partner. A well‑drafted agreement protects both sides, taking into account each partner’s contribution — not only financial, but also those contributions that cannot be measured in money: time, career sacrifices, childcare and running the household. Why now and not “sometime later”The best time to sign a prenuptial agreement is before the wedding or at an early stage of marriage, while emotions have not yet become entangled with financial resentment. When a couple tries to deal with property issues during the divorce process, it almost always happens in an atmosphere of pain and distrust. When the same issues are discussed in advance, in a calm setting, they become negotiations between two partners who respect each other and their joint project called “family”. Moreover, you do not have to sign an agreement only before the wedding. Spouses who are already married can also execute such a contract — when a business appears, an inheritance is received, children are born, real estate is acquired, or simply when they realise that the standard rules no longer reflect their real situation. Key takeawayEvery couple getting married today already signs a contract — it is just that this contract is written not for them personally, but for an abstract “average” couple. And, as divorce practice shows, this basic agreement often works poorly: it fails to account for business, career sacrifices or the real contribution each partner makes to their shared life. You have every right to replace this impersonal document with your own — one that reflects your specific circumstances, values and plans for the future. This is not about preparing for divorce. It is about a mature, honest conversation between two adults that, paradoxically, often strengthens a marriage far more than quietly avoiding an “uncomfortable topic”. Author — Svitlana Krutorohova, attorney at Law Firm “WINNER”.Contact us: info@uk-winner.com | +38 (096) 574 81 02 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Rdi6CWE1s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Cases involving narcotic drugs are among the most complex and high‑risk categories of criminal proceedings. In such situations, every action matters: search, detention, interrogation, seizure of substances, expert examination, and even a person’s first explanations to law‑enforcement authorities. That is why in cases of this category you need a drug offense lawyer who knows how to act quickly, competently, and in the client’s best interests. Timely legal assistance makes it possible to protect a person’s rights, verify the lawfulness of investigative actions, and build an effective defence strategy at the earliest stage. When legal help is neededYou should contact a lawyer immediately if you have been detained, searched, served with a notice of suspicion, summoned for questioning, or informed about criminal proceedings related to narcotic drugs. In such cases, any mistake can have serious consequences. Most often legal assistance is required in situations related to: possession of narcotic drugs; transportation or purchase of substances; manufacturing or distribution; suspicion under Articles 307, 309, 310 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; challenging investigators’ actions, records, and expert reports. What the lawyer doesA drug offense lawyer analyses the circumstances of the case, checks the lawfulness of police actions, participates in investigative measures, and develops a defence strategy. Where necessary, they prepare motions, complaints, objections, and represent the client in court and at the stage of appeal proceedings. In such cases, it is important not only to know the law, but also to correctly respond to procedural violations, assess the admissibility of evidence, and use all available defence tools in time. This often determines the eventual outcome of the case. Our servicesThe WINNER legal team provides professional assistance in cases involving narcotic drugs at all stages of criminal proceedings. We can step in urgently when on‑site support is needed during detention or search, advise the client, analyse case materials, and build an individual defence strategy. Our services include: urgent consultation with a lawyer; legal support during searches, detentions, and interrogations; analysis of criminal case materials; preparation of procedural documents; defence during pre‑trial investigation; representation in court; appeal and cassation proceedings. We work confidentially, promptly, and with full regard to the circumstances of each specific case. For us it is important not just to be present in the process, but to genuinely protect the client’s interests at every stage. Why clients choose usIn drug‑related cases, there are no minor details. Everything matters: how the search was conducted, whether the detention procedure was observed, whether documents were properly drafted, whether there are grounds for expert examination, and whether the prosecution’s evidence can be challenged. That is why clients turn to us when they need not general advice but a clear legal position and active defence. We handle both urgent situations and comprehensive case support where systematic defence work is crucial. How to get helpIf you need a drug offense lawyer, do not delay. The earlier defence begins, the more opportunities there are to influence the course of the case and reduce the risks. Contact WINNER — we will help assess your situation, determine your legal position, and choose the best defence option for your particular case. Author: Nazar Al‑Mziravi, attorney at “WINNER” Law Firm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Rdi6CWE1s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку The issue of men leaving Ukraine abroad in 2026 remains one of the most sensitive and high‑risk topics for those who plan to travel from Ukraine. In practice, problems arise not only because of the restrictions themselves, but also due to improperly drafted documents, lack of evidence of the legal ground or a wrongly chosen course of action. That is why preparation for departure must start not at the border, but much earlier — with a legal review of the situation. In many cases, a person is convinced that he has the right to leave, but at the border checkpoint it turns out that the documents are insufficient or they do not properly confirm the stated ground. In such a situation, even a lawful reason does not help if it cannot be proved quickly and clearly. Who is allowed to leaveIn 2026, the rules for men leaving the country remain tied to age, status and the existence of a lawful ground. Certain categories of men may cross the border without obstacles, but most conscription‑age men need proper documentary confirmation of their ground for departure. In practice, this means that mere intention or an oral explanation is not enough. You must have a full set of documents that corresponds exactly to your situation: family circumstances, medical treatment, studies, business trip, employment, accompanying a person, care, or another lawful ground. Why border crossing is refusedMost refusals arise for three reasons: absence of the required document, an error in its preparation, or a mismatch between the declared purpose of the trip and the actual data. In such situations, the border service acts strictly formally, and it is usually impossible to fix the problem “on the spot”. That is why we always recommend not waiting until the day of departure. If the documents have not been checked in advance, the risk of losing time, tickets, bookings and the very opportunity to travel becomes very high. Why consultation is needed before the tripWe recommend obtaining legal advice before departure and having your documents audited before the trip, not at the border, where in most cases the problem can no longer be solved. At the border a person has no resources for complex legal work: ready‑made documents, a clear legal position and a flawless set of evidence are needed there. A legal audit allows you, before departure, to: determine whether you have a lawful ground to cross the border; understand which documents are missing; identify weak points in your document set; reduce the risk of refusal; prepare in such a way that you do not have to explain everything “verbally” at the checkpoint. What we doWe provide comprehensive support to clients on issues of travelling abroad — from the initial assessment of the situation to preparation of documents for a specific legal ground. Where necessary, we help not only to understand whether departure is possible, but also to build a strong legal position that stands up to practical scrutiny. Our support includes: advice on the lawful ground for departure; pre‑trip document review; legal audit of risks; recommendations on how to remedy weak points; support in complex or disputed cases; analysis of a refusal and further strategy. Why this is cost‑effectiveIt is easier and cheaper to check everything in advance than to lose tickets, time, the opportunity to travel and your nerves later. In matters of travelling abroad, an error at the preparation stage almost always costs more than a proper consultation before departure. That is why we treat such cases strategically rather than formally: first we analyse the documents, then we assess the chances, and only after that we recommend moving forward. This gives the client not an illusion, but a real understanding of the situation. Contact us in advanceIf you are planning to travel abroad and want to avoid refusal, do not wait until the border crossing moment. Seek legal advice in advance, undergo a legal audit of your documents and prepare correctly. We will help you assess risks, review your documents and prepare for departure so that you do not have to solve problems at the last minute. If you have any questions or problems, please contact our lawyers for individual advice and professional legal assistance. Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner at “WINNER” Law Firm, PhD in Law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvayosIccBo&t=3s