Author name: admin

Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is one of the key anti-corruption provisions aimed at combating bribery and abuse of power in the public sector. This article establishes criminal liability for the acceptance of a proposal, promise, or receipt of an undue benefit by an official, as well as for requesting such a benefit for oneself or a third party in exchange for certain actions or inactions using one’s authority or official position. Who is the subject of the crime?The subjects of the offense under Article 368 are individuals holding positions in state or local government bodies and vested with authoritative, organizational, or administrative-economic powers. This includes heads of state bodies, officials, deputies of various levels, employees of law enforcement agencies, and the judiciary. Object and mechanism of the crimeThe object of the crime is an undue benefit, which may take the form of money, property, services, privileges, or intangible assets that are offered, promised, or provided to an official, or through them, for the benefit of themselves or a third party. It does not matter whether the benefit was actually received in full—criminal liability arises even for the acceptance of an offer, agreement, or demand for its provision. A corruption offense is recognized even in cases where there is a request or demand for a benefit in exchange for certain actions or inactions in the interest of the person who offers or gives the bribe, or for the benefit of third parties. The crucial element is the use of the authority or official position. Classification of the crime and the amounts of benefitThe law distinguishes several qualifying features: The basic offense—accepting/receiving any undue benefit, requesting it, or making arrangements for its provision is punishable by a fine or restraint of liberty for two to four years, with disqualification from holding relevant positions. Large amount of benefit—if the undue benefit is significant, the sanction is imprisonment for three to six years. Exceptionally large amount/especially responsible position—in such cases, punishment is imprisonment for eight to twelve years with confiscation of property. The amount of undue benefit is classified in accordance with the non-taxable minimum income of citizens and may significantly affect the severity of the punishment. Key evidentiary elementsTo bring someone to account under Article 368, law enforcement must prove: the fact of request, acceptance, agreement, or receipt of a benefit, the connection between the benefit and actions/inactions by the official, the subjective element (intent, knowledge of the undue nature of the benefit), the use of authority or official powers. Investigating such offenses is challenging, as in many cases only an attempt to persuade an official to accept undue benefit or the establishment of prior agreement is documented. Sanctions and consequences for offendersDepending on the qualifying circumstances and the offender’s role, Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for the following types of penalties: fines from 17,000 to 68,000 UAH, imprisonment from two to twelve years, mandatory disqualification from holding relevant positions for up to three years, confiscation of property in severe and especially severe cases. Even an attempt or promise to obtain a benefit is punishable similarly, and stringent restrictions are established for suspended sentences or amnesty, as well as for repeated commission of such offenses. Difference from other corruption crimesArticle 368 is fundamental for addressing “internal” corruption, i.e., among state officials. Its differences lie in the subject, motivation (self-interest or intent to gain advantage), and also the object—the benefit must lack legal grounds and be directly related to authority or official powers. Judicial practice and current trendsRecent Ukrainian court judgments show a tough approach towards punishing corrupt officials: courts most often impose real terms of imprisonment and confiscation of property with no right to amnesty or reduced terms. The share of convictions for high-ranking officials and members of collegiate bodies acting as a group is also increasing. At the same time, there are acquittals in cases where evidence of intent or direct connection between the benefit and official actions is insufficient. Therefore, a defense strategy based on proving the absence of intent or unlawful motivation is one of the most effective in this category of cases. What officials and citizens need to knowLiability arises not only for the actual receipt of a benefit, but also for agreement, promise, or request.It is not enough to merely prove the transfer of funds—the prosecution must establish a connection between the actions of the official and the benefit.Even if the intended outcome is not achieved, this does not exclude criminal liability. ConclusionAmid legislative changes and heightened attention to anti-corruption efforts, Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine remains one of the most effective legal tools for cleansing the public service and preventing abuses. Officials are advised to strictly adhere to ethical standards and scrutinize any proposals that may have signs of undue benefit. Citizens should be aware of lawful ways to resolve their issues and avoid participating in corrupt schemes. Author: Yevhen Murchenko – Head of Criminal Law Practice and Procedure at the Law Firm “WINNER”.If you have any questions or issues related to the application of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, risk assessment for officials, defense in corruption cases, preparation of a legal position, or support during pre-trial investigation or court proceedings, contact the team of the Law Firm “WINNER”. Our specialists have considerable experience in clarifying the nuances of Article 368, advise on anti-corruption strategies, conduct comprehensive legal analysis, and protect clients’ rights at all stages of the review of cases. https://youtu.be/k2-1dq7hxcY?si=PqfLitk8ZKsTdHQv

Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is a fundamental norm of anti-corruption legislation that establishes criminal liability for the offer, promise, or giving of unlawful benefits to officials. In a socio-legal sense, it aims to protect the institution of public service, raise public trust in government, and prevent corruption as one of the main threats to the country’s development. Essence of the offenseArticle 369 CCU covers any actions aimed at inducing an official to certain actions or omissions, through an offer, promise, or actual transfer of unlawful benefit. Mere intent or an offer is sufficient — the crime is considered completed at the moment the promise or benefit is made, regardless of whether the official agreed to the illegal act or accepted the benefit. Key conceptsOffense subject: Any natural, sane person who has reached the age of 16 — citizenship does not matter.Object: Public relations in the field of government, official activities of public authorities, corporate structures with a share of state ownership.Unlawful benefit: This includes not only money, but any material or non-material assets, services, privileges, benefits, recreation, goods, and even intangible preferences. The size of the benefit does not determine the offense — what matters is the offer itself due to its connection to public service. Qualifying featuresRepeat offenses: If a person has previously committed similar violations, liability increases and is punished more severely.Group conspiracy: Committing the offense by a group of persons or in the interests of a group is an aggravating circumstance.Status of the official: Giving a benefit to someone holding a “particularly responsible position” (politicians, judges, heads of structures) automatically increases the penalty. Distinguishing from related offensesIt is important to distinguish between an offer or promise — these are preparatory stages, but the CCU directly criminalizes even these stages, unlike many other crimes. It should not be confused with articles on incitement to abuse of office or abuse of influence (Article 369-2 CCU). PenaltiesFor part 1 — a fine from 1,000 to 4,000 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens, or restriction of liberty from 2 to 4 years, or imprisonment for the same period.For repeated or group actions — imprisonment from 3 to 6 years with a fine and possible confiscation of property.If the bribe was given to someone in a particularly responsible position, or committed by an organized group — the strictest penalty: from 5 to 10 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property. Judicial practice and current trendsCourts tend toward strict interpretation of Article 369, especially as anti-corruption policy intensifies. The very fact of offering or giving even a symbolic sum or modest gift is already grounds for opening proceedings and classifying actions under this article. Motives are considered for sentencing but do not exempt from liability. Courts pay special attention to the existence of a real connection between the benefit and the performance (or non-performance) of an official’s duties. Proof and defense issuesTo prove guilt, a set of evidence is sufficient:Attempted contact with an official with an offer of reward.Intent to influence official conduct.Confirmation of an unlawful benefit by expert analysis or testimony.Defense may include evidence of lack of intent, failure to prove a direct link between the benefit and official function, qualification errors or procedural violations. Typical mistakes by partiesThe belief that “a promise” or “symbolic gift” is not a crime.Attempts to resolve the issue through intermediaries without direct contact — liability still arises.Underestimating the risks of group actions or repeated contacts with officials.Failure to consult a lawyer at the stage of exposure or investigation. Recent changes and conclusionsIn recent years, lawmakers have repeatedly amended Article 369 CCU and judicial explanations. Tougher sanctions and broader interpretation of “unlawful benefit” and “promise” meet international anti-corruption standards. Most importantly, ordinary citizens and business participants need to understand: any attempt to resolve an issue through a bribe (even if unrealized) is already a criminal risk with irreversible consequences. Recommendation for all: carefully evaluate your actions when dealing with officials. In case of a questionable situation — immediately consult a qualified lawyer to avoid mistakes that may cost freedom and reputation. The law, especially in wartime, is applied as formally and strictly as possible. Remember: ignorance does not exempt from liability! Author: Yevhen Murchenko – head of criminal law and procedure at the law firm “WINNER”.If you have questions or problems regarding the legal qualification of your actions, situations involving liability under Article 369 CCU, forming an effective defense strategy, preparing complaints, explanations or evidence for court — contact the team at “WINNER” Law Firm. Our specialists have extensive experience in criminal cases, guarantee support at all stages of the process and are ready to defend your rights and interests, even in the most complex situations. https://youtu.be/k2-1dq7hxcY?si=tP6PEg4gy9IroOuY

During the prolonged period of martial law in Ukraine, the institution of search by Territorial Recruitment Centers (TRC) has become a real and significant threat for hundreds of thousands of conscripts. Increasingly, citizens are receiving “wanted” status even for minor violations of military registration rules — such as failing to update their data, not reporting to the relevant TRC, or not collecting a draft notice in person. Registration of a person as “wanted” is carried out through the official administrative channel — the “Oberig” registry, which is integrated with the Ministry of Internal Affairs databases. Legal Grounds for TRC Search and Procedure for Being Listed The main legal ground for declaring someone wanted is Article 210 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (violations of military registration rules) and, essentially, alignment with Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1487. “TRC Search” is an administrative mechanism, not a criminal prosecution: its purpose is drawing up a protocol, bringing an individual to administrative responsibility, usually resulting in a fine (from UAH 17,000 to 25,500 as of 2025). The process starts following a submission from the TRC to the National Police, which has the authority to detain a person and deliver them to the TRC for protocol processing. The search mechanism has been greatly simplified during wartime: a person can be added to the list even if a draft notice was not delivered personally — documentary evidence of an attempt to deliver the notice is enough. Factors Leading to TRC Search Listing Main reasons: Absence at the place of registration or invalid contact details Ignoring a personally served draft notice Failure to appear for a military medical commission (MMC), ignoring messages from the TRC Not updating personal data Violations are registered in the unified information system of the Ministry of Defense and police, making it easy to identify someone as “wanted”. Can the TRC Search Status Be Lifted by Paying a Fine? The main myth of recent years is that “paying the fine is enough and the status will be removed automatically”. Legal analysis shows the actual procedure is more complex: A fine can only be paid after drawing up an administrative protocol in person at the TRC or in court. Without official documentation, you cannot simply pay the fine. Payment of the fine does not guarantee immediate removal from the search list: Confirmation is needed that all requirements of the TRC have been met (passing the military medical commission, updating data, etc.) The TRC must manually update the registries — this takes at least several days and often up to a month Police and other authorities may still see the person as “wanted” for some time The search issue cannot be resolved without personal appearance at the TRC: The procedure is NOT remote — personal presence or the presence of an attorney for submitting applications/explanations is required Fulfilling the legal requirements of the TRC is a key condition for removing one’s name from the “wanted” register Evidence of fine payment is only one of several TRC requirements: In some cases, a person can be removed from the register even without paying a fine (if there are no grounds or in case of error) If there is a criminal aspect (evasion of mobilization under Article 336 of the Criminal Code), payment of the fine does not resolve the “wanted” status Algorithm for Removal from the TRC Search List Find out your status by sending an official request to the TRC/registry or via an attorney. Appear in person at the TRC or together with an attorney. Provide all necessary documents, explanations, and fulfill the requirements of the military office: update your data, undergo the military medical commission, submit explanations. Wait for the administrative protocol to be drawn up, sign it, and get the details for paying the fine. Pay the fine (via bank, online, etc.) and provide proof of payment to the TRC. Monitor your receipt of the TRC document about your removal from the search register and verify this in the official registry. In case of refusal — appeal the actions of the TRC through the regional office, General Staff or in administrative court (petition to declare the search action unlawful). Legal Consequences and Risks Payment of the fine under Article 210 of the Code of Administrative Offenses does NOT automatically allow you to leave the country or protect you from further TRC action.Any repeat violation will result in a new fine and renewed “wanted” status.Your “wanted” status in the registry, even after paying the fine, can result in police detention until information is updated in the databases.There is a legal opinion that “administrative search” is not provided for by law and thus can be successfully appealed in court. Practice and Judicial Prospects Due to numerous technical errors, mistaken listings, duplicated cases, or detention after status removal may occur; in such cases, it is recommended to contact an attorney immediately and submit a petition to declare the search unlawful.If there is documentary proof of payment and compliance with TRC requirements — courts generally rule in favor of lifting the search status. Conclusions. What Conscripts Should Do Find out your status and do not ignore communications from the TRC. Do not pay fines without contacting the TRC — only after a protocol has been drawn up and after consultation with an attorney. Complete all formal procedures, do not avoid appearing in person at the TRC or submitting explanations. If removal from the search register is delayed — appeal through higher authorities or in court. Keep records of all contacts, payments and retain evidence of their implementation. Payment of the fine is NOT a universal way to be removed from the TRC search register, it is only one stage of a complex administrative procedure. The main requirement is full interaction with the TRC and compliance with its formal instructions. Only after this is it officially possible to remove one’s name from the search registry, avoid the risk of double fines, illegal detention or new entries in

Refusal by a driver to undergo a medical examination for intoxication is one of the most common grounds for liability under Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (KUoAP). Some drivers mistakenly believe that ignoring the procedure offers a chance to avoid sanctions, but this behavior is directly equated by law to driving while intoxicated. This material reviews the legal consequences, case law, and effective defense mechanisms. Legal nature and police powersAccording to Article 130 KUoAP, administrative liability applies to drivers who operate vehicles while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, as well as those who refuse to undergo the relevant medical examination. A police officer has the right to demand an examination if signs of intoxication are present. Refusal is a separate element of the offense and opens the way to sanctions provided by law. Procedure when offered an examinationIf a police officer observes suspicious signs, the driver is asked to undergo an examination on site (using a breathalyzer) or at a medical facility. Refusal must be documented in writing in a report signed by the driver; reasons must be stated and recorded using suitable equipment or video. Consequences of refusing a medical examinationRefusal is equated to confirmed driving under intoxication, that is: a substantial fine (currently UAH 17,000 and revocation of driving rights for one year); upon repeat violation — arrest for up to 15 days and revocation of rights for three years; vehicle seizure (for certain categories and repeat violations). Why is refusal a completed administrative offense?This legislative approach is designed to prevent manipulation and evasion of responsibility by drivers who may realize the disadvantages of examination while undergoing the procedure. Typical grounds for defense and police errorsCourts most often side with the defense in cases of: improperly drafted procedural documents; lack of direct evidence of intoxication (no video, no witness testimony); incorrect referral for medical examination or lack of explanation about the right to examination in a medical facility; contradictions between police testimony and the report; disputable situations where refusal is not sufficiently proven. For example, courts have dismissed cases under Article 130 KUoAP due to lack of proper evidence: no video recording, incorrect report preparation, contradictions in party explanations. Defense standards and role of the lawyerEffective defense is based on: thorough analysis of the report and body cam or dash-cam recordings; verification that all mandatory explanations and alternative examination offers were provided; scrutiny of medical findings and legality of the procedure; inclusion of all violations and circumstances that could influence the officer’s decision in complaints/statements. A professional lawyer can: restore complaint deadlines; ensure case closure for formal or evidential violations; challenge mitigations, unlawful property seizure, repeat sanctions, etc. Judicial practice and real casesAppellate and cassation practice contains many examples where proceedings were terminated due to police errors. Courts analyze all circumstances, even if refusal is formal, but there is no confirmed intoxication or evidence of such refusal. Practical advice Always record events on a personal camera; call your lawyer immediately upon detention. Avoid aggression, demand explanations, never sign blank or contradictory reports. Check for an alternative offer to undergo examination at a medical facility. Remember: refusal without proper procedural documentation does not automatically result in liability. Do not neglect appeal deadlines. ConclusionsRefusal to undergo a medical examination is an administrative offense with strict consequences. However, in many cases, defense is based on police procedural violations. Every case is unique: thorough defense, a qualified lawyer, and robust evidence analysis give a real chance to minimize risks and avoid unjust punishment. Timely developed legal arguments will strengthen your position even in complex situations. Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner of “WINNER” Law Firm, PhD in Law. https://youtu.be/S9C2nn5VO0I?si=gXR8TmDR7bZPXgQl

Reforming the classification system of types of economic activity (KVED) has become one of the most significant administrative changes in recent years. The transition to the new version of KVED aims to align the Ukrainian statistical, tax, and regulatory systems with current economic realities and European classification standards. This article will discuss why the need for KVED renewal arose, the main changes, how they will affect businesses, and what actions entrepreneurs and companies need to take. Why a new system was neededThe previous version of KVED (2010) has essentially become outdated. Over the past ten years, Ukraine’s economy has changed significantly: new sectors linked to digital technologies, green energy, creative industries, logistics, and new types of financial services have emerged. The old codes did not cover these directions, or reflected them too generally, which complicated accounting, analysis, and regulation. Additionally, Ukraine set a course for harmonizing statistical standards with the NACE Rev. 2 system (the economic activity classification used in the European Union). This means the new Ukrainian KVED is based on the same grouping structure as in EU countries. As a result, Ukrainian businesses will have simplified access to international markets, while government authorities will benefit from a unified system of statistical indicators. Main principles of the classification updateThe new classification system of types of economic activity is built on the following principles: Consistency with NACE Rev. 2. Detailing of new economic sectors. Simplifying registration procedures and eliminating code duplication. The possibility for automated database updates in the future. The structure of the classification remains hierarchical: sections, subsections, divisions, groups, classes. But the number of groups and classes has increased, allowing a more precise reflection of a business entity’s activity. For instance, in information technology, it’s now possible to distinctly separate software development, cybersecurity, cloud services, or data analytics. Harmonization with European standardsIn practice, harmonization with the NACE system has three key outcomes: Statistical accounting: International organizations, such as Eurostat, will receive compatible data, allowing the Ukrainian economy to be assessed using the same criteria as EU countries. Business registration: Entrepreneurs entering the European market will no longer face problems matching activity codes in contracts or tenders. Regulation and control: The government can better monitor the development of new sectors and adapt tax and socioeconomic policies according to real trends. What will change for businessesFor most existing companies, the renewal of KVED will not require significant legal action. However, every business entity must ensure that its activity is correctly represented in the new classification. If a code has changed or a more accurate analogue has appeared, it will be necessary to update registration documents. The changes will also have tax implications. In particular, the correct KVED is important when determining: The right to use the simplified taxation system (single tax). Statistical reporting and classification codes in forms (for example, State Statistics Service reports). The appropriate category of insurance contributions for hired employees. Activity codes in foreign economic contracts. During the transition period, tax and statistical authorities will maintain parallel guides matching the old and new codes to avoid confusion in reporting. How entrepreneurs should actTo transition properly to the new system, experts recommend step-by-step actions: Check the main and additional KVEDs of the enterprise in the Unified State Register. Compare existing codes with the new classification list using the official correspondence table. If necessary, submit an application to the Administrative Services Center or via the “Diia” portal to change KVED in the register. Notify counterparties and update codes in statutory documents, licenses, and contracts. Update information in accounting software and reporting templates. These steps will not only ensure legal compliance but help avoid potential issues during inspections or contract signings. Possible risks and challengesDespite the clear advantages, transitioning to an updated system comes with certain challenges. First, a significant part of small businesses may not immediately adapt to the structure of new codes, especially in complex areas like financial services or IT. Second, in the first months of operation, technical issues are possible—such as discrepancies between codes in the Unified State Register and the tax base. Risks also include the possibility of incorrect automatic data transfer during registry updates. Therefore, business entities should check their information in open sources. Economic and legal consequencesAt the macro level, the new classification should promote transparent economic processes and improve governmental forecasting. The state will be able to more accurately assess each sector’s contribution to GDP, identify potential risks, budgetary needs, and support directions. At the micro level, for businesses this means: Clearer market positioning. Easier access to international financing programs. Simplified participation in EU grants and tenders where NACE code compliance is required. The ability for statistical comparison of business results with European enterprises. Law firms and consultants should prepare clients for the transition, run information sessions, and update contract templates that mention KVED. SummaryThe KVED update is more than a technical registry change; it is part of Ukraine’s broader process of economic digitalization and integration into the European economic space. Despite temporary difficulties, the new system will improve data accuracy, reduce bureaucracy, and create conditions for the development of innovative sectors. Businesses and entrepreneurs should check and update their codes according to the new rules today to ensure a confident and risk-free transition. Author: Maksym Bahniuk, Head of Tax and Customs Law Practice, Law Firm “WINNER”.If you have questions or issues regarding KVED determination or renewal, practical code analysis for your business, registration or licensing documentation, or other legal aspects of activity, contact our team. Law Firm WINNER is ready to provide professional support, consultations, and guidance for your business’s successful adaptation to the new regulations. We will help you: Analyze and select the optimal KVED for your activity. Conduct individual assessments of problem situations during the transition to the new classification. Prepare a document package for register changes and business support. In today’s realities, it is important to stay informed and act proactively. https://youtu.be/rEd6me-Ume4?si=_XuBqsDQhQ-4ayyl

The ongoing war against Ukraine has significantly changed approaches to the issue of the state’s defense readiness. One of the key directions for improving national security is the expansion of the list of persons subject to military registration, including women. Recent legislative changes, social discourse, and the shortcomings of law enforcement make the issue of women’s military registration both relevant and complex for legal analysis. Regulatory framework for women’s military registration: current acts and trendsUntil 2022, women’s military registration was mostly declarative in nature, with minimal practical implementation. A key shift occurred with the adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On military duty and military service,” as well as the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine Order No. 35 dated February 7, 2022, which approved the list of specialties and professions obligating women to register for military service. The law states that women who are fit for military service by health and age (from 18 to 60 years), and have specialties or professions needed by the Armed Forces, are subject to mandatory military registration. In practice, however, application of this norm raises a number of issues—from determining specific professions to guaranteeing women’s rights in connection with fulfilling this obligation. Throughout 2023–2025, the legislative process continued, and the issue of women’s military registration was periodically clarified. Certain professions remained disputed, especially in healthcare, IT, communications, law, finance, and education. Sometimes, the government revised the list according to actual defense needs and mobilization plans. Practice of registration organization: procedures, documents, and liabilityThe procedure for military registration consists of several stages: Personal application to the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support (TCRC&SS) at the place of registration. Submission of documents: passport, TIN, diploma (to confirm specialty), medical certificate, and other documents upon request. Medical examination to determine fitness. Entry of data into the Registry of military liable persons. Important: Registration does not mean being called to military service or direct participation in combat—it is merely reservist personnel preparation. Women may be called up only in case of mobilization and during martial law, as needed and considering family and medical status. Administrative liability for evading military registration remains low for now: fines range from 510 to 1,700 UAH, in some cases up to 3,400 UAH (Art. 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine). However, recent legislative changes signal a gradual strengthening of sanctions, especially regarding evasion of medical examinations or deliberate concealment of profession. Practical aspects for employers: challenges and algorithmsNew obligations regarding the military registration of women have been imposed on legal entities (employers). The employer should assist in registration, maintain personal military documents, and inform employees about the need to complete these procedures. Since 2024, absence of military registration for an employee with a listed specialty may result in administrative liability for the employer and fines (Art. 43 of the Code of Administrative Offenses), as well as inspections by TCRC&SS bodies. To avoid risks, HR departments should audit specialties, provide information and control the registration process, and maintain proper military documentation. Women’s rights, guarantees, and restrictions under military registrationWomen on military registration retain all social guarantees provided by labor and family law. Military call-up cannot infringe on rights to leave, health protection, maternity or childcare. Special attention should be paid to the grounds for deferment or exemption from service: pregnancy, caring for children under three, health status, as well as a critical family situation (for example, caring for a disabled person). The procedure for deferment is the same as for men (application to TCRC&SS with supporting documents). During actual service, women may be assigned to non-combat positions, as well as positions in civilian structures of the Armed Forces—doctors, lawyers, psychologists, operators, etc. The law guarantees retention of the workplace and average salary during service or mobilization. Chronology and key changes of 2022–20252022: MOD Order No. 35—specialties list clarified for the first time.2023: Cabinet reviewed timeframes and specifics, deferred the implementation of certain provisions.2024: Introduced employer-level inspections, some cities launched information campaigns.2025: Technical additions to the registration procedures—electronic registries, remote submission of documents, personal notifications in “Diia.” Judicial practice and dynamics of disputesAs of autumn 2025, judicial practice regarding women’s military registration is gradually taking shape. The most common disputes are due to: appeals against refusals to grant deferment (especially for family reasons); appeals against administrative fines for late registration. In general, courts support the state’s position on the mandatory nature of registration and recognize the right to deferment or exemption if there are grounds provided by law. Some cases regarding freedom of profession or discrimination are still under consideration, but currently, no clear violations of women’s rights have been established. Conclusion and recommendationsWomen’s military registration is becoming part of Ukraine’s security policy and is gaining greater importance. Legal entities and individuals are advised to carefully monitor legislative changes, ensure proper and timely processing of documents, and consider guarantees and peculiarities of women’s status in the military registry. Under martial law, ensuring protection of women’s rights in military registration should remain a priority for lawyers, HR professionals, and the state. Maintaining the balance between duty and rights is the key principle of modern Ukrainian legal policy. Svitlana Krutorogova – attorney at the Law Firm “WINNER”.If you have any questions or issues related to the military registration of women or the need to protect their rights, contact our team for professional legal support and consultations. Your safety and confidence in the correctness of your actions are our priority. https://youtu.be/zTDo7jW1KUg?si=t-tpIAmiBK_BlWpq

In the current conditions of martial law, issues of procedural rights and guarantees for participants in judicial proceedings have acquired special significance. Military aggression, constant missile threats, and systematic air raids have created a situation in which participation in court hearings may become physically impossible or dangerous. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court of Ukraine has formulated a legal position: the absence of a party in court due to the announcement of an air alarm constitutes a valid reason for postponing the consideration of the case or for recognizing the absence of a party’s representative as justified. Normative and Procedural FoundationsAccording to Articles 223 and 240 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a court may adjourn the case if circumstances arise that make its consideration impossible, or if the absence of a party is recognized by the court as valid. Similar provisions are also found in the Commercial Procedure Code (Article 202) and the Code of Administrative Procedure (Article 223). The validity of reasons for non-appearance is evaluated by the court in each specific case. However, the key principle is the real opportunity to exercise the right to participate in the proceedings. Violation of a party’s right to be heard (principle audi alteram partem) may result in the annulment of the court’s decision due to procedural violations. Supreme Court Assessment: Martial Risks as Force MajeureIn a number of its decisions (including cases No. 380/1538/23, No. 761/11408/22, No. 420/13474/22), the Supreme Court stressed that during martial law, circumstances related to air raids are objective and insurmountable. They do not depend on the will of the participant, and hence are considered valid reasons for non-appearance. The Court emphasized that civil and administrative proceedings must take security realities into account, and procedural duties cannot outweigh the constitutional right to life and personal safety. The Supreme Court stated that an air alarm or other threats to the safety of process participants are grounds for: postponing the consideration of the case; summoning persons again to the court hearing; restoring procedural terms; recognizing the absence of a party as valid when the case is considered in their absence. Such conclusions are based not only on procedural rules, but also on the provisions of Articles 3, 27, and 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which guarantee everyone the right to protection of life, safety, and judicial protection. Practical Aspects of Proving Air AlarmsFor the court to consider absence as valid, a participant should provide evidence of the time and place of the air alarm announcement. This may include: official notifications or screenshots from governmental applications (such as “Air Alarm”); data from the official resource alerts.in.ua or regional military administration websites; copies of internal orders/notices of the institution regarding evacuation during alarms; written explanations about the person’s whereabouts during the danger. Documentary evidence helps prevent abuse of procedural rights, but even without such evidence, courts have the right to ascertain the fact of an air alarm in a particular region on the relevant date and time, on their own initiative. Balancing Procedural Economy and SafetyThe Supreme Court emphasizes that lower courts must maintain a balance between procedural economy and respect for participant rights. A formal approach to assessing reasons for non-appearance is unacceptable. If security risks are objective, the court has no right to consider the case in the absence of a party, even if statutory timeframes are violated. The Court also noted that process participants must act in good faith: notify the court in advance of the reasons for absence, and use videoconferencing or remote communication if available under safe conditions. Systemic Nature of the Supreme Court’s PositionThe Supreme Court’s position is intersectoral and applies to all types of proceedings. It reflects the doctrine of reasonable exercise of procedural rights under extraordinary conditions. In its decisions, the Court has repeatedly emphasized that excessive formalism in applying procedural deadlines and sanctions contradicts the principle of fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. For example, in its ruling of 11 April 2024, the Supreme Court noted that safe participation in judicial proceedings is an element of access to justice. Therefore, any actions or decisions that force a party to choose between safety and procedural duty are unacceptable. ConclusionThus, the Supreme Court has formulated a fundamental approach for wartime: an air alarm is an objective, insurmountable reason that makes participation in judicial proceedings impossible. Such a reason is recognized as valid regardless of the form of proceedings—civil, administrative, or commercial. By adhering to the principles of the rule of law, courts must ensure that participants have a real opportunity to exercise their right to judicial protection without being exposed to danger. This approach aligns not only with national legislation but also with European standards of access to justice under extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, Supreme Court decisions are important not only for specific cases, but also for the development of humanitarian judicial practice that puts human safety above procedural form. Svitlana Krutorohova – attorney at the law firm “WINNER”.If you have any questions or issues related to resolving similar procedural situations or need protection of your rights in court, contact our team for professional legal support and consultation. Your protection and safety are always our priority. https://youtu.be/V6VIYjriyBw?si=xXeNYpnEGalbn90A

Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (KUpAP) is one of the most renowned and strictest administrative norms in the field of Ukrainian traffic law. It establishes liability for driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, as well as for refusal to undergo a medical examination. These violations carry real risks for drivers: fines, license revocation, even arrest or vehicle confiscation. However, modern court practice and common police errors give a real chance for effective defense—if you enlist the support of an experienced attorney.Essence and content of Article 130 KUpAPAccording to parts 1–3 of Article 130, main violations include: driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants; allowing a person in a state of intoxication to drive—either the car owner or the driver is liable; refusal to undergo a medical exam—which is equated to confirmed intoxication; use of medicines that lower concentration or reaction speed.Liability arises even if the driver was not behind the wheel but could have influenced the operation of the vehicle (key in the ignition, intent to drive).Penalties for violation: fines, license withdrawal, arrestFor a first violation:fine of UAH 17,000 + license suspension for 1 year.A second offense within a year:fine of UAH 34,000 + suspension for 3 years.A third within a year:fine of UAH 51,000 + confiscation of the vehicle + suspension for 10 years or 10 days’ arrest.A major issue has become the harsher punishment for repeated or systematic violations.Procedural nuances and court practiceMany cases under Article 130 KUpAP collapse in court because of: improper drafting of the protocol (errors, formal mistakes); lack of signs of intoxication (no clear description or confirmation: smell, gait, speech, behavior); procedural violations during examination (no witnesses, breaking the sequence of actions); part of the article listed incorrectly—excessive penalties applied; no real fact of driving (the person just sat in the car).Many cases result in closing the file or returning materials for revision—this is why a competent attorney improves your chances of defense.Attorney’s role in Article 130 KUpAP proceedingsAn attorney for Article 130 is not just a representative in court, but a strategist who: analyzes the legality of the protocol (were all legal grounds present, was the offense qualified correctly); checks procedural requirements: driver’s rights observed, witnesses present, alternative exam offered; challenges illegal actions of officials; collects all documents: medical certificates, dashcam video, written explanations; prepares a structured defense, written explanations for the court, handles appeals, and analyzes court practice.A professional attorney asks the right questions to witnesses, experts, and investigators, emphasizes procedural violations that can lead to case closure and, most importantly, defends the client from unsubstantiated or mistaken sanctions.Defense strategy: how to increase your odds of success Examine every detail: date, time, protocol location, video/audio, witnesses, medical exam procedure. Prove the lack of intoxication (or refute police claims). Check whether documents/protocols were completed correctly. Demand rehearing, appeal, expert review in case of disputes. Insist on your right to an interpreter if the driver is a foreigner. Defend all procedural guarantees at every stage: timely notification, attendance of attorney, motions, statements.Typical mistakes and hidden pitfallsWithout an attorney, drivers often: don’t appeal the protocol in time; ignore police errors (absence of witnesses, wrong signs listed); refuse to sign or don’t explain their defense; fail to appeal, thinking the initial ruling is final.Why is it important to consult a lawyer?An experienced attorney on Article 130 knows the trial details, has the protection algorithm, and successful case records in similar matters.He can quickly collect evidence, prepare a written, reasoned defense, appeal license loss or challenge vehicle confiscation.A lawyer will advise how to retain your license and avoid steep fines and seizure—even in high-profile cases.Professional action determines not just your financial result, but your legal future: repeated prosecution and risk of right restrictions.Competent defense in tough situations is a driver’s best asset when threatened with license loss.Promo block: why choose a WINNER Law Firm attorney?WINNER Law Firm’s attorneys have a track record with Article 130 KUpAP, deep knowledge of court practice, and are up-to-date on road law reforms.The team provides full legal support: from consultation and case analysis to representation in all court instances.Clients are guaranteed confidentiality, quick response, and maximum protection of interests—anywhere in Ukraine.The WINNER team handles both VIP cases and standard administrative disputes—so you always have a shot at success.Your WINNER attorney protects you from risks, fines, and loss of your license.ConclusionsArticle 130 KUpAP is not a sentence. Every driver has the right to professional defense, full appeal, contesting baseless fines, and keeping their rights. Getting a lawyer is not just an expense, but an investment in your security and future. If you face license loss or seizure of your car under Article 130 KUpAP, be sure to consult WINNER Law Firm lawyers to protect your interests.WINNER attorney is your chance for a successful outcome!Author: Ihor Yas’ko, managing partner, WINNER Law Firm, PhD. https://youtu.be/S9C2nn5VO0I?si=aNjekygCZk78EaK1

Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is one of the key provisions of anti-corruption legislation that establishes criminal liability for offering, promising, or giving an undue advantage to an official. Its practical application is constantly in the focus of lawyers, judges, anti-corruption bodies, and society, since it deals not only with bribery as a socially dangerous phenomenon but also with its distinction from administrative offenses, related crimes, and civil legal relations. Essence and Legal Construction of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of UkraineThe article consists of four parts, each covering different forms of criminal conduct: offering, promising, or actually giving an undue advantage to an official for actions or inaction using their official position; repeat offenses (part 2); group commission or offer to a particularly responsible person (part 3); organized group or exclusively responsible person (part 4). Importantly: the crime is considered completed from the moment of any such act—even if the official refuses or does not receive the benefit. An offer, even if oral or through an intermediary, already constitutes the corpus delicti. Objective Elements: Substance, Means, and Subject of Undue AdvantageThe objective side includes: initiative to grant the benefit (oral, written, via other persons) attempt, promise, or direct transfer of material or non-material values offer of services, advantages, benefits, influence on decision-making The subject of undue advantage may include: money; gifts and property; services or privileges; any non-material advantages with monetary value. The amount does not affect the qualification under part 1, but for parts 2–4, the degree of punishment increases significantly. Subject and Subjective Aspect of the OffenseThe subject is any mentally competent individual who has reached the age of 16, regardless of citizenship. A legal entity cannot be a subject under this article, but its representatives are subject to individual liability. The subjective element: the main feature is direct intent, confirmed in court when considering circumstances—the offense may be motivated by various reasons (gain, fear, desire to avoid liability), but the key point is that the person realizes the societal danger and aims for the corresponding result. Qualifying Features and Differentiation from Related OffensesRecidivism, group conspiracy, special status of the official, and organized commission are aggravating factors: repeat offenses—entail stricter terms of punishment and additional fines; prior group conspiracy—entails harsher sanctions (up to 8–10 years’ imprisonment with confiscation); giving an undue advantage to heads of authorities, judges, top officials—combined with enhanced penalties. In addition, Article 369 should be distinguished from: abuse of influence (Art. 369-2 of the CCU); receiving an undue advantage by an official (Art. 368 of the CCU);Judicial practice (Supreme Court) emphasizes: it is crucial to establish the genuine nature of the advantage and legally significant connection with the official’s powers. Examples from Real Case Law: Key PointsIn recent years, sentences under Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine show these trends: most criminal cases are initiated based on the actual transfer of money for “solving issues” in courts, police, or government bodies; making an offer to an official (even if refused) is already grounds for prosecution; courts take into account sincere repentance, the amount of the benefit, the role of intermediaries, and the factual influence of the benefit on the official’s decision when issuing a sentence; special attention is paid to claims that the act was a “joke,” misunderstanding, or lack of evidence that the benefit was transferred—these are evaluated individually; indirect evidence is often used: recordings of conversations, electronic correspondence, covert surveillance. Understanding the Concept of ‘Undue Advantage’: Deep ApproachPractice shows that undue advantage is recognized not only as money or gifts but also “services for relatives,” bonuses or property preferences such as discounts, assistance, loyalty, even payment for vacations or education. Each case involves an individualized analysis of evidence and context. Differences in Judicial Practice across Regions and AuthoritiesCases under Article 369 often lead to different outcomes depending on the evidence base, activity of anti-corruption bodies, mediation between parties, and also the features of local business culture or even regional influences. Courts consider: specifics of official relations; availability of audio/video evidence; people’s impact on decision-making; the role of intermediaries and third parties. Punishment: Sentencing TrendsDepending on the article part, the penalties include: fines from 1,000 to 4,000 non-taxable minimum incomes; imprisonment from 2 to 10 years; confiscation of property for severe cases (organized group, especially responsible person). Courts critically evaluate: whether there was repentance and assistance to the investigation; whether the benefit was given or only proposed; whether there was influence on the state body. Typical Mistakes by the Defense and ProsecutionInvestigators and attorneys sometimes err by: not recording the “moment the crime is completed” (it can occur before the actual receipt of the benefit); not collecting complete evidence (video, audio, letters, statements); ignoring the person’s official status or the motive for the transfer. Anti-Corruption Role and Prospective ChangesArticle 369 of the CCU is one of the most effective real anti-corruption control tools. Trends towards stricter approaches, recording cases even in “minor” situations, the obligation to prove the reality of the benefit, and involving the public are changing judges’ attitudes. The work of the NABU, High Anti-Corruption Court, and local prosecutors sets a new standard for fighting corruption—considering European models and ECHR practice. ConclusionsArticle 369 of the Criminal Code covers a wide range of corrupt behavior and is fundamentally important for developing Ukraine’s legal culture. The accuracy of case qualification, evidence review, and depth of evaluating intent and societal danger are key to successful case resolution and addressing gaps in anti-corruption policy. For lawyers, judges, and investigators, it is vital to consider Supreme Court interpretations and international trends, and for citizens—to comply with the law and avoid risky contacts with officials. Author: Yevhen Murchenko – Head of criminal law and procedure practice at WINNER Law Firm.If you have questions or problems applying anti-corruption law, consulting on offense qualification, preparing legal positions, or defense in court—contact WINNER Law Firm experts. Competent support will help minimize risks, set up defense, and find effective legal solutions during investigations and

Autumn 2025 signaled new alarming trends for Ukrzaliznytsia (UZ) regarding the financial stability of the state carrier: net losses for the first 9 months exceeded 7.2 billion UAH. This figure was officially announced by the Deputy Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Serhiy Leshchenko, from the rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada on November 5. The carrier’s unprofitability quickly became a top topic for society, industry, and the state, and debates about the future of Ukraine’s railway sector again turned into questions of national security and economic resilience. Main reasons for the financial collapse: Structural rift between freight and passenger transportBetween 2021 and 2025, UZ lost almost half (49%) of its freight volumes due to the war, infrastructure destruction, the halting of the coal industry in Donetsk region, mining and enrichment plants, and overall reduction of industrial production. The company’s income base critically depends on the freight segment, which historically subsidized passenger transport. Chronic unprofitability of the passenger segmentIn 2025, passenger transport losses reached historic highs of 18–20.8 billion UAH. Ticket prices remain politically sensitive and do not reflect true costs. Cross-subsidization severely depleted the company’s reserves. War and infrastructure destructionIn 2024–2025, more than 800 attacks targeted Ukraine’s rail infrastructure, damaging over 3,000 assets: bridges, stations, depots, and tracks. These losses led not only to extra costs but also to logistical bottlenecks, missed delivery deadlines, and increased operational expenses. Decrease in export volumes and structural economic shiftsIn the first half of 2025, export volumes dropped by 13.5% (to 38.7 million tons), and domestic shipments by 11.7%. Imports slightly increased but did not offset the decline. Ineffective tariff policyTariffs remained unchanged for years, with indexation lagging behind inflation and rising costs. The proposal to raise freight rates by 41.5% (in two steps in 2026) emerged as a forced response to the catastrophic situation: only through price hikes can UZ expect additional revenues totaling 22.5 billion UAH. Socio-economic effectsOver the past two years, UZ tried to balance the need to support the defense sector and to maintain key logistics flows for business and the public. Mobility during wartime is a question of social cohesion and survival. Reduced fares and increased spending on evacuation, defense, and discount categories were justified, but resulted in record deficits. Role of state support, 2025–2026In 2025, to compensate for passenger losses, the government allocated an extra 13 billion UAH in subsidies. The draft 2026 state budget includes 4.2 billion UAH for urban transport, 1.2 billion for railway modernization, 1.8 billion for rail supply, and 16 billion for direct UZ compensation. Challenges and prospects for 2026–2028Main forecast: passenger losses will keep growing (20.8 billion UAH in 2025, 22.3 in 2026, 24.7 in 2027, 29.4 in 2028); profit from freight drops as long as industry stagnates under military threats. Without systemic reforms and a new tariff model, deeper losses and erosion of the company’s capitalization loom ahead. Recovery strategy: Rate policy review:UZ prepared a phased plan for raising freight rates (by 27.5% from January 1 and by 11% from July 1, 2026) to get over 22.5 billion UAH in extra income. Cost optimization:Active sales of non-core assets, scrap, and property lease could add up to 10 billion UAH. Digitalization and shadow losses reduction:Stricter procurement controls and “e-railway” solutions will fight theft and corruption. Segmentation of passenger and freight businesses:A shift in subsidizing loss-making segments is needed, with targeted compensation for specific citizen categories. Reviving international cooperation and investments:Attracting loans, grants, and donor funds from the EU and international development banks. ConclusionUZ’s losses mirror long-standing structural challenges: war, an unprofitable passenger segment, postponed rate reform, and reluctance to update rolling stock. The 7.2 billion UAH net loss over 9 months of 2025 is a symptom of a systemic crisis. Without decisive reforms and state support, the company risks losing its backbone role for Ukraine’s economy and vital infrastructure. At the same time, the crisis is an impetus for faster change, external financing, new approaches to pricing, and transparent national investment strategies. Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner at WINNER Law Firm, PhD in Law.If you have questions or issues related to investment law or corporate operations, contact our team for legal advice. https://youtu.be/KSmFPGSDIF0?si=72ADKgUQFkMIA74N