Author name: admin

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку For many businesses, environmental permits are not about “green issues” but about the very ability to operate: launch production, use the facility, sign contracts with partners, pass bank and investor checks. Delays with documentation mean frozen projects, idle equipment and extra questions from supervisory authorities. The problem is that requirements for documents, procedures and deadlines are constantly changing, and each type of activity has its own set of permits, declarations and reports. As a result, the owner or director is forced to “google”, walk around government offices, wasting time and nerves instead of managing the business. What we take on We provide end‑to‑end support in obtaining environmental permits — from initial diagnostics to ready‑to‑use documents in your hands. We can: determine which environmental permits, declarations, notifications and approvals your business specifically needs, given its activities, equipment and location review existing documents and identify gaps and risks (expired permits, mismatch with actual operations, missing reports) prepare complete application packages: forms, statements, justifications, diagrams and annexes support communication with authorities: filing documents, liaising with officials, responding to requests and comments where necessary, help remedy the situation if there have been past violations or refusals to issue permits Who this service is for Environmental permitting is required if you: are launching a new production facility, logistics complex, warehouse, agricultural or processing business are expanding existing operations or changing technologies (new equipment, higher volumes, new waste streams) are preparing for inspections, tenders, investor due diligence or bank financing where environmental documentation is checked for completeness and validity want to put your existing “environmental” paperwork in order so you are not afraid of visits from regulators What the client receives You receive not just “a permit for the sake of a permit”, but a comprehensive solution: a clear list of all documents required specifically for your business properly prepared and submitted document packages support up to the point of obtaining the result (permit, approval, registration in official records, etc.) reduced risk of fines, shutdowns and claims from supervisory authorities due to technical non‑compliance If you need to obtain environmental permits quickly, without document chaos and unnecessary visits to authorities, we can do it for you. Author – Svitlana Krutorohova, attorney at Law Firm “WINNER”.Contact: info@uk-winner.com | +38 (096) 574 81 02 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Rdi6CWE1s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Conflicts between clients and providers of professional services — particularly legal, consulting and accounting services — most often arise around two key issues: the quality of work and the amount of fees. Even an objectively well‑performed project may end in a scandal and a lost client if the parties’ expectations regarding results, timing and cost have not been properly aligned. For lawyers, consultants and service businesses, the ability to manage such conflicts is a crucial element of professional reputation and financial stability.Sources of conflict: expectations vs realityMost disputes about “poor quality” of services are in fact linked not to blatant mistakes but to a mismatch between the client’s expectations and the results that could objectively be achieved. Clients tend to perceive a service as “achieving a specific outcome” (winning a case, obtaining a favourable opinion from a counterparty, recovering funds), whereas professionals sell “best efforts”: preparing documents, conducting proceedings, analysing risks. This gap widens if, at the outset, the contract does not clearly define the scope of work, the risks involved and possible scenarios.Another cause of conflict is a lack of transparency in fee calculation. Clients expect “one fixed price for everything”, while consultants work on an hourly rate or a hybrid model (fixed fee plus success fee). If these models are not explained and recorded in writing, any excess over the initial estimate looks to the client like “imposed” extra charges.The contract as the first line of defenceA properly drafted engagement agreement is the primary tool for preventing conflicts. It should clearly answer three questions: what exactly the provider will do, for which scope of work the fee is payable and which risks each party assumes. For legal and consulting work this means detailing the list of actions (document review, drafting pleadings, attending hearings, negotiations), limitations (no guarantees of outcome, dependence on court or third‑party actions) and liability caps.The contract should also set out the procedure for approving additional work, the conditions for fee adjustments when the scope changes and the mechanism for interim reporting (time sheets, interim acts, confirmation letters). This makes it possible, in case of a dispute, to show that the client was informed about the progress and volume of work performed, and that complaints about “unexpected” invoices are unfounded.Communication and documenting the processEven the best contract cannot replace regular communication. Many conflicts arise because clients receive no updates for a long time, do not understand what the consultant is doing and emotionally interpret the absence of news as “inaction”. Conversely, even bad news (an adverse decision, delays on the authority’s side) is better received when the client sees a clear logic of actions and alternative options.In practice, it is advisable to document key arrangements in writing (letters, e‑mails, CRM notes), send short progress reports explaining what has been done and what comes next, formalise major changes in strategy or scope via separate letters or addenda, and always record warnings about risks and limitations (for example, low prospects of a claim). Such documentation disciplines the team and builds an evidentiary record showing that the consultant acted in good faith, informed the client and obtained consent for critical decisions.Assessing service quality: professional standards vs subjective impressionsOne of the hardest issues is defining the “quality” of legal or consulting services. Clients often judge by outcome (won or lost, whether a tax dispute “went through”, whether the bank agreed to restructuring), while professional standards focus on whether the law was followed, the strategy was reasonable and risks were properly assessed. It is important to explain that even the strongest legal position does not guarantee a decision in the client’s favour.In disputes over “poor quality”, it is useful to seek independent review — for example, an opinion from another lawyer or a subject‑matter expert. For the profession, disciplinary bodies and associations provide a self‑regulatory mechanism that distinguishes genuine breaches of standards from cases where the client is dissatisfied with the outcome but no objective misconduct occurred.Fees: transparency, predictability, flexibilityFee disputes usually arise in three situations: when the client sees the amount as excessive, did not expect additional invoices or feels a mismatch between the price paid and the value received. To reduce these risks, the fee model should match the task and client profile: fixed fees for standard, predictable work; hourly rates for complex, long‑term or evolving projects; hybrid (fixed plus success fee) for matters with a strong outcome component.The key is to explain how the invoice is formed: which work is included in the base fee, what is billed separately and what hourly rates apply. Transparency is reinforced by detailed time sheets and descriptions of work, as well as the opportunity to discuss budgets and optimisation options (e.g. delegating parts of the task to junior lawyers or focusing on key risks).Resolving conflicts: negotiation, mediation, litigationOnce a conflict has surfaced, the first step should be negotiation. Often, a candid discussion of grievances and a partial compromise — a discount, recalculation of certain stages, or additional work at no charge — is enough to preserve the relationship and avoid public escalation. For large firms and corporate clients, mediation or an internal review by a senior partner or compliance officer can be an effective de‑escalation tool.If the dispute moves into court or disciplinary forums, a strong evidentiary record is crucial: the contract, correspondence, reports, completion certificates, fee calculations and interim approvals. This allows the provider to show that they acted within agreed terms and professional standards, and that the client’s claims stem from dissatisfaction with the outcome rather than genuine poor quality.Strategic perspective: conflicts as management signalsMature firms treat client conflicts not only as legal risks but also as management feedback. Analysing complaints reveals weaknesses in communication, resource planning problems, flawed contract templates and gaps in client service. Simple tools — project‑start checklists, standard risk‑disclosure letters, internal policies on discounts and fee adjustments — can significantly reduce both the frequency and intensity of conflicts.In some practices (e.g. criminal defence, tax litigation), it is worth preparing standard

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку In recent years, lawyers and businesses have increasingly faced situations where public authorities, banks and mobile operators systematically refuse to provide information. Formal references to “personal data protection”, “bank secrecy” or “lack of authority on the part of the requester” often conceal an unwillingness or inability to perform basic duties. The sheer scale of such refusals turns them from an exception into a routine practice, undermining legal certainty, making it impossible to protect the rights of citizens and businesses and creating additional risks for investigative bodies, lawyers and courts.Reasons for widespread refusals to provide informationThe core problem lies in a combination of three factors. First, the complexity and fragmentation of regulation: the right of access to public information, bank secrecy, personal‑data protection, confidentiality of communications and procedural rules exist in parallel, and their conflicts are often resolved “in favour of silence” — i.e. by refusing access. Second, fear of sanctions: bank and operator staff are afraid of liability for unlawful disclosure and therefore automatically choose the most conservative option — to provide nothing without obvious and indisputable legal justification. Third, a low service culture and reluctance to take responsibility: it is easier to send a template refusal than to deal with the specifics of a particular request.In public authorities, an additional factor is the inertia of “closedness”: officials often perceive any request as a threat or additional burden rather than as a tool for implementing citizens’ rights. As a result, even clearly lawful requests by lawyers, notaries, businesses or journalists are met with formal boilerplate replies or silent refusals.Types of information most frequently refusedThree blocks of information are particularly vulnerable. The first is financial data: banks often refuse to provide statements, information on cash flows or account balances, citing bank secrecy even where the requester has an obvious procedural status (an investigator with a court order, an insolvency practitioner, a lawyer with a mandate) or the client’s explicit consent. The second block is telecom data: call records, SIM‑card linkage, subscriber registration data, geolocation. Here the classic arguments are “confidentiality of communications” and “personal‑data protection”, even where the law clearly permits access based on a court order or the subscriber’s consent.The third block is information stored in state registers and information systems: data on assets, corporate rights, administrative acts, inspection results, enforcement proceedings and so on. Even where there is a legitimate interest and clear references to sector‑specific laws, requesters are told that “the information is restricted/contains personal data”, without any further analysis of whether partial or anonymised disclosure would be possible.Formal grounds vs real motives for refusalA typical pattern is the use of lawful grounds in a distorted or overly broad interpretation. For example, provisions on bank secrecy or personal data are applied without regard to exceptions such as the subject’s consent, the existence of a court order, the requester’s procedural status or an explicit rule in a special law. Authorities and institutions often “overlook” the fact that restrictions on access must be proportionate and justified, not absolute.The real motives behind refusals frequently include a reluctance to expose problematic transactions, corruption risks or simple avoidance of responsibility: providing information may reveal weaknesses in internal procedures, legal violations or official negligence. Another factor is that certain departments are overloaded; processing requests takes time and resources they lack, so refusals become a way to reduce workload.Consequences for the rights of citizens and businessesSystemic unlawful refusals to provide information affect several levels. For citizens, they mean an inability to effectively protect their rights: to challenge decisions, prove violations and collect evidence for courts or law‑enforcement bodies. For businesses, they complicate compliance and risk management: it becomes impossible to detect fraud in time, confirm contract performance, conduct internal investigations or respond to suspicious transactions.For law‑enforcement and justice systems as a whole, the result is the devaluation of legal mechanisms: investigations drag on, courts lack evidence and lawyers are forced to rely on indirect methods of obtaining information (through third parties, informal contacts or parallel requests). In the long run, this undermines trust in state institutions, the financial system and the telecom market, as participants see that formally guaranteed rights of access to information do not work in practice.Procedural tools to counter refusalsThe key response to mass refusals must be systematic use of procedural tools. For public authorities, this includes challenging their responses (or inaction) before administrative courts, filing complaints with higher‑level bodies and the ombudsman, and invoking liability mechanisms for officials who unjustifiably restrict access to information. Case law is gradually developing standards: authorities must clearly explain why particular information cannot be disclosed and why partial access or anonymisation has not been applied.With respect to banks and mobile operators, an effective approach combines civil‑law, banking and procedural instruments: documenting requests and refusals, appealing to regulators and supervisory bodies, and using court proceedings, including motions for the court to compel disclosure of evidence. It is important not to stop at a single exchange of correspondence but to build an evidentiary trail showing that the institution is deliberately blocking access to information it is legally obliged to provide.Role of lawyers and compliance professionalsLawyers and in‑house counsel play a central role in combating unlawful refusals. They must not only draft legally sound requests but also design an overall strategy in advance: identify alternative sources of evidence, choose appropriate judicial or regulatory mechanisms and assess the risks of conflict with a particular institution. For banks and operators, in turn, it is crucial to develop internal policies that balance confidentiality with compliance with lawful requests: clear procedures for verifying requesters, quality control of responses and staff training.In the corporate sector, unlawful refusals by counterparties and service providers should be taken into account when assessing partners: persistent opacity may signal heightened legal and reputational risks. Lawyers may recommend including contractual clauses on information provision, audit access and cooperation obligations in case of investigations.Need to change practice and access cultureThe scale of unlawful refusals reflects not only regulatory problems but also a lack of transparency

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Attorney–client privilege is one of the key instruments for protecting the client’s rights and safeguarding the independence of legal practice. It covers not only the content of consultations and legal positions but also documents, electronic media, correspondence and working files containing information about the client, their cases and defence strategy. When an investigator, during a search or other procedural action, attempts to seize such items, this becomes not only a practical challenge but also a test of how real the guarantees of attorney–client privilege are.Legal framework and the essence of attorney–client privilegeAt the heart of the problem lies the balance between the interests of criminal proceedings and the protection of the client’s rights. Legislation on the legal profession generally prohibits demanding disclosure of privileged information from a lawyer and establishes a special regime for accessing the lawyer’s premises, documents and data carriers. In criminal proceedings, a court warrant is normally required for a search of a lawyer’s home or office, as well as for temporary access to items and documents, and the court must separately assess the risks of interfering with attorney–client privilege.Privilege covers not only “finished” documents such as engagement agreements or powers of attorney, but also draft notes, files on a laptop, correspondence with the client, recordings of phone calls and internal case‑analysis materials. If such items are seized by an investigator without proper legal grounds or in breach of procedure, this creates a risk that confidential information will be used against the client, that the defence strategy will be exposed and that the rights of other clients, whose information may be stored in the same place, will be violated.Advance preparation: organisational and technical measuresThe response to investigative actions starts long before any search. Law firms and practices should build internal procedures in a way that minimises the risk of unauthorised access to privileged information. This includes, in particular:– clearly separating files by clients and cases;– using encryption and secure communication channels;– restricting physical access to archives and electronic media;– keeping access logs for case materials;– adopting internal instructions for staff on how to act when law‑enforcement officers arrive.Advance preparation also involves developing a crisis plan: who is responsible for communicating with the investigator, who records procedural actions and how colleagues or representatives of bar self‑governance bodies are to be called in. This reduces chaos at critical moments and allows the lawyer to focus on protecting clients’ rights rather than improvising.Checking powers and the court warrantWhen an investigator arrives with a search order or temporary‑access warrant, the first step is to carefully examine the documents. It is necessary to determine:– whether the premises are indeed those of a lawyer (office, home);– whether there is a court order authorising the search or access;– whether that order expressly allows seizure of the lawyer’s documents/media;– whether the order is limited to particular categories of documents, periods or cases.If the order is generic, with no reference to the person’s status as a lawyer and no clear description of what is being sought, the lawyer has every right to object and insist that any actions involving items containing privileged information are inadmissible. Such objections must be recorded in the official protocol, and the lawyer should demand that a full account of their position be included in the record of the procedural action.Involving bar‑association representativesAn important element of protection is the participation of representatives of bar‑self governance bodies (bar councils, disciplinary commissions, etc.) during searches of lawyers’ premises. Their presence helps not only to document violations but also to influence the course of the search by reminding the investigator of the statutory restrictions related to attorney–client privilege.In practice this means that, at the first opportunity, the relevant bar authority should be notified of the search or seizure. Even if its representative does not manage to arrive before the action is completed, the very fact of the notification and a subsequent report may serve as a basis for disciplinary or criminal assessment of the investigator’s conduct.Separating privileged material from other itemsDuring a search or seizure, the lawyer should insist on clearly distinguishing between items that contain privileged information and other objects. For example, if the search is conducted in connection with a particular criminal case, while the office stores dozens of files, it is reasonable and lawful to demand that the investigator not access materials unrelated to that case.A practical tool is to propose an inventory of documents and media with a description of which case they belong to, then seal those that may contain privileged information about other clients and submit them to a court or an independent body to decide whether access is permissible. This at least postpones the investigator’s direct access and buys time for a legal response.Challenging unlawful seizure and use of evidenceIf, despite the lawyer’s objections, the investigator seizes items containing privileged information, the next level of protection is procedural challenge. This includes:– complaints about the investigator’s actions to the investigating judge;– motions to declare the actions unlawful and to return the seized items;– applications to have evidence obtained in breach of privilege declared inadmissible.Later, at trial, the defence can argue that any information derived from such seizure constitutes inadmissible evidence and cannot be used against the client. It is crucial that all objections, statements and motions be recorded immediately, as proving violations after the fact is much more difficult.Liability for breaching attorney–client privilegeBreaches of guarantees for the legal profession, including unlawful seizure of items containing privileged information, may entail not only procedural but also criminal liability for officials. The lawyer should assess whether there are grounds to file a criminal complaint for abuse of power, interference with the work of the defence or unlawful access to confidential information.At the same time, it is strategically important not to turn every conflict with an investigator into an all‑out “war”, but to build the defence with an eye on how these actions affect the client’s main case. Sometimes it is more effective to focus on securing

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку The mass relocation of businesses and professionals as a result of war, sanctions, changes in the tax environment and digital transformation has turned migration law into one of the core areas of legal support. Entrepreneurs increasingly view moving a company, team or individual functions abroad not as an exception but as part of strategic planning. At the same time, every such decision raises complex legal issues: the migration status of owners and key employees, the possibility of remote work, substance requirements abroad and the tax implications for both businesses and individuals.Why migration law has become part of business strategyJust a few years ago, issues of visas, residence permits and work permits were considered mainly in the context of personal migration by owners or top managers. Today, migration law is closely integrated into corporate and tax planning: the place of residence of the beneficiary, the CEO’s migration status and the possibility of the team’s lawful presence in another country directly affect tax residency, the ability to open bank accounts, conclude contracts and attract investment.For IT companies, creative industries, fintech and service businesses, mobility has become crucial: the team may physically be located in different countries while the legal entity is registered in one jurisdiction and clients are in others. This creates a multi‑layered configuration in which migration regimes (visas, residence permits, digital‑nomad or temporary‑protection statuses, etc.) must be aligned with substance requirements abroad and with tax planning.Status of owners and top managementThe first set of questions concerns the personal status of beneficiaries and top managers. Simply “leaving on a visa” does not automatically allow one to manage a business lawfully in a new jurisdiction. Many countries distinguish between:– tourist status;– worker status (work permit);– business‑owner or investor status;– special regimes for highly qualified specialists, startups and digital nomads.The right choice affects not only the length of stay but also access to the labour market, the ability to sign contracts in one’s own name, open bank accounts and obtain a local tax number. An inappropriate or merely “formal” status (for example, staying on a tourist visa while actually running a business) may lead to migration violations, deportation, fines and complications in relations with banks and counterparties.Tax residency and the “centre of vital interests”The second dimension is the change in tax residency of owners and key people. Many countries apply the “183‑day rule” together with an analysis of the centre of vital interests: family, housing, the main place of work or business management. If an owner spends most of the time abroad, has housing there and manages the company from that country, its tax authorities may consider this person a resident and claim taxation of worldwide income.For businesses, this means that migration status must be synchronised with tax planning:– determine in which country the person is a tax resident;– assess the risks of double taxation;– take into account double‑tax treaties;– document where the place of effective management and key functions is located.Without this, business relocation can complicate rather than optimise the tax profile, when several jurisdictions simultaneously seek to tax the same income.Relocating the legal entity and substanceThe third aspect is moving the legal entity. Registering a company in a new country does not in itself guarantee tax or regulatory benefits if there is no real presence (substance): an office, governing body, staff, expenses and local clients. Regulators and tax authorities increasingly check whether the company is merely a “letterbox” with minimal functions, created solely to reduce taxes or circumvent sanctions.Businesses should decide in advance:– which functions the new company will perform (operations, R&D, marketing, holding functions);– whether key management decisions will be moved there;– what minimum level of substance is acceptable for banks, investors and regulators in the specific country.Without a well‑thought‑out plan, the company risks facing refusals to open accounts, suspicions of a sham structure and, in the worst case, reassessment of tax obligations under CFC, anti‑avoidance or BEPS rules.Status of employees and team‑relocation modelsAnother important area is employee relocation. Companies combine different models: full relocation of part of the team to one country, distributed remote work with short‑term trips, the use of local entities or PEO/Employer of Record structures. Each model has its own migration constraints.If an employee actually lives and works abroad, then even with a contract retained with a Ukrainian company, local authorities may treat them as an employee in that country, with all related requirements for work permits, social contributions and taxes. Conversely, formal relocation without real presence (when a person is officially transferred abroad but continues working from Ukraine) can trigger questions from regulators in both states.To minimise risks, companies should:– choose a clear and appropriate status for each country (work permit, Blue Card, digital‑nomad visa, self‑employment status, etc.);– align employment and civil‑law contracts with that status;– coordinate how employee income and social contributions will be taxed.Migration compliance and banking risksBanks, payment institutions and investors are paying closer attention to the migration and sanctions status of beneficiaries and top managers. Breaches of migration rules, sanctions listings or a lack of transparent travel history may lead to refusals to open accounts, transaction blocking or termination of business relationships.This creates a need for migration compliance as part of overall corporate governance:– recording the migration status of key persons;– keeping documents that confirm the legality of their stay and activities;– regularly auditing compliance with visa and work‑permit conditions;– integrating this information into KYC files for banks and other financial partners.For companies working with international clients, this is no longer a “nice‑to‑have” but a practical prerequisite for access to the global financial system.Strategic planning and the role of the lawyerBusiness relocation has ceased to be a one‑off “move” and has become a comprehensive project that encompasses migration, tax, corporate, employment and compliance law. In this process, the lawyer acts as a coordinator:– analyses the owners’ goals (asset protection, market access, tax planning, family security);– proposes migration‑status options for owners and team;– aligns the group‑company structure with substance requirements;– assesses tax implications for the business

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку In recent years, digital assets and cryptocurrencies have evolved from a niche tool for enthusiasts into a full‑fledged element of an investment portfolio, a means of payment and an object of business transactions. For many entrepreneurs, IT professionals, traders and even “ordinary” investors, cryptocurrencies and other digital assets already make up a significant share of their wealth. It is therefore natural to ask: what happens to these assets after the owner’s death, how do they pass to heirs, and are legal systems ready for this new reality?What are digital assets in the context of inheritance?Digital assets usually refer to a wide range of objects that exist in digital form and have economic value: cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc.), tokens, virtual wallets, exchange accounts, NFTs, balances on payment platforms, as well as access to certain online services (marketplaces, financial applications, gaming platforms). From the perspective of inheritance law, the key question is whether a particular digital asset is recognised as property that can be inherited, or whether it is merely a “right of access” to a service that is personally linked to the user.In the classical inheritance model, what passes to heirs is property – things, money, claims, corporate rights and so on. If legislation or court practice treats a digital asset as property, it forms part of the estate as an element of the deceased’s asset pool. If, however, we are dealing purely with personal rights (for example, a social media account tied to a specific individual and having no independent economic value), such “assets” may not pass to heirs at all, or their transfer may be strictly limited by the service rules or by law.Specific features of cryptocurrency as an inheritance assetCryptocurrency differs significantly from traditional assets in that it is not “held” in a bank; access to it is provided by cryptographic keys or an account on an exchange. From a legal point of view it is increasingly recognised as an object of ownership, but without private keys or access to the account the practical ability to accept such an inheritance disappears.Accordingly, the main problem in inheriting cryptocurrency is not only the legal recognition of the right, but also real access to the asset. If heirs are unaware of the existence of cryptoassets, do not possess the keys and cannot restore the account, these assets remain inaccessible to them: unlike bank accounts, a crypto‑wallet without identification of the owner and without keys is effectively lost.Key legal challengesThe first challenge is the lack, in many jurisdictions, of specific rules governing the inheritance of digital assets. General inheritance provisions are often applied, even though they do not take into account the technical nature of the crypto industry, so notaries, courts and tax authorities are forced to adapt traditional approaches and this creates legal uncertainty for heirs.The second set of issues relates to evidence: it is difficult to prove that the deceased owned cryptoassets that do not appear in bank statements or official registers. In many cases the only evidence is a wallet, correspondence, transaction history or accounting documents, which raises questions about the evidentiary basis, confidentiality and compliance of “anonymous” crypto transactions with anti‑money‑laundering and tax rules.The third aspect is the conflict between terms of service and national law. Many platforms and exchanges state that an account is personal, non‑transferable and may be closed upon the user’s death. This can conflict with inheritance law principles under which property rights and assets should pass to heirs, and it requires a separate legal analysis of each service and the creation of an evidentiary base for potential disputes.Practical models for organising cryptocurrency inheritanceTo minimise the risk of losing cryptoassets, owners increasingly implement a “digital testament” – a plan for transferring access to wallets and accounts in the event of death. The most common option is a will that lists digital assets, sets out principles for their distribution and provides instructions on access (for example, via a safe containing seed phrases or wallet data).Another model involves trust‑based tools or legal structures (a trust, company or fund) in which cryptoassets are held by a legal entity and heirs receive corporate rights or shares. This simplifies the legal side but requires careful tax planning.Technical solutions are also used: multisignature arrangements, “inheritance” smart contracts, and dead man’s switch services that automatically transfer control or notify trusted persons after a long period of inactivity by the owner. Their use, however, demands a high level of technical literacy and a careful assessment of security and legal risks.The role of the notary and lawyerIncluding digital assets in inheritance cases reshapes the role of notaries and advisers. Whereas the main focus used to be on verifying traditional property, now lawyers must ask testators and heirs specific questions about the presence of cryptocurrencies, exchange accounts and digital wallets. It is important not only to record the existence of these assets legally, but also to check whether the ownership structure complies with the law and does not create risks from an AML or tax‑control perspective.A notary or lawyer handling inheritance increasingly acts as a “bridge” between law and technology: on the one hand, they ensure proper formalisation of inheritance rights, and on the other, they help arrange the secure transfer of access to digital assets, involving technical experts where necessary. For lawyers, especially in business and investment practice, this is a new but already essential area of work.Tax and compliance aspectsTransferring cryptocurrency by inheritance usually has tax consequences, which depend on the applicable model of digital‑asset taxation in a particular country. In some jurisdictions inheritance of property may be tax‑exempt or taxed at preferential rates, but subsequent sale or exchange of cryptoassets by heirs often gives rise to income or capital‑gains tax. It is also essential to determine the market value of cryptoassets on the date the estate is opened and to properly document that valuation.For owners of substantial digital assets, it is advisable to integrate cryptocurrency into the overall asset‑management system: reflect it in internal accounting policies,

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку In the modern economy, raising venture capital has become one of the key drivers of innovative companies’ growth. For startups, this is not only a source of financing but also an opportunity to obtain strategic support, expertise and access to new markets. At the same time, investment rounds are a complex legal and financial process that requires professional support, especially under increasing demands for transparency, compliance and protection of the parties’ interests.An investment round is a structured capital-raising process that usually takes place in several stages: preparing the company (due diligence readiness), searching for an investor, agreeing on key terms (term sheet), legally formalising the transaction and closing. Each of these stages has its own risks and requires clear coordination between the financial, legal and operational functions of the business.One of the central documents is the term sheet, a preliminary agreement that sets out the main commercial parameters: company valuation, investment amount, investor’s stake, type of instrument (equity, convertible note, SAFE), voting rights and exit terms. Although a term sheet is often non-binding, its provisions frame further negotiations and significantly affect the final allocation of risks and control.Choosing the investment instrument is critically important. Direct equity investment ensures a transparent ownership structure but may be less flexible at early stages. Convertible instruments (convertible notes, SAFE) allow the valuation question to be postponed, yet they create more complex scenarios in subsequent rounds, particularly regarding dilution and priority of claims. For a CFO, it is essential to model these scenarios in advance, including their impact on the cap table and future rounds.Legal support for venture transactions includes drafting and negotiating the investment agreement (SPA or SHA), corporate documents, employee stock option plans (ESOP), as well as investor protection mechanisms such as liquidation preference, anti-dilution provisions, drag-along and tag-along rights. Each of these instruments has both a protective and a potentially conflict-prone nature, so balancing them is a key task of the negotiation process.Special attention should be paid to the due diligence procedure. The investor analyses the company’s financial statements, tax risks, ownership structure, IP assets and contractual obligations. For Ukrainian companies this often means the need to align accounting with international standards (IFRS), formalise relationships with key counterparties and minimise tax risks. Having a “clean” legal structure and transparent financial track record significantly increases the chances of successfully closing the deal and improves investment terms.Financial support of an investment round is not limited to preparing reports. It includes building a financial model that demonstrates growth potential, unit economics and capital needs. Investors expect to see not only an optimistic scenario but also sensitivity to key assumptions: growth rates, customer acquisition cost (CAC), profitability and operating expenses. A robust model allows the company to defend its valuation in a well-argued manner and negotiate on an equal footing.Tax structuring of the transaction is another important aspect. Depending on the jurisdiction, type of investor and investment instrument, different tax consequences may arise for both the company and its shareholders. For Ukrainian startups, using foreign holding structures is a common practice that facilitates interaction with international investors but at the same time requires consideration of controlled foreign company rules, transfer pricing and currency regulation.Corporate governance after fundraising is a separate challenge. Investors usually gain representation on the board of directors or supervisory body, as well as certain veto rights over key decisions. This changes the governance balance and demands greater discipline from management in planning, reporting and meeting KPIs. At the same time, a properly designed corporate governance system increases trust in the company and its investment attractiveness for future rounds.The exit question is no less important. Investors build exit scenarios in advance — sale to a strategic investor, IPO or secondary sale of the stake. Exit terms recorded in the agreements can significantly affect the founders’ interests, so they must be analysed already at the stage of initial negotiations.Overall, supporting investment rounds is a complex task combining financial analytics, legal expertise and strategic thinking. For companies seeking venture capital, it is crucial to ensure transparency, readiness and a professional approach to deal structuring. This not only enables fundraising but also lays the foundation for sustainable business growth.If you have any questions or issues related to supporting investment rounds, structuring venture deals or preparing your company for capital raising, you should seek professional advice in a timely manner to minimise risks and achieve optimal transaction terms.Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner of JSC “Legal Company WINNER”, PhD in Law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvayosIccBo&t=3s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Verification of counterparties has today transformed from a formal “we signed the contract – and off we go” step into a key element of the compliance system and of protecting business from financial, tax and reputational risks. For a professional finance director, it is no longer a “bonus” procedure, but a core part of risk management and corporate governance. One of the main reasons for the increased focus on counterparty verification is the tightening of tax authorities’ requirements regarding the reality of business transactions and the due diligence of taxpayers. Case law on VAT and corporate income tax increasingly places responsibility on the taxpayer where they have not taken obvious measures to verify their partner: lack of staff, fixed assets or a real place of business, mass registration at a single address – all of this becomes arguments against the business in disputes with the fiscal authorities. At the same time, classic fraudulent schemes – shell companies, “front” entities, pseudo-intermediaries – continue to evolve, exploiting gaps in KYC procedures and corporate compliance. Modern counterparty verification is based on a combination of KYC (Know Your Client) and Due Diligence procedures: identification, analysis of ownership structure, assessment of integrity and compliance with legislation and the company’s internal policies. It is important not to limit the process to formally obtaining an extract from the companies register, but to build a systemic process: defining risk criteria, information sources, a decision-making algorithm, as well as the frequency of repeated checks, since a counterparty’s status can change very quickly. The first level of verification is basic identification: official registers, registration data, business activities, history of changes in founders and management, tax debt, litigation, sanctions or restrictions. Ukrainian practice shows that at this stage alone it is possible to filter out a significant share of high‑risk companies: mass‑registration addresses, frequent director changes, links with bankrupt entities, participation in criminal proceedings – all these are strong red flags for finance and legal departments. The second level is operational capacity and reputation. Business intelligence specialists recommend analysing whether the scale of the proposed transaction matches the counterparty’s real resources: number of staff, production capacity, experience in delivering similar projects, client portfolio. It is worth paying attention to inconsistencies between the declared business profile and actual market presence: no website or a very recently created one, minimal activity in professional communities, no mentions of completed projects – all this may indicate either a start‑up or a potential fraud risk. Another dimension is anti‑corruption and sanctions risk. For companies working with foreign partners or attracting international financing, checks against sanctions lists, the presence of politically exposed persons (PEP), and links to offshore structures and high‑risk jurisdictions are becoming standard. A poor choice of counterparty may lead not only to financial losses, but also to blocked bank accounts, refusal of banking services and reputational scandals that directly affect business value and access to capital. Another common mistake is treating verification as a one‑off action before signing a contract. Practice shows that even a reliable partner can turn into a risk source within a year: changes in beneficial owners, deterioration of financial standing, involvement in litigation or inclusion in “high‑risk taxpayer” lists. That is why it is advisable to implement a policy of repeated verification of key counterparties at defined intervals, as well as trigger‑based monitoring – automated or manual signals that launch an unscheduled review (for example, significant payment delays, unusual document changes, suspicious behaviour of representatives). To make the process effective, internal regulations must be formalised: who initiates the check, who carries it out, which information sources are used, how results are documented and who makes the final decision on cooperation. It is important that the finance director, lawyer and security function act in a coordinated way: only a comprehensive view allows real risk to be assessed rather than simply collecting a “file of documents” for formal protection in front of regulators. Having an approved internal regulation on counterparty verification, checklists and standard request templates for partners significantly improves decision quality and helps demonstrate due diligence in disputes with tax or law‑enforcement authorities. Ultimately, counterparty verification is not about distrust as such, but about professional risk management and safeguarding business stability. A well‑designed procedure not only minimises tax and legal threats, but also increases transparency of relationships, strengthens creditor and investor trust, and builds a culture of compliance within the company. If you have questions or issues related to counterparty verification, building internal KYC/DD procedures or assessing a specific partner, write to us and we will walk through your situation step by step. Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner of JSC “Legal Company ‘WINNER’”, PhD in Law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvayosIccBo&t=3s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Controlled foreign companies (CFCs) in the modern Ukrainian tax system are one of the key instruments for counteracting aggressive tax planning and base erosion, while at the same time creating significant challenges for business in terms of compliance, structural transparency and risk management. Their introduction in Ukraine has become a logical continuation of the implementation of OECD approaches and global transparency standards, however, the practice of applying CFC rules shows that owners of international groups have to substantially change both their structuring models and their approaches to documenting control.Essence and purpose of CFC regulationControlled foreign companies are foreign legal entities or arrangements without legal personality over which a Ukrainian tax resident (individual or legal entity) exercises formal or de facto control, and whose profits may be taxed in Ukraine as income of the controlling person. The key idea is that income which traditionally remained in low-tax jurisdictions and was not taxed in the beneficiary’s state of residence is now included in their tax base, reducing opportunities for profit shifting and the use of offshore structures purely for tax purposes.For Ukraine, the introduction of CFC rules is part of a broader strategy to counter BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting), strengthen automatic exchange of tax information and integrate into the global system of control over cross-border financial flows. At the same time, the legislator seeks to strike a balance between the need to ensure fiscal stability and the importance of not blocking legitimate international business structuring and investment activity, especially in the context of wartime and post-war economic recovery.Formal and factual control: key featuresUkrainian legislation uses two approaches to defining control – formal legal control and factual control – in line with international practice in countries that have long applied CFC rules. Formal control is usually linked to holding a certain share in the capital or voting rights of a foreign company, as well as the ability directly to appoint or dismiss its management bodies.Factual control is much broader and is based on the real influence of a person over the activities of a foreign company, even in the absence of a legally documented shareholding. Typical indicators of factual control include: giving binding instructions to management bodies, conducting negotiations on significant transactions followed by their formal approval, holding a power of attorney for more than one year without needing to agree each transaction, and the ability to execute transactions over the company’s bank accounts or block such transactions.Where these actions are formally performed by third parties but they act in the interests of the Ukrainian resident and follow that resident’s instructions, it is considered that this resident exercises factual control over the CFC. In practice, this means that the formal “distance” between the beneficial owner and the foreign company no longer protects the structure from being recognised as controlled, and businesses must reconsider the role of nominee directors, trusted persons and service providers.Exemptions, carve-outs and the impact of OECD standardsAccording to the OECD Report on CFC rules, exemptions and threshold requirements can be used to narrow the scope of application and focus on structures with a high risk of base erosion. International practice highlights three core approaches: setting a minimum income level below which CFC rules do not apply; limiting application to cases where a tax avoidance motive is proven; and granting exemptions where the CFC jurisdiction provides a sufficient level of taxation and has agreements on avoidance of double taxation or information exchange.The Ukrainian legislator has partially implemented these approaches by setting criteria for exemption from taxation of CFC profits, subject to simultaneous fulfilment of several conditions regarding the effective tax rate, the nature of the company’s activities and the quality of the jurisdiction where it is registered. This approach allows lawmakers not to burden with additional tax obligations those structures where there is no real risk of profit shifting or such risk is minor, while preserving tools to target classic offshore schemes with low or zero taxation.Obligations, reporting and sanctionsThe introduction of CFC rules is accompanied by the establishment of a set of tax obligations and reporting duties for controlling persons, among which the obligation to notify the tax authorities of existing CFCs and to file a report with detailed information about their activities is particularly important. Violations of these requirements – failure to notify, late reporting or incomplete reporting – entail substantial fines that can reach hundreds of thousands of hryvnias and significantly affect the economic feasibility of maintaining complex foreign structures.Submitting CFC reports does not in itself guarantee exemption from taxation, since reporting and taxation are separate obligations with different scope and timelines. Moreover, filing a report may trigger a tax audit of both the controlling person and the foreign company itself, especially where management is effectively exercised from the territory of Ukraine. This increases the importance of preventive tax audits and systematic monitoring of group structures, as businesses that were not CFCs in 2022 may acquire this status in 2025–2026 due to changes in ownership, control mechanisms or the nature of operations.Challenges of the digital economy and compliance-based approachThe development of the digital economy, crypto-assets, platform-based business models and remote management significantly complicates the identification of beneficial owners and real decision-making centres in structures with controlled foreign companies. Under conditions of digital interaction and cloud-based management systems, it becomes even more difficult to trace who actually controls the foreign company, while easy access to registration and administration services in foreign jurisdictions increases the risk of abusive schemes.In such circumstances, the traditional approach of “legal minimalism” – where key decisions are taken informally without appropriate documentation – becomes highly risky. Controlling persons are advised to shift to a compliance-oriented governance model: clearly identifying all potential CFCs in the group, documenting factual powers, ensuring a transparent decision-making chain, analysing threshold values for application of CFC rules and regularly reviewing the group structure in light of changes in international and domestic standards. If you have any questions or issues related to control over

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Protection of business during searches starts long before the moment investigators enter the office: a well‑prepared business perceives a search as a manageable crisis rather than a catastrophe.The key task of the owner and the financial director is to minimize risks to assets, reputation and operational activity through preventive procedures, legal tools and properly organized actions of the staff. Search as a tool of pressure on businessIn Ukrainian realities, a search often performs not only a procedural but also a psychological and reputational function – it is a way to put pressure on owners, top management and counterparties.Even a formally lawful search may be accompanied by violations of criminal procedure rules, excessive seizure of property, blocking of office work and unjustified access to trade secrets, which turns the investigative action into a tool for destabilizing business.For companies that do not have established response procedures, the consequences are operational shutdown, chaotic actions of staff, loss of data and significant financial losses. Preventive preparation: “a company ready for a search”The most effective protection is preventive: the company must have a clear plan of actions before, during and after the search.The basic elements of preparation include: risk‑area audit, proper information security, regulation of access to premises, an agreement with a lawyer and internal instructions for staff.The business owner must understand which documents, information carriers and physical assets are critical, where they are stored, who has access to them and which scenarios of access restriction or seizure can paralyze business processes. Legal tools and the role of the lawyerA mandatory condition for conducting a search is the presence of a ruling by an investigating judge and compliance with the procedure established by criminal procedure law.Any search without judicial authorization or with obvious formal violations (mismatch of address, company name, validity term of the ruling) may be challenged as unlawful intrusion, and investigators’ access to the premises may be stopped.A key protective element is a preventive agreement with a lawyer, which ensures rapid arrival on site, procedural support and formation of an evidentiary base of violations for further complaints and recovery of losses.A lawyer may be admitted to the search at any stage of its conduct, therefore insistence on exercising the right to defence is an important part of the risk‑minimization strategy. Organization of space, access and video recordingPreparation for a search includes physical organization of space: limiting free movement of outsiders around the office, strict control of access to critical rooms and storage areas, and the presence of video surveillance with autonomous power supply and remote data storage.Security staff must have a clear algorithm of actions: checking IDs of law‑enforcement officers, recording their data, controlling access to the territory only after checking documents and in the presence of the manager or an authorized person.It is important to immediately declare own video recording of the search, because properly documented violations will become arguments when challenging investigators’ actions and protecting the company’s interests in further proceedings. Information and document securityFor modern business the most vulnerable assets are data: accounting databases, CRM, trade secrets, correspondence and internal policies.It is recommended to minimize storage of original documents in the office, create notarized duplicates, and maintain up‑to‑date electronic copies on cloud services and remote servers.Access to key information systems must be protected, with clear segregation of rights and a procedure for emergency disconnection or blocking of access when law‑enforcement officers appear.For the accounting and finance departments it is critically important to keep workplaces clean (without open documents), store reporting on protected media and not hand over any materials without the participation of a lawyer. Behaviour algorithm during a searchOn the day of the search, the primary task of the manager is to stabilize the situation: immediately call the lawyer, take over communication with investigators and win as much time as possible until the defender arrives.While the lawyer is on the way, it is necessary to carefully and slowly re‑read the court ruling, check its details, demand compliance with procedures, the presence of witnesses, official delivery of a copy of the ruling and an offer of voluntary handover of property before actual investigative actions start.Company employees must refrain from any substantive explanations, remembering that a search is not an interrogation, and the only acceptable brief answers concern the ownership of items (“yes”, “no”, “I do not remember”).All personal belongings should be kept with the employee, not allowed to be “inspected” without procedural grounds and law‑enforcement officers should not be allowed to move freely around the premises. Recording the results of the search and working with the protocolThe final stage of a search is drafting a protocol, which actually forms the evidentiary picture for subsequent criminal proceedings and at the same time the field for protecting the business.It is important to ensure that there are no empty fields in the protocol that may be filled in afterwards, and that every seized item is clearly described, with indication of quantity, characteristics and place of seizure.Comments on procedural violations, unlawful actions of investigators, obstruction of the lawyer’s work, blocking of the company’s activities and other nuances must be included in the protocol as written remarks.Signing the protocol without its prior full review and without recording all remarks creates significant risks, therefore the company’s position on each violation must be reflected in the document. Post‑search strategy: managing consequencesWork on protecting the business does not end when investigators leave the office: precisely after the search begins the stage of legal and reputational recovery.It is advisable to promptly prepare legal analysis of the violations committed, file complaints against unlawful actions, challenge property arrests and initiate procedures for compensation of losses at the expense of the state in cases of gross violation of rights.Public communication is equally important – statements to the media, explanations for partners and clients, clarifying the company’s position, which helps reduce reputational losses and prevent speculation around the search.To ensure business resilience, it is desirable to update internal policies: conduct additional staff briefings, review document‑storage procedures, strengthen