Author name: admin

In 2025, the US enacted a legislative breakthrough in the digital asset sphere — President Donald Trump signed the so-called GENIUS Act, giving cryptocurrency comprehensive federal legal status for the first time. The fact that this happened less than six months into Trump’s second term demonstrates the administration’s systematic political will to make the US a financial and technological leader in the digital economy. Decisive priority is given to private stablecoins (“digital dollar”), not a state CBDC — and this is crucial for the future global financial architecture. The New Law: What Exactly Is Legalized?The GENIUS Act provides legal regulation for stablecoins — digital currencies strictly backed by US dollars or government bonds, with 100% reserve coverage and monthly reserve audits. Private banks, fintech companies, and even tech giants (Amazon, Google, Facebook) can issue their own digital dollars as commercial products.Banks or non-bank providers are required to: fully back stablecoins with real dollars or securities; regularly disclose reserve structure; comply with AML/CFT requirements and obtain licensing; prevent tokens from changing status or losing backing.Importantly, the law prohibits launching a state-issued digital currency (CBDC) in the USA, preventing excessive government control over private finance and preserving the flexibility of the American financial system. Reasons for the “Crypto Shift”: Politics and Strategic InterestFinancial LeadershipTrump and his team justify the new policy by arguing that preserving and strengthening the dominance of the dollar in the global financial system depends on embracing innovation. With growing competition from China and the EU, integrating a dollar-based cryptocurrency is a strategic step to avoid losing influence. Economic ExpediencyLaunching private digital dollars allows: making international payments instant and cheap; integrating millions of unbanked consumers into the US financial system; increasing demand for dollar reserves, helping address debt issues. New Tax and Legal HorizonsBy legalizing the crypto business, the federal government receives not only new tax channels, but also tools to close “grey zones” of uncontrolled capital movement. How Trump Is Pushing This and Who is Behind It Trump opposed launching a state CBDC, citing risks of excessive control, privacy threats, and potential disruption of the banking system; Alongside the GENIUS Act, the president signed an executive order to create a strategic reserve of bitcoin and other digital assets, recognizing them as state assets; Industry leaders, the Treasury, and the SEC participated in drafting the bill. Notably, the crypto sector gave Trump record election support in 2024, and company leaders were present at the signing. Legal Analysis: Pros, Risks, Interest BalancePositive Aspects Legal certainty: cryptocurrencies move from the “grey zone” into a regulated framework. Consumer protection: full backing, transparency, and AML/CFT control reduce fraud and crash risks. Competition: allowing tech giants and banks to issue their own coins creates market competition that promises to cut consumer costs. Risks and Issues Financial stability threats: potential for “bank runs,” as instant shifting of deposits to tokens in a crisis could destabilize banks. Regulatory arbitrage: a challenge for the SEC, CFTC, and Treasury to synchronize oversight of non-traditional issuers with banking standards. Political corruption: lobbying and campaign donations by the crypto sector create risks of biased regulation. Refusal of CBDC: may weaken the state’s ability to respond to future financial crises and compete with global central banks. International Impact Strengthening the dollar against the digital yuan and future digital euro. Driving global liberalization of the crypto market — setting a US legal benchmark for others. Why a Private Digital Dollar: Concept and ObjectivesTrump and his team chose the private digital dollar to: promote innovation through issuer competition; minimize political and government control risks; reinforce the dollar as the dominant global currency through stablecoin expansion beyond the US. The rejection of a CBDC is enshrined in the GENIUS Act and justified by the need to prevent state overreach at the cost of privacy and decentralization. Legal Prospects: User Protection Tools Stablecoin creditors and holders have clearly defined claims over reserve assets. The law provides for jurisdiction and class action lawsuits in case of violations. Consumers’ personal data remains protected (compared to state CBDCs), since companies aren’t required to store full transaction history. Key Challenges for the Legal Community Oversight of private digital dollars, especially for anti-money laundering; Balancing innovation in the financial sector and prevention of systemic risks; Forming judicial practice for disputes in the digital asset market and defining evidentiary standards in crypto-related criminal cases. ConclusionThe legalization of stablecoins and launch of the private digital dollar under Trump signifies a fundamental paradigm shift globally: from cautious marginalization of digital assets to their integration into the official global financial infrastructure. From a legal perspective this establishes new regulation practices, enhances investor and consumer protection, and boosts dollar competitiveness, but it also increases the need to monitor risks for banks and financial stability. The future will depend on a balance of policy, economics, and an evolving body of legal precedent. Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner of “Winner” Law Firm, PhD in Law. https://youtu.be/k2-1dq7hxcY?si=5bb-9xu1_3URJs7n

A great deal of commotion was caused by the high-profile draft law No.12414, adopted and signed on July 22, 2025. Let politicians handle politics, but when it comes to the next round of long-needed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine—specifically regarding entry into homes and conducting searches—it’s worth a detailed focus, since, unfortunately, lawmakers tend to overlook the long path of reforms the criminal justice system has travelled since 2012 (the adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Code) to ensure compliance with European standards for human rights and freedoms. A symbolic event took place just before, on July 10, 2025, with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case “Korniets and Others v. Ukraine,” once again emphasizing the importance of procedural guarantees during searches and the state’s duty to investigate complaints of ill-treatment. The Court noted that searches, regardless of their terminology in domestic law (“inspection” or “search”), were interference with private life, which led to violations of Article 8 of the Convention. Additionally, in its decision, the ECHR highlighted another crucial issue—the inability to challenge the search and police actions overall, resulting in a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. Thus, according to part 3 of Article 233 of the CPCU, an investigator, inquirer, or prosecutor has the right, before a judge’s ruling, to enter a person’s home or property only in urgent cases related to the rescue of life or property or in direct pursuit of persons suspected of committing a criminal offense. This vague wording serves as a tool for manipulation by pre-trial investigation bodies. Currently, it does not matter, during pre-trial investigation, what kind of criminal offense is involved; whom they are saving (or whether anyone is saved at all); what property is being preserved, and most importantly, what significance that property has for the criminal process; whom is being pursued (and whether anyone is actually being pursued). Part 3 of Article 233 of the CPCU allows entry without a judge’s ruling; thus, “they rush in” and later obtain the ruling, as in any case it is impossible to appeal actions during the search, including the ruling, during the investigation. There’s no clear procedural regulation or judicial oversight. As a result, such “efficient” investigative actions amount to abuse of legal norms by investigative bodies, and after a year, three, five, or ten, we see ECHR decisions similar to “Korniets and Others v. Ukraine.” Despite the repeal of the main provisions of draft law No.12414 (let’s be honest, a fair repeal), the issue of improving part 3 of Article 233 of the CPCU remains unresolved. Instead, on August 4, 2025, the Verkhovna Rada received draft law No.13599, which, if adopted, will finally put an end to this long and protracted story of illegal searches (though I am sure our law enforcement will find ways around it). Thus, draft law No.13599 establishes a clear and exhaustive list of urgent cases in Article 233 of the CPCU, allowing entry into a home without a judge’s approval only in situations involving: saving human life, preventing immediate risk to health, sexual freedom, or personal safety; direct pursuit of persons suspected of crimes under Articles 115–118, 121, 127, 146, 147, 149, 152, 153, 155, 156-1, 258, 258-1, 259 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; the moment of obtaining unlawful benefit by persons suspected under Articles 368, 369 of the Criminal Code. Additionally, one of the urgent cases for a search under this draft law is the necessity of immediate seizure or preservation of physical evidence related to the specified crimes if there’s a risk of destruction, concealment, or continued use for further crimes. Note, it is primarily about preserving evidence, not just property, which finally regulates how and what may be seized during a search. Moreover, the legislator addressed another painful issue — judicial oversight over conduct and consequences of searches. Amendments to Article 235 of the CPCU strengthen requirements for judges, who must assess the connection of each seized item to the criminal case. The draft law introduces the possibility of appealing actions and decisions during the legalisation of a search, including — crucially — a right to appeal the judge’s order legalising the search (Articles 303, 309 of the CPCU). In summary, draft law No.13599 is a qualitatively new, relevant, and necessary step towards closing gaps in criminal procedural legislation. These changes, if adopted, will end unreasonable use of searches as a tool for unlawful pressure on citizens, business, and parties in criminal proceedings. Author: Nataliia Zharyuk, criminal law and procedure attorney at Winner Law Firm. https://youtu.be/BAu08iebqrI?si=UEX4s2n5Sb4D3N2K

Legal Analysis of the EventsIn the Ivano-Frankivsk region, law enforcement agencies conducted a large-scale implementation of criminal proceedings — 40 people received suspicion notices. The state suffered damages exceeding 106 million hryvnias, and the amount of unlawful benefit exceeds 360,000. This is a typical example of a case covering many defendants, each facing a complex set of procedural risks. What Does a Suspicion Announcement Mean?A suspicion announcement is only the initial stage of acquiring a new procedural status, when a person is granted rights of defense guaranteed by law. It is not a conviction and does not prove guilt; however, from this moment, your conduct and legal position become critically important. Rights of a Person Upon Receiving a Suspicion Notice: – to receive a copy of the suspicion notice; – to know what they are suspected of; – to have access to a lawyer; – not to testify against oneself and to have defense at all stages; – to appeal actions of investigators and the prosecutor. Mass Suspicion Notices: Realities and PitfallsIn high-profile cases involving many defendants, as in the Ivano-Frankivsk region, it is common to observe: – Increased media pressure and risks of social stigmatization; – Large-scale procedural actions — searches, account arrests, temporary blocking of business activities; – The likelihood of formal errors during the delivery of suspicion notices. Plea Deals: Benefits and RisksAfter mass suspicion notices, many defendants may be offered plea bargains or agreements on acknowledging guilt. These often present themselves as a quick way to finish the case or possibly mitigate the punishment, but it is vital to be aware of the risks: – Loss of the right to prove innocence: By signing an agreement, you essentially admit guilt and waive your right to defend yourself in court, agreeing to testify or even testify against other participants in the case; – Final nature: The agreement limits further appeals on the merits of the case, and allows changes to the sentence only in very limited circumstances (for example, the size of the punishment); – Risk of pressure and imbalance: Pre-trial investigation bodies may abuse the right to offer a deal or exert pressure on suspects (especially in multi-defendant cases); – Social and reputational consequences: Even formal “mitigation” of punishment does not eliminate the stigma of a confession, and in public cases, reputational losses can be significant. A plea agreement must be absolutely voluntary, and its terms must strictly comply with the law. If you have any doubts or signs of pressure, you should consult an experienced lawyer, as the consequences for you may be irreversible. What to Do If You Are Offered an Agreement 1. Do not rush to sign an agreement without a thorough analysis and consultation with a lawyer. 2. Find out the terms under which you are being asked to confess, and what consequences this may have for your future, business, and reputation. 3. Check whether this agreement will be used to prove the guilt of other defendants — this is a common practice. 4. Do not accept any offers under pressure or stress — your decision must be conscious and professionally reviewed. Legal Support — Your Effective ProtectionEven in situations of mass suspicion and the temptation of “easy solutions” such as plea deals, an individual defense strategy is key. A qualified lawyer will help you: – assess the actual risks and benefits of the proposal; – verify the legality of the agreement’s terms; – ensure your rights are not violated; – if necessary, defend your innocence through the standard legal procedure. Author: Yevhen Murchenko – Head of Criminal Law and Procedure Practice at WINNER Law Firm. Strategic Support from WINNERWINNER specializes in handling complex criminal cases, including mass cases and negotiations regarding plea bargains. We work systematically, providing: – urgent legal assistance with analysis of proposed agreements; – protection of interests at all stages of the investigation; – representation in investigative actions and in court; – consulting on information policy and minimizing reputational losses. When choosing a defense strategy, consider not only the speed of resolution, but also future consequences. WINNER is professional legal support in tough situations. Below is a video where WINNER’s lawyers defend a client in court. https://youtu.be/V6VIYjriyBw?si=YPBTxSWFwdbVHJvP

In recent years, the topic of the moratorium on tax audits has remained one of the most discussed among entrepreneurs, accountants, and public officials. This instrument gained particular resonance after the introduction of martial law in Ukraine in 2022 and the prolonged turbulence in the economic environment. The National Tax Service (STS) has repeatedly explained how exactly the moratorium works, to whom it applies, and which audits may be carried out even during its operation. This material provides a thorough analysis of the existing rules, practices, and business expectations regarding the transformation of approaches to tax control. Prerequisites and Purpose of the Moratorium The moratorium on tax audits was introduced as part of a package of state support measures to stabilize the economy in the extreme conditions of war and the coronavirus crisis. The main idea was to minimize administrative pressure on entrepreneurs, allow businesses to operate in an environment of uncertainty, and enable the state to maintain potential tax revenues without total control. This decision was based on the following tasks: Support for business: Protect entrepreneurs from additional costs and preserve jobs. Saving state resources: Redirect human and financial resources to urgent needs — defense, healthcare, and the social sphere. Preventing abuse: Eliminate opportunities for corruption pressure in difficult economic conditions. Legal Framework: Who and What Is Subject to the Moratorium? According to the STS, the grounds and procedure for introducing the moratorium are determined by special laws, principally paragraph 69.2 of subsection 10 of section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine. According to these provisions, for the period of martial law and three months after its completion, most types of documentary audits are prohibited, in particular: scheduled documentary audits, unscheduled documentary audits (except for certain exceptions), factual audits regarding certain taxes and licenses. At the same time, the STS emphasizes: the moratorium is not absolute, and exceptions exist, which may relate to issues of VAT refunds, audits at the request of taxpayers or pretrial investigation bodies, controlled transactions, foreign exchange controls, and others. Practice of Applying the Moratorium: What Is Allowed and What Is Prohibited The Ministry of Finance and the STS have repeatedly explained how the moratorium is implemented in practice. It is not only about formal restrictions but also about specific nuances for different groups of taxpayers. Types of audits that are prohibited: Scheduled documentary audits: The state is not allowed to conduct regular audits of the financial and business activities of enterprises according to annual or semi-annual schedules. Most unscheduled: These refer to unscheduled documentary audits initiated based on risk analysis or on dubious grounds. Exceptions: At the taxpayer’s request: If a company itself requests an audit (for example, to confirm a negative VAT value). Entities involved in “risky” operations: If there are suspicions of fictitiousness or other criminal offenses, an audit may be initiated at the request of law enforcement. Controlled export-import: Audits of foreign trade operations for compliance with foreign exchange legislation remain possible. Factual Audits The STS separately emphasizes that factual audits (i.e., unexpected visits to enterprises, stores, etc.) during the moratorium are possible only if there are clear grounds: violation of the rules for conducting activities, manipulation of excisable goods, trade without licenses, illegal sale of excisable products. The Effect of the Moratorium for Business The moratorium has allowed many enterprises to focus on real work without fear of another tax inspection. According to business associations and entrepreneurs themselves, this has significantly reduced psychological and financial pressure in the most critical months after the start of the full-scale invasion. However, there are other consequences: Loss of control over shadow operations: Some companies used the moratorium for unofficial tax optimization schemes. Deferred audits: The tax authority sometimes records violations but cannot check them immediately; audits are postponed, creating risks for business in the future. Increased mutual distrust: The lack of official audits provokes distrust among counterparties toward the financial statements of certain partners, especially in large transactions. Position of the STS: Explanations and “Hotlines” The STS actively informs taxpayers, regularly publishing explanations, answers to frequently asked questions, and organizing webinars and “hotlines.” The main message: the moratorium is not complete freedom from control; each case should be considered individually, taking into account the specifics of the business and the current legislation. STS experts advise: submit reports on time even in the absence of audits; keep all accounting and tax documentation to avoid problems after the end of the moratorium; consult with tax law specialists on questionable issues. Exit from the Moratorium: What Awaits Business? After the end of martial law, the moratorium will not be lifted immediately, but only after 3 months. During this time, businesses are advised to: prepare for a possible wave of audits, conduct an internal audit, ensure maximum transparency of accounting data. It is expected that the STS will begin scheduled audits using a risk-based approach, focusing on areas with the highest risks of abuse. Conclusion The moratorium on tax audits has become one of the most important anti-crisis regulatory instruments during wartime. Its main effect is a reduction in administrative burden and support for business. However, for the effective development of a tax culture and prevention of further abuse, it is important to recognize that the moratorium is a temporary compromise, not a new norm for sustainable development. Responsibility, transparency, and honesty in relations with the state must remain a priority even under the most serious challenges. Author: Maksym Bahniuk, Head of Tax and Customs Law Practice, Law Association “Legal Company WINNER“. https://youtu.be/rEd6me-Ume4?si=L5OFcET33DmhHK4i

In the current realities of Ukrainian business, the issue of “business splitting” remains one of the most high-profile and painful not only for government agencies but for entrepreneurs of any size. Business splitting generally refers to the deliberate division of a large business into a number of smaller business entities (usually sole proprietors) with the main goal of tax avoidance, maintaining simplified tax status, reducing the tax burden, and minimizing inspections. 1. Increased Oversight and the State Tax Service’s Motivation2024–2025 have seen a significant strengthening of the State Tax Service’s (STS) analytical tools aimed at detecting artificial business structures. The key motivation is simple: the budget loses hundreds of millions of hryvnias annually due to optimization schemes using dozens of sole proprietors, relatives, or affiliated persons. For example, just in recent months of 2025, the STS uncovered large-scale schemes in seven retail chains, with budget losses exceeding 668 million UAH solely in VAT. 2. The Nature of the Splitting SchemeStructurally, business splitting involves creating a fictitious network of affiliated entrepreneurs who allegedly operate independently, but in fact have a common control center, use the same brands, IP addresses, cash registers, or even staff. Main features of such splitting:· use of a single trademark or brand;· a single place of business (sales points, warehouses, offices);· identical or similar contact persons, founders, servicing banks, accountants;· same IP addresses and equipment;· regular coordination of financial flows;· lack of own resources for business operations in each entity. 3. Detection Technologies: Big Data, Bank Monitoring, AnalyticsThe STS is increasingly using digital technologies and big data analysis to detect and prove splitting schemes.· Big Data and transactional analytics: transactions between sole proprietors and legal entities—especially frequent and large ones—are automatically flagged for review;· Bank monitoring: banks have received explicit NBU guidance on identifying suspicious activity—such as similar documents, shared ownership or representation among several sole proprietors, shared address, and common counterparties;· Tax IT systems: matching IP addresses, analyzing logins to e-cabinets, digital identification of goods and cash flows;· On-site audits: sudden inspections to identify mismatches between actual business operations and tax reporting. 4. Legal Aspects and the Line Between Optimization and ViolationIt’s important to note: there is no separate offense titled “business splitting” in tax, administrative, or criminal law. However, tax and investigation bodies assess schemes for concrete violations:· underreporting of taxes (simplified tax, VAT, profit tax);· use of illegal labor;· failure to submit required reports;· exceeding the turnover limit for simplified taxpayers;· fictitious deals between entities. Criminal liability is possible if tax evasion exceeds 4.5 million UAH (Article 212 of the Criminal Code), which is realistic only for big business. Small entrepreneurs risk administrative responsibility, fines, additional tax assessments, and forced transfer to the general tax system. 5. STS Practice in 2025: Landmark Cases, Approaches, and ConsequencesA notable case involved seven electronics and clothing retail chains that split operations among 491 sole proprietors. Through unified analysis of IP addresses, registration locations, sales points, and staff, control by a single legal entity was proven and the scheme recognized as artificial. Budget losses from VAT alone exceeded half a billion UAH. Another area is restaurants: in large chains, payment of the simplified tax is often optimized by splitting activities among dozens of family or affiliated sole proprietors, thus bypassing limits. The STS tracks such schemes via digital analysis of turnover, bank data, staff, and operational assets. 6. Financial Monitoring and the Role of BanksSince 2024, banks have begun more actively tracking signs of splitting, based on NBU instructions and clarifications. Indicators triggering deep analysis or account blocking include:· one address for several sole proprietors or legal entities;· incoming payments with no real economic activity;· fast registration of several sole proprietors with identical business codes (KVEDs);· lack of resources (equipment, premises, staff) in sole proprietors;· mass operations with recurring counterparties. This data is promptly passed to the STS and State Financial Monitoring Service, which triggers tax inspections. 7. How to Avoid Suspicion: Advice for BusinessesTrue cooperation is not a crime. The main thing is to avoid artificial structures for tax evasion or labor relationship masking, not to enter into fake transactions, to keep real accounts, and not to abuse proximity to limits.· Formalize labor relations, don’t disguise personnel as sole proprietors;· Properly execute all documents;· Don’t create “turnkey” schemes only to minimize taxes;· Follow NBU, STS guidance and positive court practice. 8. ConclusionsApproaches to controlling business splitting are becoming more sophisticated and automated each year. The STS and banks synchronize their systems and widely deploy Big Data and digital analysis to identify artificial structures. The main challenge for entrepreneurs is to work transparently, not abuse schemes, and promptly adapt business to new realities. Business organically divided by ownership, activity, and control has a chance for protection, but any formal signs of “fictitious splitting” will almost certainly draw additional scrutiny, fines, and reputational damage. The cost of avoiding tax obligations can greatly exceed any hypothetical “bonuses” from business splitting in 2025. Author: Maksym Bahniuk, Head of Tax and Customs Law Practice, Law Association “Legal Company WINNER”. https://youtu.be/BAu08iebqrI?si=GuXXY0dEoiTybF7z

In August 2025, Ukraine was rocked by a high-profile anti-corruption operation: detectives from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), in coordination with the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), uncovered a large-scale corruption scheme involving a sitting Member of Parliament, heads of administrations, military officials, and a number of affiliate business structures. The scheme was related to supplies for the Armed Forces—unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and electronic warfare (EW) systems. During the operation, at least four high-ranking individuals were detained, including MP Oleksii Kuznetsov from the “Servant of the People” party. Reasons for Exposure and Socio-Economic ContextIn recent months, Ukraine has seen heightened protest activity. The public and politicians demanded a strengthening of anti-corruption institutions in response to attempts to limit their independence. Recently, under public pressure, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law restoring NABU and SAPO’s powers and granting them new tools to combat corruption in government. This case became the first major test for these renewed capabilities. President Volodymyr Zelensky’s statement, personally thanking the anti-corruption agencies for “clear teamwork” and emphasizing “zero tolerance for corruption,” amplified the public response. The Scheme’s Content and StructureNABU and SAPO investigators established that several high-ranking state officials, including MP Oleksii Kuznetsov, organized a systematic scheme to misappropriate budget funds allocated for the purchase of defense equipment for the military—UAVs and EW systems. In addition to Kuznetsov, the scheme involved the former head of the Luhansk Regional Military Administration (currently heading one of the district military administrations, known to involve Serhii Haidai), heads of various military administrations, National Guard commanders, company beneficiaries, and directors of supplier companies. The scheme’s essence was to artificially inflate the prices of state contracts with supplier enterprises. The officials established a “kickback” channel—up to 30% of the contract amount was returned to the scheme’s organizers. These contracts often amounted to millions of hryvnias. According to the investigation, from December 2024 to July 2025, several contracts were signed to supply equipment at significantly inflated prices. Part of the funds settled in the accounts of scheme participants, while the supplied goods—often of low quality—went to military units, undermining the country’s defense capability. Scheme Mechanics and ParticipantsAccording to official statements from NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors, the group included not only politicians and state managers, but also heads of cities, districts, military units, and business representatives. For legitimizing the deals, shell firms and business structures were used to formally win tenders for UAV and EW system procurement, while the kickback amounts were arranged during contract negotiations. After signing the state contract, the supplier would provide goods often at tens of percent above market prices. Part of the funds was later transferred either in cash or via controlled companies to criminal group members. The MP’s RoleAccording to investigators, Oleksii Kuznetsov used his official status and political leverage to lobby for favored companies and receive undue benefits. Intelligence discovered that the MP was a key link, ensuring contract approval by the Ministry of Defense, providing “cover” for accomplices, and serving as intermediary for illicit benefit distribution, drawing in actors from various government and business levels. Exposure and ArrestsThe investigation lasted several months, with NABU operatives working undercover in close cooperation with SAPO prosecutors. After compiling sufficient evidence, investigators conducted simultaneous arrests: MP Kuznetsov, Serhii Haidai, heads of administrations, and business representatives ended up under house arrest and in pretrial detention. Details were made public through an urgent briefing to the President and special press conferences by NABU and SAPO. The criminal proceedings focus on articles concerning receipt and giving of undue benefits in especially large amounts, abuse of office, criminal proceeds legalization, and embezzlement of state funds. The detainees face 7 to 12 years imprisonment with asset confiscation and additional penalties. Public Reaction and Political ConsequencesThe operation sparked broad resonance in society, media, and political circles. The public unanimously called for harsh punishment and systemic changes in the area of defense procurement. Members of both the parliamentary majority and opposition—including the “Servant of the People” faction head Davyd Arakhamia—backed the public investigation and expressed hope for inevitable sentences. Human rights activists, NGOs, and experts emphasize this exposure as a litmus test for the independence of anti-corruption bodies—such mechanisms root out corruption from systemic state investment, especially in defense. Risks and Challenges for the Anti-Corruption SystemDespite high-profile arrests, the real test lies ahead: judicial proceedings, proof of guilt for all participants, and recovery of confiscated property and illicit gains. A key intrigue is whether those with real political leverage will be held accountable, if punishment will be inevitable, and whether preventive mechanisms against future schemes will be installed. Anti-corruption advocates urge for transformation of the procurement system and implementation of transparent digital tools that will make abuse in this vital area impossible. Only principled work by law enforcement and judicial authorities, along with civil society support, can reduce levels of corruption in government to European standards and restore public trust in institutions. ConclusionThe NABU and SAPO exposure proved that, even under martial law and political turbulence, Ukrainian institutions are capable of effectively fighting corruption. The operation against an organized group involving a sitting MP, administrative heads, and military officials is not just another scandal but a signal of systemic change. The outcome of court rulings, public trial proceedings, and criminal asset confiscation will determine not only the fate of the specific individuals involved but also the future effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts and the quality of the country’s defense capability. Author: Yevhen Murchenko – Head of Criminal Law and Procedure Practice, Legal Association “Legal Company WINNER”. At the bottom of the video, the team of the Law Association “Legal Company WINNER” defends the client in court. https://youtu.be/V6VIYjriyBw?si=p1Tk8FbQkAMOtULu

1. Socio-Economic Basis for the ReformUkraine’s pension system has long been in a state of chronic deficit and structural inequality. With rapid population aging, increasing pressure on the working population, a limited number of social contribution (SSC) payers, and a large army of pensioners, the need to modernize the pension system has become one of the primary state policy priorities. The issue is especially urgent under martial law and during periods of financial restrictions, when the financial stability of social institutions is at risk. 2. Goals and Ideology of the Pension ReformThe main goal of the proposed reform is to bring greater fairness and stability to the system, guarantee a decent standard of living for the elderly, and reduce the Pension Fund’s deficit. The Ministry of Social Policy has suggested a concept with three main pillars: reforming the solidarity mechanisms, introducing a funded tier, and overhauling special (privileged) pensions. 3. Key Elements of the Announced Changes— Solidarity System. The aim is to strengthen the direct dependence of pension size on the amount of contributions paid: the more, longer, and more officially one has worked, the higher the benefits. Pensions will comprise a basic part (linked to the minimum wage) and an insurance (number of “pension points”) part.— Funded System. By the end of 2025, the introduction of a mandatory second (funded) tier is planned. It is expected that all employees under 55 and employers will pay additional contributions of 1%–2% of wages, matched by the state. Funds will accumulate in individual pension accounts and become available after reaching retirement age.— Reform of Special Pensions. The intention is to stop the practice of “hypertrophied” special pensions for certain groups, instead introducing professional pensions, which will have three components: basic, variable (depending on service record and contributions), and professional — financed from different sources. 4. New Approaches to Pension CalculationA new formula is considered, in which the benefit amount depends on total contributions and years of service. A point-based system will operate, converting service and SSC payments into “pension points.” There are plans to simplify the system of supplements and surcharges, introducing a single basic element (not less than 30% of the minimum wage in the country). Pensions will increase for delayed retirement beyond the minimum age. 5. Enhancing Transparency and Tackling PrivilegesA focal point of the reform is to reduce pension payments that significantly exceed the average, by applying flexible coefficients. From 2025, special reductions (down to 0.1) will be introduced for pensions exceeding four times the national average or ten or more subsistence minimums for persons unable to work. Implementation of electronic accounting systems and transparent decision-making is aimed at making “manual” allocation of excessive benefits impossible. 6. Debates, Risks, and ExpectationsIntroduction of a funded system in a country with weak institutional trust and low savings raises concerns among experts. Critics predict a possible reduction in “net” salaries due to higher deductions, as well as risks of inflation, distrust in state investment funds, and the possibility that commitments won’t be met in case of major hryvnia devaluation or emergencies. There is a separate debate on proposed new professional pensions for the military, police, and civil servants. Establishing a clear link between contributions and payouts is expected to increase fairness and ease social tensions. 7. Public and Expert ReactionsPensioners and unions broadly welcome the initiative to simplify and unify approaches to pension rights calculation and to reduce “special” statuses. Macroeconomic specialists cautiously support diversifying pension funding sources — if the economy stabilizes, the funded pillar could become a source of long-term investment for the country. At the same time, many Ukrainians remain wary due to inflation history, value erosion of savings, corruption scandals in financial institutions, and a lack of effective communication on reform details. 8. Implementation Outlook and Key DatesThe government plans to start implementing the pension reform step by step beginning in 2025, though some experts and parliamentarians warn that legislative delays are possible. The initial launch of the funded system is set for the second half of the year, after new laws are approved. However, the reform is expected to be a gradual process, demanding patience from society and transparency and accuracy safeguards from the state. 9. ConclusionsThe announced pension reform is a logical response to Ukraine’s modern demographic, economic, and social challenges. The system is evolving from a complicated, privileged, and deficit-prone model to a transparent, multi-tier structure, based on contributions and service records. The reform aims to rebalance intergenerational burdens, ensure long-term Pension Fund sustainability, provide justice for contributors, and reduce avenues for abuse. Yet, its success will depend on institutional quality, citizen trust, economic stability, and the political will for consistent change. Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner of “Winner” Law Firm, PhD in Law.   https://youtu.be/k2-1dq7hxcY?si=VJ2fI0qCa9MyMceS

Ukraine’s tax system provides for the possibility of returning part of the paid personal income tax (PIT) in the form of a tax rebate. This is a widespread global practice of social support for citizens, allowing them to compensate part of the expenses for purposes determined by the state. The latest changes in tax legislation have detailed the list of expenses for which citizens may receive a rebate and the procedures for filing returns. This article explains in detail who and in what situations is entitled to a tax rebate, and how to exercise this right in 2025. Legal Basis of the Tax RebateThe concept and mechanism of providing a tax rebate are stipulated in Article 166 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The rebate is considered to be an amount (defined and supported by documents) by which the taxpayer’s annual taxable base may be reduced. In other words, paid PIT may be partially refunded to the taxpayer if, in the reporting year, they incurred expenditures on the areas defined by law. Who is Entitled to a Tax RebateThe right to the rebate is granted to Ukrainian citizens—individuals who: received income as salary or equivalent earnings, from which PIT was duly paid; actually incurred expenses specified in the Tax Code during the reporting year; have an identification (registration) tax number; can document these expenditures. Important: Recipients of the rebate cannot be military personnel (as their monetary support is not considered salary under the Tax Code), individuals who do not have official salary income with PIT payment, or those who cannot document their expenses. List of Expenses Giving the Right to a RebateHere are the main types of expenses eligible for a tax rebate in 2025 (for expenses incurred in 2024): Interest on a mortgage loan, if the dwelling is designated as the principal place of residence. Charitable donations made to registered nonprofit organizations. Tuition fees paid to Ukrainian educational institutions (of any form of ownership)—both for oneself and for children or other first-degree relatives. Contributions under long-term life insurance contracts and pension contributions for non-state pension provision. Amounts paid for assisted reproductive technologies or state services related to adoption. Expenses for converting a vehicle to run on alternative fuels. Costs of purchasing affordable housing under state programs or repaying preferential mortgage loans. Rent for accommodation (only for internally displaced persons without own housing). Funds spent on purchasing shares of Diia City resident companies—under certain conditions only. A special procedure applies to tuition rebates: part of the expenses can be reimbursed by the student, their parents, or spouse, if they are officially employed and pay PIT. The form of study, the child’s age, level of education, or type of institution do not matter. Expenses That Do Not Lower PITExpenses paid from the budget or by the employer, foreign expenses (except in certain cases), and undocumented expenses are not included in the tax rebate. The rebate cannot be carried over to subsequent years: if the application is not submitted on time, the right to the rebate for the previous year is lost. How to Apply for and Receive a Tax Rebate—Step-by-Step Gather documents. Copies of payment documents (receipts, checks, payment orders); Contracts for relevant services or purchases (e.g., with educational institutions, banks, insurance companies, etc.); Documents proving the degree of kinship (if expenses are for children or other individuals); Copy of the tax ID and passport. Complete the income and asset declaration. The declaration is filed for the previous year (in 2025—for 2024 expenses). Pay special attention to the correct sections describing expenses eligible for the rebate. Submit the declaration: In person at the tax authority at the place of registration; By mail with notification of delivery; Through the taxpayer’s electronic office (with an electronic signature). Wait for the decision. After reviewing the documents, the tax service recalculates the tax; The appropriate amount is refunded to the taxpayer’s bank account. Filing Deadlines for the Tax Rebate ApplicationDocuments must be filed from January 1 to December 31 of the year following the reporting one. Thus, for 2024 expenses, apply in 2025 no later than December 31. Missing the deadline leads to loss of the right to reclaim PIT for that period. Refund Amounts and LimitationsThe refund amount depends on the type of expense and the limits set by the Tax Code. For example, the rebate for rent paid by IDPs is capped at no more than 30 minimum wages per year (in 2024, this is 213,000 hryvnias). There are also certain limits for life insurance and private pension expenses. Charitable contributions have set income share limits. Typical Mistakes and Q&ACommon mistakes include submitting an incomplete package of documents, including expenses not eligible for rebates, or failing to file the declaration in the current year. It is essential to confirm all expenses with original documents and submit copies with the declaration. ConclusionThe tax rebate mechanism allows Ukrainians to partially recover paid PIT and thereby save on important expenses—education, mortgage, insurance, charity, etc. While rebate processing is not a complex bureaucratic process, it requires care and document collection. Citizens should monitor legislative changes and meet filing deadlines to enjoy legal financial state support. It is advisable to consult tax advisors in advance or use the taxpayer’s electronic office to avoid mistakes and guarantee the timely return of the PIT amount as prescribed by law. Author: Maksym Bahniuk, Head of the Tax and Customs Law Practice, Winner Law Firm. https://youtu.be/rEd6me-Ume4?si=SUJBBUVggyD6Du2O

In the summer of 2025, the practice of notifying conscripts about mobilization in Ukraine changed significantly: Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers (TRCCs) were officially authorized to send call-up notices by mail. The new procedure was set by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 916 of July 30, 2025, which sparked lively discussion both in the legal professional community and among the public at large. Legal basis and motivation for the changesPreviously, “combat” call-up notices to military service were delivered in person and signed for upon completion of the military medical commission. However, due to limited mobility of the population, significant male migration, and the need to increase defense efficiency, the state introduced new instruments to ensure the widest possible notification. Now a summons is considered delivered if sent by registered mail with an inventory list and delivery confirmation. This aligns with the trend toward automation of the military register; most notices are generated via the conscript’s electronic cabinet, signed by an authorized officer, and posted using Ukrposhta. Who receives notices by mailUnder the new procedure, registered letters may be sent to conscripts and reservists who have undergone a medical examination and, if necessary, professional-psychological selection. This applies to those without valid deferment from conscription and those who have updated their data in the “Reserv+” system with a current address. Notices are not sent abroad, as the delivery confirmation mechanism only applies domestically. Technical procedure for sending, delivery, and confirmation The notice is generated in the electronic registry and signed by the TRCC chief. The document is sent as a registered letter with an inventory list and delivery notification. The recipient gets either a postal notice in their mailbox or a call from the post office. If the recipient is absent, the postman makes a note and the letter is returned to TRCC. Legally, even refusal to accept or absence at the address counts as delivery. The conscript has between 7 and 14 days (depending on their place of residence) to comply and report to the TRCC after receiving the notice. Ignoring the letter or refusing the registered delivery is officially considered evasion of duty and does not exempt the individual from liability. Motivation for the changes: benefits and possible risksOn one hand, expanding means of delivering call-up notices addresses new realities: some potential conscripts do not live at their official address, travel frequently, or simply avoid receiving paper documents. The state aims to reach the “problematic” audience and reduce bureaucratic manipulations by draftees who fail to provide updated addresses or ignore legitimate requirements. This approach prevents willful avoidance, as the postal service documents every event involving the letter.On the other hand, critics of the new procedure fear possible abuses: e.g., sending notices to incorrect addresses, recording “delivery” in case of non-delivery, or mishandling of personal data. Additionally, those who work or live abroad may not be able to formally confirm their absence. Liability for ignoring the notice and dispute specificsLegally, a notice sent by registered mail with delivery confirmation is deemed delivered, regardless of whether it was physically received. Refusing the letter is pointless: the postal worker notes “recipient absent” or “refusal,” or leaves a message in the mailbox; after the deadline, the letter returns to the sender. As soon as the letter is returned, the person is considered notified. The letter is held at the post office for up to three working days before being sent back to the TRCC. If the notice is ignored, the conscript is liable under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of conscription) or faces administrative fines. Paying the fine does not cancel the obligation to fulfill the notice’s requirements. Disputed cases include whether such a notice can be appealed if the data is incorrect, the recipient has changed address, or could not receive the letter for valid reasons. Practical advice— Timely update your data in electronic registries (“Reserv+”); an up-to-date address increases the chance the notice is delivered to you.— If you receive a postal notification, do not ignore it; be sure to check the contents of the registered letter.— If you live or work abroad, keep documents confirming this: border stamps, certificates from your employer or place of study, which may be important in future disputes.— Since such notices contain personal data, ensure their proper handling. International experienceWorldwide, the use of postal services for legally significant notifications is common. Court notices in most European countries (Poland, Lithuania, Germany) are considered delivered if sent by registered mail with tracking of delivery stages. Ukraine maintains and develops this tradition, combining electronic document flow and traditional methods. Impact on defensive capabilityThe new approach enables Recruitment Centers to reach a record number of conscripts and makes the mobilization process more transparent and less corruptible. The electronic registry automates mailings and minimizes human error. The integration of digital and postal technologies is an effective solution in today’s circumstances. ConclusionThe introduction of mailing call-up notices marks a step toward automation, transparency, and increased accountability for Ukraine’s defense. At the same time, this innovation requires improved supporting procedures—protection of personal data, timely information updates, and just and proportionate application of lawful sanctions for evaders. Lawmakers and military officials must continue to balance effective mobilization with citizens’ rights, without losing sight of national security priorities and public trust in the evolving mobilization process. Author: Svitlana Krutorohova — attorney at the law association “Winner Law Firm”. https://youtu.be/k2-1dq7hxcY?si=VJ2fI0qCa9MyMceS

Public procurement in Ukraine is one of the key components of the modern economy, affecting both the efficiency of budget funds management and the level of trust in state institutions. During wartime, the scale of international aid and the implementation of large reconstruction projects, transparency and integrity in procurement become critically important. However, despite years of reforms, the public procurement sector remains vulnerable to various types of violations and abuses. Key forms of violations in public procurement The main types of violations are recorded by the State Audit Service, the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, non-governmental organizations, and anti-corruption institutions. The most common violations include: Avoidance of open bidding. Contracting authorities often split the procurement subject into small contracts to evade competitive tendering procedures. This limits competition and leads to inefficient use of funds. Improper choice of procurement type. Instead of the mandatory competitive procedure, a direct contract or non-competitive form is chosen, which nullifies transparency mechanisms. Discriminatory requirements in tender documentation. Procurers may include specific qualifications or requirements that artificially narrow the pool of potential bidders—such as unnecessary certificates or specific experience. Collusion among procurement participants. These schemes involve prior agreements among suppliers about market division or price coordination, destroying real competition. Unjustified disqualification of participants. Contracting authorities may unjustifiably reject beneficial or undesirable bids. Formal violations during monitoring and reporting. Delays or disregard for publication rules regarding procurement information, contracts, annual plans, etc. Violations in payment or contract performance. There may be delays in contract execution to increase the project cost, or payments made for goods or services not delivered. Statistics and the scale of the problem Anti-corruption and financial authorities annually record thousands of procurement violations. In 2024 alone, the State Audit Service identified over 8,000 tenders with violations exceeding 92 billion UAH, and the Accounting Chamber reported over half a billion UAH in abuses during control actions. A significant share of procurements (92% in 2023) were conducted without competitive procedures, which significantly increases corruption and inefficiency risks. There is a widespread practice of formal (minor) violations, which do not lead to serious abuse but are also often recorded—such as publication delays, technical proposal errors, etc. Yet even such “minor” deviations can accumulate and harm the overall integrity system. Causes of violations in procurement The detected violations have both objective and subjective causes: Weakness of institutional control mechanisms. Despite the existence of Prozorro, the State Audit Service, and the Antimonopoly Committee, enforcement mechanisms are not always effective. Low qualification of procurers. Many specialists lack sufficient training and make mistakes in documentation. Complexity and frequent changes in legislation. Multi-layered regulation and discrepancies between different laws, especially during wartime, hinder compliance. Corruption motivation. Some violations result from abuse of office, collusion, or use of discretionary decisions against state interests. Low public involvement. Weak civil oversight enables abuses to be hidden, even though Prozorro provides an open process. Anti-corruption mechanisms and accountability Ukrainian law clearly defines the responsibility of authorized persons and heads of procurers for non-compliance with public procurement rules (Article 164-14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). Liability includes administrative fines and disciplinary sanctions. In particularly grave cases, criminal proceedings may be opened—for example, in cases of fraud or collusion. The following institutions are tasked with preventing abuses: State Audit Service (continuous monitoring and audits) Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (complaint review and appeals) National Agency on Corruption Prevention (identification of corruption risks) NGOs/DOZORRO (analytical oversight, reporting violations) Prozorro platform, which publishes all procurements online Trends of 2024–2025: new challenges and specifics Recently, especially in wartime, procurement risks have increased. The following trends are observed: Mass use of non-competitive procedures due to urgent state needs “Exploration” of large volumes of international aid—a new challenge to spending transparency Emergence of new corruption schemes in defense, infrastructure reconstruction, and healthcare Frequent misuse of funds or lowering of quality in goods/works There is also some progress—Prozorro receives international transparency awards, while anti-corruption agencies are more active, often responding to public signals and investigative reporting. In 2023–2025, the number of detected violations increased thanks to automated audits, openness of information, and data integration. What needs to be improved: key recommendations Raise the professional level of procurement participants, develop educational projects and certification systems for authorized persons. Ensure stable and codified legislation, minimize frequent changes and discrepancies in regulations. Strengthen independent oversight—guarantee transparent monitoring, fast response to complaints, and simplified protection of bidders’ rights. Implement IT solutions for automatic anomaly detection in tenders, use artificial intelligence for primary “red flag” analysis. Toughen sanctions for systemic violations/collusion, make liability inevitable for both procurers and unscrupulous suppliers. Enhance the role of civil society, broaden the pool of independent analysts conducting “bottom-up” procurement audits. Conclusion The public procurement sector is crucial for effective state development and public trust, especially under heavy budgetary pressure and international scrutiny. Violations in this system are not just a legal but a profound social problem, requiring comprehensive, preventive and unavoidable responses. Only systematic efforts and shared responsibility of all stakeholders will help overcome old schemes and create an efficient procurement system ensuring transparency and fair use of Ukraine’s public resources. Prepared by: Nataliia Zharyuk, criminal law and procedure attorney at the law association “WINNER”. https://youtu.be/BAu08iebqrI?si=5mm2wIMbMQqkKcrv