Reserving Employees Listed as Wanted via Diia: Risks and Opportunities

In Diia, the government plans to launch a new feature by the end of March – reserving employees who are formally listed as wanted persons. This looks paradoxical and requires separate analysis in the context of mobilisation, reservation and the legal nature of “wanted status” during wartime.

Context: digitalisation of mobilisation and reservation
Ukraine is gradually moving mobilisation procedures into a digital format: an e‑military ID, e‑draft notices and online reservation of critical employees via company and government e‑cabinets are already in place. A logical next step is to give employers a tool to work with the status of employees who appear as “wanted” in the databases of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Territorial Recruitment Centres (TRCs).

A person may be listed as wanted either because they simply failed to appear after receiving a draft notice due to communication problems, or because there are real grounds for criminal proceedings. This creates a legal collision for business: the person actually works, but is formally “wanted”. Digitalisation is meant to close this gap by synchronising the records of conscripts in TRCs, wanted‑person databases of the Interior Ministry/National Police, and the HR/mobilisation processes of businesses and public bodies.

Why did the “wanted status” problem arise at all?
There are several reasons, many of them technical and organisational.

1. Human factor and paper‑based records.A person may receive a draft notice at an old address and never actually be informed, yet be formally recorded as having failed to appear. As a result, they are added to “wanted” lists even though they are physically present at their workplace.
2. Delayed data updates.A company submits reservation documents and has them approved, but data in some registries are updated faster than in others. For some time there is a gap: in the TRC the employee may already be reserved or in the approval process, while in the wanted database they are still marked as “wanted”.
3. Different understanding of “wanted”.For a company HR or lawyer, being wanted for draft evasion has one meaning, while for the Interior Ministry system it is often a standard technical status sometimes applied in bulk to groups of people who did not show up.

As a result, without a transparent digital tool the employer often learns about an employee’s status by chance – at a checkpoint, during a document check or through contact with law enforcement. This creates risks for both the employee and business operations.

What the new Diia feature may potentially mean

1. Checking an employee’s status.
   Through the e‑cabinet, the employer will be able to see whether a particular conscript has a “wanted” status or another problematic record (for example, failure to appear). This should enable early detection of risky situations instead of finding out about them accidentally.
2. Submitting reservation requests despite wanted status.
   Under certain conditions, the system will allow employers to submit reservation documents for an employee who is formally wanted but in reality works and is critical for the company or public body. The idea is not to block reservation solely because of technical or formal entries.
3. Synchronisation between registries.
   Once a reservation is approved, the data should be updated automatically in all related registries so that a reserved employee is not “protected” in one system while still listed as “wanted” in another.
4. Why this matters for businesses and employees.
   Previously, almost any “bad” status in registries could effectively block reservation, even if the person was not actually evading service but became a victim of record‑keeping errors or delays. The new functionality is intended to reflect the real situation: the person is at work, performs critical functions and can legitimately be removed from the category of “those being sought” and assigned to a key sector for the state.

Risks and legal pitfalls

1. Risk of legalising draft evasion.
   If the mechanism is launched without clear safeguards, there may be cases where a real draft dodger “hides” behind reservation arranged by a loyal employer. This raises questions about selection criteria, checks and state control.
2. Different statuses across systems.
   During the transition period, registries will not update instantly, and an employee may simultaneously have a “reserved” status in the mobilisation system and “wanted” status in Interior Ministry databases, preserving the risk of detention and conflicts with law enforcement.
3. Employer’s liability.
   If a company knowingly pushes for reservation of a person with obvious signs of evasion or serious legal issues, this may be treated as an abuse of rights or aiding evasion. It is therefore crucial to document good faith: the employee’s presence at work, performance of duties and the employer’s lack of information about actual evasion.
4. Confidentiality and access to wanted‑person data.
   Giving an employer a “wanted” mark means granting access to sensitive information that previously circulated mainly within law enforcement. Clear access rules, minimal necessary data (a fact without case details) and defined liability for leaks or misuse are required.

Practical implications for business

For companies, especially in energy, transport, IT, communications, defence industry and other critical sectors, the new tool may become an important element of risk management.

In practice, businesses should:

• update internal mobilisation and military‑record policies and procedures;
• document the employee’s actual presence at work (timesheets, orders, memos);
• communicate openly with the employee about the meaning of their status and steps to resolve it;
• maintain working contacts with TRCs and law enforcement, including a designated contact person for complex cases.

What the employee should do

For the employee, the new functionality is not an “indulgence”. If they discover they have a “wanted” status but in fact live and work at a known address, it is important not to hide but, together with the employer, initiate regularisation, submit documents on residence, employment and family status to the TRC and other authorities, and seek legal assistance if there is a risk of prosecution for evasion.

Reservation in such a situation can serve as a bridge between the person’s actual behaviour (they are not hiding and are working) and their formal registry status, but it does not remove the need to resolve all accumulated legal issues.

Conclusions

Launching the reservation of employees formally listed as wanted in Diia is intended to close the gap between paper‑based registries and real life and to legitimise the status of critically important staff who ended up in a “grey zone” due to record‑keeping errors or delays. At the same time, this tool is not a magic wand: it does not release real draft dodgers from liability and does not replace proper interaction with TRCs, law enforcement and a full legal assessment of each case. Employers should therefore act cautiously and carefully document the good faith of their actions.

If you have questions or issues related to reserving employees, “wanted” status or business risks under mobilisation, you should seek individual legal advice to assess your specific situation and choose a safe course of action.

Author – Svitlana Krutorohova, attorney at the law firm “Legal Company ‘WINNER’”.