The Ministry of Justice has gained access to banking secrecy

In August 2025, the issue of expanding the Ministry of Justice’s powers to access data classified as banking secrecy gained widespread attention in Ukraine’s information sphere. This decision is justified by the need to protect the state’s interests in international arbitration; however, its impact is much broader — both for the system of public administration and for citizens’ financial security.

What changed in the legislation?
Since August 2025, a legally enshrined mechanism has allowed the Ministry of Justice to address banks directly with requests to disclose information considered banking secrecy. However, this change has clearly defined boundaries: information can be obtained exclusively for representing the state’s interests in foreign jurisdictional bodies — primarily in international arbitrations where Ukraine is a party, especially in cases involving entities associated with the aggressor country.
The new mechanism was introduced by a law that applies during martial law and for two years after its conclusion, making temporariness a fundamental feature of this norm. Lawmakers present this as an exceptional tool for protecting the country’s interests in a critical period.

Reasons and motivations
Before the law was amended, the state, despite its authority to represent Ukraine’s interests, often faced the problem of incomplete access to financial evidence that could be decisive in international litigation against the aggressor state or related legal entities. In recent years, Ukraine has repeatedly been a party to financial disputes abroad, and the absence of a direct mechanism for the Ministry of Justice to obtain such information significantly complicated its position in arbitrations. Now, the Ministry can request evidence for the protection of state interests more promptly and without additional procedures, thus avoiding bureaucratic obstacles.

Current state of banking secrecy protection
Ukraine maintains strict banking secrecy legislation; the main document is the Law “On Banks and Banking Activities.” According to this law, a bank cannot disclose information about transactions, accounts, or clients without their consent or proper legal grounds. Before the new 2025 amendment, such information could be accessed via:
· Written request from the tax office;
· A court order;
· Enforcement proceedings;
· A request from the NBU within its powers;
· For the needs of law enforcement, anti-corruption, and supervisory authorities within the limits established by law.

Disclosure of information about funds movement, a client’s financial status, or their personal operations almost always required a court decision. Each request was substantiated only in cases of exceptional necessity and had to be confirmed by a court or other competent authority.

New procedure for the Ministry of Justice
With the entry into force of the new provision, the Ministry of Justice now has a separate channel for accessing banking secrecy and can request data directly from banks — without the intermediary of a court or another state body. This refers to the transfer of specific financial data needed in cases involving Ukraine in international disputes. Officially, this does not concern ordinary citizens and does not violate constitutional guarantees of personal data protection.
At the same time, experts emphasize that introducing this model will be accompanied by additional supervisory and auditing procedures for Ministry officials’ actions, and banks retain the right to verify the legality of every request.

Risks and challenges
The most obvious risk is a potential threat to the right to financial privacy and the reputation of banks. Although the Ministry’s official mandate is limited to international disputes, this new practice may set a legal precedent for expanding the range of state authorities with similar access rights.
There is a risk that under extraordinary conditions (martial law, emergencies), the exception could quickly become common practice and, in the future, this model may be adopted by other institutions. Therefore, civil society and human rights advocates are closely monitoring the new provision, demanding strict adherence to the principle of proportionality and robust guarantees for personal data protection.
On the other hand, critics point out that among the risks is the potential use of this mechanism to pressure businesses or political opponents through the disclosure of their financial affairs under the guise of “international representation needs.”

European and international context
An equally important aspect is compliance with international financial privacy standards. The EU and OECD countries encourage clear mechanisms for banking secrecy disclosure to prevent money laundering, terrorism financing, and tax evasion, but impose strict restrictions on using such instruments for any other purposes.
In most European countries, disclosure of banking information is allowed only by court order or for the purposes of fighting financial crime, and almost never simply upon state authorities’ requests without relevant justification and control. Ukraine is trying to balance EU transparency requirements with protecting basic civil rights.

Impact on the financial system and trust
Maintaining client trust is key to the banking sector. Expanding the instruments of access for state authorities can have both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, this increases the state’s ability to protect its interests in major geopolitical disputes. On the other, it may erode trust in banking secrecy among businesses and citizens, especially if the limits of its application become blurred or insufficiently controlled.

Conclusions
Granting the Ministry of Justice access to banking secrecy under the conditions stipulated by law is justified in the context where Ukraine’s economic security and standing in international courts are at stake. However, it is critically important that this extraordinary provision does not become standard practice after the war.
Ensuring clear procedural safeguards, transparent audit procedures, and independent oversight will help prevent abuse and maintain a balance between the needs of the state and citizens’ rights. The Ukrainian case may serve as an example for other countries of how to seek compromise between national security and financial privacy during wartime and in the face of modern global challenges.

Author: Svitlana Krutorohova – attorney at the law firm “WINNER”.