Asset Protection in Criminal Proceedings: Denial of Property Seizure

During searches conducted within criminal proceedings under Part 5 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud), law enforcement officers seized a BMW vehicle and a foreign passport belonging to our Client. Subsequently, a prosecutor from the Office of the Prosecutor General filed a motion with the court to seize this property under the pretext of “preserving material evidence.” For a business representative, such actions imply not only the freezing of a high-value asset but also de facto isolation due to the confiscation of personal identity documents.

In the court hearing, Grain Law Firm attorneys completely refuted the prosecution’s stance, demonstrating the absolute lack of evidentiary value of the seized items for the investigation. The defense provided the court with financial documents proving the lawful origin of the client’s income and the legality of the vehicle’s purchase. Concurrently, the property owner’s representative argued that the foreign passport was a priori not subject to seizure under the given circumstances, and its prolonged, groundless retention by law enforcement constituted a direct violation of the individual’s right to freedom of movement.

The investigating judge fully concurred with the arguments presented by the Grain Law Firm team, ruling that there were no legal grounds for the seizure and that the prosecutor had failed to prove the necessity of such restrictions.

The prosecutor’s motion was denied in its entirety. Thanks to the professional work of our attorneys, the Client promptly regained the right to use their vehicle, recovered their personal documents, and eliminated artificial obstacles to conducting business and traveling.