Protection of property rights in criminal proceedings: successful appeal against property seizure.

In September 2024, clients — limited liability companies engaged in goods import — turned to attorney Rostyslav Salamakha for legal assistance. Their request concerned the need to overturn an evidently unlawful seizure of property, which had been confiscated during a search conducted within the framework of criminal proceedings initiated over alleged tax evasion.

The defense position was based on the following key arguments:

• The seizure was imposed without proper justification, contrary to the requirements of Articles 171 and 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
• The seized property did not meet the criteria of physical evidence under Article 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: it was neither an instrument of the crime, nor did it bear traces of criminal activity, nor was it obtained as a result of a crime.
• The prosecution failed to prove what evidentiary value the seized property had in establishing the objective truth in the case.
• The prosecutor did not properly substantiate the purpose of the seizure, and the investigating authority failed to provide evidence of the illicit origin of the property.
• It was emphasized that the seizure of the property was conducted outside the scope of the search warrant.
• Attention was drawn to the inconsistency of law enforcement actions with the principle of maintaining a fair balance between the rights of the property owner and the objectives of the criminal proceedings.
• The defense also stressed the absence of any procedural role of the clients’ officers in the criminal proceedings and provided documentary proof of the lawfulness of their commercial activities.

Upon reviewing the defense’s arguments, the Court of Appeal fully agreed with the legal reasoning, highlighting substantial procedural violations in the issuance of the seizure order, the lack of proper justification by the investigating judge, and the absence of grounds for the imposition of seizure.

As a result, the Court of Appeal annulled the investigating judge’s ruling on property seizure and issued a new decision denying the prosecutor’s motion for seizure.

Most importantly, following the cancellation of the seizure, the clients’ cargo vehicles, documents, and other property were immediately returned to their lawful owners, thereby ensuring the full restoration of their violated rights and comprehensive protection of their legitimate interests.

This case once again demonstrates that qualified legal assistance and an active procedural stance are key to effective protection of property rights in criminal proceedings.

The success of this case resulted from the attorney’s in-depth analysis of all circumstances of the criminal proceedings and a proactive approach at all stages of protecting the clients’ interests. Attorney Rostyslav Salamakha meticulously examined the case materials, identified numerous procedural violations committed by the investigative authorities, and provided a thoroughly reasoned argumentation proving the absence of legal grounds for the seizure of property.

Particular attention was given to gathering and submitting to the court appropriate documentary evidence confirming the lawful origin of the property and the legitimacy of the clients’ business activities. It was also shown that the goods had been imported into Ukraine entirely legally, with all customs formalities duly completed. The attorney further emphasized that the seized property did not meet the criteria of physical evidence, a critical requirement for applying coercive measures in criminal proceedings.

The prosecutor submitted to the court a ruling on the appointment of a commodity examination, aimed at determining the value of machines, equipment, raw materials, and consumer goods, to justify the seizure. However, the panel of judges rejected this argument, underlining the clear contradictions contained in the text of the ruling and its inconsistency with the factual circumstances of the case.

During the appellate proceedings, the attorney persistently defended the clients’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, referring both to national legal provisions and to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which guarantees protection of property rights and prohibits unlawful interference by state authorities.

The Court of Appeal referred to key rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, such as the decisions in “Broniowski v. Poland” (22.06.2004), “Amuur v. France,” and “Malamud v. Greece”, emphasizing the lack of sufficient legal grounds for imposing restrictive measures on the property owned by the clients.

Professional preparation, systematic defense strategy, and strict adherence to high standards of legal ethics allowed the defense to achieve its main goal — not only to annul the unlawful seizure but also to secure the actual return of the property to its rightful owners, thereby fully restoring and protecting their rights and legitimate interests.