“Imagine: you are an ordinary entrepreneur, and suddenly your office is filled by law enforcement officers with a search warrant. They remove computers, documents and cash from the safe, but record it as “black electronic devices” or “stacks of papers in blue folders” – without brands, serial numbers or distinguishing features. Months later, when the case falls apart, you try to pay back”, — write on: ua.news
Imagine: you are an ordinary entrepreneur, and suddenly your office is filled by law enforcement officers with a search warrant.
They remove computers, documents and cash from the safe, but record it as “black electronic devices” or “stacks of papers in blue folders” – without brands, serial numbers or distinguishing features. Months later, when the case falls apart, you try to return the property, but the investigator claims: “This was not seized,” because the protocol does not provide clear evidence. You go to court, but without identification in the documents, it is impossible to prove the fact of seizure.
The situation takes on even worse colors when, among an array of unidentified things, documents or cash — seized with general descriptions, for example, “amount of UAH 100,000” without banknote numbers — the investigation “finds” elements linking a person to a crime. These elements become the basis of the prosecution, while the further arguments of the accused that the “found evidence” was not seized at all during the search, remain ignored by the investigation and the court.
It is to eliminate such situations that draft law No. 14159 “On Amendments to Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding clarification of issues of inadmissibility of evidence” dated October 27, 2025 was registered. It is currently being processed by the Committee on Law Enforcement Activities of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
Let’s find out whether this draft law can really protect your rights in practice, because the inviolability of housing and property (Articles 30, 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine) concerns every citizen.
Key innovations: from “fuzzy” protocols to strict standards of admissibility of evidence
The draft law, initiated by People’s Deputy Oleksandr Yurchenko on October 27, 2025, provides for the addition of the third part of Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a new paragraph 5. According to it, evidence obtained during the execution of a decision to search a person’s home or other possessions is considered inadmissible if the search protocol does not contain identification features of the discovered and seized items – in particular, brands, models, numbers or characteristic signs by which the item can be reliably identify.
To understand the significance, let’s recall the classification of inadmissible evidence under the Criminal Procedure Code
(Art. Art. 87-89). According to the current case law of the Supreme Court, inadmissible evidence is divided into three types:
Evidence obtained with a significant violation of human rights (Parts 1-3 of Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code): This is “obvious inadmissibility” when a violation of fundamental rights (for example, an illegal search) makes the evidence immediately inadmissible, without evaluating the totality. The court is obliged to declare them inadmissible at any stage of the process (Part 4 of Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code), motivating which right has been violated and why the violation is significant. The new clause 5 fits right in here, making an incomplete protocol a “substantial breach”.
Evidence with procedural violations leading to other violations of rights: They are evaluated as a whole, with a check of the impact on the fairness of the proceedings (according to the criteria of the ECHR and the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). Inadmissibility is established in the conference room when a decision is made on the merits (Part 1 of Article 89 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
Evidence with violations that raise doubts about reliability: Here the court analyzes whether doubts can be removed by other evidence. If not, the evidence is inadmissible. Assessment of admissibility also takes place in the conference room.
The innovation increases the requirements for drawing up a search protocol: without detailed identification, evidence cannot be used in court, either for prosecution or for justifying decisions (Article 86 of the Criminal Procedure Code). This applies to “derivative evidence” (fruit of the poisonous tree): if the original evidence is inadmissible, so are derivatives, if they are obtained thanks to it (Part 1, Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
What are the reasons for the changes: from Supreme Court precedents to systemic abuses
The initiative is based on the decision of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court dated September 24, 2020 in case No. 306/2629/17, where the search protocol was deemed inadmissible due to the lack of identification features of the discovered and seized items (brands, models, numbers, distinctive features). The Supreme Court justified its decision by the fact that without such details it is impossible to verify the evidence, which violates the principles of admissibility (Article 86 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The explanatory note to draft law No. 14159 emphasizes the goal of the unification of judicial practice, since the interpretation of such violations is currently heterogeneous (for example, some courts ignore precedent, allowing the use of “blurred” protocols as evidence).
The changes are due to broader problems in the criminal process:
-
Abuse of searches as a tool of pressure: Especially for businesses, where emergency searches (Article 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) are often carried out with improper fixation.
-
Criticism from the EU: The European Commission’s report on Ukraine’s progress under the 2025 Enlargement Package praises progress in reforms, but notes human rights violations during pre-trial investigations, particularly in the area of the rule of law, which indirectly relates to searches.
-
Trend for reforms: Similar initiatives, such as draft law No. 13599, aimed at limiting emergency searches and strengthening the protection of inviolability of housing and property rights, indicate a general movement towards a balance between the effectiveness of investigations and individual rights.
Problems with the return of confiscated property: when a “fuzzy” protocol becomes a trap
One of the key flaws of the current system is the close connection between the incomplete identification of the property in the search protocol and the impossibility of returning it to the owner. According to Articles 168-169 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, temporarily seized property is subject to return if the prosecutor does not submit a motion for seizure within 48 hours from the moment of seizure, or if the court does not consider such a motion within 72 hours from the moment of its submission, or in case of refusal of the seizure or cancellation of the latter. However, in practice, in the absence of detailed descriptions (serial numbers, unique signs, or photo-fixation), the owner cannot prove that the confiscated property belongs to him. The court requires convincing evidence, which creates a vicious circle: without identification in the record, there is no basis for return.
This is especially acute for documents and funds:
-
Money: They withdraw with the note “cash in the amount of UAH 100,000” without banknote numbers, which are later “lost” or “unidentified”. Even if the court makes a decision on the return of the property, because the seizure has not been imposed, the return process can drag on for months without indicating identification signs and other details.
-
Documents: Indiscriminate removal of the entire array of documents available at the enterprise (in the accounting department), which are recorded in the protocol as “blue folders with signatures” without names or numbers, leads to the fact that the business is paralyzed, because without them no activity is possible. In addition, during tax audits, the company cannot confirm the fact that specific documents have been seized.
In practice, the owners resort to appealing in court the inaction of the investigator, the prosecutor (articles 303-307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), but without a clear protocol the procedure becomes much more complicated. House Bill 14159 could address this by making incomplete records inadmissible, which would encourage accurate recordkeeping and facilitate returns.
Weaknesses of the draft law: loopholes for abuse and incompleteness
Despite its advantages, the document has drawbacks that may limit its effectiveness.
Thus, the terms “reliably identify” and “characteristic features” used in the draft law (clause 5, part 3, article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code) are not specified. Is it color, size, damage, or something else? The explanatory note gives examples (makes, models, numbers), but without a clear interpretation, disputes are possible in court, where prosecutors will argue the “sufficiency” of the description. This, again, in practice will lead to the emergence of heterogeneous judicial practice and will indicate the failure to achieve the goal of the draft law.
In addition, the changes affect only searches ordered by an investigating judge (Article 234 of the CPC), ignoring emergency ones (Article 233 of the CPC), where abuses are most common. The problem of such searches became especially widespread in the conditions of martial law, when they multiply with reference to “urgency”.
It is also worth noting that the draft law does not regulate related aspects of improper identification of seized property, such as the return of property (Articles 168-169 of the Criminal Code) or liability for violations (Articles 162, 365 of the Criminal Code), leaving loopholes for delays. Without integration with other sections of the CPC, the effect of the changes will be limited.
These defects can be corrected at the stage of committee consideration, otherwise the draft law risks becoming declarative without eliminating systemic gaps.
Conclusion: a step towards justice, but not a panacea
Draft Law No. 14159 is an important step towards transparency, unification of judicial practice and protection against abuse. It will strengthen requirements for the admissibility of evidence, reduce pressure on citizens and businesses, encourage accurate recording in search protocols and facilitate the return of property. However, to be fully effective, more precise timing, wider coverage and monitoring of implementation are required.
Before the adoption of the draft law, citizens should remember: during the search, demand a detailed recording (brands, numbers, signs) with a video recording, involve a lawyer at any stage and appeal the violation – this is the key to proving the fact of seizure and return of property. In times of martial law and systemic abuses, this is a reminder: rights are not given, they are defended through consistent action.
Vitaly Chayun, attorney at AO Barristers