Fulfilled a contract – responsible for the counterparty? Experts draw attention to gaps in approaches to the responsibility of customers in economic relations

The focus was on the boundary of responsibility between the customer and the supplier in economic legal relations. After accusations against the airline LLC “MS AVIA-GRADE” of allegedly legalizing funds through cooperation with counterparties, the topic became particularly relevant. Experts draw attention to systemic problems of law enforcement and the practice according to which even bona fide companies can be held responsible for the actions of their suppliers – despite fulfilled contracts and compliance with the law, writes UNN.

DetailsIn the conditions of a full-scale war, Ukraine’s aviation industry performs a strategic function in ensuring the state’s defense capability. At the same time, individual enterprises, even while implementing critically important tasks, are forced to simultaneously protect their interests and business reputation from unsubstantiated accusations.

Earlier, UNN reported on the situation around the scientific and production company LLC “MS AVIA-GRADE”, which was accused of allegedly legalizing funds through operations with four counterparties. As reported by the company, law enforcement officers formed their conclusions based on fragmented bank statements, without requests to the company itself and without a full check of primary documentation.

“AVIA-GRADE” states that all business operations are documented, carried out in accordance with current legislation and do not contain any signs of violations. The company emphasizes: further actions of suppliers cannot be a reason for claims against the customer if the latter acts within the legal framework. The company considers the situation as an attempt to create unjustified reputational pressure on a business that, in the extremely difficult conditions of wartime, performs important tasks in the interests of the state.

This situation highlights the importance of studying a systemic issue: where exactly does the boundary of responsibility between the customer and the supplier lie in economic legal relations.

De jure, an enterprise is not responsible for its counterparty’s tax payments. However, the tax authorities have learned to circumvent this norm by applying the mechanism of classifying a company as a “risky taxpayer,” which leads to the blocking of tax invoices and, as a result, the actual imposition of responsibility on a bona fide enterprise.

In turn, Serhiy Dorotych, head of the #SaveFOP Movement, calls the logic by which responsibility for the supplier’s actions is placed on the customer absurd.

Neither I nor you can get into someone’s head, we cannot control it. Moreover, we have no tools of control or influence over a partner, a friend, or even relatives. What can we say about a subcontractor or supplier of goods or services? Therefore, the norms by which the tax authorities actually block work throughout the supply chain are illogical. And there are already many court decisions on this matter, numerous complaints – but, in the end, the one who has more rights is right.

The head of the #SaveFOP Movement emphasized that it is precisely for studying all circumstances of cases in Ukraine that there are control, audit, and investigative bodies, as well as the court – institutions that must investigate the depth of the case, clarify all circumstances, including collecting testimonies of participants in a particular operation, as well as third parties who may possess relevant information.

There must be comprehensive coverage, collection of all documents and evidence. But here, we often take one fact, torn out of the general context, and on its basis build indictments, rulings, restrictions – which is wrong.

In addition, comparing Ukrainian practice with European practice, the expert emphasizes that in EU countries, shifting responsibility to the customer after the completion of a business operation would be considered a violation of business rights. In Ukraine, however, such a practice remains widespread, and due to the lack of effective legal safeguards, even companies that have fulfilled all obligations and acted within the law can be held liable for the actions of their counterparties. This, in turn, leads to the blocking of accounts, seizure of property, and cessation of operations of enterprises.

Thus, the situation around “MS AVIA-GRADE” raises a broader question – how clearly is the responsibility between the parties to economic operations delimited in Ukrainian law enforcement practice. In cases where a company conscientiously fulfills its obligations, and all operations are documented, it should not become a hostage to the actions of third parties or formal approaches to evaluating its activities. This indicates the need for a more balanced approach from regulatory bodies, especially in conditions where business plays an important role in ensuring stability and the functioning of critical areas.