Not only closed cases against businesses, but also an investigation into the actions of law enforcement: how the Prosecutor General's Office is progressing in its fight against pressure on businesses

The concept of "pressure on business" has several aspects: it is the pressure of regulatory and tax systems, as well as the illegal influence of law enforcement agencies. While Ukrainian businesses have, to some extent, become accustomed to constant changes in legislation, approaches to taxation, and reporting, abuses by law enforcement agencies often become a truly painful problem that can paralyze operations.

Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko took on the task of solving this very problem. He had repeatedly met with businesses while still in his previous position as head of the State Tax Service, and understood "what ails" Ukrainian entrepreneurs. 

Thus, in September 2025, the "StopPressure" portal was launched – a tool for direct communication between businesses and the prosecutor's office in cases of possible pressure from law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Within a few months of its operation, hundreds of appeals were received on the platform, some of which resulted in the return of property and funds to businesses, and the closure of criminal proceedings. Read about the results of the portal's work, the reaction of law enforcement agencies to a large-scale review of cases, and the limits of permissible use of "StopPressure" in an interview with Svitlana Lytvyn, Deputy Head of the Department in the Supervision of Law Enforcement Agencies in the Fight against Crimes in the Sphere of Protection of National and International Investments, Office of the Prosecutor General, for UNN. 

– Since September 2025, the "StopPressure" portal has been operating, through which businesses can directly complain about pressure from law enforcement officers. How many such complaints have been received so far?

As of February 5, 2026, 177 reports have been received through the "StopPressure" portal from business representatives regarding possible unlawful pressure from law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Soon after the platform's launch, the number of appeals began to gradually increase, which may indicate both an increase in entrepreneurs' awareness of the portal's existence and a growing trust of the business community in the prosecutor's office as an institution capable of responding to cases of unlawful interference in economic activity. 

 – How many of these complaints have already been processed? What are the results? 

Out of the total number of appeals submitted through the "StopPressure" portal, 169 reports have already been reviewed by the prosecutor's offices. As a result of the checks, grounds for response were found in 36 cases, and measures were taken, which allowed for the prompt restoration of violated entrepreneurs' rights. In 8 criminal proceedings, decisions were ensured in accordance with Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.  

In some cases, we even received letters of gratitude for the work done, and posts on social media. This indicates the importance of the "StopPressure" portal for businesses.  

At the same time, in 133 cases, no grounds for response were found. This is mainly explained by the fact that the circumstances cited by the applicants were not confirmed or no signs of illegal pressure were found. The remaining reports are in progress – they are being carefully checked to ensure an objective and complete review.

– You are talking about restoring the rights of entities. Has it been possible in practice to restore their property rights, in particular, to ensure the return of funds seized during searches? 

Yes, thanks to the measures taken, funds seized during searches, in various currencies, totaling almost UAH 32 million in hryvnia equivalent, have been returned to their owners. In addition, agricultural machinery, equipment for manufacturing tobacco products, computer equipment, mobile phones, flash drives, and other items have been returned to the applicants. 

– Are the actions of law enforcement officers being checked?  

In 3 cases, information has been entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations regarding possible unlawful actions by law enforcement officers, and the progress of the pre-trial investigation in these cases is under the control of the heads of regional prosecutor's offices. 

– What does business complain about most often? 

An analysis of appeals submitted through the "StopPressure" portal indicates systemic problems in the interaction of certain law enforcement agencies with businesses, which require enhanced prosecutorial response. Most often, entrepreneurs complain about procedural violations during pre-trial investigations, for example, during searches, non-execution of court decisions regarding the return of seized property, and unjustified delays in pre-trial investigations.

The prosecutor's office systematically monitors compliance with the law, ensures the proportionality of measures to secure criminal proceedings, takes measures to restore violated rights, and accelerates investigations. It also supervises the execution of court decisions.

– And which law enforcement agency most often becomes the object of criticism from businesses? 

Most appeals concern the actions of the National Police, the Bureau of Economic Security, the SBU, as well as customs and tax authorities. The prosecutor's offices are strengthening control and responding to every signal of improper supervision, increasing the effectiveness of protecting business rights.

– Is there any noticeable correlation between the direction, field of activity, or size of a business – who experiences pressure most often? 

– Although appeals are not officially recorded by business size or industry, an analysis of existing cases allows for the identification of certain patterns. Representatives of medium and large businesses most often report pressure, which is due to significant financial turnovers, the presence of assets that may be subject to arrest, and increased attention from regulatory bodies. Companies in agribusiness, logistics, import and export, financial services, manufacturing, construction, and trade in excisable goods are particularly vulnerable.

The prosecutor's offices immediately respond to every signal of business rights violations and take all legal measures to prevent unlawful interference in the activities of enterprises.  

– What are the most high-profile cases among those criminal proceedings that were closed, that you can talk about?

– Among the most resonant criminal proceedings that were closed after the intervention of the prosecutor's office or a review of the case materials, we can name cases involving a number of large and medium-sized enterprises where the absence of a crime or sufficient evidence was established. In particular, these are cases concerning LLC "Bakhmachgazbudservis", LLC "Mykolay-plus", LLC "Sheriff-Zakhyst", PJSC "Sukha-Balka", PE "Veresh", PE "DOBROBUT-BSG", and sole proprietor "Petrov". In these cases, after an additional review of the pre-trial investigation materials, decisions were made to close them, cancel arrests, and return seized property, which became a public example of the effectiveness of the prosecutorial response mechanism and the restoration of the rights of economic entities. 

– Do, let's say, those business representatives against whom there may be grounds for investigation, try to take advantage of such openness on the part of the prosecutor's office to close the case without negative consequences for themselves? 

Yes, unfortunately, there are cases where individual business representatives try to use the openness of the prosecutor's office as a way to influence the course of criminal proceedings or avoid potential liability. Such appeals sometimes aim to create informational pressure on the investigation, delay the consideration of the case, or discredit the lawful actions of law enforcement agencies.  

At the same time, the prosecutor's office's position remains principled: a response is carried out only if there are confirmed facts of unlawful pressure, and the portal is not considered a mechanism for exemption from criminal liability or a tool for closing cases without legal grounds. 

– Are there any typical signs that a case is fabricated, artificial? One often hears that cases drag on for years without a logical conclusion in the form of a trial and verdict. 

– The prolonged consideration of criminal proceedings by courts is not, in itself, a sign that the case is fabricated, artificial, or unfounded. According to the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, judicial proceedings must be carried out within a reasonable time. At the same time, the concept of "reasonable time" is an evaluative one and depends on the complexity of the case, the volume of evidence, the number of participants in the process, the need for expert examinations, the questioning of a significant number of witnesses, and the behavior of the parties to the proceedings.

In practice, the duration of judicial proceedings is often due to objective and procedural factors, primarily the significant workload on courts and the complexity of criminal proceedings. 

Indeed, there are cases where the delay in judicial proceedings is associated with the abuse of procedural rights by the defense, which manifests itself in the systematic submission of unfounded motions, the initiation of repeated examinations, the non-appearance of defenders or defendants in court, and other actions aimed at delaying the proceedings.

Thus, the mere duration of judicial proceedings cannot be considered a sign of a fabricated case. The assessment of the validity of criminal proceedings is carried out primarily on the basis of the totality of evidence, compliance with procedural guarantees, and the results of judicial proceedings, and not solely on its duration.

– How did law enforcement agencies generally react to the initiative to review cases for signs of pressure on businesses, if we talk about the non-public sphere? Were there any obstructions from investigative bodies? Perhaps you can give some specific examples? 

– The reaction of all agencies to the initiative to review criminal proceedings for possible pressure on businesses was constructive, collaborative, and results-oriented. The Bureau of Economic Security, the Security Service of Ukraine, the State Bureau of Investigation, and the National Police of Ukraine ensured an internal audit of relevant proceedings to verify their validity, the legality of procedural decisions, and compliance with the rights of economic entities.

As a result of this work, criminal proceedings were closed where there were insufficient grounds for further investigation, and issues regarding temporarily seized property and material evidence were resolved. At the same time, in proceedings that had sufficient evidence, their transfer to court was ensured. 

Investigative units were additionally oriented towards applying balanced, proportionate, and minimally burdensome measures to secure criminal proceedings, taking into account the interests of businesses and the need to prevent excessive interference in economic activity. The prosecutor's office, in turn, exercises constant procedural supervision and control over compliance with the law, which improves the quality of decisions made.