Imagine this: you’re an ordinary business owner, and suddenly your office is swarming with law enforcement officers carrying a search warrant. 

They seize computers, documents, and cash from the safe, but in the report they describe these items as “black electronic devices” or “stacks of papers in blue folders”—without any labels, serial numbers, or distinguishing features. Months later, when the case falls apart, you try to get your property back, but the investigator claims, “We didn’t seize anything like that,” because the report provides no clear evidence. You go to court, but without identification in the documents, it’s impossible to prove that the items were actually seized. 

The situation takes an even worse turn when, among the mass of unidentified items, documents, or cash—seized with general descriptions, such as “the sum of 100,000 UAH” without bill numbers— — the investigation “discovers” elements linking the individual to the crime. These elements form the basis of the charges, while the defendant’s subsequent arguments that the “discovered evidence” was not seized at all during the search are ignored by both the investigation and the court.

It is precisely to eliminate such situations that Bill No. 14159, “On Amendments to Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine Regarding Clarification of Issues Concerning the Admissibility of Evidence,” dated October 27, 2025, has been introduced. It is currently under review by the Committee on Law Enforcement of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

Let’s find out whether this bill can truly protect your rights in practice, since the inviolability of the home and property (Articles 30 and 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine) applies to every citizen.

Key Changes: From “Vague” Protocols to Strict Standards for the Admissibility of Evidence

The bill, introduced by People’s Deputy Oleksandr Yurchenko on October 27, 2025, provides for the addition of a new paragraph 5 to part three of Article 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to this provision, evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant for a person’s residence or other premises shall be deemed inadmissible if the search report lacks identifying characteristics of the items discovered and seized —specifically, brands, models, serial numbers, or distinctive features by which an item can be reliably identified.

To understand the significance of this, let us recall the classification of inadmissible evidence under the CPC
(Articles 87–89). According to current Supreme Court case law, inadmissible evidence is divided into three types:

1. Evidence obtained through a substantial violation of human rights (Art. 87, Parts 1–3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure): This constitutes “manifest inadmissibility,” where a violation of fundamental rights (such as an unlawful search) renders the evidence inadmissible immediately, without the need for a comprehensive assessment. The court is required to declare such evidence inadmissible at any stage of the proceedings (Article 87(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), explaining which right was violated and why the violation is substantial. The new paragraph 5 fits precisely here, making an incomplete protocol a “substantial violation.”

2. Evidence involving procedural violations that give rise to other rights violations: Such evidence is evaluated in its entirety, with an assessment of its impact on the fairness of the proceedings (based on the criteria of the European Court of Human Rights and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). Admissibility is determined in the deliberation room when a decision on the merits is rendered (Part 1 of Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

3. Evidence involving violations that cast doubt on its reliability: Here, the court analyzes whether such doubts can be dispelled by other evidence. If not, the evidence is inadmissible. The assessment of admissibility also takes place in the deliberation room.

The new provisions raise the requirements for the preparation of search reports: without detailed identification, evidence cannot be used in court, neither for the prosecution nor to support decisions (Article 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). This applies to “derivative evidence” (fruit of the poisonous tree): if the original evidence is inadmissible, so is the derivative evidence if it was obtained as a result of the original evidence (Part 1 of Article 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 

What’s Behind the Changes: From Supreme Court Precedents to Systemic Abuses

The initiative is based on a ruling by the Cassation Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court dated September 24, 2020, in Case No. 306/2629/17, in which a search report was deemed inadmissible due to the absence of identifying characteristics of the items discovered and seized (brands, models, serial numbers, distinctive features). The Supreme Court justified its decision by stating that without such details, verification of the evidence is impossible, which violates the principles of admissibility (Art. 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The explanatory note to Bill No. 14159 emphasizes the goal of unifying judicial practice, as the interpretation of such violations is currently inconsistent (for example, some courts disregard precedent by allowing the use of “vague” protocols as evidence). 

These changes stem from broader issues in criminal procedure:

• Abuse of searches as a tool for exerting pressure: This is particularly true for businesses, where urgent searches (Article 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) are often conducted without proper documentation. 

• Criticism from the EU: The European Commission’s report on Ukraine’s progress under the 2025 Enlargement Package commends progress on reforms but notes human rights violations during pretrial investigations, particularly in the area of the rule of law, which indirectly relates to searches.

• Trend toward reform: Initiatives similar to Bill No. 13599, aimed at limiting emergency searches and strengthening the protection of the inviolability of the home and property rights, indicate a general movement toward striking a balance between the effectiveness of investigations and individual rights.

Problems with the Return of Seized Property: When a “Vague” Search Report Becomes a Trap

One of the key flaws in the current system is the close link between the incomplete identification of property in the search report and the inability to return it to the owner. According to Articles 168–169 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, temporarily seized property must be returned unless the prosecutor files a motion for seizure within 48 hours of the seizure, or unless the court considers such a motion within 72 hours of its filing, or in the event of a refusal to grant the seizure or its revocation. However, in practice, in the absence of detailed descriptions (serial numbers, unique identifying features, or photographic evidence), the owner cannot prove that the seized property belongs to him or her. The court requires compelling evidence, which creates a vicious cycle: without identification in the report, there are no grounds for return.

This is particularly acute for documents and funds:

• Cash: It is seized with an entry stating “cash in the amount of 100,000 UAH” without specifying the serial numbers of the bills, which are later “lost” or “unidentifiable.” Even if the court rules to return the property—since no seizure has been imposed—the return process can drag on for months without the specification of identifying characteristics and other details.

• Documents: The indiscriminate seizure of the entire collection of documents available at the company (in the accounting department)—which are recorded in the protocol as “blue folders with signatures” without titles or numbers—paralyzes the business, since operations are impossible without them. Furthermore, during tax audits, the company cannot confirm the seizure of specific documents.

In practice, business owners resort to challenging the inaction of the investigator or prosecutor in court (Articles 303–307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), but without a clear protocol, the procedure becomes significantly more complicated. Bill No. 14159 could resolve this by rendering incomplete protocols inadmissible, which would encourage accurate documentation and facilitate the return of documents.

Weaknesses of the bill: loopholes for abuse and incompleteness

Despite its advantages, the bill has flaws that could limit its effectiveness. 

For example, the terms “reliably identify” and “distinguishing features” (para. 5, part 3, Art. 87 of the CPC) used in the bill are not specified. Does this refer to color, size, damage, or something else? The explanatory note provides examples (brands, models, serial numbers), but without a clear interpretation, disputes may arise in court, where prosecutors will argue that the description is “sufficient.” Again, in practice, this will lead to inconsistent judicial practice and demonstrate that the bill’s objective has not been achieved.

Furthermore, the changes apply only to searches authorized by an investigating judge (Art. 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), ignoring urgent searches (Art. 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), where abuses are most common. The problem of such searches has become particularly widespread under martial law, when they are being carried out in increasing numbers under the pretext of “urgency.”

It is also noteworthy that the bill does not regulate related aspects of the improper identification of seized property, such as the return of property (Articles 168–169 of the CPC) or liability for violations (Articles 162, 365 of the Criminal Code), leaving loopholes for delays. Without integration with other sections of the CPC, the impact of the changes will be limited.

These shortcomings can be corrected during committee review; otherwise, the bill risks becoming merely declarative, failing to address systemic gaps.

Conclusion: A Step Toward Justice, but Not a Panacea

Bill No. 14159 is an important step toward transparency, the standardization of judicial practice, and protection against abuse. It will strengthen the requirements for the admissibility of evidence, reduce pressure on citizens and businesses, encourage accurate documentation in search warrants, and facilitate the return of property. However, to be fully effective, it requires clarification of timeframes, broader coverage, and oversight of implementation. 

Until the bill is adopted, citizens should keep the following in mind: during a search, demand detailed documentation (brands, serial numbers, identifying features) with video recording, involve a lawyer at any stage, and challenge violations—this is the key to proving the fact of seizure and the return of property. In times of martial law and systemic abuses, this serves as a reminder: rights are not granted; they are defended through consistent action.