On December 23, 2025, Ukrainian People’s Deputies Ihor Pavlovych Fris, Oleksandr Borysovych Matusevych, Serhiy Volodymyrovych Vlasenko, Valerii Oleksiiovych Zub, and Galina Ihorivna Yanchenko submitted to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Bill No. 14325 on amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the clarification of the grounds and procedure for the seizure of real property.

The Draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine Regarding the Clarification of the Grounds and Procedure for the Seizure of Real Property” (hereinafter referred to as the “draft law”) was developed with the aim of strengthening, through legislation, the legal framework for protecting the rights of owners or possessors of real property when considering issues related to the seizure of their real property in criminal proceedings.

The authors of the Draft Law sought to create the conditions for strengthening the legal framework for protecting the rights of owners or possessors of real property (including land parcels) when considering matters related to the seizure of their real property in criminal proceedings, which would prevent repeated motions to seize property in the absence of new grounds and evidence justifying such a seizure.

However, despite the positive intentions of the bill’s authors, if the bill is adopted in its proposed form, the legislation will not provide adequate legal regulation of the seizure of real estate, in part due to existing gaps in the law. 

What is the current situation?

The participation of a third party during the consideration of a motion to seize their real property is not mandatory. The rights and obligations of a third party arise only from the moment the prosecutor submits a motion to the investigating judge requesting the seizure of property.It is permissible to file repeated motions to seize property without being required to specify new circumstances or evidence in the motions (if the previous motion was denied).

There is no time limit on the seizure of a third party’s real property. The seizure remains in effect for the entire duration of the pretrial investigation and court proceedings, until it is lifted by a ruling of the investigating judge, a court, or a decision by the prosecutor (in the event of the criminal proceedings being closed). The seizure of property may be lifted upon a motion by the defense or a third party (the property owner or their representative), but there is no automatic mechanism for lifting the seizure upon the expiration of the seizure period. The seizure of third parties’ property is permitted when there are grounds for preserving physical evidence, but in practice, it is often very lengthy and subject to no time limits.

What Is Proposed?

The draft law proposes amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine to provide that:

1) the consideration of a motion to seize real property (including a land plot) belonging to a third party during a pretrial investigation shall be conducted with the participation of the third party or their representative (new Part Eight of Article 64-2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine);

2) in the event of a denial of a motion to apply a measure to secure criminal proceedings and/or the revocation of such a measure, the investigator, inquiry officer, or prosecutor shall not have the right to reapply to the investigating judge, or to the court with a motion to apply the relevant measure to secure criminal proceedings, unless the motion sets forth new circumstances and evidence that were not previously considered by the investigating judge or the court (new Part 8 of Article 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine);

3) In criminal proceedings in which no person has been notified of suspicion, the seizure of real property (including a land parcel) of a third party in the cases provided for in paragraph two of this article shall be carried out on the basis of a ruling by the investigating judge for a term not exceeding four months, which may be extended within the limits of the pretrial investigation period in accordance with the procedure provided for in this chapter.

In such a case, the investigating judge must specify the duration of the seizure in the ruling (new Part Thirteen of Article 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

4) The failure of the owner or possessor of real property (including a land plot) or their representative to appear does not preclude the consideration of a motion to seize real property (including a land plot), provided that such persons were duly notified of the date, time, and place of the hearing on the motion and did not provide valid reasons for their failure to appear (new second paragraph of Part 1 of Article 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

5) A motion to seize real property (including a land plot) may be resubmitted only if new circumstances and evidence arise that demonstrate the necessity of the seizure, and which have not been considered by the investigating judge or the court (new Part 5 of Article 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

6) Upon a motion by a third party, the seizure of real property (including a land plot) may also be lifted in whole or in part by a ruling of the investigating judge during the pretrial investigation in criminal proceedings in which no person has been notified of suspicion, provided that the term of such seizure has expired (or was not specified in the investigating judge’s ruling on the seizure) and the seizure of the specified property has not been extended in accordance with the procedure provided for in this chapter (new third paragraph of Part 1 of Article 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine).

Legal Consequences of Adopting the Bill

Despite the authors’ desire to demonstrate the necessity of adopting this bill in its proposed form, as well as its unique role in regulating a number of issues, the following should be noted.

Back in February 2016, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a number of laws that were part of the so-called “visa-free package,” necessary for the abolition of the visa regime with the European Union. Among these laws was Law No. 1019-VIII of February 18, 2016, which concerned the improvement of the procedure for the seizure of property and the institution of special confiscation. This law added Article 64-2 to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which sparked considerable debate within the Ukrainian judicial system, particularly regarding conflicts with other provisions of the CPC of Ukraine and the ambiguity of judicial practice.

The main problem with Article 64-2 of the CPC of Ukraine lay in the second part of the aforementioned provision of the Law, which hastily established that “the rights and obligations of a third party whose property is subject to seizure arise from the moment the prosecutor files a motion with the court to seize the property” (as amended from the original text dated July 17, 2024, due to technical deficiencies).

Thus, only a prosecutor may file a motion to seize the property of a person who has not acquired the status of a suspect or defendant, rather than—as was previously the case—an investigator in consultation with the prosecutor, or the prosecutor personally. However, in practice, most law enforcement officials ignored the aforementioned part of Article 64-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine and cited Part 1 of Article 171 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, according to which a motion to seize property may be filed with an investigating judge the court may be addressed by a prosecutor, an investigator with the prosecutor’s consent, and—for the purpose of securing a civil claim—also by a civil claimant.

Furthermore, pursuant to paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, an investigator is authorized, in consultation with the prosecutor, to apply to an investigating judge with motions to apply measures to secure criminal proceedings, including the seizure of property.

No clear position has been established in judicial practice regarding the conflict between these legal provisions, and therefore, courts have often ruled to return motions for the seizure of third parties’ property to remedy deficiencies, specifically requiring the prosecutor to personally file the relevant motion.

Appellate courts also frequently sided with property owners and overturned investigative judges’ decisions to seize property, citing the lack of authority on the part of investigators to file such a motion with an investigative judge, even if it had been coordinated with the prosecutor.

The proposed draft law is intended to finally resolve this issue and amend Part 2 of Article 64-2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with the right not only for the prosecutor but also for the preliminary inquiry officer or investigator—with the prosecutor’s consent—to file a motion with an investigating judge to seize the property of third parties.

Thus, the draft law resolves the contradiction between Articles 64-2, 171, and 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, allowing investigators and preliminary inquiry officers (with the prosecutor’s consent) to file motions to seize the property of third parties, rather than limiting this authority to the prosecutor alone.

However, it should be noted that, to ensure the completeness of the proposed amendments to Part 2 of Article 64-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, the drafters of the bill failed to amend Part 7 of that article. Thus, as of now, a third party whose property is subject to seizure and their representative are required to appear when summoned by the prosecutor and the court. This provision should also be expanded to include other officials who issue summonses, namely the preliminary inquiry officer, the investigator, and the investigating judge.

Similarly, paragraph three of Part 7 of Article 64-2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, concerning the granting of permission to third parties to disclose information constituting a legally protected secret, should be expanded to include not only the existing authorities (the prosecutor and the court), but also to include the preliminary inquiry officer, the investigator, and the investigating judge.

Thus, in the draft law, the authors expand Part 2 of Article 64-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine to include entities authorized to file motions for the seizure of property, but they overlook the need to amend Part 7 of that article, regarding the need to include the investigator, the preliminary inquiry officer, and the investigating judge within the prosecutor’s and judge’s powers to issue summonses and grant permissions to disclose confidential information.

The authors of the bill also propose to supplement Article 64-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine with a Part 8, which would further specify that the consideration of a motion to seize immovable property (including land plots) of a third party is conducted in the presence of that third party or their representative. This guarantee theoretically obligates judges and investigating judges to take all possible measures to properly notify owners of real property (including land parcels) who do not have the status of a suspect (defendant) of the date, time, and place of the hearing on the motion to seize the property, so that they may properly exercise their rights.

At the same time, in practice, it is not uncommon for court clerks to simply issue statements confirming an attempt to notify a party to the proceedings via a phone call from a work phone number, noting that the property owner did not answer the call. Such a report is entirely sufficient for the court to conclude that “all possible measures” have been taken to properly notify the party to the proceedings, which does not preclude consideration of the motion without their participation.

A similar guarantee of “proper” notification of real estate owners has been further enshrined by the drafters of the bill in the proposed amendments to Part 1 of Article 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

In light of the foregoing, the new Part Eight of Article 64-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine requires the personal participation of a third party or their representative when considering the issue of seizing real property, but, in practice, such notification is often merely a formality and does not result in the property owners being actually informed.

In addition, in the aforementioned draft law, the authors propose to supplement Article 132 of the CPC of Ukraine with a new paragraph eight, which would prohibit law enforcement agencies from repeatedly applying to an investigating judge or a court with motions to apply measures to secure criminal proceedings, in the event that a previous motion was denied, without providing additional evidence or circumstances that were not previously considered by the investigating judge or the court.

This provision is not new to criminal procedural law and is already applied to repeated motions for searches under Part 6 of Article 234 of the CPC of Ukraine. Thus, in accordance with the aforementioned provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, which is already in force, if a motion for authorization to search a person’s residence or other premises is denied, the investigator, or the prosecutor has no right to reapply to the investigating judge with a motion for a search warrant for the same residence or other premises of a person unless the motion specifies new circumstances that were not considered by the investigating judge.

Since October 2017, law enforcement agencies have established a practice of resubmitting search requests following rejections by investigating judges, which amounts to disregarding the aforementioned requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine. Investigating judges who receive repeated motions for search warrants are not always aware that the investigator’s or prosecutor’s previous motion was denied, as law enforcement agencies deliberately omit this information from the text of the motion. Exceptions to this rule include the reassignment of such motions within a single criminal proceeding to the same investigating judge, which serves as a safeguard against procedural manipulations by law enforcement agencies aimed at circumventing the aforementioned requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine.

Additionally, the authors of the bill decided to duplicate the prohibition on resubmitting motions for the seizure of real property in paragraph five of Article 172 of the CPC of Ukraine, specifically, in the event that the term of the ruling imposing a seizure on real property has expired.

To summarize these changes, it is worth noting that the proposed Part 8 of Article 132 of the CPC of Ukraine, while prohibiting law enforcement agencies from repeatedly filing motions to apply measures to secure criminal proceedings without citing new evidence or circumstances (similar to searches), existing practice shows that law enforcement agencies often ignore such restrictions.

The provision in the new Part Thirteen of Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine setting the maximum term for the seizure of real property at four months (with the possibility of extension within the limits of the pretrial investigation period) is the most interesting change in the proposed bill. However, the practical implementation of this provision raises more questions than it answers.

State registrars lack a mechanism for imposing a seizure on real property (including land plots) for a specific period. Furthermore, the State Register of Real Property Rights lacks the technical capability to automatically lift a seizure of property after the expiration of the time limits specified in court decisions.

The authors of the bill propose resolving this issue by adding a new third paragraph to Part 1 of Article 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, by allowing a third party to file a motion with the investigating judge to lift the seizure of property if the term of such seizure has expired (or was not specified in the investigating judge’s ruling on the seizure) and the seizure of the property has not been extended.

At the same time, the authors of the bill failed to specify in the proposed amendments to Part 1 of Article 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine that such a motion to lift the seizure of property may be filed not only with investigating judges but also with the court after the conclusion of the pretrial investigation.

Adoption of the bill in its proposed form creates legal uncertainty for property owners attempting to lift the seizure after the seizure has expired and the pretrial investigation has concluded, since third parties are entitled to file such a motion only with an investigating judge, not with a court. At the same time, investigating judges lack the authority to consider such motions after criminal proceedings have been referred to a court.

In other words, although the drafters of the bill have provided for the possibility of a third party filing a motion to lift the seizure of real property after the expiration of the term specified in the court decision, they have not taken into account the possibility of filing such a motion not only with an investigating judge but also with a court after the completion of the pretrial investigation, which creates legal uncertainty.

In conclusion, the adoption of this bill has a positive aspect in terms of ensuring that property owners are informed about the court’s decision regarding the seizure of their property. However, overall, the bill requires further refinement to address significant gaps and shortcomings that could complicate its practical application.