How the BEB Operates During the War

The Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine, or How the ESB Operates During Wartime.
In 2021, a new law enforcement agency—the Economic Security Bureau—began operations. The newly established agency’s responsibilities include investigating most economic crimes, as well as ensuring compliance with budget legislation and tax laws.
At the same time, the imposition of martial law in Ukraine has clearly affected its operations, as the economy and tax system in our country are now under its close scrutiny.
In accordance with the objectives set for the newly created agency, the plan was to establish a new law enforcement agency with an analytical focus, which would, based on detailed and in-depth monitoring, identify violations and hold “tax evaders” and combat the shadow economy in Ukraine. However, as it turns out, the fine words written into the law do not always correspond to reality.
In particular, the practice of procedural communication with BEB detectives indicates that instead of a powerful financial-analytical law enforcement agency, Ukrainian society has received yet another infamous  (and ultimately disbanded) tax police, with its baseless searches, “mask shows,” hours-long interrogations, and years-long “factual” criminal cases. We are confident that representatives of any large business that operated during the “Papereniks” era will recall their methods of “procedural harassment.”
We assume (in fact, we are certain) that this was a predictable consequence of forming the “new” composition of the BEB from “old, trusted” personnel of the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine, headed by Chairman Melnik (who was recently dismissed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine).
It should be noted separately that the “effectiveness” of the Bureau’s activities has become the subject of review by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the Office of the Prosecutor General. 
Public data shows that, over the entire period of the BEB’s operation, only 12 indictments were filed in court (or 1.8% of the total number of criminal proceedings), which unequivocally indicates a lack of anyprocedural prospects in the majority of cases investigated by the BEB’s detectives.
These results stem, in particular, from the approaches and methods used by BEB staff during pretrial investigations.
By citing specific examples, we would like to illustrate the working methods of the newly established BEB in specific criminal proceedings.
Thus, in February 2023, BEB detectives (with operational support from officers of the Department of Strategic Investigations of the National Police of Ukraine) “paid a visit” to one of the largest meat product manufacturers in Ukraine to conduct a search.
An analysis of the case reveals that the detectives were searching for documents related to tax “schemes” within a chain of companies, through which, according to law enforcement officials, the meat producer allegedly generated an unfounded tax credit. In other words, the detectives were allegedly investigating yet another “shell” company that supposedly operates exclusively “on paper” and is not engaged in actual production or the subsequent sale of goods. 
At the same time, given that the investigation had already been ongoing for nearly two years, the company did not even raise the issue of the effectiveness and prospects of such proceedings.
Despite the court’s authorization to seize only business documentation, BEB detectives seized all meat products that were stored in the warehouse at the time. And that (just to clarify) amounted to nearly 250 metric tons of “fictitious” meat and nearly 130,000 cans of “fictitious” ready-to-eat stewed products.
The law enforcement officers’ rationale was trivial—they claimed there were no documents for the products in question. At the same time, the detectives also seized the originals of all the company’s primary documentation (including that for the meat products in the warehouse, which fully confirmed the legality of their origin), sealed them separately, and carefully removed them.
Currently, the company’s management, their attorneys, and business associations are attempting to obtain an answer from the BEB to one simple question: What are the procedural grounds for seizing all (!) of the products and effectively paralyzing the operations of a company in the real sector of the economy?
However, in response to numerous appeals, petitions, and complaints, the BEB cynically states that “the investigation is ongoing, as the legality of the grounds for the products’ presence in the company’s warehouse has not been established.” 
Although, as we mentioned above, the detectives also seized the original documentation for the meat products in the warehouse—which fully confirmed the legality of their origin—sealed them separately, and carefully removed them. And the BEB has no answer to this question.
Following the searches, the company’s operations were effectively halted.
Legal battles between the meat producer’s attorneys and BEB detectives—joined by their “case managers” from the Office of the Prosecutor General—have been ongoing for nearly five months.
Despite the fact that prosecutors from the Office of the Prosecutor General walk into the office of the presiding judge of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv before every hearing as if it were their own home (after which most of the investigating judges, lowering their eyes, postpone the hearing for a couple of weeks, allegedly due to a heavy caseload)—a smaller number of judges nevertheless possess the procedural courage to adjudicate in accordance with the law.
Indeed, court rulings have already twice ordered the detectives to return the meat to its rightful owner.
Two court orders (which are subject to immediate and unconditional enforcement) have already been deliberately disregarded by BEB detectives; as a result, the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) has opened criminal proceedings against the BEB detectives for failure to comply with the court’s decision.
Consequently, realizing that—due to numerous violations and inspections initiated by the defense—the criminal case was likely to be dismissed, the BEB detectives began claiming in court hearings that the manufacturer was not actually engaged in tax evasion, but rather with financing terrorism and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Notably, the prosecutors from the General Prosecutor’s Office present at the hearing, for some reason, did not ask the court to summon a team of doctors but instead supported the detectives’ position.  
However, the “last straw” in this display of procedural cynicism was the manufacturer receiving a demand from the BEB to provide quality certificates for allegedly “fictitious” and “ownerless” products…
Consequently, as of today, all relevant documentation has been seized from the company, which makes it 100% impossible for it to pass any inspection by regulatory authorities.
The company cannot use its warehouse inventory, which significantly impairs its ability to conduct business operations. All of the company’s contracts (including international ones), which involve multimillion-dollar turnover, have been “frozen” or are facing delivery delays.
In essence, through such actions by BEB and OGP officials, a once-powerful company is being artificially driven into bankruptcy.
Therefore, rhetorical questions such as “What goals is this newly created law enforcement agency pursuing in this investigation? “Is this the kind of change Ukrainian society was hoping for when it wanted to rid itself of pressure and extortion by the tax police?” are valid, but they do not accurately capture the essence of the matter.