Article 222 Criminal Code of Ukraine Lawyer: Defense Against Financial Resources Fraud Charges

Article 222 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine establishes liability for fraud involving financial resources – one of the most complex and dangerous criminal offenses in the sphere of economic activity. Charges under this article can threaten not only imprisonment for up to 12 years, but also complete destruction of business and reputation. Professional legal defense at all stages of criminal proceedings – from pre-trial investigation to appeal – is critically important for preserving freedom and future prospects.

What Constitutes a Crime Under Article 222 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

Article 222 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine establishes criminal liability for fraud involving financial resources – the misappropriation of another’s property or acquisition of property rights through deception or abuse of trust in the sphere of financial resources.

The objective element of the crime consists of obtaining financial resources (loans, grants, budget funds, investments) through deception or abuse of trust. The key factor is that the victim is a financial institution, bank, state, or other entity involved in financial relations.

The subjective element is characterized by direct intent and selfish motive. The person is aware that they are using deception to obtain financial resources and desires their illegal appropriation. Proving intent is crucial for qualifying the act as a crime.

Qualifying features of the crime: Part 2 provides liability for fraud committed repeatedly or by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, or if it caused significant harm to the victim (punishment – imprisonment from 3 to 8 years). Part 3 concerns fraud committed on a large scale or by an organized group (imprisonment from 5 to 12 years with property confiscation).

When Criminal Liability for Financial Resources Fraud Arises

Criminal liability arises not for any violation of financial obligations, but only when specific elements of the crime are present.

Deception in obtaining a loan – providing the bank with knowingly false information about financial status, loan purpose, or collateral availability. Importantly, simple non-repayment of a loan is not a crime – it must be proven that the person initially had no intention of repaying the funds and used deception.

Misuse of budget funds or grants – obtaining state support, grants, subsidies for one purpose with subsequent use for other purposes or without any designated use. This is a common situation in small business support programs, agricultural subsidies, and innovation grants.

Fictitious entrepreneurship to obtain financing – creating companies to obtain loans or investments without intention to conduct real economic activity. The classic scheme – obtaining a loan for a fictitious company with subsequent fund withdrawal.

Investment schemes – attracting investments under promises of high profitability without real business or using funds from new investors to pay old ones (financial pyramids).

Who is Most Often Prosecuted Under Article 222 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

Analysis of judicial practice shows that various categories of persons fall under law enforcement scrutiny.

Directors and founders of LLCs – the most common category of suspects. Company directors who received loans or grants may be prosecuted for providing false information to banks or misusing funds.

Individual entrepreneurs receiving state support – entrepreneurs participating in small business support programs, agricultural subsidies, grants for starting their own business. Proceedings are often initiated due to misuse of funds or cessation of activity immediately after receiving support.

Startup founders and investment project initiators – persons who attracted investments for business ideas but failed to deliver on promises or used funds improperly.

Intermediaries and financial consultants – persons who helped process loans or grants by providing document preparation consultations. If documents prove fictitious, they may be prosecuted as accomplices.

Loans, Grants, State Aid: Criminal Prosecution Risks

Different types of financial resources carry specific risks of criminal prosecution.

Bank loans – risks arise when providing false information about financial status (falsified reporting, income inflation), fictitious collateral (pledging non-existent property or property with encumbrances), using credit not for designated purpose if directly stipulated in the contract.

State business support programs – programs like “Affordable Loans 5-7-9%”, subsidies for farmers, grants for starting own business carry risks when activity ceases immediately after receiving funds, using funds for personal needs instead of business, providing unreliable business plans.

International grants and donor assistance – grants from international organizations, foundations, governments of other countries require strict adherence to designated use. Misuse may be qualified as fraud.

Investments and crowdfunding – attracting funds from private investors or through crowdfunding platforms carries risks when promised project is not implemented, funds are used for other purposes, or false information about the project is provided.

Burden of Proving Intent in Article 222 Criminal Code Cases

The key difference between criminal and civil liability is the necessity of proving the person’s intent to commit the crime.

What the prosecution must prove: the person was aware they were providing false information or using funds improperly, the person desired to obtain financial resources through deception, the person initially had no intention of fulfilling obligations (repaying loan, implementing project), actions were aimed at illegal enrichment.

The presumption of innocence means that any doubts regarding intent are interpreted in favor of the accused. If actions can be explained as honest mistake, commercial risk, or force majeure circumstances – criminal liability does not arise.

Defense is built on proving absence of intent: the person had real intention to fulfill obligations but could not due to objective circumstances (economic crisis, pandemic, force majeure), the person was not aware of the falsity of provided information (accountant errors, outdated information), the person acted based on professional consultations and considered their actions lawful, funds were used to implement the project, but the project failed due to commercial risk.

Typical Investigation Errors in Fraud Cases

Pre-trial investigation authorities often make errors that may become grounds for case closure or acquittal.

Qualifying civil dispute as crime – the most common error. Simple non-repayment of loan or non-fulfillment of contractual obligations is a civil dispute, not a crime. Investigation must prove presence of deception from the outset.

Failure to prove intent – investigation presumes intent from the fact of non-fulfillment of obligations, without collecting evidence that the person initially planned deception. This is a gross violation of presumption of innocence.

Violation of evidence collection procedure – illegal searches without court order, obtaining testimony under pressure, using inadmissible evidence. All such evidence may be excluded from case materials.

Ignoring objective circumstances – investigation does not consider force majeure circumstances (pandemic, war, economic crisis) that prevented fulfillment of obligations. Presence of such circumstances excludes intent.

Absence or improper examination – economic and accounting examinations that should prove harm and damage amount are often conducted with methodology violations or are completely absent.

Role of Lawyer at Pre-trial Investigation Stage

The pre-trial investigation stage is critically important – this is where the evidence base is formed and the case’s further fate is determined.

Lawyer participation from day one – the best defense strategy. The lawyer helps correctly formulate position, prepare explanations, collect defense evidence. The earlier work begins, the more opportunities to influence the outcome.

Control of investigative actions’ legality – the lawyer verifies legality of searches, temporary access to documents, property seizure, witness interrogations. Any violation may become grounds for recognizing evidence as inadmissible.

Collecting defense evidence – the lawyer independently collects documents confirming client’s actions’ legality, good faith intentions, absence of deception. These may be accounting documents, correspondence, contracts, expert opinions.

Petitions for examination appointment – independent examination can refute prosecution expert conclusions regarding damage amount, improper use, presence of deception.

Appealing investigator’s actions – the lawyer appeals illegal decisions on searches, property seizure, temporary access to items and documents, petitions for case closure in absence of crime elements, appeals investigator’s inaction in conducting necessary investigative actions.

Searches, Interrogations, Temporary Access: How to Defend

Procedural actions at the pre-trial investigation stage require special attention and control from the lawyer.

Search may be conducted only by court order or in urgent cases with subsequent notification to prosecutor. The lawyer controls search compliance with court order (place, time, subject), records all seized items and documents in protocol, objects to seizure of items unrelated to case, records violations (excessive property destruction, threats, pressure).

Suspect interrogation – the most important investigative action whose results may decide the case’s fate. The lawyer prepares client for interrogation, explains rights and response tactics, is present during interrogation and consults client, records incorrect questions or investigator pressure, objects to procedure violations.

Temporary access to items and documents allows investigation to obtain banking documents, accounting reports, correspondence. The lawyer appeals temporary access decisions if unfounded, controls volume of provided documents (no more than permitted by decision), objects to use of information obtained in violation of law.

Criminal Case Closure: Real Grounds

Case closure at pre-trial investigation stage or in court is the best outcome for the suspect.

Absence of crime event – if established that financial resources were used as designated or returned, there is no crime. The lawyer proves reality of obligation fulfillment or fund return.

Absence of crime elements – even if there were contract violations, but no deception or abuse of trust, crime elements are absent. This is a civil dispute, not a criminal case.

Absence of intent – if proven that person acted in good faith and had no intention to deceive, criminal liability does not arise. Commercial failure is not a crime.

Expiration of statute of limitations – proceedings must be closed if since crime commission passed: 3 years for minor offense, 5 years for medium gravity offense, 10 years for serious crime.

Party reconciliation – in cases of minor or medium gravity crimes, closure through reconciliation with victim and damage compensation is possible.

Judicial Practice: How Effective Defense is Built

Analysis of acquittal verdicts and case closure decisions allows identifying most effective defense strategies.

Proving absence of deception – courts acquit if proven that information provided to bank or other institution was accurate at time of provision, or errors were unintentional.

Proving intention to fulfill obligations – even if loan not repaid, person may be acquitted if proves they attempted to fulfill obligations but could not due to objective circumstances (crisis, force majeure).

Using funds for stated purpose – if funds used according to business plan or loan agreement, but project failed due to commercial risk, this is not a crime.

Criticizing prosecution examinations – appointment of repeated or additional examinations often refutes prosecution expert conclusions regarding damage amount or improper use.

Excluding inadmissible evidence – if key evidence obtained in violation of law (illegal searches, interrogation pressure), their exclusion destroys prosecution.

Why Choose Dextra Law

Dextra Law legal company has significant experience defending Article 222 Criminal Code of Ukraine cases. We understand economic crime specifics and know how to effectively defend clients.

Our advantages:

• Specialization in economic crimes – we know all qualification and defense nuances
• Experience in complex cases – successfully defended clients in cases worth tens of millions of hryvnias
• Comprehensive approach – from pre-trial investigation to appeal and cassation
• Quick response – lawyer arrives within an hour of detention or search
• 98% of cases end with case closure or acquittal verdict

If you have been notified of suspicion under Article 222 Criminal Code, searches are being conducted, or you learned about criminal proceedings – immediately contact Dextra Law. The earlier we begin defense, the greater the chances of success. Your freedom and future are our priority!