Lawyer for Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: Defense Against Embezzlement and Misappropriation Charges

Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine establishes liability for embezzlement, misappropriation of property, or its acquisition through abuse of official position. This is one of the most complex criminal offenses, often applied to company executives, accountants, and other officials. The line between a business dispute, accounting error, and criminal offense is thin, which is why professional legal defense is critically important for preserving freedom, reputation, and the ability to continue business.

What Constitutes Embezzlement and Misappropriation Under Article 191 CC

Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for liability for embezzlement, misappropriation of property, or its acquisition through abuse of official position.

Embezzlement – is the unlawful gratuitous conversion of someone else’s property that was in the possession or custody of the guilty party, for one’s own benefit or for the benefit of others. Key feature: the property was already in the lawful possession of the person (material assets were entrusted), but the person disposed of it as their own.

Misappropriation – is the unlawful expenditure of someone else’s property that was in the custody of the guilty party, contrary to the owner’s interests. Difference from embezzlement: the property is not converted for the benefit of the guilty party or third parties, but is spent (destroyed, spoiled, transferred gratuitously).

Acquisition of property through abuse of official position – use of one’s official powers contrary to service interests for illegal acquisition of someone else’s property.

Elements of the Crime Under Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

To bring criminal charges, all elements of the crime must be proven.

Object of the crime – property rights. The subject is someone else’s property that was in the lawful possession or custody of the guilty party based on a contract, order, or job duties.

Objective aspect consists of actions involving embezzlement, misappropriation, or acquisition of property through abuse of official position. Key feature: the property was in lawful possession of the person (unlike theft, when a person secretly steals property).

Subject of the crime – special. This is a person to whom property was entrusted or transferred into custody on lawful grounds: director managing company property, accountant, cashier, storekeeper, dispatcher, other financially responsible persons, officials who have access to property through their position.

Subjective aspect is characterized by direct intent and mercenary motive. The person realizes the unlawfulness of their actions and desires to illegally acquire property.

Qualifying features: Part 2 – committed repeatedly or by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, or if significant damage was caused. Part 3 – on a large scale or by an organized group. Part 4 – on an especially large scale.

Who Can Be Prosecuted Under Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

This article applies to persons to whom property was entrusted on lawful grounds.

Director and LLC executives bear responsibility for managing company property contrary to founders’ interests or for personal enrichment. Typical situations: selling company property at undervalued prices for personal gain, transferring company funds to personal accounts or related parties’ accounts, using company property for personal purposes without documentation.

Chief accountant and cashiers are responsible for safekeeping and proper use of funds. Risks: embezzlement of cash, forgery of documents to conceal shortages, transfer of funds based on fictitious documents.

Storekeepers, warehouse managers, dispatchers bear financial responsibility for inventory. Problems arise when shortages are discovered during inventory, discrepancies between actual presence and accounting data, absence of write-off documentation.

Officials of budgetary institutions can be prosecuted for misuse of budget funds, embezzlement of state property, abuse in resource allocation.

Punishment Under Various Parts of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

Severity of punishment depends on qualifying features and the amount of damage caused.

Part 1 (simple embezzlement/misappropriation) – fine from 200 to 500 tax-free minimum incomes or correctional labor up to 2 years, or restriction of liberty up to 3 years, or imprisonment up to 3 years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for up to 2 years.

Part 2 (qualified) – fine from 700 to 1000 tax-free minimum incomes or restriction of liberty up to 5 years, or imprisonment from 3 to 5 years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for up to 3 years.

Part 3 (on a large scale) – imprisonment from 5 to 8 years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to 3 years and with confiscation of property.

Part 4 (on an especially large scale) – imprisonment from 7 to 12 years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for up to 3 years and with confiscation of property.

Damage amounts are determined in tax-free minimum incomes (TFMI): significant damage – from 100 to 250 TFMI, large scale – from 250 to 1000 TFMI, especially large scale – over 1000 TFMI.

Distinguishing from Business Dispute: Defense Arguments

The most important task of a lawyer is to prove that the situation is a business or labor dispute, not a criminal offense.

Key differences between crime and dispute: in a criminal case there is intent to illegally acquire property from the very beginning, in a business dispute – good faith error, differences in interpretation of authority, commercial failure.

Typical situations wrongly qualified as crimes: director concluded an unprofitable contract for the company – if there is no evidence of mercenary motive, this is a business decision, not a crime. Accountant made an accounting error that led to a shortage – technical error, not misappropriation. Storekeeper cannot explain shortage due to lack of documents – accounting deficiencies, not embezzlement.

Defense arguments include absence of mercenary motive (person did not enrich themselves, property was used for company needs), presence of permission or authority (acted within charter, employment contract), good faith error (incorrect interpretation of documents, outdated instructions), accounting shortage (discrepancies due to accounting errors, natural losses).

Typical Investigative Errors in Embezzlement Cases

Pre-trial investigation bodies often make mistakes that can become grounds for defense.

Qualifying a business dispute as a crime – the most common mistake. Not every shortage or unprofitable deal is a crime. Intent and mercenary motive must be proven.

Failure to prove intent – investigators presume intent from the fact of shortage without collecting evidence that the person consciously and with mercenary purpose acquired property. This violates the presumption of innocence.

Incorrect calculation of damage amount – investigators often overstate the amount without considering natural losses, storage peculiarities, possible accounting errors. Proper expert examination can reduce the amount or prove the absence of real shortage.

Ignoring documents confirming lawfulness of actions – investigators do not consider orders, directives, meeting minutes that granted the person authority.

Violation of inventory procedures – results of inventory conducted with violations cannot be evidence of shortage. The lawyer carefully checks procedural compliance.

Role of Lawyer at Pre-Trial Investigation Stage

Professional defense at an early stage is crucial for case outcome.

When inventory is appointed, the lawyer controls compliance with inventory procedures, participates in commission work on behalf of the client, records violations during counting and property valuation, objects to unfounded conclusions about shortage.

When summoned for questioning as a witness, the lawyer assesses risks, advises on provocative questions, accompanies to questioning to protect rights.

Upon notification of suspicion, immediately analyzes validity of suspicion and evidence of intent, prepares written objections substantiating lawfulness of actions, collects documents confirming authority and good faith, formulates defense strategy.

During investigative actions, ensures presence during interrogations, inspections, searches, records violations of procedural rights, objects to illegal actions of investigator, files motions for expert examinations (accounting, commodity), involves defense witnesses.

Collection of evidence for defense includes searching for documents granting authority (orders, minutes, powers of attorney), collecting employee testimony about circumstances of activity, obtaining expert conclusions on actual damage amount, collecting evidence of absence of personal enrichment.

Searches, Document Seizure, Property Arrest: How to Act

Procedural actions in embezzlement cases have their specifics.

Search is aimed at finding evidence of embezzlement: money, property, documents. Lawyer checks presence of court order and its compliance with actual actions, controls seizure of only items related to the case, records all seized items in protocol with detailed description, objects to unreasonable seizure of company documents.

Document seizure is often conducted to obtain accounting and financial documentation. Lawyer controls that only copies of documents are seized, not originals (if possible), compiles inventory of all seized documents, objects to seizure of documents unrelated to the subject of accusation.

Property arrest is applied to ensure possible confiscation. Lawyer appeals arrest order if amount exceeds possible damage, petitions for exclusion from arrest of property necessary for family life, seeks reduction of arrested property amount, controls accuracy of property valuation.

Closure of Criminal Proceedings Under Article 191 CC

Closure of proceedings is possible on various grounds depending on case circumstances.

Absence of criminal event is established if there is no real shortage (accounting errors, incorrect inventory), property is found or returned, discrepancies are explained documentarily.

Absence of elements of crime – even if there is shortage but no evidence of intent or mercenary motive, elements of crime are absent. This may be a labor dispute about compensation for material damage.

Absence of intent to acquire property – if person acted within granted authority or made good faith error, intent is absent. Bad commercial decision is not a crime.

Reconciliation with victim – in cases of minor or medium gravity crimes, closure through reconciliation and damage compensation is possible. Lawyer organizes negotiations and reconciliation formalization.

Insignificance of act – if damage amount is insignificant (less than 100 TFMI) and person was not previously prosecuted, application of Article 11-1 CC on insignificance is possible.

Judicial Practice: Effective Defense Strategy

Analysis of acquittal verdicts allows identifying the most effective defense strategies.

Proving absence of mercenary motive – courts acquit if proven that person did not personally enrich themselves. Property could have been used for enterprise needs, transferred by management order, lost due to force majeure.

Proving presence of authority – if person acted within granted authority (order, power of attorney, job description), crime is absent. Important to prove actions were sanctioned.

Refuting damage amount – appointment of repeat or additional examination often reduces damage amount or proves its absence. Important to consider natural losses, storage peculiarities, accounting errors.

Proving accounting nature of shortage – if shortage arose from accounting errors, incorrect inventory, absence of documents, this is not a crime. Lawyer involves expert accountants to refute investigation conclusions.

Reclassification to labor or business dispute – in many cases courts close cases, recognizing this is not criminal but civil liability. Lawyer proves absence of crime elements.

Why You Should Contact Dextra Law

Dextra Law legal company has many years of experience defending embezzlement and misappropriation cases under Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Our advantages:

• Specialization in economic crimes – we understand accounting and business activity specifics
• Experience working with experts – we engage the best accountants and auditors to refute accusations
• 98% of cases end in closure of proceedings or acquittal
• Rapid response – during search or detention, lawyer arrives within an hour
• Comprehensive approach – from pre-trial investigation to appeal and cassation

If you are accused of embezzlement or misappropriation, shortage was discovered during inventory, or you learned about criminal proceedings – contact Dextra Law immediately. We know how to protect your freedom and reputation!