Recognition of Unjustified Assets and Their Recovery into State Revenue: Problematic Aspects of Legal Application

The article examines the challenges associated with the use of legal instruments to combat illicit enrichment. It explores the current outcomes of anti-corruption efforts during martial law and the public demand for such measures. The authors emphasise several legislative restrictions that prevent the application of civil asset forfeiture mechanisms to unjustified assets when criminal proceedings are closed under Article 284(1)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine due to the absence of a criminal offence. The authors outline ways to overcome these legislative restrictions and stress that ambiguities in regulatory acts create legal loopholes, allowing individuals with unjustified assets to evade liability due to legislative shortcomings. The article conducts a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between criminal, criminal procedural, and civil procedural law, particularly examining Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The authors highlight that closing criminal proceedings due to the absence of corpus delicti prevents the initiation of a claim for the recovery of such assets by the state under the framework of civil asset forfeiture, thereby obstructing an effective alternative mechanism for counteracting illicit enrichment. Based on the analysis, the authors propose specific legislative amendments to address existing legal challenges and enhance mechanisms for countering illicit enrichment. These well-grounded proposals aim to improve the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures and strengthen the anti-corruption potential of Ukrainian legislation.