Requests for documents, summonses for questioning, searches, and the seizure of property or bank accounts—for many companies, interaction with law enforcement agencies becomes not only a legal challenge but also a serious test for the business itself. Lost time, reputational risks, business disruption, and uncertainty about the next steps can cost a company far more than the criminal proceedings themselves.
These issues became the main focus of the roundtable “Business and Law Enforcement: Points of Interaction and Risks,” organized by the Business Protection Center of the Union of Ukrainian Entrepreneurs (SUP Business Protection Center). During the event, attorneys Anastasiia Hurska, Head of the SUP Business Protection Center and Managing Partner of the Anastasiia Hurska Law Office, and Dmytro Nykyforov, Partner at Bargen Law Association, shared practical recommendations on how businesses should act at different stages of criminal proceedings—from the first signs of risk to developing a legal defense strategy after searches.
Criminal Proceedings Often Begin Unnoticed
Anastasiia Hurska emphasized that businesses do not always learn about criminal proceedings only when a search is conducted. In most cases, there are less obvious warning signs beforehand. These include unexplained phone calls to the office, unusual interest in the company’s activities from unknown individuals, the appearance of information about the company or its counterparties in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, as well as summonses for employees to be questioned or requests for documents.
According to the attorney, operational officers actively collect information from publicly available sources, analyze company websites and social media, and may even call company offices—without identifying themselves—in order to obtain information. For this reason, companies should train receptionists and office managers to record suspicious calls, avoid providing unnecessary information to unknown individuals, and promptly report any unusual situations to management.
A Request from Law Enforcement Is Not a Reason to Panic
One of the first official stages of interaction with law enforcement authorities is receiving a request for information or documents. Anastasiia Hurska stressed that every such request should be carefully analyzed.
The first questions to clarify are:
- Who issued the request?
- Has criminal proceedings been initiated?
- What specific information is being requested?
- Can the requested documents legally be disclosed?
- What response deadlines are established by law?
Particular attention should be paid to the authority issuing the request. For example, the law provides a three-working-day response period for requests from NABU, while requests from police investigators or prosecutors may allow response periods of up to 30 days.
It is equally important to assess the substance of the request. If law enforcement authorities demand an excessive volume of documents or request information unrelated to the criminal proceedings, this may indicate an attempt to obtain as much information as possible for further analysis. According to the speaker, the decision to provide information, refuse disclosure, or choose another course of action should be made only after a legal assessment of the specific circumstances.
Ignoring a Request May Have Consequences
The expert warned against automatically ignoring official requests. If a document has been properly served—by registered mail or against signature—failure to comply may become grounds for an investigator to apply to the court for temporary access to documents or even for authorization to conduct a search.
At the same time, if there is no confirmation that the request was actually received, the company should assess all potential risks together with legal counsel and determine the most appropriate course of action.
Questioning: The Most Important Rule Is Never to Attend Without a Lawyer
A separate part of the presentation was devoted to employees being summoned for questioning. According to Anastasiia Hurska, questioning is not simply a conversation with an investigator but a procedural action that requires careful preparation. Employees should answer questions only within the scope of their official responsibilities and should not attempt to recall or invent information they do not objectively possess.
It is equally important to verify whether the summons has been served in accordance with the law and to determine within which criminal proceedings the individual has been summoned.