Vadym Kirienko, who headed the Ministry of Justice department, will pay the state for the Range Rover registered to his daughter — Supreme Court

Attempts to hide the real owner of property behind formal registration to relatives are increasingly becoming the subject of judicial scrutiny.

In the ruling dated May 20, 2026, in case No. 991/1453/25, the Supreme Court, sitting as the Cassation Civil Court, considered a dispute regarding the recognition of an asset registered to a state official’s daughter as unjustified and confirmed the possibility of recovering its value in favor of the state.

The "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" had previously analyzed the ruling of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court in this case. However, now the Supreme Court has put a final end to the dispute and confirmed the legality of recovering the value of the disputed asset in favor of the state.

This case is illustrative for law enforcement practice as it demonstrates the court’s approach to assessing the origin of funds, determining the actual acquirer of the asset, and applying the standard of proof in civil confiscation cases.

Circumstances of the case

The Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office filed a lawsuit with the High Anti-Corruption Court on behalf of the state against the head of the South-Eastern Interregional Department for the Execution of Criminal Sentences of the Ministry of Justice and his daughter.

The prosecutor noted that in August 2023, the official’s daughter purchased a 2021 LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER VOQUE. Formally, the vehicle was registered to her, but according to the plaintiff’s conclusions, the asset was acquired on behalf of her father, who could directly or indirectly exercise ownership powers over it.

At the time of the vehicle’s purchase, the daughter was a full-time student and had no official income. The court established that the actual value of the vehicle was USD 90,000, equivalent to UAH 3,290,400.

Analysis of declarations, banking documents, and family income information showed that the lawful income of the official and his wife did not allow such a purchase. The difference between their income, expenses, and available cash assets indicated the lack of financial capacity to acquire the disputed vehicle.

The High Anti-Corruption Court recognized the vehicle as an unjustified asset and recovered its value of UAH 3,290,400 from the official in favor of the state. The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court left this decision unchanged.

Disagreeing with these conclusions, the defendant filed a cassation appeal.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that Ukrainian legislation has introduced a special mechanism for civil confiscation of unjustified assets.

Under Law No. 263-IX "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Confiscation of Illegal Assets of Persons Authorized to Perform State or Local Government Functions and Punishment for Acquiring Such Assets," the institution of recognizing assets as unjustified and recovering them in favor of the state was introduced.

The existence of this institution became possible in accordance with the United Nations Convention against Corruption of 2005, the Recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), according to which countries must create mechanisms allowing confiscation of proceeds obtained illegally or instruments of crime without a criminal conviction.

The court reminded that paragraph 12 of part one of Article 346 of the Civil Code of Ukraine includes recognition of unjustified assets and their recovery in favor of the state among the grounds for termination of ownership rights.

The Supreme Court emphasized that "acquisition of assets" should be understood as the acquisition of assets by a person authorized to perform state or local government functions into ownership, as well as acquisition by another individual or legal entity if it is proven that such acquisition was made on behalf of the person authorized to perform state or local government functions, or that such person can directly or indirectly perform actions regarding these assets equivalent to exercising the right of disposal (paragraph 2 of part eight of Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

At the same time, according to parts one to three of Article 292 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, assets recognized by the court as unjustified under Article 291 of this Code are recovered in favor of the state.

If the court recognizes part of the assets as unjustified under Article 291 of this Code, the part of the defendant’s assets recognized as unjustified is recovered in favor of the state, or if it is impossible to separate such part — its value.

The court noted that if it is impossible to enforce recovery on assets recognized as unjustified, the defendant is obliged to pay the value of such assets, or recovery is enforced on other assets of the defendant equivalent to the value of the unjustified assets.

The politico-legal approach allows for different constructions of confiscation. As a result, two types of confiscation have formed in global practice: against a person (personal confiscation, in personam); against a thing (real confiscation, in rem).

The Supreme Court explained that traditionally these types of confiscation are distinguished by:

- the procedure of property seizure — in personam confiscation is applied in criminal proceedings (or those qualified as criminal), while in rem is applied in civil proceedings;

- the standards of proof applied — for in personam confiscation, the criminal law standard "beyond reasonable doubt" must be applied.

In contrast, in rem confiscation uses the "balance of probabilities" standard.

The court also cited the approach of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which such court procedures do not require proof "beyond doubt" regarding the illegal origin of property. Instead, proof on the balance of probabilities or a high likelihood of illegal origin combined with the owner’s inability to prove otherwise is sufficient.

The court stated: "The Ukrainian model of in rem confiscation is expressed in the construction of 'unjustified assets,' which have a rather atypical legal regime."

At the same time, in cases recognizing assets as unjustified and recovering them in favor of the state, the court makes decisions in favor of the party whose evidence is more convincing compared to the other party’s evidence.

Assessing the specific circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts and indicated that the courts established that the daughter acquired ownership of the asset specified in part two of Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine on behalf of a person authorized to perform state or local government functions — the father, who can directly or indirectly perform actions regarding such asset equivalent to exercising the right of disposal.

The court decided that under such circumstances, the lower courts reasonably concluded that the official in 2023 did not have the means to purchase the disputed vehicle for UAH 3,290,400.

The panel of judges also agreed with the lower courts’ conclusions that the evidence provided by the prosecutor collectively confirms the direct connection of the disputed asset with the official, its acquisition within the meaning of paragraph 2 of part eight of Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, as well as its unjustified nature.

The court also supported the lower courts’ findings that the defendants’ arguments regarding the daughter having funds from inheritance, personal savings, or financial assistance from her future husband were not supported by proper evidence. Therefore, the defendants did not disprove the unjustified nature of the asset.

Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the legality of recognizing the vehicle registered to the official’s daughter as an unjustified asset and upheld the decision to recover its value — UAH 3.29 million — in favor of the state.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram account to stay updated on the most important events.