The UNBA supported clarifying the procedure for seizing real estate

The mechanism proposed in the Verkhovna Rada to strengthen the legal basis for protecting the rights of owners or possessors of immovable property when considering issues related to the seizure of their immovable property in criminal proceedings deserves support.

Draft Law No. 14325 of 23 December 2025 «On amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the clarification of the grounds and procedure for seizure of real estate» was analysed by the UNBA Committee on criminal law and procedure at the request of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on law enforcement.

In particular, advocates drew attention to the changes proposed to Article 64-2 (Third party whose property is subject to seizure) of the CPC. These amendments clarify the circle of entities that may apply (by adding entities such as the investigator, the investigator in agreement with the prosecutor, and the investigating judge) with a request for seizure of property, and thus the legal status of such an entity as a third party whose property is subject to seizure.

Such changes will undoubtedly have positive consequences, since the aforementioned entities already have the right to apply for seizure in accordance with Part 1 of Article 171 of the CPC, while the current version of Article 64-2 of the CPC indicates that legal status arises only from the moment the prosecutor applies to the court with a motion to seize property.

Another positive change is the addition to Article 64-2 of the CPC of a provision stating that the consideration of a motion for the seizure of immovable property (including land plots) belonging to a third party shall be carried out with the participation of the third party or its representative. This will narrow the discretion of the prosecution.

In addition, it is proposed to supplement Article 132 of the CPC with a new part, according to which, in case of refusal to satisfy a motion to apply a measure to secure criminal proceedings and/or to cancel a measure to secure criminal proceedings, the investigator, inquiry officer, or prosecutor shall not have the right to reapply to the investigating judge, the court with a motion to apply the relevant measure to secure criminal proceedings, unless the motion contains new circumstances and evidence that have not been considered by the investigating judge or the court. According to advocates, if approved by the legislature, this provision will be the best safeguard against the prosecution repeatedly filing motions.

Separately, the UNBA Committee drew attention to the fact that the existing practice of prolonged seizure of property often blocks the economic activities of legal entities and the lives of citizens who are not suspects or defendants. Therefore, the proposed amendments to Part 13 of Article 170 of the CPC will also have a positive effect. The draft proposes to establish a general rule that in criminal proceedings in which no person has been notified of suspicion, the seizure of immovable property of a third party shall be carried out on the basis of a ruling by an investigating judge for a period not exceeding four months. However, it will be possible to extend this period, but the investigating judge will be required to specify the duration of such seizure in the ruling on seizure.

The full position of the UNBA Committee on criminal law and procedure regarding Draft Law No. 14325 can be viewed at this link.