Weekly analysis for 01 — 07 September

Strengthening Liability for Organising Fraud Call Centres

Event

On 2 September 2026, Draft Law №15353 “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine to Strengthen Liability for the Organisation of Fraudulent Electronic Communications Organisations (Fraud Call Centres) and Participation Therein” (“Draft Law”) initiated by the President, was registered in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

The Draft Law proposes to supplement the Criminal Code of Ukraine (the “CC”) with a new Article 255-4, “Establishment of, Leadership of, or Participation in a Fraudulent Electronic Communications Organisation”.

According to the Explanatory Note to the Draft Law, the proposed strengthening of criminal-law mechanisms for combating organised fraud conducted through fraud call centres is presented as a step towards aligning Ukrainian legislation with the country’s European integration commitments. In particular, the Draft Law is positioned as implementing several key international and EU obligations: Directive (EU) 2019/713 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment, which requires Member States to criminalise preparatory and organisational activities aimed at the unlawful acquisition, possession, or processing of authentication data; Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) and Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems, which oblige states to counter the unlawful use of electronic communications infrastructure and information systems for criminal purposes, including organised misuse of telecommunications networks; the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which requires the criminalisation of the use of computer systems in the context of organised criminal activity and other cyber-enabled offences.

CPLR’s assessment 

The proposed Article 255-4 of the Criminal Code appears to disregard the existing architecture of the General Part of the Criminal Code governing liability for complicity in criminal offences.

1. The EU instruments referred to in the Explanatory Note do not required the introduction of a separate offence targeting organised fraud. Ukrainian criminal law already covers fraud committed through the unlawful use of information and communication technologies and fraud committed by an organised group. Such conducts are punishable by imprisonment for a term of 6 to 12 years, with confiscation of property (paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code).

Neither the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime nor the relevant EU directives require Ukraine to introduce a separate offence for organised fraud. EU Directive 2013/40 on attacks against information systems merely calls the states to ensure more severe penalties where attacks are committed by a criminal organisation. Directive 2019/713 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment requires Member States to provide for a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years where the relevant offences are committed within the framework of a criminal organisation. These requirements are already met under the current Criminal Code. According to Articles paragraph 4 of Article 28, Articles 190 and 255, fraud committed within a criminal organisation is prosecuted cumulatively, with criminal liability and sentencing determined accordingly.

At the same time, Ukraine is required to align its legislation with the EU acquis on combating organised crime. Pending the adoption of a new thematic directive, the applicable EU instrument remains Council Framework Decision 2008/841of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime. The Framework Decision requires the criminalisation of participation in, and conspiracy to participate in, a criminal organisation or structured association. For the purposes of the Framework Decision, a “criminal organisation” means a structured association, established over a period of time, of more than two persons acting in concert to commit offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 4 years, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit. The definition of organised criminal activity contained in Article 28 of the CC of Ukraine does not fully align with this concept. 

2. The proposed defines an “fraudulent electronic communications organisations” as a stable association of three or more persons, formed in advance for the systematic acquisition of another person’s property or property rights through deception or abuse of trust using electronic communications, with its members acting pursuant to a common plan and division of functions. Thus, the note to Article 255-4 reproduces the defining features of an organised group under the Criminal Code: participation of three or more persons; prior organization; stability of the association; a common purpose of committing criminal offences, a common plan; division of functions among participants. The only distinguishing element is the use of electronic communications as a means of committing fraud. However, this cannot serve as a basis for recognising a new type of organised group, nor can it justify casting doubt on the application of Articles 29 and 30 of the Criminal Code, which govern the grounds of criminal liability of accomplices.

3. In six paragraphs of the proposed Article establish liability for approximately ten distinct acts, including:

– establishing a fraudulent electronic communications rganisation;

– leading such an organisation;

– leading a structural unit of such an organisation;

– participating in such an organisation while being aware of the unlawful nature of its activities;

– providing means, services, information or other assistance to such an organisation while being aware of the unlawful nature of its activities and without being a member thereof;

– intentionally recruiting another person to participate in such an organisation;

– intentionally recruiting another person to assist in its activities;

– disseminating information for the purpose of such recruitment, where the person is aware of the unlawful nature of the organisation’s activities;

– facilitating the establishment of such an organisation;

– facilitating its operation; 

– intentionally creating conditions for persons who established, led or participated in such an organisation to evade criminal liability, where the act is committed by an official who is aware of the unlawful nature of the organisation’s activities and abuses their authority or official position.

However, there is no legislative need to establish separate criminal liability for conduct that already falls within the existing framework of complicity in criminal offences, including establishing or leading an organised group, aiding and abetting through the provision of means, services, information or other assistance, or facilitating the establishment or operation of such an organization. Such conducts  already comprehensively regulated by the Criminal Code. In particular, paragraphs and 5 of Article 27 (forms of complicity) and paragraph of Article 29.

Nor is there any need to expressly specify that a person “was aware of the unlawful nature of the organisation’s activities”, “intentionally recruited” another person, or “intentionally created conditions” for other to evade liability. The nature of the acts described already presupposes that they must be committed intentionally, as follows directly from Article 24 of the Criminal Code. If the authors of the Draft Law believe otherwise, they would have to apply the same approach consistently throughout the provision by referring, for example, to “intentionally establishing”, “intentionally leading” and “intentionally providing” assistance, etc.

4. The mere introduction of a separate provision in the CC establishing liability for the organisation and operation of fraud call centres will not, in itself, improve the situation. By creating an overlapping and potentially competing legal framework alongside paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article 27, paragraph 2 of Article 29, Article 30, and paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 190 of the CC, the proposed new Article would significantly complicate the legal classification of the relevant conduct. This, in turn, would prolong pre-trial investigations and, even more significantly, the judicial examination and appellate review of the cases concerned. 

If criminal legislation is amended in response to every new challenge by creating offence-specific organisational provisions, the Criminal Code will soon be replete with dozens of new articles addressing the establishment of and participation in organised groups engaged in human trafficking, robbery, aggravated robbery, extortion, smuggling, money laundering, illegal exploitation of subsoil resources, and other forms of criminal activity.

Government Again Moves to Restore the Prosecution Service’s General Supervisory Powers

Event

The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has submitted to Parliament Draft Law № 16026. 16026, “On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office” to Align the Prosecutor’s Functions in Representing the Interests of the State in Court with the Constitution of Ukraine”.

The Draft Law was prepared in response to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 6-r(II)/2025 of 3 December 2025 concerning the prosecutor’s representation of the interests of the State in court, which was previously analysed by the CPLR.

In that Decision, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional certain prosecutorial powers that allowed prosecutors to represent the interests of the State in court where a competent public authority, local self-government body, or other public entity vested with the relevant powers had either (1) failed to protect those interests or (2) protected them improperly.

At the same time, the Court held that the prosecutor’s power to represent the interests of the State in civil, commercial and administrative proceedings is constitutional only where no public authority is vested with the competence to protect those interests in the relevant sphere of legal relations.

СPLR’s assessment

The Draft Law is identical to Government Draft Law № 15253 of 15 May 2026 (see our previous analysis), which was withdrawn following the resignation of the previous Cabinet of Ministers.

A clear positive element of the Draft Law is its proposal to remove the prosecutor’s authority to represent citizens’ interests in court, which is fully consistent with Article 131-1 of the Constitution of Ukraine. However, it should be noted that Constitutional Court Decision № 6-r(II)/2025 itself did not concern the issue of prosecutorial representation of citizens’ interests in court.

At the same time, despite the constitutional requirement that prosecutors may represent the interests of the State in court only in “exceptional cases” (paragraph 3 of Article 131-1 of the Constitution) and the abovementioned Constitutional Court’s Decision, Draft Law №16026 would effectively restore the prosecutor’s general supervisory powers.

The Draft Law proposes to introduce excessively broad grounds for prosecutors to represent the interests of the State, including:

– “a violation or threat of violation of Ukraine’s fundamental national interests or strategic nationwide priorities”;

– “a violation of the interests of the State by a public authority, local self-government body, or another legal entity under public law”;

– “a conflict of powers between public authorities, local self-government bodies, and other legal entities under public law”;

– “an application by a public authority, local self-government body, or another legal entity under public law requesting the prosecutor to bring a claim (points 1, 4, 5 and 8 of paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Law, as proposed to be amended by the Draft Law).).

The Draft Law would also restore prosecutors’ power to bring claims before the courts in disputes involving state-owned companies (paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Law, as proposed to be amended by the Draft Law).

Prosecutors would also be granted new powers to act outside judicial proceedings and without any pending case, including the power to submit written requests to any legal entity, including civil society organisations; collect information concerning relevant facts and request and obtain items and documents; obtain written explanations from any person and written opinions from specialists and experts; and examine case materials held by a court in proceedings to which they were not a party and obtain copies thereof (paragraph 4 of Article 23 of the Law, as proposed to be amended by the Draft Law).

The Draft Law also does not propose any amendments to the procedural codes (the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine) despite the fact that they contain provisions governing the prosecutor’s powers to protect the interests of the State in court.

Government Once Again Proposes Establishing Penitentiary Inspections

Event

The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has submitted Draft Law № 16028 “On Introducing a Dual System of Regular Penitentiary Inspections” to Parliament.

The draft law introduces two systems of regular penitentiary inspections at places of detention – internal and external.

Internal inspections would be сonducted by the public authorities responsible for the respective places of detention, including the Security Service of Ukraine, Ministry of Defence, National Guard, Ministry of Justice, National Police, State Border Guard Service, State Migration Service, and Ministry of Health.

External penitentiary inspections would be conducted the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights.

CPLR’s assessment

The Draft Law is similar to Government Draft Law № 5884 of 2 September 2021, which remained pending before the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for 4 years without substantive progress and was withdrawn following the change in the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers in 2025. It is also similar to Government Draft Law № 15300 of 8 June 2026 (see our previous analysis), which was subsequently withdrawn following another change in the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers in 2026.

The preparation of this Law forms part of the broader penitentiary system reform, which is designated as an interim benchmark for Ukraine’s EU membership (IBM 23.11).

The adoption of this legislation is also required by point 9 of the Transitional Provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, which temporarily preserves certain prosecutorial powers pending their transfer to other authorities. Ten years after the 2016 constitutional amendments on justice, the prosecutor’s office continues to exercise its function of supervising compliance with the law in the enforcement of court decisions in criminal cases and in the application of other coercive measures involving restrictions on individuals’ personal liberty. This supervisory function is no longer provided for in Article 131-1 of the Constitution of Ukraine but continues to apply by virtue of the Transitional Provisions until the relevant legislation enters into force.

The Draft Law would simultaneously repeal Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office”, which currently empowers prosecutors to supervise compliance with the law in the enforcement of court decisions in criminal cases.

At the same time, the proposed new version of Article 25-1 of the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office” proposes to grant the prosecutor powers to “resolve other issues in the course of criminal proceedings”, in addition to providing procedural guidance for pre-trial investigations. However, the powers set out in the Draft Law largely reproduce those currently vested in prosecutors under Article 26, including the power to visit places of detention, communicate with detainees, obtain documents, materials and explanations, access enforcement proceedings, and apply to courts.  The Draft Law would also introduce an open-ended range of powers by providing that prosecutors may “exercise other powers provided by law”. 

Retaining such powers after the Law enters into force would violate the Constitution of Ukraine. Moreover, the prosecutor already has all the powers necessary to “resolve other issues in the course of criminal proceedings” under the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Operative and Investigative Activities”.

If adopted, the Law would provide for a 12-month transition period from the date of its publication to allow for the adoption of the necessary secondary legislation and the implementation of the required organisational and financial measures.

Draft Law on Improving Legislation on Liability for International Crimes

Event

On 7 September 2026, Draft Law № 16050 “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine to Improve the Legal Framework for Liability for International Crimes through Harmonisation with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court” was registered in Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The initiative was submitted by a large group of Members of Parliament.

The Draft Law proposes the following:

– amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine to bring it into line with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court with respect to the crime of aggression and war crimes;

– repeal of Articles 432 and 433 of the Criminal Code and amendments to Article 434 to eliminate unjustified duplication between the provisions governing liability for military criminal offences and those governing liability for war crimes.

CPLR’s position

The Draft Law was developed in cooperation with Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine serving on the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Law Enforcement, with participation of experts from civil society organisations, including the Centre for Civil Liberties, Ukrainian Legal Advisory Group, the Foundation for Fundamental Research Support, and the Media Initiative for Human Rights; international organisations and initiatives, including the IDLO in Ukraine, the EU Pravo-Justice Project, the Advisory Group on the Most Serious International Crimes (ACA), the Global Rights Compliance Mobile Justice Team, and the European Union Advisory Mission in Ukraine; as well as representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor General.

The purpose of the Draft Law is to align the Criminal Code provisions on liability for the crime of aggression and war crimes with international criminal law, in particular the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in fulfilment of Article 8 of the 2014 Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union, the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States. 

It should be recalled that Ukraine ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 21 August 2024. Subsequently, Law of Ukraine № 4012-IX of 9 October 2024 introduced a number of provisions on international crimes into the Criminal Code, including new Article 442-1 “Crimes against Humanity”.  However, Article 438 of the Criminal Code, which establishes liability for war crimes, was left largely unchanged and remains a blanket provision, while Article 437 was not amended at all. As a result, the latter still does not reflect the definition of the crime of aggression set out in Article 8bis of the Rome Statute.

The Draft Law would comprehensively address mentioned shortcomings of the Criminal Code. In particular, it proposes replacing Article 438 of the CC with new articles establishing a detailed catalogue of war crimes:

– crimes against individual (Article 438);

– crimes against property (Article 438-1);

– crimes involving the use of prohibited methods of warfare (Article 438-2);

– crimes involving the use of prohibited means of warfare (Article 438-3);

– crimes against cultural property (Article 438-4).

The structure and content of these articles largely correspond to those proposed in the draft new Criminal Code of Ukraine. Therefore, in case of the adoption of the new CC in the future, no substantial amendments would be required.

The structure and content of these articles largely correspond to those proposed in the draft new Criminal Code. Therefore, should the new Criminal Code be adopted in the future, no substantial amendments to these provisions would be required.