Ukrainian businesses often face a paradox: formally, their guilt has not yet been established, but accounts can already be blocked, tax invoices suspended, assets seized, and the operation of the enterprise effectively paralyzed. In my opinion, Ukraine needs a different model of relations between the state and the entrepreneur: business should remain untouched and innocent until proven otherwise in accordance with the law.
First the Punishment, Then the Court
The presumption of business inviolability does not mean immunity from taxes, inspections, or criminal prosecution. It refers to a much simpler principle: the state should not stop lawful economic activity merely on the basis of the assumption of a controlling or law enforcement agency. Property, accounts, offices, and operational activities must remain protected until there are sufficient legal grounds for intervention.
Today, this logic often works in reverse. An entrepreneur first has to prove their own integrity, and only then can they seek the restoration of their rights. Particularly dangerous is the combination of tax and criminal mechanisms: a tax dispute can still be challenged, but at the same time the business faces the risk of criminal proceedings, searches, asset seizures, or account blockages.
The scale of the problem is well demonstrated by VAT administration. According to the Accounting Chamber, during 2021 - the first half of 2024, the registration of 7.7 million tax invoices and adjustment calculations for UAH 144.1 billion in VAT was halted. In court disputes, about 75% of decisions were made in favor of taxpayers. This is an important signal: if three-quarters of disputes that reach a court decision end in favor of business, the issue arises not only with individual mistakes but also with the very structure of control.
Five Channels of Pressure
I identify five areas today where the conflict between the interests of state control and the principle of business inviolability is most evident. These are criminal procedural mechanisms, tax administration, banking financial monitoring, management of seized assets, and the regulatory and licensing system.
In the tax sphere, the most obvious problem remains the blocking of tax invoices. The automated system first limits the payer's abilities, after which they must document the reality of their activities. A similar problem is created by the division of enterprises into separate categories of integrity. In my opinion, the state should analyze risky transactions rather than create lists of 'good' and 'bad' enterprises.
A similar logic has gradually formed in the banking system. Financial monitoring requirements are necessary to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism, and other crimes. The problem arises when risk-oriented control effectively transforms into mass blocking of ordinary transactions, and the client is forced to prove the legality of their own funds to the bank. The FATF prescribes a risk-oriented approach, not a presumption of suspicion for every client.
An additional problem is the seizure of assets before a final court decision. A large factory, a shopping center, or corporate rights can be critically important for the functioning of an enterprise. Handing over such an asset to a third party for management before guilt is established can change the economic state of the business to such an extent that even a later victory in court may not return it to its initial state.
What Needs to Change
In my opinion, Ukraine needs to legislatively change the very philosophy of state control. The intent and guilt of the taxpayer must be ultimately established by the court, not the controlling body. While administrative or judicial appeal of a tax decision is ongoing, an economic dispute should not automatically turn into a criminal one, resulting in account blockages, asset seizures, and searches.
The system of blocking tax invoices in its current structure should be eliminated, leaving VAT control through electronic administration, declarations, and analysis of specific risky transactions. Likewise, it is worth abandoning the public division of entrepreneurs into 'white' and other taxpayers: integrity should be a basic presumption, not a privilege that must be obtained from the state.
Financial monitoring also requires a shift in balance. Inspections should not unreasonably stop normal economic activity. It is advisable to establish clear timeframes for internal bank checks, restrict automatic transaction blockages, and foresee personal responsibility for decisions that effectively deprive clients of the opportunity to use their own funds.
Equally important is reviewing the rules for working with seized assets. The transfer of corporate rights or an operating enterprise to outside management before the final verdict should only occur under exceptional and clearly defined legal conditions. The state's task is to preserve the asset, not to destroy its economic value before the process is completed.
Finally, it is necessary to reduce the number of inspections that can only start based on a complaint and transfer a significant portion of control to the digital space - analyzing reporting, cash registers, VAT, and other data arrays. In licensing, a logical direction is the transition from a punitive model to compliance: first the opportunity to correct a technical error, and sanctions only for systemic or proven violations.
The State Must Also Be Held Accountable
The biggest problem of the current system lies in its asymmetry. Business bears financial, administrative, and sometimes criminal responsibility for its decisions. At the same time, the official whose unfounded actions have blocked the enterprise, destroyed its liquidity, or led to job losses often does not bear proportionate responsibility.
Therefore, reform should rely on a simple formula: the broader the powers of the state, the higher the responsibility for their unlawful use. An official must understand the economic and legal price of unjustified interference just as the entrepreneur understands it today.
For Ukraine, this issue already goes far beyond the relationship between the tax authority and business. In the process of European integration and future reconstruction, the country will have to compete for private capital. An investor evaluates not only tax rates or labor costs. They assess the probability that tomorrow their account will be blocked, assets seized, and several years later the court will declare these actions unjustified.
That is why the presumption of inviolability and innocence for business must become not just a declaration, but a principle upon which legislation is built. First, the state must prove a violation - and only then punish. Not the other way around.