FORCED EXPROPRIATION OF ASSETS OF THE AGGRESSOR STATE : FROM THEORY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICE

Author
, Postgraduate student at the Department of Financial Law, Ukraine, Kharkiv

In heading

 Law;

Signed print

 27.05.2025

Issues number

 2025 - № 2 (61)

Page

 119-136

Type of articles

 Scientific article

Code UDK

 341.384

ISSN print

 2411-5584

Abstract

 Problem setting. The full-scale military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine has necessitated the development of legal mechanisms for the forced expropriation of property related to the aggressor state. Such measures aim to ensure national security, restore justice, and compensate for damage caused by armed aggression. Given the current challenges of warfare and hybrid threats, the regulation of asset confiscation procedures becomes not only a legal issue but also a matter of state policy and public finance.
Recent research and publication analysis. The issue of asset confiscation under martial law and sanctions has been addressed in works by national and international scholars, including research on civil and administrative confiscation, dual-use legal regimes, and the role of public authorities such as ARMA and the High Anti-Corruption Court. However, current publications often focus on isolated elements of the mechanism rather than providing a comprehensive theoretical framework. Notable contributions include analytical reports by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, ARMA, and decisions of the High Anti-Corruption Court and materials from Transparency International, which underline institutional challenges and the legal uncertainty of pre-confiscation stages.
Paper objective. The aim of this article is to analyze the legal nature of the forced expropriation of assets linked to the aggressor state, evaluate existing national mechanisms, and outline proposals for improving their efficiency and legal clarity within the framework of public revenue management.
Paper main body. The forced expropriation of assets of the aggressor state has a unique legal nature, as it occurs without compensation and is exceptional in nature.
In Ukraine, the implementation of the norms regulating the mechanism of forced expropriation of assets in practice faces several complex problems: the absence of a mechanism for transferring seized property to the ownership of the state, insufficient coordination between state bodies regarding the distribution of functions for managing confiscated assets, the absence of unified procedures for making changes to property registers after the forced expropriation of corporate rights.
Despite the formal legislative regulation of the procedure for recovering assets under the sanction’s regime, some systemic problems prevent the full implementation of the mechanism. In this regard, it is advisable to propose comprehensive steps that will contribute to increasing the effectiveness of the mechanism for the expropriation of assets of the aggressor state: defining at the legislative level the powers of the bodies that support the expropriation procedure; development of clear regulations for interagency cooperation, which will provide for the separation of functions, avoidance of duplication of powers and ensuring transparent coordination of actions between the Ministry of Justice, ARMA, SPFU, CMU and other involved structures; ensuring a legal mechanism for access to financial information, including banking and other confidential information; amending regulatory acts that would ensure a direct and mandatory procedure for the transfer of seized assets, as well as the responsibility of the parties for compliance with the deadlines and quality of the process; introducing an internal system for assessing the effectiveness of the asset expropriation mechanism.
Conclusion of the research. The mechanism of forced expropriation of assets requires significant improvement through amendments to the basic laws, clarification of powers and procedures, creation of a single management body, and the introduction of a modern digital infrastructure for control and reporting. At the same time, it is important to integrate positive international experience, which allows for effective action in the conditions of hybrid warfare, where economic instruments play no less important role than military ones.
Forced expropriation of assets should be considered as a comprehensive legal and management mechanism that requires a systemic approach, constant regulatory updating and flexible implementation taking into account the challenges of modern geopolitical reality.
Short abstract for an article
Abstract. The theoretical foundations and law enforcement practice of the forced expropriation of assets associated with the aggressor state was revealed in the article. The international legal mechanisms of property confiscation, and the national legislation regulating this process are considered. Special attention is given to judicial practice, problems and challenges that arise during the implementation of relevant measures. An analysis of international experience of forced expropriation of assets is carried out and recommendations for improving national legal regulation are proposed.

Keywords

 property confiscation, sanctions policy, international law, nationalization of assets, national revenue, case law, reparations, financial and legal regulation, confiscation mechanisms, confiscation, nationalization, budget revenues

Reviewer

External reviewer

Article in PDF

 Economic Theory and Law, 2025-2-119-136

Bibliography

 1. Pro osnovni zasady prymusovoho vyluchennia v Ukraini obiektiv prava vlasnosti Rosiiskoi Federatsii ta yii rezydentiv : Zakon Ukrainy vid 03.03.2022 № 2116-IX. (2022). [On the basic principles of forced seizure in Ukraine of objects of property of the Russian Federation and its residents. Law of Ukraine dated March 03, 2022]. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2116-20 [in Ukrainian].
2. Maslova, A. B. (2025). Instytutsiina efektyvnist ta normatyvna determinatsiia upravlinnia areshtovanymy aktyvamy v Ukraini [Institutional efficiency and normative determination of the management of arrested assets in Ukraine]. Problemy suchasnykh transformatsii. Seriia: pravo, publichne upravlinnia ta administruvannia – Problems of modern transformations. Series: law, public management and administration, 16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54929/2786-5746-2025-16-02-10 [in Ukrainian].
3. ARMA (2023, August 18). ARMA zvernulosia do Uriadu ta VAKS shchodo vrehuliuvannia problemy upravlinnia sanktsiinymy aktyvamy [ARMA appealed to the Government and the Supreme Court of Justice of Ukraine regarding the resolution of the problem of the management of sanctioned assets]. https://arma.gov.ua/news/typical/arma-zvernulosya-do-uryadu-ta-vaksu-schodo-vregulyuvannya-problemiupravlinnya-
sanktsiynimi-aktivami [in Ukrainian].
4. ARMA (2024, October 22). Aresht aktyvu ta yoho blokuvannia cherez sanktsii: ARMA upravliaie areshtovanymy aktyvamy [Asset seizure and blocking due to sanctions: ARMA manages seized assets]. https://arma.gov.ua/news/typical/aresht-aktivu-tayogo-blokuvannya-cherez-sanktsii-arma-vidstoyue-interesi-derjavi-upravlyayuchiareshtovanimi-aktivami [in Ukrainian].
5. Verkhovnyi Sud Ukrainy. (n.d.). Ohliad sudovoi praktyky shchodo vyluchennia aktyviv derzhavy-ahresora [Review of case law on seizure of assets of an aggressor state]. https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pokazniki-diyalnosti/analiz/ [in Ukrainian].
6. Government of Canada. (n.d.). Ukraine Sovereignty Bond. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/financial-sector-policy/ukraine-sovereignty-bond.html
7. U. S. Department of State. (n.d.). Post-World War II Reparations and Asset Seizures. https://history.state.gov
8. United Nations Charter, 1945. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter
9. Haazka konventsiia pro zakony ta zvychai sukhoputnoi viiny. (1907, October 18). [Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land]. https://
ihl-databases.icrc.org
10. Konventsiia OON proty koruptsii. (2003, October 31). [UN Convention against Corruption]. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_c16
11. Bloomberg. (n.d.). Zakhidni krainy zamorozyly ponad 300 mlrd dolariv rosiiskykh aktyviv [Western countries freeze over $300 billion in Russian assets]. https://www.bloomberg.com [in Ukrainian].
12. Pro sanktsii: Zakon Ukrainy vid 14.08.2014 № 1644-VII. (2014). [On sanctions. Law of Ukraine dated August 14, 2014]. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1644-18 [in Ukrainian].
13. Pro upravlinnia obiektamy derzhavnoi vlasnosti: Zakon Ukrainy vid 21.09.2006 № 185-V. (2006). [On management of state property. Law of Ukraine dated September 21, 2006]. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/185-16 [in Ukrainian].
14. Postanova Kasatsiinoho hospodarskoho sudu u skladi Verkhovnoho Sudu u spravi № 910/3422/22 vid 29.11.2023. (2023). [Resolution of the Cassation Economic Court of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/3422/22 dated November 29, 2023]. https://zakononline.com.ua/court-decisions/show/115408883 [in Ukrainian].
15. Postanova Kasatsiinoho hospodarskoho sudu u skladi Verkhovnoho Sudu u spravi № 916/2072/22 vid 13.06.2024. (2024). [Resolution of the Cassation Economic Court of the Supreme Court in case No. 916/2072/22 dated June 13, 2024]. https://iplex.com.ua/doc.php?d=5&red=100003a7f29ce9d8d43c61cf07dd5601a07f56®num=119741074 [in Ukrainian].
16. Yemets, R., & Borodkin, O. (2022, November 02). Yaka riznytsia mizh sanktsiiamy, konfiskatsiieiu ta natsionalizatsiieiu [What is the difference between sanctions, confiscation and nationalization]. YuF «Vasyl Kisil i Partnery» – «Law Firm «Vasil Kisil & Partners». https://vkp.ua/publication/pyaka-riznitsya-mizh-sanktsiyamikonfiskatsiieyu-ta-natsionalizatsiieyup [in Ukrainian].
17. Ministerstvo yustytsii Ukrainy. (2025, April 04). Zadovoleno druhyi pozov Miniustu shchodo Derypasky ta kompanii Rusal: aktyvy na ponad 2 mlrd hrn stiahnuto v dokhid derzhavy [The second lawsuit of the Ministry of Justice against Deripaska and Rusal company was satisfied: assets worth over 2 billion UAH were seized as state revenue]. https://minjust.gov.ua/news/ministry/zadovoleno-drugiy-pozov-minyustu-schododeripaski-ta-kompanii-rusal-aktivi-na-ponad-2-mlrd-grn-styagnuto-v-dohid-derjavi [in Ukrainian].
18. Liemienov, O. (2023, March 27). Ocean Plaza Rotenberha: yak konfiskuvaly aktyv i chomu tse vazhlyvo [Rotenberg’s Ocean Plaza: how the asset was confiscated and why it is important]. Trap Aggressor Accountability Platform. https://trap.org.ua/publications/ocean-plaza-rotenberha-yak-konfiskuvaly-aktyv-i-chomu-tse-vazhlyvo [in Ukrainian].
19. NAZK. (2023). Derzhavna antykoruptsiina prohrama na 2023–2025 roky: Analiz problemy 3.3.3 [State Anti-Corruption Program for 2023–2025: Problem Analysis 3.3.3]. https://dap.nazk.gov.ua/uploads/problem/73/135-9126-64da3dd54d049.pdf [in Ukrainian].
20. Parliament of Canada. (2022). Bill C-19: Budget Implementation Act. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-19/royal-assent
21. U. S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). KleptoCapture Task Force. https://www.justice.gov/taskforce/kleptocapture
22. Greco, A. (2021). Money Laundering in Latvia and the Baltics: Recent Developments, Ongoing Risks, and Future Challenges. Transparency International Latvia. https://delna.lv/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ML_LV-Bs_082021_FINAL_research.pdf
23. Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance. (2019). Italy’s National Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risks Assessment: Summary. https://www.dt.mef.gov.it/modules/documenti_en/prevenzione_reati_finanziari/prevenzione_reati_finanziari/Italyxs_national_money_laundering_and_terrorist_financing_risks_assessment_Summary.pdf

Code DOI

 https://doi.org/10.31359/2411-5584-2025-61-2-119

This post is also available in: Ukrainian

27.05.2025