Three years for a fictitious agri-firm: details of the BEB case

Court verdict for participation in financial scheme

The court found a 33-year-old man who arrived from Lviv region guilty of violating Part 2 of Article 205-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment. The court also established a probation period of one year.

In addition, for the next three years, the man will be prohibited from holding managerial positions, as well as occupying positions related to the performance of administrative and business functions.

Details of the criminal scheme

According to materials provided by detectives of the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB), the defendant agreed to become the formal head of an agricultural company in exchange for monetary compensation. He received 200 US dollars for registering the enterprise in his name.

The man handed over his personal documents and signed registration papers containing false information. After registration in Odesa, the company's charter specified activities in the cultivation of grain and oil crops. However, in reality, the convicted man had no involvement in the business: he did not make managerial decisions, did not sign commercial agreements, did not dispose of bank accounts, and did not keep financial records. All these functions were performed by third parties.

Mechanism of fund withdrawal

Law enforcement officers established that the agribusiness registered in this manner became a tool for tax evasion. It was used to convert non-cash payments into cash for the benefit of other companies that conducted real business activities.

Investigative actions regarding other individuals involved in using this firm in the financial scheme are ongoing in a separate criminal case.

Context: scale of tax violations

Previously, BEB detectives uncovered a tax evasion scheme involving a sum of almost 42 million hryvnia. According to investigation data, the company purchased agricultural products in cash, but the documents listed as suppliers enterprises that did not actually make these deliveries. As a result, the state budget failed to receive a significant portion of corporate income tax and VAT.