At Miller, we are convinced that the former measure the past, while the latter determine the future.
The Yurydychna Gazeta has published the Market Leaders 2025 research . And for us, it’s not about lines in a table. It is about confirming the fundamental principle on which Miller stands: in an era of turbulence, the most reliable currency is reputation.
This year, the rating methodology has taken a step towards absolute transparency. 50% of the success is the complexity and outcome of real cases. But the key 40% are recommendations from market colleagues.
Stop and think about it. 40 percent of our assessment is the voice of those we meet on the other side of the table in negotiations and in the courts. Our competitors and opponents.
This is the gold standard of recognition. When your strength is recognized not only by your clients, but also by those who have every reason to deny it.
The results of this recognition:
Leadership that changes the rules of the game. Our partner, Artem Krykun-Trush, was ranked among the TOP 20 most effective partner managers in Ukraine.
We want you to take a look at the names on this list. These are 19 titans, founders and managing partners who have been building the legal market as we know it for decades. Being in this company is not just a personal reward. It is a signal from the market: a new generation of leaders and modern management models are not just competitive – they set a new standard of efficiency. This is proof that our strategy and approach to work are recognized at the highest level.
Expertise that knows no compromise. We are recognized as leaders in practices where the cost of a mistake is the highest:
White-Collar Crime.
Business protection
Military law.
Criminal Law and Procedure.
Compliance.
Litigation and mediation.
We do not see it as a reward. We see it as a responsibility. Responsibility to our clients, who entrust us with their most difficult challenges. Responsibility to the market – to keep the bar high in quality, ethics and sustainability. Responsibility to the team, which is a living system of our professionalism. Each Miller employee is the reason why such victories become possible.
Miller Law Firm has been included in the Forbes Next 250 list, a ranking of the most promising businesses in Ukraine.
Out of more than 800 candidates, 250 companies were selected that are growing rapidly, creating unique products, rethinking their approach to management, and shaping a new quality of the market.
For us, this is more than just a rating.
This is a recognition of how we think. How we work. How we build.
It is especially gratifying that we applied on our own, without the involvement of consultants or the support of business associations.
We just showed what we do every day, and it was appreciated.
The value of this particular rating is that it is about business at its core.
About the numbers. About solutions. Impact.
There is no room for subjectivity – only what can be verified and confirmed.
Law firms rarely make this list. But we are here.
And it’s not just about numbers anymore.
It’s about trust:
About the team that keeps the level.
About the clients who trusted us.
About the partners who supported us.
And about the challenges that made us stronger.
Forbes writes about the businesses of the future. We are creating this future together.
Miller Law Firm’s partner Artem Krykun-Trush comments on the law that allows Ukrainians to have a second citizenship without losing their Ukrainian one, which has already passed the parliamentary vote and is awaiting the President’s signature.
Why is this solution necessary?
There are more than 7 million Ukrainians outside of Ukraine who may lose their legal ties with the state without this provision.
The law strengthens ties with the diaspora and provides more flexibility in the face of war and related emigration.
The main change is that Ukrainians abroad will be able to officially obtain citizenship of another country and still remain citizens of Ukraine.
The law also provides for a simplified procedure for obtaining citizenship for foreigners fighting for Ukraine.
The law does not apply to persons who have citizenship of Russia, Belarus or other states that support armed aggression against Ukraine. Dual citizenship is prohibited for them.
There is only one exception:for those who support Ukraine and are subject to political persecution. The law provides for a separate regulation for such cases, as Russia does not actually allow voluntary renunciation of citizenship.
At the same time, lawyers draw attention to the difficult situation of residents of the temporarily occupied territories who were forced to obtain passports of the aggressor state. According to Ukrainian law, such acquisition of citizenship is an offense – but these people remain citizens of Ukraine.
That is why it is important not to introduce an automatic ban on multiple citizenship for all such cases, but to establish clear verification procedures to distinguish between forced acquisition of citizenship and deliberate collaboration.
Artem Krykun-Trush, Partner, Head of White-Collar Crime, Compliance and Investigations Practice, shared his opinion in a commentary for Radio Liberty:
“We need to check and establish whether a person was a collaborator. In this part, the draft law is not finalized, because we are actually separating from ourselves all citizens who have received a Russian passport. A deeper approach is needed here – clear verification procedures should be prescribed, rather than introducing a ban by default.”
This week we participated in two large-scale events: a roundtable discussion of the Ukrainian Advocates’ Association (UAA) on the draft law on criminal liability and the II Anti-Corruption Forum of the Ukrainian Bar Association.
Artem-Abraham Krykun-Trush, Partner and Head of White-Collar Crime, Compliance and Investigations, shared insights from the roundtable:
Currently, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a crime. Blurred criteria can lead to unfounded accusations and presumption of guilt for businesses. This is a risk even for honest companies.
There is a need to distinguish between intentional violations of sanctions and compliance errors for which administrative fines are appropriate.
Indefinite liability is a big risk. The absence of a statute of limitations means an endless threat to business, which is contrary to the principles of legal certainty and stability.
An honest mistake should be a ground for exemption from criminal liability. This will help avoid unfair reprisals against businesses and officials who acted in good faith.
The UBA Anti-Corruption Forum has once again confirmed that businesses should not wait for a crisis to remember about compliance. Effective anti-corruption policies, whistleblower management, internal investigations, and a vibrant culture of integrity are not bureaucracy, but the key to sustainability.
The frank discussion between representatives of the public, private sectors and anti-corruption agencies was particularly valuable. This exchange of experience is key to building a transparent and strong environment.
Viacheslav Kolomiychuk, Senior Associate of White-Collar Crime, Compliance and Investigations at Miller Law Firm, participated in the Military White-Collar Crime panel.
He shared his thoughts: “Military white collar crime is a new challenge for law and defense at the same time. Given the military specifics, a special risk zone is being formed in which the responsibility of commanders is easily replaced by criminal prosecution, and anti-corruption tools are being turned into a weapon of political or business pressure. The system needs to learn to distinguish between real crimes and managerial decisions, otherwise we undermine not only the law but also our own security.”
In our opinion, businesses should not wait until an incident occurs and they need to conduct internal investigations and launder themselves from suspicion, searches and interrogations. It is necessary to invest in anti-corruption compliance.
It is important for business:
to have effective internal anti-corruption policies
to ensure that internal trainings for employees are not just for show
to build a compliance system
understand how to work with internal whistleblowers.
We have brought together a panel of experts from the most diverse backgrounds, representing state-owned companies, private and international businesses, and key anti-corruption agencies to discuss this issue. In order to understand how state-owned companies, private companies and anti-corruption agencies can be useful to each other, where there may be points of intersection and what interesting experiences and standards we can teach each other.
We will also talk about anti-corruption cases in the area of military white-collar, which are now gaining popularity and should not be ignored.
This is not just another formality. This is a lively discussion between those who formulate policy, apply law, and implement changes: judges, lawyers, investigators, compliance officers, and academics.
In the program:
anti-corruption compliance: how policies, internal investigations, and whistleblower protection work;
Military WCC practice: cases, legal challenges, regulatory specifics;
sanctions law and criminalization of violations;
international cooperation and new standards (FCPA, Bribery Act, Interpol tools).
Among the speakers are Miller partner Artem-Abraham Krykun-Trush (moderator of the anti-corruption session) and senior associate Viacheslav Kolomiychuk (panel on Military WCC).
This is not just about risks. It’s about the rules of the game, in which the law must prevail.
Maria Butina, junior associate of White-Collar Crime, Compliance and Investigations practice at Miller Law Firm
Even the whitest and most transparent entrepreneur today is not immune to business persecution and the attention of law enforcement agencies – the police, the SBU, the BES, the NABU, the SBI, or the prosecutor’s office.
Therefore, one of the least controllable risks is the risk of criminal prosecution, even if the company is operating legally. It is enough for a “problematic” counterparty to appear in the supply chain, and there are already grounds for inquiries, inspections, and sometimes searches.
And it doesn’t have to be your direct counterparty – a problematic supplier of your partner or even a third party is enough. Tax evasion, financing of sanctioned companies, deliveries to the temporarily occupied territories or to the Russian Federation are possible, and all this story already affects you.
To avoid this, it is worth knowing in advance what steps a business can take to minimize such risks. This checklist provides specific advice on how to prepare and protect your company before there is a knock on the door:
Check your counterparties:
It is actually very important to do this at the beginning of cooperation with any supplier, subcontractor, etc. It is enough to be in the supply chain or cooperate with a company that has become a subject of criminal proceedings and you have the risk of a search at your company.
Therefore, we check the following:
Mentions in criminal cases (through the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, as well as media and social networks);
sanctions (in the State Register of Sanctions);
ties with the occupied territories or the Russian Federation and tax debts or questionable financial transactions (in online services).
But it’s important not to use automation alone. In most companies, the compliance check of counterparties ends when a financier, compliance officer, or in-house lawyer runs them through the platforms once. But in practice, this does not reduce risks; on the contrary, it creates the illusion of security.
Real verification is an additional touch of a live professional in the form of OSINT, business intelligence, and most importantly, conclusions about risks and specific recommendations.
That is:
analysis of indirect connections of beneficiaries (through offshore companies, friendly companies, related parties);
analysis of public mentions in the media, including regional and specialized ones;
use of professional, specialized software and intelligence tools that can detect cross-profiles, digital traces, and involvement in non-obvious cases;
search through non-obvious and paid sources (for example, registers of other countries if the activity has a cross-border element);
analysis of the counterparty’s behavioral style through interviews with previous partners, if it is a large contract.
The final risk assessment should not be made by an algorithm, but by a person with experience who is able to see signals that remain outside the open databases.
Formalize relationships with counterparties:
Anything that is not recorded does not exist: in today’s realities, even a screenshot of a messenger message where you agreed on the terms of the agreement can be important evidence in the event of a criminal case or a lawsuit. But it’s better not to take any risks – don’t conduct any critical negotiations only “in words.” All key agreements should be in writing.
This is your insurance, so:
all key agreements are to be made in writing;
write clear contract terms, detail everything: cost, limits of liability, communication (in what form it takes);
keep correspondence and records of negotiations (with the consent of the parties).
Have your own lawyer on staff or “on call”:
Not “in case of problems,” but as an element of your business security system that should work proactively, not after you have already received a summons for interrogation or a search.
Your lawyer will be there:
know the specifics of your business – understand your internal processes, risks, and weaknesses;
participate in key negotiations or review important contracts before signing;
instruct your team in the event of law enforcement requests, searches, and interrogations.
will be in touch 24/7 and have a clear system of response in critical situations.
Conduct training as a team:
In critical situations, such as a search, a subpoena, or a request from law enforcement, employees’ responses should not be improvised, but rather a well-established algorithm. Wrong actions or unnecessary words can cost a company its reputation and money, so
conduct practical trainings from time to time, for example, “how to act during a search” and develop an algorithm:
who opens the door and checks documents with law enforcement officers;
who is the first to call a lawyer;
who is authorized to officially communicate with law enforcement on behalf of the company.
Work carefully with public funds:
If your business deals with public funds (participates in public procurement), you should understand that you are constantly exposed to risks. However, if you understand these risks, you can effectively manage them.
Always pay attention to the following and do not participate in the procurement if:
the customer’s overestimation of the cost of services or works: If the price is too low, it is understandable that suppliers will be absent and tenders will be canceled. The same cannot be said for overpricing, as it leads to the purchase of goods or works at inflated prices and entails budget wastage;
discrimination against bidders: conditions or requirements that deliberately create an advantage or limit the opportunities of specific bidders. This makes it impossible to compete fairly at auctions and creates an unfavorable environment for business;
you are being extorted for kickbacks: participation in such a conspiracy is a serious corruption risk;
collusion between bidders: collusion between bidders is a serious violation of competition law and can have serious legal consequences for bidders, including administrative fines, lawsuits, and loss of reputation.
Conclusion:
Today, the law enforcement system does not always work selectively, but often in a “roundabout” manner. Even if your company has not committed any violations, this does not mean that you will not be subject to inquiries, searches, and interrogations.
The risks of criminal prosecution do not disappear on their own – they need to be managed. And the most effective way to do this is to check your counterparties, document agreements, have a trained team and a lawyer in touch.
In 2022, Miller Law Firm was approached by a client with a request to file a lawsuit to terminate the parental rights of the mother of his children. At first glance, this was an atypical category of cases for us. But there was a story behind this claim that was impossible to ignore.
Yevhen Mezhovyi is a native of Mariupol. During the occupation, he tried to evacuate with his children, but they were detained at a checkpoint: the father was thrown into a Russian prison and the children were deported to Russia. After 45 days of illegal detention, Yevhen was released and began to fight for the return of his children.
He managed to do the impossible – to return the children and take them to a safe place, to Latvia. However, in order to stay within the legal framework and be able to legally take care of them, Yevhen had to file a lawsuit to deprive the mother of her parental rights, who did not take part in the children’s upbringing even after their rescue. We supported this process on a pro bono basis and obtained a decision that granted the father sole custody.
The story of their family and their rehabilitation after all that they had been through became the basis for the documentary After the Rain by Sarah McCartney, a deep, honest film about the deportation of Ukrainian children. The film speaks about the trauma of war, loss, and the power of parental love to heal.
Karina Panchenko, a partner at Miller Law Firm, attended the film’s premiere at the British Ambassador’s residence. As a leader of the Women Leaders for Ukraine community, she had the opportunity to personally thank the director for her important contribution to the coverage of this topic.
“We supported the legal part of this story. But to see it through the eyes of a filmmaker is a completely different level of emotion and depth. This film is another proof of why we have no right to remain silent,” says Karina Panchenko.
In 2024, law enforcement officers registered 5139 criminal offenses in the field of economic activity. Only 1,754 cases (34%) were brought to court with an indictment. In January-April 2025, the situation did not change: the figure remained at 33%.
In other words, two-thirds of proceedings against businesses are opened but not brought to court.
To change this practice, a year ago, pursuant to a decision of the National Security and Defense Council, the Office of the Prosecutor General conducted an audit of criminal proceedings against businesses. Following the audit, the standards of prosecutors’ work in the field of investment protection were approved.
One of the key principles of the standards is that a search should be an exceptional investigative action.
Nevertheless, the number of searches has increased over the past year, especially in the agribusiness, oil trading, IT, and miltech sectors.
In this article, we have collected practical recommendations:
on what grounds law enforcement officers come to search;
What it can lead to;
how to prepare the company and minimize risks.
Vyacheslav Kolomiychuk, Doctor of Philosophy in Law, attorney at law, senior associate at Miller Law Firm, has prepared a useful material on this topic.
1. Grounds for the search
A search is an unannounced investigative action that is conducted to collect evidence. What an investigator needs to conduct a search at an enterprise:
the existence of criminal proceedings;
justification of why the evidence cannot be obtained voluntarily through discovery or other investigative actions (temporary access);
description of things, documents, and other property to be found, as well as their connection with the criminal offense;
the decision of the investigating judge;
As an exception to the rule, investigators may conduct a search without a warrant, but only in urgent cases related to saving lives and property or direct prosecution of persons suspected of committing a criminal offense (part 3 of Article 233 of the CPC of Ukraine).
However, some law enforcement agencies, in particular the SBI, interpret this provision not as an exception but as an opportunity.
Important! If the investigators entered the house without a court order and without urgent grounds, such a search violates human rights and fundamental freedoms. Accordingly, the actual data of the search report and other derivative evidence are inadmissible.
The law also requires the investigator to explain why permission is needed to interfere with property rights in the form of a search.
In other words, a search may not be conducted if evidence can be collected by sending inquiries or conducting a seizure (temporary access).
The grounds for a search must be convincing and reasonable. If they are absent or contrary to the law, the actions of law enforcement officers will have negative consequences.
2. Legal and factual consequences of the search
After a search of a company, several scenarios are possible, the worst of which may be the following:
Facts:
seizure of equipment, documents, cash, and servers;
interruption of operating activities;
breach of obligations to counterparties;
leakage of confidential or commercial information;
Deterioration of the company’s image, loss of trust on the part of banks, investors, and partners.
Legal:
the risk of further charges against the company’s officers and employees;
summonses for interrogations;
seizure of the company’s accounts or property;
initiating new criminal proceedings based on the information found.
A separate risk is that after the search, the manager may be offered a “solution” through intermediaries, which creates additional reputational and legal threats.
That is, the consequences of the search may go far beyond the criminal proceedings and affect the stability of the business. Therefore, this investigative action should be taken seriously and properly prepared.
3. How to prepare for a possible search
The worst thing is to be unprepared. Businesses should have a clear anti-crisis plan and algorithm of actions.
What you should do in advance:
Conduct a security audit and brief the staff;
Develop and test an algorithm of actions (“alert instruction”) for employees when they receive information about a search;
Appoint a responsible person (and his or her deputy) to act during the search;
Sign a contract with a lawyer and know who you can contact for prompt support;
Organize video surveillance and data backup;
Implement a trade secret policy (including GDPR or other personal data requirements);
Check all contracts with IT providers, cloud services, and accountants: where your data is physically stored, who has access to it, and how to act in case of deletion;
Simulate a search together with a lawyer: this will help identify weaknesses in preparation and relieve stress on the team
Separately, agree on a PR strategy in case of a search: who communicates what to partners, the media, banks, and employees.
Searches are a reality of Ukrainian business, answering not the question “if?” but the question “when?”. They are not always legitimate, but they are always risky. The key is to be prepared: legally, procedurally and emotionally. A clear algorithm of actions, support from a lawyer, recording of violations and a strategic approach to protecting the company’s interests are tools that can change the course of events.
Today, the Bila Tserkva court held the first preparatory hearing in the case of torture of a girl. The defendants are charged with child abuse and extortion.
Today, the court heard all the participants in the trial: the two defendants, their legal representatives, lawyers from all sides, a representative of the children’s service and the prosecutor on the possibility of issuing an indictment before the trial.
The hearings in the case of the beating of the girl in Bila Tserkva will be held in a closed session, as it involves minors on both sides – the accused and the victim.
In addition, the prosecutor filed a motion to extend the preventive measures against the defendants.
The Miller Law Firm, which represents the victim, also asked the court to conduct the trial without the victim’s mandatory participation to prevent her from being traumatized again.
The victim’s defense lawyers: Anna Kalynchuk, senior associate of White-Collar Crime, Compliance and Investigations practice, and her colleague in the practice, attorney Yevgeniy Skurativsky.
It is important for us that the victim feels supported and cared for by us.
The presiding judge is currently in the conference room, where he is deciding on the further procedure of the proceedings and considering the filed motions.
We are waiting for the date of the next meeting to be set.
We believe that we will be able to achieve justice for the victim.
The International Renaissance Foundation has launched the Open Society Prize. It is awarded to those who fight for justice and build humanity every day, despite the soulless machine of the system.
The award looks like a brick. And this is no accident.
Ukraine is still not a state governed by the rule of law. The rule of law is not a norm, but a dream. A fair trial is not a guarantee, but a struggle. In these circumstances, each of us who does not remain silent and resists evil is a brick. We are putting ourselves in the foundation of the future, building this state as if by hand – block by block, resistance by resistance, word by word.
Masi Nayyem is one of those who keep this wall up. A war survivor, he lost an eye, but not his sight. His vision is sharp, principled, uncompromising. He is not just a lawyer. He is a man who, after the front, injury, and surgeries, did not retreat into the shadows, but went even further – to defend the wounded, veterans, and military. In defense of those whom the state should protect, but cannot or does not want to. He went through all this not only as a lawyer, but as a human being. And that is why he has the moral right to speak.
Along with him, the prize was awarded to Ukrayinska Pravda, Myroslav Marynovych, and the Come Back Alive Foundation – those who tell the truth, hold the moral compass, and save lives.
This brick is about those who build barricades where the state fails. About those who do not allow justice to crumble. About those who build the future with their hands, words, and human rights work.
This is not about medals. It’s about responsibility. Because every brick has weight. And if we do not put them together correctly, a legal and humane state will not emerge.
Congratulations to Mr. Masi and we are proud of the award!
