Educational Архіви — Miller Law Firm

Why don’t the law and courts deter teenage violence?

Yevheniy Skurativsky, attorney at Miller Law Firm, for LAGA:ZAKON

Over the past six months, at least five stories of teenagers beating, raping, or harassing have made headlines. The beating of a girl in Bila Tserkva was just one of them. And how many similar cases are there that our society will never learn about?

In such stories, the question always arises: are the children responsible? And the parents?

In this article, we clearly, simply, and with examples, analyze when a minor is criminally liable, what threatens his parents, and why in our outdated system, the law and courts do not deter teenage violence.

At what age is criminal liability established?

From the age of 16, a child bears criminal responsibility as an adult (but with certain mitigations).
From the age of 14 – for serious intentional crimes: murder, rape, robbery, burglary, extortion, hooliganism, etc.

More details in the infographic:

For minors found guilty of committing a criminal offense, according to Article 98 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court may apply the following main types of punishments:

probation supervision;
fine;
public works;
corrective work;
arrest (from the age of 16);
imprisonment for a certain period of time.

Minors may also be subject to additional penalties in the form of a fine and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities.

It is important that such types of punishments as confiscation of property (as the main punishment), restriction of liberty, and life imprisonment cannot be applied to minors.

That is, nothing out of the ordinary, general liability, as for all those guilty of criminal offenses with specific features.

If a minor has not reached the appropriate age at the time of committing criminal acts, he is not subject to criminal liability.

What about children who are too young to be criminally responsible?

Compulsory educational measures – what are they? This is something like a “soft punishment” – not criminal, but formally through the court. They can be applied instead of a criminal record and to children who have reached the age of responsibility.

In the first case, we are talking about a case where a minor has committed a misdemeanor or a negligent non-serious crime and the prosecutor believes that such a minor can be corrected without the application of criminal punishment, and instead files a petition with the court for the application of compulsory educational measures and effectively releases the person from criminal liability.

In the second case, minors who have not reached the age of criminal responsibility. For them, educational measures remain the only possible option.

So, we’ve figured out what, when, and to whom it applies. Now it’s time to talk about the types of compulsory educational measures and their real effectiveness. Coercive measures of an educational nature in Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine include:

1) Warning – a verbal warning. The mildest.

2) Restrictions on leisure – a ban on walking in the evening, an obligation to study or work.

3) Transfer to supervision (usually to parents). Effectiveness is questionable.

4) Property damage if the child is 15+ and has property or income.

5) A closed educational institution is actually a “reform colony”, the most severe measure.

Important: the court may impose one or more compulsory educational measures at its own discretion, regardless of those that the prosecutor may waive.

What if the child simply ignores the educational measures?

If she is 14+ and could already be held criminally liable, but she was released, then she may be held criminally liable for failure to comply with the measures.

If she’s under 14, then… nothing.

There are no additional sanctions. Zero impact.

Perhaps the only available legal instrument is to hold parents or legal representatives administratively liable under Article 184 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (failure to fulfill obligations regarding the upbringing of a child) and possibly even to deprive them of parental rights.

What are the risks for parents if their child breaks the law?

If a child does something illegal or ignores educational measures, his parents can be held liable. This is provided for Article 184 of the Code of Administrative Offenses .

After all, Article 150 of the Family Code of Ukraine imposes on parents the obligation to raise a child in a spirit of respect for the rights and freedoms of other people, to take care of his health, physical, spiritual and moral development, education and prepare for independent life. If a child demonstrates behavior that is far from these ideals, this is a direct indicator that the parents have not coped with their mission.

What threatens:

Warnings or fines from 850 to 5100 UAH – depending on the situation.
Deprivation of parental rights – if the child’s behavior is systemic, and the parents have completely removed themselves.

Liability under Article 184 of the Code of Administrative Offenses arises if:

Parents do not fulfill their responsibilities regarding upbringing (parts 1 – 2);
A child aged 14 – 16 committed an administrative offense (part 3);
The child did something that is a criminal offense in substance, but she is too young for the Criminal Code (Part 4).

That is, the law clearly establishes: parents are directly responsible for creating appropriate conditions for the child’s development and for preventing his or her illegal behavior.

What’s wrong with this system?

A fine of 850 UAH or even 5100 UAH is unlikely to be a “wake-up call” for parents who have been ignoring their child for years. Formally, the tools are there, but the impact is minimal.

Moreover, when a minor does not even comply with compulsory educational measures, this is another signal that the parents have failed. And again: the maximum is an administrative fine.

In practice, the pressure on parents is mild and often does not work.

What’s in the White Church case?

Now let’s return to the case from Bila Tserkva, which became an illustrative example of what holding parents accountable looks like in practice and how the judges “assessed” the responsibility of the parents of the participants and witnesses of this event:

And now the most interesting thing – the parents of the children, who were only witnesses or present, but, according to available information, did not take an active part in the beating:

As we can see, in practice there is complete inconsistency.

Parents of children suspected of committing a crime often receive the mildest punishments – a warning or a minimal fine. At the same time, the courts punish parents of those who were only witnesses or simply present at the scene of the crime severely – sometimes to the maximum extent of the article.

There are cases when:

Some cases are closed because “they didn’t see any guilt”;
others do not, although the circumstances are practically identical.

The problem is in the approach. Courts almost never analyze the real role of parents:

Were they indifferent?
Did you try to educate?
Did they have any influence on the child at all?

The principle of individualization of responsibility is absent.

It seems that decisions are made “by eye”, without uniform criteria and logic. As a result, a system where it is not the fact of guilt that determines the punishment, but the subjective assessment of a particular judge

As a result: the administrative responsibility of parents is a lottery. Someone “won” – they were simply reprimanded. Another “lost” and paid a fine, although they did no more (and sometimes less).

Conclusions

So, the law is there. And the mechanisms too. But in reality, everything is too soft, outdated, inconsistent and often unfair. Children who break the law do not always feel the consequences. Parents who did not raise them are mostly punished with symbolic fines. And society and the victims pay the highest price.

Here is a logical question: if the system is not working, maybe it is worth looking at the experience of other countries? The legislation of Germany, Lithuania or Switzerland is similar to ours, but works better. The point is not in the laws, but in the philosophy. There, the emphasis is not on formal punishment, but on real change in behavior: a teenager may be required to undergo a psychological program, improve grades, work hours for the benefit of the community or temporarily go under the supervision of a special curator.

Ukraine should not just increase fines, but modernize the system. First of all, expand the list of educational measures: introduce mandatory psycho-correctional programs, socially useful works with a clear scope, real probation supervision. Also, make the responsibility of parents more meaningful: instead of symbolic fines, mandatory courses or social support. The biggest gap is the lack of consequences for ignoring educational measures by children who have not yet reached the age of criminal responsibility. It must be eliminated.

The conclusion is obvious: the law exists, but it does not work properly. Neither children nor parents feel true responsibility. And impunity breeds even greater cruelty. The goal should not be formal punishment, but the upbringing of a responsible citizen. And this requires not fines “for show”, but modern effective tools – like in countries where the system really works.

Masi Nayyem: How can businesses support veterans?

This question was raised at every turn during our partner Masi Nayem’s speech at the BOARD community meeting. And we are glad that today it is heard not only from the lips of lawyers, but also in Ukrainian business circles.

Veteran policy in the BOARD business community is not about formal initiatives, but about knowledge and responsibility. We understand that returning from war is not the end of history, but its continuation in new conditions. Therefore, the approach should be based on respect, equality, co-creation, and a conscious attitude towards the experience of veterans.

Veteran politics is not about loud gestures. It’s about respect, inclusion, partnership, knowledge, and strategy.

Masi Nayyem spoke about the main thing at the meeting:

Why respect is not only about words, but also about actions.
Why we should not heroize or isolate veterans.
Why “nothing about veterans without veterans” should be a rule, not a slogan.
And why support is not about weakness, but about the strength of the community.

He shared the practices we implement at Miller:

A humane return to work after service.
Full voluntariness of participation in the initiatives.
Trauma-informed approach and language sensitivity.
Honoring not only loss but also resilience.

For us, as a law firm, it is important not only to know the law. And to put values above formalities.

Because a veteran is not an object of assistance. A veteran is a partner we trust. And which we support.

The Law on Multiple Citizenship: A Step Forward, but Not Without Caveats

Miller Law Firm: The Law on Multiple Citizenship: a step forward, but not without reservations

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.”

How to reduce the risks of criminal prosecution of business: a checklist

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.