Success

Introduction

The Disputes Law Firm successfully defended the interests of a Canadian citizen in the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv in a case concerning the removal of obstacles to money usage. The Canadian citizen won in court against one of Ukraine's largest banks, which unlawfully blocked his own funds amounting to $3,300 USD. Particularly indicative is the fact that despite the lengthy court proceedings that lasted almost a year, the bank did not appeal the decision and executed the court ruling immediately — within three days after it became legally binding.

Background

The plaintiff, a Canadian citizen, opened a bank account with the defendant — one of Ukraine's leading banks — in 2021. In February 2023, he transferred his own funds amounting to $3,300 USD from his account at a foreign bank to his own account at the Ukrainian bank. However, the funds were never credited to the client's account.

The bank blocked the transfer due to suspicion that the participant in the currency operation — the foreign bank — had connections with the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. At the same time, the Ukrainian bank did not provide information on which its suspicion was based.

The funds were credited to a "credit amounts pending clarification" account. The bank demanded that the client provide documents about the registration of the intermediary company, the foreign bank, information about its ultimate beneficial owners and other documents that the client did not possess and could not possess.

The bank also refused to return the specified funds. The appeal to the law firm was preceded by a year of unsuccessful correspondence and struggle with the bank.

Filing the Lawsuit and Legal Position

Due to unsuccessful measures to unblock the funds, the client approached the Disputes Law Firm. Initially, a lawyer's inquiry was sent to the bank demanding detailed explanations and copies of documents regarding the disputed operation. The bank reluctantly provided the specified information but generally communicated nothing new, stating general phrases that the operation participant was a legal entity connected with the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus.

legal argumentation

The legal position was based on the bank's violation of fundamental principles of property rights and contractual obligations. According to Articles 316, 319, 321 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the owner has the right to possess, use, and dispose of their property at their own discretion, and property rights are inviolable. The bank effectively deprived the client of the ability to dispose of their own funds without sufficient legal grounds.

A key element of the legal argumentation was substantiating the illegality of the bank's demands for the client to provide documents about a third party. The bank demanded from the plaintiff documents about the registration of the foreign intermediary company and information about its ultimate beneficial owners, which the client did not possess and could not possess under objective circumstances.

evidence analysis

We paid special attention to analyzing the bank's evidence base. All of the defendant's suspicions were based exclusively on data from the commercial analytical system YouControl — a private company that categorically disclaims responsibility for the accuracy of posted information in its own terms of use. A detailed study of the report provided by the bank revealed the absence of specific data about which officials or founders of the company have connections with aggressor countries.

proportionality principle

The legal position was also based on the principle of proportionality of interference with property rights. According to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, any restriction of property rights must meet the "three-part test":

• be prescribed by law
• pursue a legitimate aim
• be proportionate to achieving that aim

We argued that even with the presence of the first two conditions, the interference with the plaintiff's property rights was disproportionate given the absence of any unlawful behavior on his part.

Court Decision

The Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv fully supported the plaintiff's legal position and satisfied the lawsuit demands in full. In the reasoning part of the decision dated May 8, 2025, the court established that the plaintiff provided proper, admissible, and sufficient evidence of the legal origin of funds to confirm their ownership.

The court unambiguously stated that the plaintiff is not a person who has any connections with the Russian Federation or Belarus.

The court analyzed in detail the legitimacy of the bank's interference with the plaintiff's property rights through the lens of the "three-part test" formulated in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.

legitimate expectations

The court paid special attention to analyzing the validity of the plaintiff's legitimate expectations. The court noted that the plaintiff had legal grounds to expect proper performance by the bank of the concluded bank account agreement and timely crediting of his own funds to the bank account. Instead, for an extended period, the plaintiff was groundlessly deprived of the ability to use and dispose of his property.

critical assessment of evidence

Regarding the defendant's evidence base, the court critically assessed the relevance and reliability of the provided materials. The court stated that from the printout from the YouControl system provided by the defendant, it was deprived of the ability to establish which specific officials or founder (beneficial owner) of the company the indicated information relates to.

The court separately noted that the defendant added evidence of shelling of Ukrainian territory, power outages, etc. to the case materials, but these facts are not disputed by any party and go beyond the subject of the filed lawsuit.

Conclusion

The client's amazement knew no bounds — indeed, faith in Ukrainian justice is very weak, but we are glad that we prove the opposite in the absolute majority of cases we undertake.

A particularly indicative moment was the bank's execution of the court decision. Despite the lengthy court proceedings lasting a year, the bank executed the court decision immediately — within three days after it became legally binding, while not appealing the court decision.

This clearly indicates that the bank was aware of the illegality of its actions and did not attempt to groundlessly appeal the court decision.

The court decision confirms that even under martial law conditions and enhanced requirements for currency operations, banks do not have the right to arbitrarily block clients' funds without sufficient legal grounds. Requirements for clients must be reasonable and proportionate, and banks cannot shift responsibility for third-party actions that are beyond their control onto clients.