Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 527/1096/19:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Review of the legality of a person’s conviction for unlawful seizure of a share in the authorized capital of an enterprise (Article 206-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) through the adoption of general meeting resolutions which the prosecution considered to be forged transactions.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that criminal liability under Article 206-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine arises only in the presence of direct intent to seize property using forged documents.
– The Grand Chamber established that at the time of the actions (2018), judicial practice was contradictory, and the convicted person acted within the scope of the legal positions of the Supreme Court at that time, which permitted the holding of meetings without the participation of heirs.
– The court emphasized the principle of legal certainty: a person cannot be held criminally liable for actions that were considered lawful at the time of their commission in accordance with the prevailing judicial practice.
– The Grand Chamber clarified that decisions of general meetings that change corporate rights are transactions; however, in this case, the fact of document forgery or the presence of criminal intent was not proven.
– The court indicated that a corporate dispute between participants and heirs should be resolved through civil or commercial proceedings, rather than through criminal prosecution in the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offense.
– It is also important that the court rejected the prejudicial significance of commercial court decisions for criminal proceedings, as the criminal court is obliged to independently examine evidence of guilt.
– **Conclusion:** In this resolution, the Grand Chamber provided a detailed clarification of the legal nature of general meeting resolutions as transactions in the context of Article 206-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, effectively refining the approaches to the qualification of such actions, although it did not depart from its previous decision in case No. 916/379/23, but distinguished them by the subject of proof.
3. **Court decision:** The Grand Chamber overturned the appellate court’s verdict regarding the conviction under Part 3 of Article 206-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and closed the criminal proceedings regarding this episode due to the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offense in the act, leaving the civil lawsuits without consideration.
