Conclusion of the Ethics Committee No. 310

CONCLUSION NO. 310

on compliance with the rules of professional ethics

by a private enforcement officer of the executive district of Poltava region

The UNBA Ethics Committee (hereinafter – the Committee) received a complaint from __ (hereinafter – the Complainant) dated 22.05.2025 regarding the actions (inaction) of the Private Enforcement District of Poltava Region (hereinafter – the Private Enforcement Officer) in enforcement proceedings No. __ (hereinafter – the enforcement proceedings) in order to provide an opinion on the Private Enforcement Officer’s compliance with the Code of Professional Ethics for Private Enforcement Officers of Ukraine.

I. Description of the circumstances specified in the application that became the basis for the audit

On 07.05.2025, the Private Enforcement Officer opened enforcement proceedings. On the same day, according to the Complainant, without performing any actual enforcement actions, the Private Enforcement Officer issued a resolution to recover the principal remuneration in the amount of 10% of the total debt (UAH __), although the actual amount of the debt had already been partially repaid by the Complainant voluntarily before the opening of the proceedings.

On 12.05.2025, the Complainant officially applied to the Private Enforcement Officer (with the CEP) for voluntary monthly enforcement of the court decision. The application was accompanied by a bank statement confirming regular automatic payments.

Despite the Complainant’s appeal, on 13.05.2025, the Private Enforcement Officer, in her opinion, without any explanation or legal analysis, seized all accounts, including the salary account, which receives only social funds (wages).

On 14.05.2025 and again on 15.05.2025, the Complainant filed two separate applications for the immediate lifting of the seizure of the official salary account, with bank statements confirming the origin of these funds. Both applications were left unanswered by the Private Enforcement Officer.

On 15.05.2025, the Private Enforcement Officer formally responded only to the first appeal of 12.05.2025, without conducting any analysis of the evidence submitted, without taking measures to unblock the account, and completely ignored the content of the applications.

As of 22.05.2025, the seizure of the Complainant’s salary account had not been lifted, and voluntary payments that were to be made automatically on 15.05.2025 were blocked, which led to the disruption of the Complainant’s enforcement of the court decision.

According to the Complainant, the Private Enforcement Officer committed the following gross violations of the law:

1. Seizure of the salary account, which directly contradicts Article 52(2), Article 73(1)(3) of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Remuneration of Labour” and Article 43 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which prohibit seizure of social funds.

2. Ignoring the appeals submitted by the CEP (12, 14, 15 May), failure to comply with the requirements for proper consideration of evidence, violation of the requirements of Article 18 and Article 55 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” regarding the proportionality and effectiveness of enforcement actions.

3. Lack of proper communication, neglect of the duties of a private enforcement officer established by the current legislation and ethical standards of the profession.

4. Unlawful and unjustified accrual of remuneration on 07.05.2025 (before the execution of enforcement actions), which contradicts Article 27 and Article 45 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” and has signs of financial abuse.

5. Creating a situation where the possible recovery of wages will lead to a double recovery from one source, which is categorically contrary to the provisions of Articles 18, 55, 63 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”.

Such actions of the Private Enforcement Officer cause moral, financial and reputational damage to the Complainant, are incompatible with the high standards of the profession and are subject to immediate response.

Taking into account the above, the Complainant requests a thorough disciplinary review of the Private Enforcement Officer’s actions in the enforcement proceedings, to establish the fact of illegal seizure of social funds and ignoring the Complainant’s appeals and evidence, to assess the legality and validity of the decision to recover the main remuneration issued on 07.05.2025, given the lack of enforcement and partial voluntary repayment of the debt, and in case of confirmation of violations – to bring the Private Enforcement Officer to disciplinary responsibility, in particular, to consider deprivation of the right to carry out activities.

Additionally, the Complainant sent a letter to the DPO dated 12.06.2025 stating that due to the start of the dispute resolution procedure with the participation of a mediator and the agreement between the parties to the enforcement proceedings, the Complainant requested to withdraw the previously filed complaint dated 22.05.2025 against the actions of the Private Enforcement Officer.

II. Explanations of the Private Enforcement Officer regarding the circumstances stated in the appeal that became the basis for the inspection

By letter dated 16.06.2025, the Private Enforcement Officer provided explanations stating the following.

The Private Enforcement Officer has enforcement proceedings pending to recover funds from the Complainant.

On 07.05.2025, the Private Enforcement Officer issued a decision to initiate enforcement proceedings.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 56 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, after identifying the debtor’s accounts (24 accounts in different banks in total), the Private Enforcement Officer issued a decision to seize the debtor’s funds dated 13.05.2025.

On 12.05.2025, the Private Enforcement Officer received a document in WORD format entitled APPLICATION for a request not to apply the seizure of accounts and to allow the gradual payment of the enforcement fee to the official e-mail address of the Private Enforcement Officer, which is contained in the Unified Register of Private Enforcement Officers of Ukraine. At the same time, the Private Enforcement Officer notes that the WORD document did not allow to identify the author of the electronic document (its signatory).

On the same day, in response to the above e-mail, the person was explained that in accordance with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Electronic Documents and Electronic Document Management” and the Rules for Keeping Records and Archives in the State Enforcement Service and Private Enforcement Officers, an electronic document must contain the applicant’s electronic signature to identify the author and verify the integrity of such a document.

Subsequently, on 14.05.2025 and 15.05.2025, the Complainant sent letters to the Private Enforcement Officer’s email address.

The file of 14.05.2025 was received in a damaged Asice format.

It was impossible to open, verify and identify the author of the electronic document due to the fact that the sender had incorrectly signed the file by using structures to link one or more signed Asice objects.

To confirm the circumstances, the Private Contractor shall provide a screenshot from its official email address.

Responses to the Complainant’s appeal were sent by a simple letter, as provided for in the Law, with reference numbers #__ dated 15.05.2025 and #__ dated 16.05.2025.

At the same time, the Private Enforcement Officer reported that the Complainant did not personally contact the Private Enforcement Officer’s office, nor did she contact the Private Enforcement Officer’s office by telephone, which makes the Complainant’s arguments regarding the lack of proper communication and neglect of the Private Enforcement Officer’s duties untenable. The private enforcement officer acts within the limits and in the manner prescribed by the Law, the participants in the enforcement proceedings exercise their rights and are responsible for the correctness of the documents submitted for a particular procedure in terms of the execution of such documents, their sufficiency and reliability.

It is impossible to establish the purpose of the account, since according to the information provided by the Complainant, the amount of salary funds received on the account significantly exceeds the amount of funds received according to the bank’s information, as the certificate was generated selectively. According to the Supreme Court, the funds constituting the debtor’s salary cannot be seized after actual deductions have been made from it under the enforcement document, but no resolution on deductions has been issued.

The private enforcement officer noted that none of her resolutions had been appealed by the Complainant in the manner prescribed by law, which also refutes the arguments about gross violations of the law, which the Complainant believes to be gross violations of the law. The debt has not been paid to date, and no applications for partial repayment of the debt have been received from the debt collector.

On 12.06.2025, the Complainant received an email request to determine the debtor’s current account for expenditure transactions.

After conducting an audit to determine the relevant account earlier, on 13.06.2025, a decision was made to determine the debtor’s current account with the bank for expenditure transactions.

III. The Ethics Committee’s position on the circumstances specified in the appeal that became the basis for the audit

The Committee notes that the subject of the investigation into this complaint is only to establish the presence or absence of violations of the Code of Professional Ethics for Private Enforcement Officers of Ukraine (hereinafter – the Code).

The Committee, as a body of the UNBA, acts exclusively on the basis, within the limits of its powers and in the manner prescribed by the Code.

The Committee, having examined the content of the Complainant’s complaint and copies of documents attached thereto, as well as the explanations of the Private Enforcement Officer and copies of documents attached thereto, established the following.

1. The Complainant did not prove the fact of violation of the Code by the Private Enforcement Officer.

2. The Private Enforcement Officer noted that none of her resolutions had been appealed by the Complainant in the manner prescribed by law.

3. In her explanations, the Private Enforcement Officer attached copies of responses to the Complainant’s appeals (applications) regarding the lifting of the seizure of the “salary” account, one of which the Complainant had independently attached to her complaint, confirming the fact of submitting and receiving such a response.

4. The Complainant sent a letter dated 12.06.2025 stating that due to the start of the dispute resolution procedure with the participation of a mediator and the agreement between the parties to the enforcement proceedings, the Complainant requested to withdraw the previously filed complaint dated 22.05.2025 against the actions of the Private Enforcement Officer.

5. On 12.06.2025, the Private Enforcement Officer received an application from the Complainant to determine the debtor’s current account for expenditure transactions, on the basis of which the Private Enforcement Officer issued a corresponding resolution on 13.06.2025.

Violations of the Code must be proven. If a party alleges a violation, this is not a reason to consider it established and proven, as all circumstances are subject to proof.

Other circumstances set out in the complaint were not investigated, given that they do not relate to the issues of compliance with the professional ethics of private performers regulated by the Code.

IV. Conclusions of the UNBA Ethics Committee

Taking into account the above and guided by Articles 4, 18, 26, 27 of the Code of Professional Ethics for Private Enforcement Officers of Ukraine, the CMPA Ethics Committee concluded that there were no signs of violation of the Code of Professional Ethics for Private Enforcement Officers of Ukraine in the actions of the private enforcement officer of the Poltava Region.

Head of the CAAU Ethics Committee Vitalina Kiselyova