May 21, 2025, 10:02 a.m.

Court seizes property due to raider seizure of business in Mykolaiv region

(PHOTO: Lexinform)

In Mykolaiv region, a woman is suspected of raiding a business share. Law enforcement officers filed a motion to seize the suspect's property - real estate and a car.

This is evidenced by the ruling of the Novi Odesa District Court of Mykolaiv Region.

In Nova Odesa, the court seized real estate related to the defendants in the criminal proceedings on the raider seizure of a share in Toka. According to the investigation, one of the company's shareholders illegally excluded her partner from the company's founders by forging documents.

According to the case, Toka LLC was established in 2020, and 60% of the company was owned by one of the founders. For several years, he invested both his own funds and the company's profits in the business, totaling a share of more than UAH 3 million.

However, in 2024, his partner, who served as a director of the company, drew up a false certificate stating that the founder had not contributed any funds to the authorized capital. On the basis of this certificate, she held a fictitious general meeting, where she excluded her husband from the company's members, signed the minutes in the presence of a notary, and submitted the documents to the state registrar.

The registrar then removed the information about the founder from the state register of legal entities and reduced the company's authorized capital from UAH 5 million to UAH 2 million. As a result of these actions, on November 27, 2024, working capital began to be withdrawn from the accounts of Toka LLC. In addition, the woman, along with several men, came to the company's office and took away the equipment and goods that belonged to it.

The Prosecutor's Office suspects the woman of committing criminal offenses under Part 3 of Article 206-2 (misappropriation of enterprise property) and Part 4 of Article 358 (use of knowingly forged documents) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

As part of the investigation, the prosecutor filed a motion with the court to seize the property belonging to the person involved in the case. It was three privately owned real estate objects. The court granted the motion and seized the property until a separate court decision is issued. Another motion to seize an 11/100th share of a complex of buildings and a 2012 Peugeot Partner car was also granted.

In April, agricultural machinery that was allegedly illegally taken from the company was seized. The equipment included a mineral fertilizer spreader, a loading bin, a sprayer, sunflower and grain harvesters, seeders, a plow and other equipment. According to the victim, he bought some of this equipment at his own expense, and some of it at the expense of the company.

Анна Бальчінос

Також Вам може сподобатись:

March 10, 2026

State Land Bank wins court case for 5 thousand hectares of land in Odesa region

Profiteering from farmers: ex-officials of the State Service of Ukraine for Food Safety and Consumer Protection from Mykolaiv region will be tried for bribery

March 9, 2026

Mykolaiv investigates booking scheme through sports schools

Mykolaiv region opens accounts on corruption at checkpoints of invincibility

Hotel and vacation compensation: what Kherson MBA official Linetsky declared

Kherson police officer served suspicion notice for license fraud

Mykolaiv City Council Decides on Date for Continuation of Session: Privatization and Restoration

A resident of Kherson region was imposed house arrest for calling for the continuation of his

March 8, 2026

Odesa resident fined for trading in terrorist positions

Kherson convicts head of social services

An employee of Ukrzaliznytsia complained to the TCC and the police in Mykolaiv region: what the court decided

March 7, 2026

An architectural monument damaged by shelling in Mykolaiv was preserved for restoration

Kherson woman sentenced for interviewing propagandists about friendship of peoples

MP from Kherson region bought a house near Kyiv for eight thousand hryvnias

TCC ignored the husband's application for a deferral - the court disagreed