On July 21, 2025, the President of Ukraine signed Decree No. 538/2025, which implemented the decision of the National Security and Defense Council regarding a moratorium on unwarranted inspections of businesses. This measure is intended to reduce administrative pressure on businesses under martial law and stimulate economic activity.

Despite the formal restrictions, a number of inspections remain lawful. Therefore, companies should not only know how to respond to visits from government agencies but also develop a systematic defense strategy in advance.

What is prohibited?

According to a decision by the National Security and Defense Council and a presidential decree, regulatory and law enforcement agencies are not authorized to interfere in business activities, except as provided by law.

The moratorium applies to inspections conducted by agencies such as the State Tax Service, the State Labor Service, the State Food and Consumer Service, the State Regulatory Service, the National Police, the Economic Security Bureau, the Security Service of Ukraine, and others.

Which inspections are still permitted:

The moratorium does not apply to the following types of inspections:

• unscheduled inspections based on lawful grounds (for example, an employee’s complaint);

• audits related to tax credits, licensing, and budgetary VAT refunds;

• inspections of high-risk businesses, such as those involved in the distribution of excise goods (alcohol, tobacco products, etc.);

• Inspections of the Regional Recruitment and Social Support Centers regarding the maintenance of military registration records at enterprises.

In particular, the latter type of inspections is governed by specific regulatory acts, including the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization” and Resolutions No. 1487 and No. 1489 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 2022.

What Should You Do When an Audit Arrives?

If representatives of a regulatory agency visit the company, the procedure must be clear and legally sound.

First and foremost, it is advisable to video-record all actions taken by officials and inform them that they are being recorded. This will make it possible to document any potential procedural violations at a later date.

We need to find out:

• the specific agency from which the representatives came, along with their last names, first names, and titles;

• which legal entity is being audited;

• what type of inspection is being conducted (scheduled, unscheduled, other);

• Was an official notice of the inspection sent (for scheduled inspections, at least 10 days before the start);

• the legal basis for the inspection, including the inspection order or other documents confirming its legality.

The law grants company representatives the right to request all supporting documents. If the documents are not presented or the audit does not meet the formal requirements, the company has the legal right to prevent officials from conducting the audit.

If the grounds for the audit are lawful and the documents have been properly presented, the company’s attorneys and management must be notified immediately.

How can a company’s top management be protected?

Top management—including directors, chief financial officers, chief operating officers, and chief accountants—are the first to face the risk of administrative or criminal liability in the event of legal violations.

To minimize these risks, the following measures should be taken:

First, all of a manager’s powers must be legally formalized. A common mistake occurs when a manager merely signs documents as a formality, while management decisions are made informally by others without any legal documentation. This creates grounds for holding the signatory liable, rather than the actual initiator of the decisions.

Second, it is necessary to ensure that managers have the opportunity to seek legal advice before signing any documents that may pose legal risks. If an order conflicts with the law, a manager has the right to formally record their professional disagreement or refuse to carry it out.

Third, every management decision must be legally documented. This includes internal correspondence, memos, reports, minutes, and letters sent from official corporate email addresses.

Fourth, it is advisable to implement an internal control system—compliance. This allows for monitoring high-risk transactions, vetting counterparties, and approving key contracts in accordance with legal requirements.

Conclusions

Despite the moratorium, it is impossible to completely rule out the possibility of an audit. Under martial law, businesses must operate in an environment of legal uncertainty, and therefore systematic preparation for risks is critically important.

Effective legal protection for a company is not just a matter of responding to existing challenges, but rather a proactive strategy that includes internal controls, process formalization, clear documentation, and professional legal support.

Special attention must be paid to the legal protection of top management, who bear personal responsibility for the company’s actions. It is precisely mistakes in the details—verbal orders, signatures without verification, and a lack of supporting documentation—that most often serve as grounds for initiating criminal and administrative proceedings.

Under martial law, not only flexibility but also legal compliance becomes a competitive advantage. Companies that establish internal guidelines for interacting with government agencies and strictly adhere to the law not only mitigate risks but also build trust in their brand at both the national and international levels.