When deciding about seizure of property in order to secure the confiscation of property as a criminal-law measure against a legal entity, investigating judges (court) do not always follow the rules of the law. They satisfy the request of the investigator, prosecutor and seize property without sufficient grounds. This is evidenced by the large number of decisions on the cancellation of seizure of property contained in the Unified Register of Judgments.

The author of the article set an aim, according to the analysis of provisions of the Ukrainian legislation in force and materials of the law-enforcement practice to investigate the grounds for the cancellation of the seizure of property and the procedural ways of appealing against the decision on seizure of property of the legal entity in respect of which the proceedings are being conducted.

It is established that in addition to appealing the decision on seizure of property on appeal, the criminal procedural law provides for the possibility of cancellation the relevant decision by filing a separate petition to the investigating judge (court). The legislator has determined the grounds for canceling the seizure of property: unreasonableness of the seizure and the absence of the need for further application of this security measure.

Attention is drawn to the fact that seizure is imposed on sufficient grounds to believe that in cases provided for by the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court may apply a criminal-law measure in the form of confiscation of property to the legal entity in respect of which the proceedings are being conducted.

Confiscation of property is applicable only with the basic measure in the form of liquidation of the legal entity as provided for in Article 96–9 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The author cites the court’s decision about the cancellation of seizure of property. The person was informed of the suspicion of committing a crime under Part 3 of Art. 212 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine which excludes the possibility of applying any criminal-law measure to the legal entity in respect of which the proceedings are being conducted and therefore the seizure was unreasonabled.

It is concluded that the seizure may be imposed exclusively after notification about the suspicion to the authorized person of legal entity and making relevant information in the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations about the legal entity. And in the case of unjustified and unreasonabled seizure of property, the representative of the legal entity in respect of which the proceedings are being conducted or other persons, in the cases provided for by the CPC of Ukraine have the opportunity to protect the property rights in such ways: 1) use the procedural mechanism provided for in Art. 174 of the CPC of Ukraine; 2) file an appeal in the order of item 9 of Part 1 of Art. 309 of the CPC of Ukraine; 3) use both methods deciding and choosing independently which method is more effective.

Keywords: seizure of property; legal entity in respect of which the proceedings are being conducted; petition to cancel the seizure of property; confiscation of property.