Supreme Court: Marital Property Claims Cannot Be Used to Establish Ownership of Money Seized as Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
⚖️ Ukraine | Family Disputes | Division of Marital Property
Case Details
Case No.: 521/5435/16-ц
Proceedings No.: 61-24103св18
Court: Supreme Court, Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court
Decision Date: 2 October 2019
Case Category: Family Law / Civil Procedure
Subject Matter: Division of Marital Property
Sub-Subject: Money Seized in Criminal Proceedings / Physical Evidence / Limits of Civil Jurisdiction
Relationship: Registered marriage from October 2001 to December 2007; subsequent de facto family relationship alleged by the claimant
Property in Dispute: USD 1,900 in cash allegedly accumulated by the parties during their family relationship
Criminal Proceedings: Cash discovered and seized during a search conducted in criminal proceedings
Status of the Property: Cash attached and treated as physical evidence in the criminal proceedings
Third Party: Prosecutor’s Office of Odesa Region
Claim: Recognition of 1/2 of the seized cash as the claimant’s share of joint property
Outcome: Claim dismissed; a civil action for division of joint property could not be used to establish ownership of money constituting physical evidence and the subject matter of criminal proceedings
Background of the Dispute
The claimant sought the division of joint property against the respondent, with the Prosecutor’s Office of Odesa Region participating as a third party.
According to the claimant, the parties were in a registered marriage from October 2001 until December 2007. Following the divorce, she alleged that they continued living together, maintaining a common household and raising their daughter.
The claimant stated that during their life together they had accumulated USD 1,900, which they intended to use for renovation of their apartment.
The money, however, became involved in an entirely different legal context.
During a pre-trial criminal investigation, a district court authorised a search of the respondent’s premises for the purpose of discovering and seizing documents, objects and property relevant to the alleged criminal offence.
During the search, investigators discovered and seized cash, including 19 USD 100 banknotes.
The serial numbers of those banknotes corresponded to those recorded in an inspection protocol forming part of the criminal case materials.
The money was consequently included in the criminal proceedings as physical evidence, and the investigating judge ordered its attachment.
The Lower Courts Recognised a 1/2 Share in the Money
Despite the procedural status of the cash, the lower courts granted the claimant’s civil claim.
They recognised her ownership of one-half of the seized money, treating the funds as joint property of the parties.
The Supreme Court held that this approach was incorrect.
Can a Marital Property Claim Determine Ownership of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings?
The Supreme Court answered this question in the negative in the circumstances of the case.
The Court analysed Articles 69–71 and 74 of the Family Code of Ukraine and acknowledged the ordinary function of proceedings concerning the division of joint property.
Such proceedings are a private-law mechanism intended to determine the parties’ rights in property and, where those rights have been violated, to provide an effective civil remedy.
But that mechanism has limits.
The Supreme Court stressed that initiating proceedings for the division of joint property and recognition of a share is inadmissible where the action is not genuinely directed at protecting private rights and interests.
Civil proceedings cannot be used for purposes outside their proper private-law function.
The Status of the USD 1,900 Was Central to the Case
The disputed money was not merely cash held by one of the former spouses.
It had been:
discovered during a search authorised within criminal proceedings;
seized by investigators;
linked through the serial numbers of the banknotes to materials in the criminal investigation;
recognised as physical evidence; and
made subject to an attachment ordered by an investigating judge.
These circumstances fundamentally affected the legal analysis.
The Supreme Court concluded that a private-law claim concerning division of joint property could not be used to determine the public-law consequences associated with property forming part of criminal proceedings.
Civil Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Resolve Public-Law Issues
The Supreme Court drew an important distinction between the proper function of civil proceedings and issues arising within criminal proceedings.
Private-law instruments — including division of joint property and recognition of ownership of a share — should not be used by participants in civil relations:
to avoid public-law obligations;
to release property from attachment;
to resolve matters belonging to public-law relations; or
to obtain a civil judgment capable of predetermining issues arising in those public-law relations.
The Court emphasised that the purpose of civil justice is the effective protection of violated, unrecognised or disputed private rights, freedoms and interests.
Accordingly, the person seeking civil protection must demonstrate that such a private right or interest has actually been infringed.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had incorrectly granted the claim and recognised the claimant’s ownership of one-half of the USD 1,900.
Because the disputed cash constituted physical evidence in criminal proceedings and was connected with the alleged commission of a criminal offence, a civil claim for division of joint property was not an admissible mechanism for determining ownership of a share in those funds.
The Supreme Court therefore:
cancelled the decision of the Malynovskyi District Court of Odesa dated 7 December 2016;
cancelled the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Odesa Region dated 12 April 2017; and
entered a new judgment dismissing the claim for division of joint property.
Why This Decision Matters
1. The marital-property regime does not operate in procedural isolation
Even where a claimant argues that money was accumulated during marriage or family life, the court must consider the property’s existing legal and procedural status.
2. Physical evidence presents a fundamentally different situation
Money that has been seized, attached and incorporated into criminal proceedings as physical evidence cannot necessarily be treated in the same way as ordinary property held by one spouse.
3. Civil proceedings have defined limits
The decision demonstrates that a family-law claim cannot be used as an alternative procedural route to determine questions that properly arise within criminal proceedings.
4. The purpose of the claim matters
Courts must examine whether a claimant is genuinely seeking protection of a violated private right or whether the civil action is being used to produce consequences in another area of law.
5. Family disputes can intersect with criminal proceedings
Where marital assets are seized during a criminal investigation, the analysis extends beyond ordinary rules governing joint marital ownership. The procedural status of the property may become decisive.
Lions Lawyers’ Analysis
This decision illustrates an important limitation on the otherwise broad rules governing division of joint property.
Ordinarily, the principal questions in a marital-property dispute concern when the property was acquired, the source of the funds and whether the property falls within the parties’ joint ownership regime.
Here, however, another question came first:
Can a civil court determine ownership of property that has already become physical evidence and the subject of procedural measures in criminal proceedings?
The Supreme Court held that the ordinary private-law mechanism for dividing joint property could not be used for that purpose.
The decision therefore highlights the importance of analysing not only the substantive origin of disputed assets but also their current procedural status.
This can be particularly significant where family, commercial or ownership disputes intersect with criminal investigations, asset attachment or other public-law proceedings.
Lions Lawyers advises clients on family and property disputes in Ukraine, including division of marital property, disputes involving seized or attached assets, ownership claims, enforcement-related property disputes and matters involving parallel civil and criminal proceedings. We provide full-service legal representation as well as standalone legal opinions, enabling clients to assess their existing strategy and, where appropriate, identify alternative legal approaches.
GET IN TOUCH FOR A FREE 1-HOUR INITIAL CONSULTATION.