Defense contracts without criminal liability: Danylo Hetmantsev justifies the risks of opacity
In July 2025, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine considered draft law No. 13423, which provides for the introduction of a special legal regime for enterprises of the defense-industrial complex. The legislative initiative provides for the release of officials of such enterprises from criminal liability for actions that formally contain signs of a crime, if they were committed in the process of executing a defense contract and had a socially useful purpose. The document has already been registered by 126 people’s deputies, of which 123 represent the “Servant of the People” faction.
The draft law proposes to create a separate mechanism of legal protection for enterprises included in the closed list of defense-industrial enterprises, which is approved by the Ministry of Defense. The special treatment will only apply to entities that perform defense government contracts in wartime.
According to the text of the draft law, even if the actions of enterprise employees formally fall under articles of the Criminal Code, they will not bear criminal liability if it is proven that these actions were directly aimed at fulfilling a defense order, did not pursue personal gain and had a public purpose. The application of such immunity from criminal prosecution will be possible subject to the approval of the General Prosecutor’s Office.
The initiative has caused debate in society and among experts, as it is not only about errors in documentation or violations of deadlines, but also about potential exemption from responsibility for corruption crimes if they are recognized as part of production or supply activities within the scope of a defense order.
His position on the draft law expressed head of the parliamentary committee on finance, tax and customs policy, Danylo Hetmantsev, who commented on the logic and justification of the initiative. According to him, in the conditions of war, the defense industry of Ukraine is excessively regulated, which creates risks not only for its development, but also for the physical existence of enterprises. He noted that among the typical violations that occur in practice, we are talking about non-compliance with environmental standards or labor protection standards, which are difficult to implement in the conditions of urgent execution of a state order.
Hetmantsev emphasized that the number of necessary permits and approvals is so large that in peacetime the process of obtaining all documents could last until 2030 or 2031. According to him, the enterprises of the defense sector cannot afford such delays, so they perform tasks in conditions of regulatory uncertainty or violations.
“We take businesses out of the risk of being closed and going to jail because they work and can’t do otherwise. The number of all kinds of permits is so large that if they had followed the path of obtaining documents peacefully, they would have opened sometime in 2030-2031. Thank them for not doing this.”– Getmantsev stated.
At the same time, he emphasized that exemption from criminal liability does not mean the absence of an investigation. Each case will be considered separately, and dismissal is possible only with the approval of the General Prosecutor’s Office. Thus, the mechanism is not automatic and requires legal confirmation of the legality of actions.
In response to concerns about the closed list of companies eligible for such status, Hetmantsev acknowledged that some loss of transparency is acceptable in wartime. He stated: “I myself have been fighting corruption since 2019, but in certain matters we have to take risks of opacity in order to save the country.”
When asked why the draft law does not limit immunity to certain types of crimes, Hetmantsev answered that the court will make the final decision in each specific case. In his opinion, this reduces the risks of abuse.
Summarizing, Hetmantsev emphasized that the proposed draft law creates a balance between the need for operational development of the defense sector and the national goal of ensuring the effective execution of orders for the Armed Forces.
Discussion of the initiative continues. Some experts are concerned that the wording of “socially useful purpose” can be used to remove responsibility for corrupt practices. Others believe that in the face of full-scale war, the government has a duty to protect the defense industry, even by lowering standards of transparency.
The fate of the draft law will depend on the final formulation of its norms before the second reading and the position of the parliamentary factions. Obviously, the document already has strong support from the Servant of the People faction, but the final decision has not yet been made.
