Yevhen Riyako, CEO of Riyako & Partners and attorney-at-law, has published an op-ed in ZN.UA on the new wave of law-enforcement pressure against defense companies and how businesses can prepare for a search. Below is a short summary of the key points; the full version is available at the link at the end.
The era of an “unspoken immunity” for the defense sector is ending
In 2022–2024, law-enforcement agencies actively scrutinized defense companies, after which a relative lull followed — the number of criminal proceedings in the military-tech field dropped noticeably. But, as Yevhen Riyako notes, a new wave of searches swept through the industry in the summer of 2026, and the most high-profile episode was the operation at one of the largest manufacturers, Vyriy Industries. This is a signal to the entire sector: the time when the defense industry was effectively left untouched appears to be ending.
The reason, in the author’s assessment, is fairly prosaic. Over several years of full-scale war, Ukrainian defense companies have grown from volunteer initiatives and startups into systemic players with multi-million-dollar contracts, investment, and thousands of employees. The bigger the business, the greater the attention. The defense industry has come to be treated as an ordinary large business with the usual “classic” risks, and the state defense contract has become a convenient entry point for criminal proceedings.
What manufacturers are being accused of
In his op-ed, Yevhen Riyako explains the investigators’ logic. Most claims rest on the premise that profitability under a defense contract should supposedly not exceed a certain level — and so the investigation seeks to portray the cost calculation of the product as inflated, and on that basis to allege losses caused to the state.
In practice, disputes most often revolve around several questions: whether administrative and indirect costs (salaries, rent, logistics, legal support, equipment maintenance) may be included in the cost of goods; whether components were purchased at market prices; how to assess transactions with related companies and foreign suppliers; and whether financial operations conceal an attempt to launder funds. The problem, the author emphasizes, is that manufacturing defense products is far more complex than the formula “cost of components plus markup” — it includes design, testing, certification, logistics, maintaining a team, production security, and adapting products to the needs of specific units.
The problem is not what is being examined, but how
The central thesis of the column: a significant share of these proceedings looks like unqualified work. Investigators systematically fail to account for the specifics of defense manufacturing — they are not familiar with DSTU requirements and military standards, they attempt to allege tax violations without understanding how taxation works in this niche, and they transfer approaches developed for civilian business onto an industry that operates by different rules. A telling example the author cites is the price-adjustment mechanism in long-term contracts: fluctuations in the cost of drone components are a normal, agreed industry practice, but the investigation treats such calculations as a sign of a scheme rather than a routine financial mechanism.
Yevhen Riyako also draws attention to external signs of pressure observed in the public sphere around the relevant cases: searches conducted without court warrants, coverage by anonymous Telegram channels that knew the details before any official communication, and “exposé” materials from certain civic structures. All of this, in his view, resembles information pressure and a redistribution of the market rather than an objective investigation — and it is especially dangerous right now, when the industry is entering international contracts and attracting foreign investors.
What companies should do now
The author advises preparing on two levels at once. At the tactical level — for the search itself: the team must know the protocol for conduct during investigative actions, and documents and equipment should be organized so that a possible seizure does not halt production (every day of downtime in military-tech means losses for the front). At the strategic level — a preventive audit of criminal-law risks and documentary discipline. Companies often make the right business decisions but document them in a way that gives the investigation a formal basis for claims, even where there is no violation in substance.
The column’s conclusion is direct: legal defense and compliance for the military-tech sector are no longer a luxury but a baseline condition for staying in the game — in a market that has only just learned to make money and, for that very reason, has become of interest not only to investors but also to law enforcement.
Read the full version
The full text of Yevhen Riyako’s column — with a detailed breakdown of the claim scenarios and practical recommendations — is available at ZN.UA (in Ukrainian): “Military tech in the spotlight of law enforcement. What a defense company should do if it faces a search.”
Does your company operate in the defense sector and want to prepare for a possible search or run a criminal-law risk audit? Leave a request — the lawyers of Riyako & Partners will get in touch within an hour. Learn more about this practice on our business protection and white-collar defense page.