Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is the most common article for attracting an official (usually a director) of a company that received money or property under business contracts from other business entities, such as other enterprises (even state enterprises) or banks, for example.

Often, the prosecutor's office and the court, the same actions of the accused are incorrectly qualified under Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as embezzlement of cash held by the bank, as well as under Art. 222 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since the qualification of actions under Art. 222 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is possible only if there are no signs of embezzlement.

The distinguishing features of these crimes are the signs of their subjective side - the content of intent, the motive, the purpose and the moment of origin. As the appropriation of someone else's property, actions can be qualified if, at the time of the provision of untrue information for the purpose of obtaining a loan, the person had the intention not to return it or personally appropriate the money received. However, if neither the investigation nor the court has established and proven the intent to non-return of the loan, the qualification under Art. 191 is not possible.

Moreover, usually a legal entity repays the debt in part, or transfers the collateral to the creditor. The creditor has the right to apply to the economic court and collect the debt from the legal entity.

These facts usually indicate that there was a civil-law relationship between the company and the bank and the director had no intent to commit theft with the bank (Article 24 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

Recognition of the defendant as guilty simultaneously in committing crimes under Art. 222 and 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is illegal, as the composition of these crimes are mutually exclusive.

In our practice there is a case of acquittal of acquittals under Art. 191 for such cases.