Unlawful Pressure on the Energy Market: Challenges for Business in 2026

18.12.2025

Energy is the foundation of the state’s defense capability and economic stability. The energy industry remains strategic, yet at the same time, one of the most vulnerable to unlawful pressure.

In 2026, risks for energy businesses are shaped not only by actual violations but also by the industry’s massive influence, enormous financial volumes, and the political and social sensitivity of management decisions. In this context, the focus should not be on “how to avoid inspections,” but on how to prepare the company and its leader for inspections without losing control of the business.

This was precisely the topic of the Energy Club webinar dedicated to unlawful pressure on energy sector companies and business expectations for 2026. Oleksandr Horobets, Partner of the Business Security Practice at the law firm Juscutum, outlined the key risks for energy companies and their executives.

The discussion was not about theoretical threats, but about specific pressure scenarios that businesses are already facing or are highly likely to face in the near future.

Moratorium and Reality

In wartime conditions, the issue of energy has gained critical relevance: constant enemy attacks, infrastructure damage, and its urgent restoration. That is why a moratorium on business inspections by law enforcement agencies is currently in effect. Until January 1, 2026, Law No. 4217-IX of January 14, 2025, extended the moratorium to support the critical energy sector. In particular, it prohibits the forced collection of debts, seizure of property, and bankruptcy of state coal mining enterprises and regional power distribution companies (oblenergos) in combat zones.

At the same time, even lawful and objectively necessary decisions in the energy sector are often perceived as potentially risky. Any changes in regulation, tariffs, or management decisions automatically fall into the field of view of security forces.

Criminal Proceedings as a Control Tool

The state is tightening control over risks of possible price manipulation regarding the cost of works, goods, and services. There is an increase in the number of inspections in the electricity and gas markets. Unlawful pressure includes, in particular, inspections within the framework of criminal proceedings, which become a lever of influence on business by law enforcement.

By “unlawful” in this context, we mean the initiation of proceedings due to the state’s misunderstanding of the specifics of economic activity in the energy sphere.

There is a growing number of proceedings concerning:

• financing of measures to strengthen critical infrastructure objects;
• government contracts/procurement;
• construction and reconstruction of energy facilities.

In practice, “proceedings based on the fact” without a specific suspect often take place. Key significance for business: the criminal process is used as a means of access to documents and management decisions.

Automatic Risk Indicators

Inspections are initiated not only by humans but also by algorithms. Risk is becoming the new norm, not the exception. Automatic risk triggers include:

• Significant volumes of financing.
• Import of critical equipment.
• Operations with high-risk counterparties.

Logic of the Risk Map: Combination of Tools

Pressure is formed not by a single agency, but by a combination of tools from different structures: law enforcement, regulatory, administrative, and media.

Even minor violations can lead to the blocking of energy enterprises’ activities.

The AMCU (Antimonopoly Committee), which participated in exceptional cases until 2020, is now an active player. It has become an independent entity with the authority to involve law enforcement agencies in inspections and “generously” shares results with them.

Furthermore, ARMA (Asset Recovery and Management Agency) transfers into management not only shopping centers but also fuel and energy sector enterprises. The norms of criminal and criminal procedural law will serve as a countermeasure to orchestrated PR attacks by law enforcement aimed at pressuring the public and the judiciary.

Pressure Scenarios

The logic of pressure is almost always the same and well-practiced: criminal proceedings → searches → halting of processes. This is not an exception or “exotic” — it is a typical scenario for dealing with energy businesses.

• Regulatory inspections become a tool for the actual blocking of operational activities.
• Court seizures of assets and/or special accounts lead to contract disruptions, penalties, and chain obligations to counterparties.
• Pressure is quickly personalized: interrogation of the leader, notification of suspicion, information support in the media.

A separate element of this scenario is the seizure and confiscation of primary documentation. In practice, law enforcement agencies often do not have a real need for original documents to conduct expertise. Seizure in such cases performs another function — to paralyze management, deprive the company of operational control over processes, and create additional pressure on the leadership.

The key risk for business here is obvious: all pressure scenarios ultimately converge on the CEO and top management. They become the decision-making point, the object of personal responsibility, and the main target for forceful and media influence.

High-Risk Zones for Energy Companies

• Procurement, reconstruction, and construction.
• Tariffs and contractual prices.
• Lease and transfer of infrastructure.
• Import of equipment.
• Related companies (affiliated contracts).
• Management remuneration (bonuses).
• Regional energy security.
• Accounting and taxes, technical safety, state property, and investment programs.

How to Defend: Preparing the Company and the Leader

Formal compliance with regulated procedures does not equal real client protection. Government contracts pass through a huge number of filters. The preparation strategy includes a three-level system: documentary readiness, operational readiness, and risk management basics.

Defense is a strategic management function, not a reaction to a crisis.