This report examines the use of criminal law mechanisms not for the legitimate prosecution of offences, but as a lever of corporate, asset-related, and negotiation pressure on business. It analyzes the legal and factual indicators of fabricated prosecution: a private-law core to the dispute, late criminalization following a commercial conflict, disproportionate procedural measures, weak individualization of charges, pressure on defense lawyers, and the presence of external commercial or corruption-related interests. The study explores the distortion of fair trial standards (Article 14 ICCPR), the use of arbitrary detention as a coercive bargaining tool (Article 9 ICCPR, WGAD practice), violations of international standards on the independence of legal defense, and the corruption and institutional dimensions of the problem in light of UNCAC and OECD Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct. The author proposes a multi-layered defense model — from qualifying the nature of the dispute and documenting procedural violations to engaging international mechanisms: UN treaty bodies, the WGAD, asylum procedures, and non-refoulement safeguards.
Citation Rules
- Mandatory source attribution. When using ARGA Observatory materials, the full name must be cited.
- Date and version indication. For analytical reports, the year of publication is mandatory.
- Link to the original. Electronic materials must be accompanied by an active link to the official website.
- Context preservation. Citations must not be shortened or altered in a way that distorts the original meaning.
- Note on adaptation. If the text is abridged or translated, state: "adapted from ARGA Observatory report".
- No commercial use without written permission from the organization.
- Data accuracy preservation. Charts and tables must be reproduced without changes.