Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Business

Court orders destruction of over 766 kg of counterfeit Lavazza — six vehicles handed over to the Armed Forces of Ukraine

The court has concluded the case into the clandestine production and mass distribution of counterfeit coffee in the Kyiv region. The decision has practical consequences — from the disposal of the products to the transfer of vehicles to the army — but leaves questions about the effectiveness of oversight.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

December 31, 2025 · 2 min read

Court orders destruction of over 766 kg of counterfeit Lavazza — six vehicles handed over to the Armed Forces of Ukraine

What the court decided

The court found participants in an organized scheme for clandestine production and sale of counterfeit coffee presented as global brands guilty. In addition to suspended sentences, the court ordered the confiscation and destruction of hundreds of kilograms of counterfeit products. According to the registry, at least 766.25 kg of coffee under the Lavazza trademark were seized (excluding goods with unspecified weight).

How the scheme operated

According to the Bureau of Economic Security (BES), the operation ran from warehouses in Kyiv region: filling/packaging equipment, printing, transportation and online trade — all of this made it possible to pass off counterfeits as originals and sell them wholesale and retail through online platforms, retail outlets and markets. Among the counterfeited products were ORO, Lavazza Crema e gusto and Dallmayr Ethiopia.

"Equipment, finished products, vehicles, cash and documentation were seized. Part of the property was returned, which allowed illegal activity to resume"

— Bureau of Economic Security of Ukraine (based on court registry materials)

Consequences for consumers and the market

Counterfeit coffee is not just a matter of brands. It's a matter of safety and economics: unknown additives, lack of quality control, tax evasion. The economic losses from such schemes — for both manufacturers and the state — are measured in millions of hryvnias.

Handing over cars to the army: symbolic and practical

By court decision, six seized vehicles with an estimated value of about 4 million UAH were transferred to the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Earlier, in July, 11 luxury cars were seized as part of the investigation. The transfer of equipment is a practical outcome, but it does not solve the problem of the sources of financing for criminal networks.

Why this matters and what to expect

This case offers several key lessons: first, demand for cheaper alternatives creates a market for counterfeits; second, insufficient control over seizure and management of seized assets can allow criminals to return to business; third, the court's result shows that some assets can become a resource for the state if decisions are implemented promptly.

Brief forecast

Expect increased inspections along logistics chains and growing attention to e‑commerce as a channel for distributing counterfeits. For consumers this means: choose verified sources, pay attention to labeling and receipts. For the state — formalize practices for swift seizure and disposition of assets so that such investigations do not become a recurring problem.

Context: Earlier the BES also shut down underground workshops producing food products and counterfeit clothing; market analysts call for combining criminal proceedings with faster confiscation and transparent redistribution of property for public needs.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026