Новости

Polish firm Sheviakov Consult: brazen scamming of clients and intimidation with criminal charges

• 28.08.2025 09:53

In recent years, one interesting player has appeared on the Polish legal services market – the firm Sheviakov Consult. Formally, it was liquidated and disappeared from the register, but in fact it continues to operate, having only changed its legal shell.

On signs and social media, the company promises business support and assistance to migrants. But behind the facade are stories of pressure on clients, threats of “criminal liability” for negative reviews, and suspicious maneuvers with the corporate shell.

In 2018, Sheviakov Consult sp. z oo (KRS number 0000743918) was registered in Lublin. The founders were Mykola Sheviakov and Olha Fal. Formally, the company was engaged in “legal services” (PKD code 69.10.Z).

Six years later, in March 2024, the legal entity was officially struck off the Polish register. It is worth adding that, according to the submitted reports, the company did not shine with financial indicators. More precisely, it operated at a loss. If, of course, these reports are to be believed.

But the veracity of the reports is questionable. For several reasons. Firstly, the brand itself has not disappeared. Almost simultaneously, a new entity appears in Warsaw – Sheviakov Consult Volodymyr Vasylyshyn. This is no longer a joint venture, but a private enterprise registered at ul. Pańska 96/84.

However, on the website and in social networks, the company continues to operate under the old name, publishes contacts and even proudly puts the copyright “2018–2025”.

At first glance, it is a normal business migration from one legal shell to another. But for clients, such a trick means one thing: it becomes much more difficult to seek real liability from a company that has disappeared from KRS.

Reviews: the shadow of a “criminal case” and a strange silence

On popular Polish review sites such as GoWork, Sheviakov Consult cards are available for both the liquidated sp. z oo and the current company. The comments are mixed: from gratitude to criticism.

Some former clients claim that the company is trying to put pressure on those who are dissatisfied – hinting at the possibility of criminal liability for “slander”. However, there are no confirmed public cases yet: neither the publication of personal data of clients, nor official lawsuits have been recorded in open sources. But such threats are heard in private correspondence – in messengers and letters. Here is an example of such correspondence, which was provided to the editorial board by one of Sheviakov Consult’s clients.

He received this message from Sheviakov Consult in response to his review, in which he expressed dissatisfaction with his experience working with Sheviakov Consult lawyers. Moreover, the reaction from Sheviakov Consult to his review was clearly inadequate.

The mention of a “criminal offence for a review” in Poland sounds quite alarming – the local criminal code has an article on slander (art. 212 kk). Although practice shows that honest criticism and an honest description of experience are protected. Pressure on the consumer with the help of “sticks” from the Criminal Code is increasingly perceived as unfair business practice. But it would be frivolous to ignore this threat, especially if a non-citizen of Poland is subjected to prosecution.

Why is this important?

The history of Sheviakov Consult clearly shows how a legal business can maneuver between different shells and legal entities, preserving the brand and clients, but actually avoiding responsibility. For consumers, this means the following: even if a company behaves in bad faith, it can be difficult to hold it accountable - the company was yesterday, and today it is already different, with a new owner and form.

Sheviakov Consult is an example of a small company that lives at the intersection of the legal field and gray practices. The website and social networks promise professional help. In reality, there are hints of criminal charges for criticism and suspicions of "slander."

In reality, this means that Sheviakov Consult simply "cheats" its clients. At least some of them. It can be assumed that most of those "cheated" do not risk complaining about the law firm, rightly believing that proving their case in a foreign country will be very difficult. Especially considering the limited financial resources of the complainant and unclear legal status.

For those who still try to recover the money wasted from Sheviakov Consult, the owners of the company Mykola Sheviakov and Volodymyr Vasylyshyn find arguments in the form of threats of criminal prosecution. Which quickly discourages the desire to seek justice.

What does Polish law say?

• UOKiK, the antimonopoly regulator, has been actively fining companies for manipulating reviews for several years now: buying “praiseworthy” comments, deleting negative ones, and pressuring customers.
• UODO, the Polish data protection regulator, regularly reminds: publishing personal data without consent or legal basis is a direct violation of the GDPR (RODO). Multi-million dollar fines are threatened for this.
• Courts: Firms can resort to civil proceedings (art. 23–24 kc) to protect their reputation. But threatening a client with jail for a review is a path that in itself can become grounds for scrutiny by regulators.

That is why complaints to UOKiK and UODO, recording threats, screenshots of correspondence and publications are a key tool for protection. Polish regulators are currently closely monitoring the market for services and reviews. But without the initiative of the clients themselves, such stories may remain in the shadows.

Disclosure of attorney-client privilege: the red line of Sheviakov Consult 

However, in the case of Sheviakov Consult, the story went beyond simple pressure on clients. In one of its public posts, the firm disclosed confidential client data. In essence, we are talking about the disclosure of attorney-client privilege - the most serious of the "red lines" in the legal profession.

Violation of attorney-client privilege in Poland entails not only professional disqualification, but also criminal liability. According to Art. 266 § 1 of the Polish Criminal Code, for disclosure of information obtained in the course of legal activity, a lawyer faces a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment.

The laws governing attorney-client privilege leave no doubt:

• The Advocacy Act (1982) and the Legal Advisers Act (1982) expressly prohibit the disclosure of any information obtained in the course of providing qualified legal assistance;
• the duty to keep secrets is perpetual and cannot be cancelled either by time or by the will of the client;
• The Code of Professional Ethics extends the duty of confidentiality to the lawyer’s employees.

In fact, Sheviakov Consult, in trying to discredit a dissatisfied client, violated the fundamental principle of the profession - trust and confidentiality. This is not just a questionable business practice, but a direct violation of the law, which should be the subject of a separate investigation.