A serious dispute has erupted in the Ukrainian information space between the largest postal operator and the financial regulator. At the heart of the conflict is the question of exactly which personal data of citizens must be displayed on paper receipts and documents during financial transactions. The situation, which began with a statement by "Ukrposhta" regarding new requirements, escalated into a public refutation by the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU), causing confusion among the population and businesses.
"Ukrposhta" Statement: New Rules from August 1
It all started on Monday, August 3, 2026, when "Ukrposhta" officially announced the beginning of a new stage in working with payment documents. The company stated that starting August 1, paper receipts for utility and other payments would print full information about the payer. According to the postal operator's position, this requirement comes from the National Bank of Ukraine.
The list of data that, according to "Ukrposhta," must now be indicated on the receipt includes the payer's full name, the registration number of the taxpayer's account card (RNOCKPP), and the full bank card number when paying by card. At the same time, the company noted that clients who had previously provided their tax number when receiving other services are not obliged to do so again. However, "Ukrposhta" itself took the position of a critic of these requirements, stating that they contradict international standards for the protection of personal data, and appealed to the government and the ombudsman to review the rules.
Regulator Refutation: NBU Did Not Introduce Such Requirements
Already the next day, on August 4, the National Bank of Ukraine issued an official clarification that effectively disavowed the statement of the postal operator. The regulator categorically refuted the information that it had established new requirements for the mandatory printing of the individual tax number (INN) or the full bank card number in receipts.
The NBU emphasized that the information disseminated by "Ukrposhta" does not comply with current legislation. Furthermore, the regulator stated that it intends to check the practice of drawing up payment documents by the postal service after its public statements. The National Bank urged market participants to base discussions on regulation on the exact content of regulatory documents, not on interpretations.
Contradictory Data: Cash on Delivery and Tax Numbers
The situation is complicated by the fact that two different problems are being discussed simultaneously in the information field, which are often mixed up. The first concerns the printing of data on receipts, where the NBU has taken a clear position "against." The second problem is the identification of clients during financial transactions, specifically when arranging cash on delivery for postal shipments.
On Thursday, August 6, the General Director of "Ukrposhta" Igor Smiliansky clarified the situation with cash on delivery. He confirmed that when arranging such a service, the tax number must now be provided regardless of the transaction amount. Smiliansky clarified that these requirements apply to all financial service operators, not just the post office. At the same time, he suggested that during inspections, the NBU may require operators to additionally verify the correctness of the tax number if it is reported only orally. This creates a situation where requirements for receipts and requirements for identification during transactions may be interpreted differently.
Legal Analysis: Risk of Legal Uncertainty
The head of the business support practice at Juscutum, Artem Narodenko, notes that the root of the problem lies not so much in the text of the laws as in the ratio of regulatory provisions and the practice of their application. In the lawyer's opinion, if the regulator considers a certain detail mandatory, this must be directly and unambiguously enshrined in a regulatory legal act.
"In cases where the text allows for several interpretations or does not contain a direct indication of a universal obligation, there is a risk of different understanding of requirements by market participants," Narodenko explained. He emphasized that doubts about the content of the obligations of participants in the payment market should preferably be eliminated at the level of the law, not through scattered clarifications. The lawyer warned that the difference between the text of acts, official statements, and inspection practices creates significant risks for business, increasing compliance costs.
