Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―Modern Research and Education‖ (May 2-4, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. – Warsaw, Poland, 2026. - 523 p.

21 Economic Co-operation and Development define foreign investments as capital outlays beyond national borders aimed at expanding production or exports [5]. Prominent economist Stephen Hymer emphasizes a key element of foreign investment—the presence of control over assets by the investor, i.e., the ability to influence their use and management [6, p. 63]. It is precisely the presence of a long- term economic interest and the ability to influence the investment object that distinguishes foreign direct investment from portfolio investment. This definition is of primary importance for the legal classification of types of foreign capital, which is essential for identifying the legal regimes governing their regulation. In the Ukrainian legal environment, the term "foreign investment" has undergone a number of interpretations in legal doctrine. This is due to the need to ensure an appropriate legal regime for various forms of capital arriving from abroad, as well as to define legal guarantees for investors. For instance, V. H. Fedorenko and V. B. Zakhozhai interpret foreign investments as all types of assets invested in objects of investment activity within the territory of a given state [7, p. 86]. In our opinion, this definition is not sufficiently comprehensive, as it does not include reference to the intended purpose of the investment, which is a key element in identifying investments as a legal category. The definition proposed by L. N. Pavlova clarifies the previous one, stating that foreign investments are all types of material and intellectual assets invested by foreign investors in entrepreneurial and other types of activity with the aim of making a profit [8, p. 181]. We believe that the exclusive reference to profit-oriented goals narrows the understanding of investments, as it fails to consider nonprofit or social motivations that are inherent in many forms of investment, particularly in the fields of healthcare, education, or infrastructure. At the same time, Professor V. M. Kosak draws attention to certain terminological shortcomings in the aforementioned legislative definition, particularly the use of the abstract term "assets" as a generic concept [9, p. 28]. He proposes replacing this category with specific investment objects, such as money, securities, and property rights. We share this position, as the term "assets" has an overly broad