Незважаючи на шахрайство, переказ коштів не скасували.

Незважаючи на is a fixed expression meaning despite or in spite of.

Literally, it comes from the idea of not looking at / not paying attention to, but in modern Ukrainian it usually functions as a set phrase, so it is best learned as one unit:

• незважаючи на дощ = despite the rain
• незважаючи на труднощі = despite the difficulties

So in this sentence, it introduces a concession: something happened or did not happen despite some obstacle or negative circumstance.

After незважаючи на, Ukrainian normally uses the accusative case.

So шахрайство here is accusative singular. The reason it does not visibly change is that шахрайство is a neuter inanimate noun, and for this type of noun the nominative and accusative singular are the same:

• nominative: шахрайство
• accusative: шахрайство

So the case is different grammatically, even though the form looks identical.

This is a noun phrase made of:

• переказ = transfer, remittance
• коштів = of funds

So grammatically, it is transfer of funds.

A few useful details:

• переказ is a masculine noun.
• кошти means funds and is mostly used in the plural.
• коштів is the genitive plural form, used here to mean of funds.

This genitive pattern is very common in Ukrainian:

• переказ коштів = transfer of funds
• оплата товару = payment for the product / payment of the product
• зміна плану = change of plan

In this sentence, переказ коштів is best understood as the direct object, not the subject.

The verb скасували is a 3rd person plural past form with no stated subject. That creates an indefinite-personal meaning, something like:

• they didn’t cancel the transfer of funds
• or, more naturally in English, the transfer of funds was not canceled

So the underlying structure is close to:

• (Вони) не скасували переказ коштів.

Why can this be confusing? Because переказ has the same form in the nominative and accusative singular:

• nominative: переказ
• accusative: переказ

So it looks like a subject form, but here it functions as the object.

This is a very common Ukrainian pattern. The 3rd person plural can be used when the doer is unknown, unimportant, or deliberately left unnamed.

So не скасували literally means they didn’t cancel, but it often corresponds to English passive wording:

• не скасували = they didn’t cancel
• natural English translation: was not canceled

This construction is often called an indefinite-personal sentence.

It is especially common when the speaker cares more about the event than about who performed it.

This is about aspect.

• скасували = perfective
• скасовували = imperfective

Here, скасували is used because the sentence refers to a single completed action of canceling, viewed as a whole. With negation, it means that this action did not happen.

So:

• не скасували = they did not cancel / it was not canceled

If you used не скасовували, the meaning would shift. It could suggest:

• they were not canceling it
• they did not cancel it on some occasion or over some period
• they did not engage in the process/practice of canceling it

In this sentence, the perfective form is the natural choice because the focus is on whether the cancellation happened or not.

Yes, absolutely. That would also be correct.

The difference is mainly style and structure:

• Переказ коштів не скасували
  more natural, more dynamic, often common in everyday or neutral reporting
• Переказ коштів не був скасований
  more explicitly passive, often more formal, bureaucratic, or written

So both can mean essentially the same thing, but the original version sounds less heavy and often more natural in ordinary Ukrainian.

Also notice the agreement in the passive version:

• переказ is masculine singular
• so the participle is скасований

Ukrainian word order is flexible, and it is often used to shape emphasis rather than basic grammatical meaning.

Here, the order does two useful things:

1. Незважаючи на шахрайство comes first, so the sentence immediately sets up the contrast: despite the fraud...
2. переказ коштів comes before the verb, which keeps the focus on the transfer itself before telling us what happened to it.

Other orders are also possible, for example:

• Незважаючи на шахрайство, не скасували переказ коштів.

That version is also grammatical, but it shifts the rhythm and emphasis slightly.

So the original order is natural and clear, especially if the speaker wants to foreground the circumstance first, then the transfer, then the result.

Both relate to money, but the tone is different.

• гроші = money, everyday word
• кошти = funds, a bit more formal or institutional

In financial, legal, banking, or administrative contexts, кошти is often the more natural choice. That is why переказ коштів sounds like a standard financial expression.

Compare:

• переказ коштів = transfer of funds
• переказ грошей = transfer of money

Both are possible, but коштів sounds more official and fits this sentence very well.

The opening phrase Незважаючи на шахрайство is a concessive phrase, and here it is set off from the main clause with a comma.

The comma helps show the structure clearly:

• Despite the fraud, ...
• then the main statement follows

So the comma marks the boundary between:

• the concessive/background part
• and the main clause

In this sentence, that punctuation is natural and standard.

It sounds fairly neutral, factual, and somewhat formal, especially because of words like шахрайство and переказ коштів.

It could easily appear in:

• news reporting
• official communication
• a banking or legal context
• a fraud investigation summary

It does not sound very conversational in the way everyday speech often does. In casual speech, someone might choose simpler wording, but the sentence itself is completely normal Ukrainian.