How the Krupa Case Highlights Common Challenges in Recovering Assets from Abroad

The challenges of recovering property taken abroad by corruption suspects have been discussed since the time of Yanukovych and his associates. However, this issue remains unresolved today. A striking example of the obstacles that may arise is the case of Tetiana Krupa, the former head of the Khmelnytskyi MSEC.

In that case, despite the seizure of more than 150 real estate properties in Ukraine, the investigation still faces difficulties in blocking the suspect’s and her family’s foreign accounts. According to Hlavkom, the assets in question amount to nearly $2.8 million held in banks in Poland, Switzerland, and Austria.

This fact supports our argument that successful asset recovery from abroad requires not only effective cooperation between law enforcement and judicial authorities across countries but also adherence to a certain level of confidentiality. This is why the practice of publicly disclosing sought-after foreign assets before their seizure is deeply concerning. Even more troubling is that such disclosures often come from the Asset Recovery and Management Agency, which should prioritize effectively blocking these assets before working on their return to Ukraine.

It is important to understand that asset recovery is a comprehensive process. First, the assets must be identified and seized. Then, a court must issue a guilty verdict confirming their criminal origin and justifying their confiscation. This is a lengthy procedure, and the premature dissemination of information about the assets before they are seized can potentially help hide them.

The financial aspect is also a crucial element of international cooperation. Article 57 of the UN Convention Against Corruption grants the requested state the right to compensation for costs related to the asset recovery process and allows for the possibility of concluding separate international treaties regarding the disposal of seized property.

To strengthen asset recovery mechanisms, it is essential to improve legislation on property confiscation. In addition, cooperation between law enforcement agencies and their counterparts in other countries should be developed in accordance with international standards, as outlined in relevant conventions.

Effective asset recovery from abroad is possible only through the professional work of pre-trial investigation bodies and high-quality international cooperation. Therefore, it is crucial that each body focuses on its primary functions, as premature public statements about identified assets may pose risks to their potential confiscation.

We believe that the Krupa case and other similar instances should serve as a warning for Ukrainian institutions handling critical matters such as locating assets abroad and returning them to Ukraine. Achieving a high-quality result requires significant effort, and premature publicity can undermine the work of law enforcement agencies.