Questionable income legality and conflicts of interest: what we would ask HACC judicial candidates

On February 16, interviews with candidates for judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court and the HACC Appeals Chamber will finally begin.

The second attempt to fill judicial vacancies at the HACC and its Appeals Chamber has at last reached its final stage. After 73 candidates passed the qualification exam, on February 5, the Public Council of International Experts (PCIE) asked the HQCJ to convene special joint sessions (interviews) to assess whether candidates for HACC judgeships meet integrity criteria.

This means the PCIE will review all candidates admitted to this stage of the HACC competition. In fact, the PCIE “filter” is a stage specific to competitions for anti-corruption court judges: the involvement of international experts makes it possible to run a selection process with stronger safeguards of independence and to reduce the risks of political or other undue influence over appointments.

Following these special joint sessions, a decision will be made on whether each candidate meets integrity requirements. Such a decision requires a majority vote of all those present—HQCJ members and experts together—while at least half of the international experts must vote in favor. If no decision is reached, the candidate is automatically eliminated from the competition.

At TI Ukraine, we are also analyzing candidates admitted to this stage. In this piece, we want to share the most common issues we identified while reviewing information about those seeking to become judges of the HACC and its Appeals Chamber.

What will HACC judicial candidates be asked about?

First, a definition. The law provides that a judicial candidate is considered to have integrity if there are no serious doubts that they are honest, independent, impartial, non-bribe-taking, ethically compliant, and irreproachable both professionally and in private life, and that all their property and lifestyle correspond to their official income.

Unfortunately, based on our preliminary assessment, not all 72 candidates (Tetiana Kononenko withdrew from the competition) meet these requirements. We should stress that we reviewed only publicly available information about participants and formulated our questions accordingly. At interviews, candidates will have an opportunity to provide explanations and persuade outside observers otherwise. 

So what concerns did we find? Let us go point by point.

1. Declared asset values do not match market prices

Candidates often report real estate and vehicle values that are significantly below market levels at the time of purchase. 

This practice may indicate artificial undervaluation in documents to evade taxes, financial monitoring, or conceal the true origin of funds. In some cases, we found that the declared and actual values of such assets differed severalfold. That raises serious questions about the lawfulness of the sources used to acquire the property.

2. Official income does not match actual lifestyle

For some candidates, declared income differs significantly from spending patterns and lifestyle. 

For example, lawyers report earnings at minimum wage level despite active practice and dozens of court cases. Or families maintain real estate and cars on funds barely above subsistence level. Such discrepancies may point to shadow income or underreporting of official income.

3. Integrity concerns in judicial practice

Some candidates with prior judicial experience have issued rulings that raised concerns about integrity. These include, for example, systematically closing administrative DUI cases due to expiration of limitation periods or being subjected to disciplinary liability for procedural violations. 

Such episodes may indicate a negligent attitude toward judicial duties or a risk of bias.

4. Conflicts of interest and ethical concerns

Some candidates were involved in situations that created, or could have created, conflicts of interest. During our analysis, we found examples of participation in cases involving close persons or colleagues, attendance at events with individuals subject to criminal proceedings, and non-transparent explanations of gifts received from relatives. 

Unfortunately, candidates do not always explain such circumstances consistently, which undermines confidence in their ability to uphold high ethical standards.

5. False or incomplete declarations

There were cases where candidates failed to declare assets they likely used in practice, misstated asset values, or did not declare certain income or property at all. In some instances, oversight bodies even established that declaration data were inaccurate, which is a direct breach of anti-corruption legislation.

6. Questionable employment arrangements

Our analysis also revealed likely formal employment at companies whose actual activity raises questions. For example, when a lawyer is formally listed as a construction-site team leader, this may be a way to obtain exemption from mobilization. 

Using legal mechanisms for purposes other than those intended undermines the country’s defense capacity and indicates a willingness to manipulate the law for personal gain.

7. Contacts with the aggressor state or pro-Russian structures

Some candidates visited the territory of the Russian Federation or temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine after 2015 or worked at companies that maintained business ties with Russia and Belarus after the start of aggression. 

Absent critical circumstances that could justify such conduct, this may indicate disregard for the wartime context and national interests, unacceptable for an anti-corruption court judge.

8. Abuse of legal mechanisms for personal benefit

We also found cases where candidates, in their professional or private lives, appear to have used abusive schemes for personal gain. These include likely facilitating circumvention of the standard procedure for lawful stay of foreigners in Ukraine through the creation of fictitious companies. Or remaining on waiting lists for free housing in breach of legal requirements. 

At times, candidates also appeared to evade taxes, including by receiving company profits not as dividends but as repayable financial assistance not subject to taxation. 

All this gives rise to doubts about irreproachable conduct in both private and professional life.

***

Our preliminary analysis revealed a range of concerns regarding some candidates: from declared assets that do not match market prices or lifestyle, to questionable episodes in professional activity. In this article, we deliberately do not name specific candidates; however, all materials we have prepared may be used by the PCIE and HQCJ so that, during interviews, the public can receive answers to the questions we have outlined.

These facts require careful clarification, because HACC judges must meet the highest standards of honesty, independence, and incorruptibility. The special joint sessions of the PCIE and HQCJ are precisely the forum where candidates can provide convincing explanations and dispel doubts.