On the “Most Important” Decision of the HACC AC Regarding Medvedchuk’s Seized Assets

The HACC AC closed proceedings on ARMA’s complaint concerning the ban on selling Viktor Medvedchuk’s seized assets. However, representatives of the Agency strongly opposed this decision—nearly the entire ARMA leadership, led by Olena Duma, attended the HACC to defend their position.

From early morning, ARMA has actively promoted the argument that the Anti-Corruption Court’s ban on selling the seized property of “Putin’s Crony” could set a dangerous precedent for other sanctioned persons. They argue that this decision to impose such a ban will encourage both Medvedchuk and other sanctioned persons to challenge the confiscation of these assets in the ECHR.

This position is peculiar for several reasons.

First, it is surprising to hear such arguments nearly three years into the war—especially when the mechanism for confiscating assets of sanctioned persons has been developed and many of its shortcomings have been addressed. Moreover, this procedure generates revenue for the budget much faster than selling property seized in criminal proceedings. We cannot assume that ARMA generally questions the effectiveness of this mechanism.

This brings us to the second peculiarity of this argument. Once again, the past three years of war have demonstrated that confiscating the property of state traitors through criminal case rulings is an excessively lengthy process. In fact, there is still no evidence that anyone’s property has been confiscated in this manner, as such cases take years to resolve. In contrast, the sanctions mechanism has already enabled the confiscation of property worth tens of billions of hryvnias.

Furthermore, much of it has already been sold, achieving far greater success than many assets managed by ARMA. Despite numerous obstacles, such sales are significantly faster than processes like holding auctions to select managers for seized property. We have written more about this in detail, for example, here: http://bit.ly/4hc3wmj

Moreover, the Verkhovna Rada decided back in 2022 that the HACC should be responsible for decisions regarding sanctioned assets. The Anti-Corruption Court handles such cases much more quickly than other courts; while ensuring they are addressed as thoroughly and comprehensively as the circumstances permit.

Ukraine requires an effective confiscation process for pro-Russian assets, and Medvedchuk’s property is undoubtedly among them. The ARMA leadership should fully support this effort in every possible way.

Unfortunately, once again, we see ARMA focusing more on loud, almost “treacherous” communication rather than addressing its own mistakes.