NACP Competition: Detailed Notes from Integrity Interviews with Candidates

The Commission for the Selection of the NACP Head conducted integrity interviews with candidates from December 9 to December 13.

24 candidates reached this stage. Therefore, during direct communication, the commission considers:

• compliance of candidates’ income with their expenses and property,
• lifestyle of the participants of the competition,
• the level of their professional ethics,
• political neutrality,
• their possible conflict of interest,
• possible ties with Russia and so on.

Earlier, we published the profiles of all contest participants and asked our questions to them. Here are the answers that the candidates provided to the questions from both the Commission and the public during their integrity interviews.

Stanislav Bronevytskyi

Prosecutor of the sixth Department of SAPO. The candidate has previous experience working in both the prosecutor’s office and the bar.

It is known that Bronevytskyi ran for the Lviv Regional Council from Liashko’s party. When asked by the Commission whether he had any ties to the party, the candidate firmly responded with a “no.” However, the Central Election Commission recorded that Bronevytskyi was a member of Liashko’s party earlier.

The candidate declared three apartments in Lviv but did not specify their cost in his declaration. According to Bronevytskyi, he is uncertain about the exact amounts, as he inherited one apartment, bought the second from rent, and the third is owned by his wife.

Interestingly, no one has lived in two of Bronevytskyi’s apartments, with one of them remaining vacant for ten years. The reason for this is that they needed serious repairs, for which the candidate did not have the time or opportunities.

The Commission did not have enough bank statements from Bronevytskyi’s accounts. The candidate replied that he did not have enough time to collect all the data, and information about previous accounts in PrivatBank simply did not sync with mobile banking. Bronevytskyi has already “said goodbye” to the funds in the now insolvent Megabank.

What is known about Bronevytskyi’s military registration? Now he lives in Kyiv but is still registered in the Lviv Center for Territorial Recruitment and Social Support. It seems that the candidate did not appear before the Center for Territorial Recruitment in Kyiv but reported his location to the Kyiv City Military Administration.

Bronevytskyi’s 17-year-old son is studying in the United States. The father doesn’t know his son’s new address because the son hasn’t shared it with him yet. According to the candidate, in the summer his son is going to come to Ukraine and register with the Center for Territorial Recruitment.

Andrii Vyshnevskyi

The candidate was Deputy Head of the NACP from August 2022 to July 2023.

The Commission was very interested in various situations at Vyshnevskyi’s previous jobs. For example, they asked about the persecution of Vyshnevskyi by the administration of the fugitive president Yanukovych. The candidate explained that he became aware of this from the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, which allowed conducting operational search activities against him. It lasted for six months and yielded no results.

However, when asked by the Commission whether Vyshnevskyi had contacts with the then Minister of Justice Lavrynovych or the head of the Presidential Administration Portnov, the candidate objected.

The Commission also asked if Vyshnevskyi had any conflicts with his superiors. For example, on the recommendation of the former Minister of Justice Pavlo Petrenko, the candidate received the title of Honored Lawyer of Ukraine, later becoming a deputy minister but eventually resigning. In response, Vyshnevskyi stated that in that position, he was involved in the introduction of free legal aid. In the end, after the implementation of the project and the dismissal of its head, he submitted a letter of resignation. However, he recalled that he felt political pressure due to the investigation by law enforcement agencies.

At the same time, Vyshnevskyi referred to the conflict with the former Head of the NACP, Oleksandr Novikov, as “a very strange and incomprehensible situation.” Now there is a legal dispute regarding the illegal dismissal of a candidate from the post of Deputy Head of the NACP, since Vyshnevskyi considers it illegal. The candidate attributes his dismissal to the fact that Novikov’s management style was quite authoritarian. Moreover, Vyshnevsky did not endorse the notion that the NACP is involved in implementing sanctions. As an employee responsible for the Agency’s international cooperation, it was his role to address issues arising from international conflicts resulting from such activities.

The Commission also asked about the candidate’s property. He explained the origin of the funds for which he bought his first apartment in Kyiv in 2002 (at the expense of his parents, grandmother and his own). Then, in 2006, with money from the sale of that housing, as well as from his personal savings, he bought a second apartment. Later, during the Yanukovych administration’s persecution, he gave the apartment to his mother.

Interesting fact: the candidate’s late grandmother has been selling cut flowers for more than 20 years, from which she collected good savings. This allowed her to help her children and grandson with money.

Vitalii Hatseliuk

Current member of the High Qualification Commission of Judges

Participation in the competition for this candidate is his personal challenge. Hatseliuk believes that the involvement of qualified professionals, including himself, only enhances the prestige of the competition for the Head of the NACP.

A brief overview of Hatseliuk’s professional history. He is convinced that there have never been any conflicts between the HQCC and the NABU, the NACP, and vice versa. The cooperation of the HQCC with these bodies has led to the public evaluating the work of the commission as a “quantum leap.”

As a member of the HQCJ, Hatseliuk voted against recommending the dismissal of the “Maidan judge,” Kliuchnyk. The candidate clarified to the Commission that the HQCJ did not provide sufficient justification for its decision. Additionally, he was unaware of the beating of a participant in the Revolution of Dignity, who was taken into custody by Kliuchnyk.

In 2020, Hatseliuk bought an apartment on the Left Bank of Kyiv. Unfortunately, the candidate couldn’t provide the exact figure of his savings at that time but recalled his annual salary from working in the OSCE, which amounted to 28 thousand euros.

In 2022, Hatseliuk’s wife became the owner of a Lexus car for UAH 1.2 million and real estate in Uzhhorod. Hatseliuk did not list the cost of this apartment in the declaration, nor did he provide the information upon request from the Commission. He stated that obtaining the relevant documents was challenging. And he assured that the apartment was bought with family savings at the construction stage.

The candidate’s ex-wife was an assistant to a People’s Deputy from the Party of Regions. As it turned out, she received an ID only for access to the Parliament building, where Hatseliuk then worked, and did not provide services to the “Regional” MP. The background is interesting: that “job” was offered to her by a woman in the cafeteria of one of the Rada committees, while the candidate’s wife was waiting for her husband from work.

There were a lot of questions about the candidate’s current wife. And in the end, the Commission asked about the expenses for their “Transcarpathian wedding”, because Hatseliuk’s wife was born there. It turned out that the newlyweds modestly entered a “marriage in a day”, and only the closest relatives of the wife were present.

Serhii Hupiak

Head of the Fourth Investigative Department (in Vinnytsia) of the Territorial Office of the State Bureau of Investigation in Khmelnytskyi

The Commission first inquired about Hupiak’s mother’s income, specifically seeking clarification on her business activities and the income derived from them. The candidate replied that his mother had been engaged in retail sales of various goods since 1999, mainly sweets and beverages, but in 2011 she stopped this business and terminated her private entrepreneur registration in 2019. The candidate mentioned that, for security reasons, he prefers not to publicly disclose the exact amount of his parents’ savings. However, he expressed willingness to share this information directly with the Commission.

Nevertheless, the Tax Service possesses all the requisite information regarding Hupiak’s mother’s income, which she provided to the candidate. He disclosed these details during the interview. From that, Hupiak concludes that his mother could afford to make savings. And in general, he has already talked more about property issues in detail during the selection process for the NABU Director.

The Commission also mentioned instances where refusals from the State Bureau of Investigation Department, led by the candidate, to enter information into the Unified State Register of Pre-Trial Investigations were subject to appeal. Hupiak referred to those stories as “routine work, involving the consideration of appeals or applications.” He asserts that all his actions align with the norms of the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In the candidate’s opinion, only applications containing sufficiently justified information about the commission of an offense are entered into the Unified State Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, and it is possible to reject those that lack such justification.

In fact, Hupiak does not recall the cases mentioned by the Commission but suggests that the individuals involved may not have adequately justified the damage they claimed.

The candidate denies the existence of any pressure on him while working in the state Bureau of Investigation in Vinnytsia. According to him, he had no restrictions on bringing certain persons to justice and did not receive illegal instructions. On the contrary, he perceived only the assistance and support that, in accordance with the law, the top management could provide.

The Commission also inquired whether Hupiak had received offers to become the deputy director of NABU after being among the top three winners in the relevant competition. Additionally, the Prime Minister recommended appointing Hupiak as deputy head or to another senior position within the Bureau. The candidate replied that he had not communicated with anyone about that option.

He noted that after the contest was completed on the government’s voting day, Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal conducted a detailed interview with the three winners. And, according to Hupiak, the chief of the Cabinet of Ministers liked the answers he heard. Therefore, after these conversations and a detailed study of the candidates’ profiles, the Prime Minister expressed such an initiative, as suggested by Hupiak.

Ahia Zahrebelska

Deputy Chief of Staff of the NACP

What is known about her experience? During the Revolution of Dignity, the candidate defended the interests of protesters in courts. According to Zahrebelska, she faced pressure, and her car was even blown up by individuals from Yanukovych’s circle. In 2014, Zahrebelska was invited to work in the Presidential Administration, where she served for 2 months.

At the NACP, the candidate led the effort to minimize corruption risks in the sanctions policy, although the agency is not legally mandated to engage in such activities. Zahrebelska explained that she took up this task because there is currently no dedicated “sanctions” body in Ukraine, so they at NACP quickly assumed the lead.

Now Ahia Zahrebelska continues to be a private entrepreneur. The candidate learned about this from the publications of TI Ukraine, and promised to find out the details and finally terminate her private entrepreneur registration if she becomes the Head of the NACP.

In the declaration for 2015, Zahrebelska mentioned considerable savings. As it became known, she received most of the money from an unknown “other person.” At the request of the Commission, the candidate promised to find out the legality of the sources of income of that person.

Ms. Zahrebelska has accumulated multiple fines for violating traffic rules. The candidate explained: “Recently, as Ukrainians, we’ve all been attempting to defy time and the laws of physics, striving to move faster to achieve victory.”

The candidate was also held administratively responsible for failing to declare the sale of a car for UAH 300,000. As Zahrebelska explained, she made a mistake in declaring, because at the beginning of the system’s operation, she did not yet understand all the nuances.

Zahrebelska does not have her own housing because she does not want to invest in real estate. She has registered residence in her brother’s house in the Kyiv region. She owns a Toyota RAV4 car.

*Clarification. Ahia Zahrebelska is not a private entrepreneur. Her private entrepreneur registration was discontinued in December 2022.

Dmytro Kalmykov

Head of the NACP Anti-Corruption Policy Department

The first thing that the Commission was interested in was the issue of providing services to Center for Joint Actions NGO. In response, Kalmykov explained that it was a series of educational events conducted through business contracts.

As for real estate, Kalmykov owns a 96 sq.m2, 3-room apartment in the village of Shchaslyve, Kyiv region, purchased in 2020, and resides there. Before that, he rented an apartment in Chubynske for seven years. He has an apartment in the occupied territory for which he is still repaying the loan, but he does not cover utility bills for it. Kalmykov assured that no one lives in that apartment.

The Commission was also interested in whether Kalmykov owns multiple land plots in Luhansk. Kalmykov responded that he does not own any land plots. One plot is owned by his father, and he uses another as a member of the corporate party. On these plots, his family planted and cared for an apple tree garden together at first. Later, according to Kalmykov, he paid more attention to land plots, hence the use of the pronoun “my” in documents.

The Commission was interested in the candidate’s savings. Kalmykov mentioned that, during his 10 years as a private entrepreneur, he earned around 360 thousand dollars. As of January 1, 2024, he managed to save USD 88,000.

The Commission asked in more detail about ties with relatives in the temporarily occupied territories. According to Kalmykov, after 2014, his family left and was in different parts of the controlled territory. However, as Kalmykov noted, his parents returned to the territory through the checkpoint of Ukraine from time to time in accordance with the current legislation to take care of their property. At the beginning of 2020, they were there. Kalmykov claims they have no ties with the Russian Federation and cannot have any. They have not visited Russia in the last 10 years.

The Commission was interested in the court case of the candidate’s brother Dmytro, who was convicted of financing terrorism in 2018. Kalmykov said that he knew little about the case and that his brother helped deliver a legally received pension to non-mobile people. He believes the case itself is an abuse of the SSU.

Kateryna Kapliuk

A self-employed investigative journalist who worked in the Department of Lifestyle Monitoring at the NACP in 2021-2022.

From the very beginning, the Commission inquired about the nature of Kateryna Kapliuk’s relationship with Ukrainska Pravda, where, according to Detector Media, she served as the editor of the investigation department. According to the candidate, she no longer cooperates with Ukraiinska Pravda and is exclusively a private entrepreneur.

The Commission also asked about how Kapliuk managed to work in the NACP with Oleksandr Amplieev, who, five years earlier, was involved in her journalistic investigation for the “Schemes” project. Later, the Head of the NACP, Oleksandr Novikov, claimed that now Kapliuk would call Amplieev virtuous.

The candidate explained that the Head was not chosen by her, but she discussed Novikov’s statements with him during the interview. Kapliuk explained that in her position at the NACP, she did not have the authority to check Amplieev’s integrity, but she is ready to do so when she becomes the Head of the Agency.

At the same time, during the two years that the candidate and the person involved in her investigation worked together, they managed to maintain a normal working relationship, and she had no doubts about his integrity during that time. Although the Agency, according to her, that investigation was reviewed by everyone, there were many jokes about that.

When asked whether she supports the practice of cooperation with those involved in investigative journalism, Kapliuk said, “A socially desirable answer would be for me to say that as soon as I become the Head of the NACP, I will dismiss everyone. But my position is a little different.” According to her, journalists do not always have full data when preparing their materials, and such materials do not necessarily indicate a corrupt background. This is exactly what certain administrative bodies exist for.

Kapliuk explained her dismissal from the NACP by saying that she felt that her position had become too tight for her. After the outbreak of the full-scale war, in addition to lifestyle monitoring, the candidate also began to search for assets of sanctioned persons. But so far, the NACP has not been granted the authority for such activities, and the then head of the Agency was not prepared to expand the candidate’s powers within her position in monitoring lifestyle.

Interesting fact: when the Commission announced the completion of the interview, Kapliuk was upset that she was not asked about her assets in cryptocurrency. Therefore, the communication of the Commission members with the candidate ended with a brief discussion of the cryptocurrency market and related investments.

Oleh Korniienko

As of today, he has been mobilized. Previously, he served as the head of the Department of Prevention of Criminal and Other Offenses within the Prevention, Detection, and Suppression Department of a military unit.


First of all, the Commission had a question about the car that was purchased in 2017-2019. It was bought for UAH 140,000 but sold for a higher price, reaching 149 thousand hryvnias. Korniienko explained that the increase in the car’s price was attributed to improvements he made, such as adding more seats and performing repairs.

There was also a question about Korniienko’s brother’s cars, as he is currently an active serviceman. However, the Commission did not receive an answer regarding the source of funds for the car’s purchase, as the candidate does not discuss financial matters with his brother. In return, the candidate promised to find out the circumstances of his brother’s purchase of a car and provide relevant materials to the Commission. Perhaps an additional interview will be conducted with him on that issue.

The Commission was interested in the land plot trials initiated by the candidate. The lawsuits were initiated concerning Korniienko’s children’s attempts to acquire land plots, which were denied by state authorities. The reason for the refusal was the requirement of the authorities to provide certain certificates from the guardianship authorities since his children are minors. Korniienko appealed against such denials since the law does not require any such certificates. The court granted his claims. Another court case involved Korniienko’s unpaid benefits following his dismissal from military service. The court also granted that claim, but in fact the benefits were not paid to Korniienko and he is now suing again.

Earlier, Korniienko participated in a competition for the head of the State Cinema Agency. He justified this decision by stating that it was the only way he saw to communicate with the head of the State Cinema Agency and emphasize the importance of developing this sector, especially in competition with Russia, which actively engages in such endeavors and promotes its propaganda.

Korniienko claims that the anti-corruption area is the direction that he has been engaged in for a long time. The candidate believes that due to his efforts, that area achieved high performance. He claimed that due to his efforts, over 170 individuals faced administrative responsibility for corruption-related offenses, a number exceeding the less than 30 people brought to accountability by the NACP in four years.

“I know problematic issues regarding the NACP protocols, as I often encountered this while working as a prosecutor. I know how to improve this process of bringing people to administrative responsibility for corruption-related offenses. Now the result of the NACP in this area is mega low,”said Korniienko.

Pavlo Kulyk

Head of the Division of Analysis and Information Development of the Department of Information Systems, Analysis, and Information Protection of the NACP

The Commission asked the candidate a lot about the specifics of filling out declarations. In particular, Kulyk was asked why he annually declared his parents and sisters as family members since 2016 but did not indicate their income.

Kulyk provided a somewhat peculiar explanation, stating that he included his parents and sisters in the declarations due to shared property ownership and later added them “to simplify his declaration.” And he did not mention their property, because they did not live together, so, in his opinion, it was not necessary to enter such information. “I assumed that the more information I provided, the more open I would be.”

Even after the candidate’s father died in 2020, Kulyk continued to include him as a family member in the declarations of subsequent years. He explained this by stating that he and his father co-owned real estate, and until Kulyk’s sister accepted the inheritance in 2022, “father remained the owner.” Therefore, in the amended declaration for 2023, he has already indicated as a co-owner of the property his sister Kateryna, and not his father. “I believe such information should be disclosed, as the deceased person remains a co-owner of the property until the relevant updates are reflected in the registers.”

Additionally, the Commission inquired about the $14 thousand gift disclosed in the declaration, which Kulyk received from his wife’s parents in May 2018 in celebration of the birth of his daughter. The candidate explained that at that time, he lived with his wife’s parents, and he believed that “gifts between family members are not required to be declared.”

Mykhailo Miroshnichenko

Former acting head of Odesa customs

Miroshnichenko was dismissed in April 2023. The candidate emphasized during the interview that he concluded his career due to the expiration of his contract. However, it is known from the court register that the candidate is currently seeking to have the order dismissing him annulled and to be reinstated. Why Miroshnichenko is challenging the order, considering the dismissal occurred due to the expiration of the contract, remains unknown. (Paragraph clarified)

During the interview, a Commission member inquired about the criminal proceedings related to fraud, initiated following an inspection at customs conducted after Miroshnichenko had concluded his work. The candidate mentioned that he is unsure of his status in that case. In his opinion, they wanted to “blacken him a little at the end of his customs career.” (Paragraph clarified)

Subsequently, the Commission spent a considerable amount of time questioning the candidate about his mother-in-law, who, in recent years, has acquired four apartments in Kyiv and four expensive cars. However, her official income amounted to €4,000 since 1998. Miroshnichenko explained that in the early 90s, she earned money and “engaged in somewhat illegal activities,” transporting items from the Czech Republic to Ukraine.

In addition, this mother-in-law owns a company with a capital of $40 thousand. Miroshnichenko answered that he heard about that for the first time, and he definitely did not have any business relations with his mother-in-law. And in general, his relationship with his wife’s family is “not perfect.”

The candidate has developed an author’s concept for combating corruption and holds the belief that the declaration system should be applicable to almost everyone. If elected as the Head of the NACP, Miroshnichenko promises to eradicate corruption as much as possible, despite the potential pressure from high-ranking officials.

According to the candidate, his participation in the NACP competition made many people nervous. “Some even have their glasses sweating,” Miroshnichenko joked.

Iryna Mostova

Co-founder of Credence Partners JSC, former Head of the NACP Department for Monitoring Compliance with the Legislation on Conflicts of Interest

First of all, the Commission was interested in the appointment of Mostova to the position of Head of the NACP Department in 2018. While serving as the Deputy Head of the Conflict-of-Interest Department, she applied for the competition for the position of the head of this division but secured second place. However, immediately after the end of the competition and the transfer of the winner to another position, she was appointed as the head of this department. At that time, there were about ten more similar cases in the NACP, to which all participants agreed. Civil sector activists then suspected a conspiracy regarding such actions, so the Commission decided to investigate and clarify this point.

Mostova replied that she could not be responsible for the actions of the Competition Commission and the position of the NACP members at that time. There were no discussions about the change in positions with her, and she did not seek explanations from the management. For her, the situation looks ambiguous, not very ethical, dishonest, but she was not aware of the details of this scheme, and the result suited her. The candidate believes that she had no right to ask questions to members of the Competition Commission, and for all positions in the NACP, she would conduct transparent competitions with the involvement of the Public Council.

The Commission also asked about the reasons for Mostova’s dismissal from the NACP. The candidate replied that she made the decision to dismiss back in August 2019, because at that time she could not implement her ideas for the development of the department. According to her, at that time, the NACP was in stagnation. In the days following the dismissal of the former management, the team that supported the candidate was subjected to pressure. In the end, Mostova realized that the new Head of the NACP did not envision her as part of the team, so she left.

Commission members also asked the candidate about her legal activities in the following year, especially in administrative cases within the field of activity of the NACP, where Mostova served as a defender. The candidate explained that, despite her previous work at the Agency, she could be a defender in those cases without observing the annual restriction after dismissal, since the law prohibits representation of interests, and she was guided by literal logic.

In general, Mostova considers her legal work very useful, because she saw the activities of the NACP from the other side, including shortcomings in regulatory documents that she had not noticed before. The candidate promised that if she wins the competition, she will terminate her certificate and contract with clients, as well as transfer her corporate rights to management or leave the JSC.

The commission also asked about the candidate’s property. Commission members were interested in cash gifts from parents, which Mostova explained by investments in real estate and a new car.

In particular, it was a question of selling a car in 2018 to the father of the then Chief of Staff of the NAPC Pysarenko for UAH 208,000, while the market price of such a car, according to open sources, was UAH 300,000-450,000. Mostova replied that the car was damaged so she sold it at the cost estimated by the expert, and the NACP Chief of Staff could not influence her appointment as head of the department. The candidate did not have any documents about that sale, but she noted that the inspection of the situation six years ago did not reveal any violations.

In fact, she found out the buyer’s full name only when processing the purchase and sale documents. Mostova informed the Commission that she “does not know whether this is a coincidence or not, but it really happened,” and she did not draw parallels between such a sale of the car and the competition for the head of the department in which she participated.

Vitalii Nikulin

Representative of the Commissioner for Human Rights in places of detention

The Commission was interested in vehicles. The first concerned the price of a car that was purchased for $ 7.5 thousand and sold for a little less than 10 thousand dollars, that is, more expensive. Vitalii explained that the specified car had been damaged in a crash and required repairs, so it was purchased at a lower price. He subsequently sold it after completing the repairs, with low mileage. Regarding the second car, the candidate explained that it belongs to his brother, and he has been using it since 2020 under a power of attorney. However, the Commission stressed that the candidate mistakenly declared the right to use the car in 2020, because the power of attorney was issued back in 2018.

The Commission also drew attention to the fact that in his declaration for 2022, Nikulin indicated the city of Kyiv as his actual place of residence, but no housing in Kyiv was declared in the “real estate” section. The candidate explains the situation by the fact that after a full-scale invasion, he and his family often changed their place of residence. They moved to Kyiv only in the fall of 2022. He states that he did not declare the apartment he rents in Kyiv because, at the time of filing the declaration, he had used it for less than 180 days and, therefore, considered it was not subject to declaration. He noted that this is “an error that, unfortunately, cannot be corrected”, because the deadline for submitting the corrected declaration has expired.

Nikulin owns an apartment in Chystiakove, Donetsk region, which has been temporarily occupied since 2014. He and his wife are originally from the eastern part of Ukraine, which is temporarily under occupation. When asked by the Commission, he explained that his wife’s parents have already died, and his parents still live in the temporally occupied territory. However, over the past 2 years, he has hardly maintained relations with them.

Vitalii’s brother lived in Moscow, but after the start of a full-scale invasion, he moved first to Kazakhstan, then to Georgia, and now he lives in Indonesia. Nikulin asked to emphasize that since September 2022, his brother is a registered private entrepreneur in Ukraine and pays taxes.

Oleksandr Novytskyi

Head of the State Inspectorate for Architecture and Urban Planning

Novytskyi, while in the civil service, visited the occupied Crimea 4 times and published photos from his vacation. The candidate explained that in Crimea, he persuaded his mother to relocate and accompanied the newborn child to visit relatives. The vacation recorded in social media was organized by his mother, and the NACP, where he worked earlier, did not oppose trips to the peninsula.

The Commission noted that in the metadata of Novytskyi’s autobiography and motivation letter, the authors listed are not himself but his subordinates. The candidate spent a long time trying to explain how this happened, citing technical differences between text editors, and seeking technical help. However, there were not enough explanations, so Novytskyi promised to send additional confirmations.

Numerous errors were identified in the candidate’s declarations, including discrepancies in the values of real estate, inaccuracies about the house, and omissions regarding the cost of relatives’ cars. Novytskyi explained that the cost of the house was determined by documents. In the first few years, he lacked experience in declaration, and there were technical errors in the register. Additionally, he couldn’t find the cost of two cars belonging to his wife’s relatives, as there were no available documents.

Interesting fact: in 2021, Novytskyi’s wife bought a Ford Escape car for only UAH 148,000! As Novytskyi explained, they bought it at an auction abroad, which is why it turned out so cheap.

Finally, the candidate was asked about his experience of direct communication with politicians. Novytskyi contacted many different people at the State Inspectorate for Architecture and Urban Planning since his position is public. However, he cannot imagine that anyone will try to influence him because that would shake his value system.

After the interviews, the candidate made a post on social media with clarifications to the answerswhich he gave during the interview.

Roman Norets

Works at the State Security Service of Ukraine

The Commission’s first question was about the Suzuki car, which was purchased in 2023. The Commission asked to clarify the calculations and explain how and with what funds the car was purchased. Roman explained that the car was purchased with the assistance of a loan and funds from his ex-wife, and they have no financial claims against each other.

The Commission was also interested in how the candidate purchased a land plot in the Lviv region in a recreational area for dacha construction. The candidate replied that this is now a “bare field,” and he acquired it as a combatant for good performance of operational and service activities while serving in the SSU Department of the Lviv region. Before Zakhar Berkut movie was released, no one knew what kind of place it was.

Both ex-wives filed lawsuits to recover alimony, and Roman explained that the decision to automate payments was made during their time living together. The Commission also inquired about why the candidate did not declare alimony as the income of his ex-wife in 2020-2021. In response, the candidate referred to the NACP’s explanation that if the family lives together, money transferred internally is not subject to declaration.

The Commission was interested in Roman’s phrase that during his work he “made many enemies seeking revenge.” When asked if he had any inclination to leverage his position to harass ill-wishers, he emphasized that those who have worked with him “know his principle of not holding grudges against people.” When asked by the Commission whether he maintained contacts with the SSU while working as the head of internal control at the NACP, the candidate replied affirmatively. He mentioned that the SSU also transmits materials to the NACP but emphasized the need to “separate official affairs from private life.” The candidate recalled the system of approval by managers of certificates on verification of the declaration and drew attention to the fact that he was not their author.

The Commission also inquired whether Norets sees a conflict of interest in the fact that, after working in the SSU, he was involved in checking SSU declarations behind closed doors at the NACP, and subsequently returned to the SSU. The candidate responded that the real conflict of interest arises when “certain public figures enter into a preliminary agreement with USAID to develop procedures for declaring special services for a specified amount of grant funds, and then it turns out that the NACP did it without their involvement.” He stated that he was accused of stealing their money from these public figures.

The Commission raised concerns about the candidate’s office exceeding its mandate, as concluded by an external independent audit. The merger with the Corruption Prevention Department was also questioned, as it contradicted the principle of separating control and prevention. This amalgamation could potentially hinder the oversight of NACP employees’ integrity, especially considering the need to scrutinize numerous declarations from special categories. In response, Norets emphasized that he didn’t approve the NACP’s staffing table and suggested the creation of a separate division, aligning with the auditors’ recommendations.

The candidate was also requested to provide comments on information received by the commission from various sources regarding abuses in disciplinary proceedings aimed at dismissing specific employees of the NACP. To that, Roman replied that his mandate included only initiating disciplinary proceedings, and not conducting them.

As for his own dismissal from the NACP, Norets clarified that it was related to his daughter’s Instagram post, which included concerns about animal cruelty among other things. After a discussion with the Head of the NACP, who pledged dismissal due to Norets’ purported lack of control over his daughter, he submitted a letter of resignation by mutual agreement, aiming “not to discredit the body.”

While commenting on the controversial incident involving his daughter’s post, Roman mentioned that he doesn’t know the current condition of the dog. The candidate is unsure about the dog’s status as he forcefully dragged her outside after she bit him. When he returned home from the hospital, the pet was no longer there.

Viktor Pavlushchyk

Head of the NABU Detectives Department 

In 2016, Pavlushchyk sold a Chinese Chery M11 car for UAH 49,000 (approximately $2,000), despite the fact that prices for similar cars were then averaging around $7,000. The candidate explained that the price was such because of the technical condition and configuration of the car.

In 2020, the mother of Pavlushchik’s partner gave her UAH 280,000, and the following year she purchased a Hyundai Elantra car for UAH 290,000. During the NABU competition, Pavlushchyk explained that the sources of funds were savings and a pension, and this explanation has remained unchanged since then.

After February 24, 2022, the candidate traveled abroad three times as an employee of the NABU. Pavlushchyk noted that all the times were during official vacations. He transported children abroad and visited them. His wife could not do this because she was in military service. Recently, Pavlushchyk became the father of his third child, providing him with a new legal basis for leaving Ukraine.

The candidate also emphasized that during the most challenging first months of the invasion, he stayed in the Kyiv region and served as the deputy head of an interdepartmental group in the affected Bucha district.

Serhii Podhorets

SAPO prosecutor

At the very beginning, the Commission inquired about cash gifts from the candidate’s sister, Anna Podhorets, to his cohabitant in 2022 and 2023. The candidate explained that this was due to an error: initially, he quickly listed his partner as the recipient, and then inadvertently copied this mistake to the subsequent declaration. He couldn’t correct these inaccuracies because he submitted his declaration an hour before the deadline.

Unfortunately, that was not the only inaccuracy in the candidate’s declarations. For example, in 2015, he submitted a total of three declarations: one in the paper version where he listed an apartment for rent, another declaration where this apartment was not mentioned, and in the e-declaration, there was no record of such housing. Podhorets was not prepared to explain these differences because “this question was not on the preliminary list.”

The Commission also inquired about the candidate’s living expenses in 2016. According to the Commission’s calculations, after covering all taxes and household needs, he had UAH 5,752 per month. Podhorets replied that in 2015, he did not have savings exceeding UAH 60,000, and therefore, he was not obligated to declare them. Then he lived with his sister for half a year, and his actual expenses were reduced to tolls. In the second half of the year, he found a room in Brovary near work, reducing the costs to approximately UAH 7,000 per month for renting a room. That even allowed him to make certain savings.

However, while explaining the acquisition of a 15-thousand-square-meter land plot in the Transcarpathian region, half of which belongs to Podhorets’ partner, the candidate reiterated that he made a mistake in the declaration due to rush and deadline constraints. According to him, the allotment is much smaller, measuring 1500 square meters (which he specified in the annual declaration for 2023), and the candidate explained the inexpensiveness of the plot (less than UAH 10,000 per hundred square meters) by stating that it was empty and cluttered.

Interesting fact: during the interview, the candidate mentioned several times that he was not prepared to answer certain questions because they were not on the list previously sent by the Commission. The Commission agreed to give Podhorets additional time to explain. We would like to remind you that the relevant law does not impose an obligation on the Commission to provide all questions to the candidates in advance before the interview.

Volodymyr Podorozhko

Chief Administrator of the Executive Office of the Zaporizhzhia Regional Council

Podorozhko served as a voluntary assistant to Ihor Shurma, a People’s Deputy from the “Opobloc” and a confidant of the mayoral candidate in Zaporizhzhia and a member of Vilkul Bloc Ukrainian Perspective political party. He also managed to be a deputy of the village council and ran for the Zaporizhzhia Regional Council from another party.

The candidate said that he previously had political ambitions and always strives to help people. As an assistant to the MP, he did not participate in his work and did not ideologically support his political force. He explained his experience in the village council by stating “I am a Capricorn, a pragmatic person,” and that would help him in his pursuit to continue running for the Regional Council. Now Podorozhko considers himself a functionary and apolitical unbiased figure.

The Commission asked about the circumstances of Podorozhko’s approval of the draft decision banning the UOC-MP in the Zaporizhzhia region. To this, the candidate explained that he signed the draft decision with the comments of the head of the legal department because the Regional Council does not have the authority to issue such bans. And the candidate called the support of the UOC-MP one hundred percent coincidence.

At the onset of the invasion, Podorozhko took a leave of absence for nearly two months. He explained that in 2022, he helped his family with everyday life in a new city, and only later legally visited his children and wife abroad. In the past two years, Podorozhko’s wife has received UAH 160,000 in assistance as an IDP, but she has not received financial support from foreign countries.

The Commission also mention the situation with “Sich Collegium.” The media reported that Podorozhko allegedly recommended the principal to purchase generators from a specific supplier at three times the inflated prices. The candidate asserted that he did not impose anything on anyone, is not involved in any criminal proceedings, and considers publications related to him as being ordered by his enemies.

In 2015, the Podorozhko family spent almost UAH 104,000 to repay the loan. The Commission calculated that, after that, the young couple with a child had about UAH 2,000 left per month for living. Podorozhko replied that they had more money and lived normally, though not in a “chic’ manner.”

The candidate’s father purchased a house for UAH 1 million in September 2021, even though his official income, as per tax data available to the Commission, is lower. On real estate websites, similar properties are listed for about UAH 5 million.

The Commission also inquired about the price of a 2-acre land plot for UAH 11,000. According to Podorozhko, his father made savings, and works and receives a military pension. Regarding prices, the candidate promised to find out everything later.

Roman Romaniuk

Head of the Secretariat of the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights (at the interview it turned out that he had already left that position)

Primarily, the Commission was concerned about the candidate’s political impartiality. Commission members recalled that in 2010, Romaniuk was elected to the Lutsk city council representing the “For Ukraine” party. In 2014, he joined Petro Poroshenko’s “Solidarity” and even headed the regional organization of that party. Later, in 2020, he ran as an independent candidate for the Regional Council under the “Servant of the People” banner.

The candidate assured that all these parties were democratic and close to him in spirit. Today, he identifies as apolitical. After an unsuccessful attempt to be elected to the Volyn Regional Council, he ultimately decided to transition to the civil service.

The Commission inquired about the circumstances surrounding Romaniuk’s simultaneous roles as the director of the Volyn Regional Employment Center and the head of the Volyn regional organization “Solidarity” of Petro Poroshenko. Specifically, there was curiosity about the substantial association of many employees of the employment center with this political party during that time. In response, Romaniuk stated that he had never inquired about the political views of his employees. Furthermore, all individuals from the party appointed to senior positions in the center were approved by the leadership in Kyiv. “I followed this natural process of hiring and firing employees,” he explained.

Romaniuk also affirmed that he had nothing to do with the bonus given to his wife’s sister, whom he appointed to a position in the accounting department of the employment center.

During the Commission’s discussion, notable inquiries were directed towards the monograph accompanying Romaniuk’s candidate paper. The monograph credits two additional contributors: the candidate’s academic advisor and his spouse. For a considerable duration, the Commission has been attempting to ascertain the contribution of these two individuals to the monograph created based on the candidate’s dissertation and, consequently, to evaluate the degree of independence in the creation of the dissertation itself, as academic integrity is at the forefront of the inquiry.

The candidate explained for a long time that these people helped him with advice, and after a long discussion, he suggested that since his scientific work was taken as a basis, theoretically there were 50% of his contribution and 25% each from other authors. And he promised to provide comprehensive information about the contributions of other authors.

Oleksandr Skomarov

Deputy Head of the Main Division of Detectives, Head of the Second Division of Detectives of the Main Division of NABU Detectives

The Commission was aware that since 2015, Oleksandr has held various positions at the NABU, has two children, defended his dissertation, and received the right to practice law. Therefore, the first question concerned how he managed to work in the civil service, engage in private practice, and participate in scientific activities. The Commission also inquired whether he plans to continue this multitasking if appointed as the Head of the NACP. He replied that he was used to hard work and that he had written almost half of his scientific work before the NABU, and he might be doing science in the future. And he wanted to get a lawyer’s license because the law did not prohibit that. “My public service will not last forever and I do not plan to work on it until retirement,” Skomarov explained.

The Commission asked the candidate whether he perceives a conflict of interest in the fact that, while working at the NABU, he had a law practice with a leader involved in criminal proceedings. The candidate stated that he was not aware that lawyer had cases under investigation by the NABU during his internship. A conflict of interest may arise only when a lawyer acts as a party to the case that the candidate will conduct.

In 2019, Skomarov declared USD 50,000 of his wife’s savings. According to Skomarov, his wife’s parents gave her their savings from business activities and the sale of real estate.

Skomarov’s wife worked in the holding from 2017 to 2023 with the ultimate beneficiary Ihor Kolomoiskyi involved in NABU investigations, so the Commission was interested in whether he sees a sensitive situation or a conflict of interest there. The candidate replied that when they met in 2018, he proceeded from the presumption of free choice of place of work, Kolomoiskyi was not a suspect then, and later his wife was on maternity leave, there were no conflicts of interest.

The Commission also emphasized the candidate’s sister, who was a suspect in an NABU case, and for whom the candidate acted as a guarantor. Skomarov said that he does not see legal conflicts of interest in this, that according to unwritten moral rules, “family members must support each other,” and he did not violate the law, does not regret it, and would have done the same again, but not as Head of the NACP or his current senior position at the NABU. When his colleagues from the NABU began to report to him that this was being investigated, he submitted a resignation report to the management.

The Commission noted that Skomarov’s mother registered an apartment in Kyiv worth USD 25,000 at the end of 2021, despite having an income of USD 2,500 reported for the years 1998-2023. The cost of similar apartments is significantly higher, ranging from USD 93,000 and above. The candidate explained that situation by the fact that the candidate’s mother received funds for the apartment as a result of the sale of another apartment in the same residential complex, however no supporting documents are available. A partial source of funds for the purchase of the previous apartment was the sale of a store in the Luhansk region. However, it is unlikely that the documents related to this transaction have been preserved. The difference in the cost of the apartment is explained by information from state registers and the fact that, over time, the value of apartments in this complex has increased due to the development of the residential complex.

In 2022, Skomarov received EUR 4,000 financial assistance for solving social and household issues. The candidate said that he applied for it because his second child was born.

Oleksandr Starodubtsev

Deputy Chief of Staff of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention

First of all, the Commission asked him about the honorarium of UAH 8,512, which the candidate received from the Servant of the People Party in 2019. Starodubtsev replied that he received that money for his speech during the big strategic session of that party in Truskavets. Then he called Tymofii Mylovanov and asked him to take the candidate to tell the newly elected people’s deputies about the reform of the civil service.

The Commission also asked why, according to the candidate’s declaration, his daughter lives in the Netherlands, and where exactly she lives. Starodubtsev explained that after a full-scale invasion, his wife and daughter left Ukraine there, because that’s where his son is studying. His daughter now lives in a room that Starodubtsev Jr. rents out.

Starodubtsev explained the omission of this lease in his declaration, clarifying that, as of the end of 2022, his son resided there for less than 183 days. Before that period, his son had been actively searching for accommodation and had temporarily stayed with friends. His son entered the university in the Netherlands during the pandemic, first studied remotely, and then moved to that country.

Members of the Commission were also interested in the candidate’s previous jobs, particularly the reasons for his dismissal from the National Agency of Ukraine on Civil Service in March 2020. Starodubtsev referred to himself as the first dismissed on the first day of the new government’s work and believes it was a political dismissal. However, he is okay with this, as he was affiliated with the “Sonderkommando” of the technocratic government of Honcharuk. Interestingly, he was fired under the same provision he himself came up with, and according to the candidate, he is still being “trolled” for this.

The Commission also asked the candidate about his demotion in the NACP and transfer to the position of Deputy Chief of Staff. The candidate responded that he views any position as a tool to achieve goals. When it comes to the political affiliation of his new leader, Ihor Khokhych, who was previously a member of the Party of Regions [and ran to the Verkhovna Rada as a member of that party, TI Ukraine], he has a mixed response. The candidate explained that Ihor, despite having a worldview opposite to his own, effectively carries out assigned tasks. Additionally, the Head of the NACP had a valid reasoning that assembling a diverse team with different perspectives contributes to its overall effectiveness.

Starodubtsev was also asked about his brother, who was repeatedly a plaintiff in cases of debt collection from various persons, and about his real estate in the Crimea. The candidate stated that he is hearing about all these stories for the first time and has not communicated with his brother for more than 7 years due to an offense he once caused to their mother. According to the candidate, he is aware of the reasons why the Commission raises such questions, but due to the complete lack of communication with his brother, he does not see any risks for his new position. Theoretically, the candidate has considered reconciliation, but he is unsure about the necessary steps to take. “I didn’t choose my brother,” Starodubtsev said.

Serhii Stepanian

Acting Director of the Department for Detection and Prevention of Corruption of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine

The first question from the Commission sought clarification on property issues regarding the apartment in the city of Sumy. Stepanian explained that it is his wife’s apartment, acquired through privatization in 1994. The candidate noted that in 1994 he and his wife had not yet known each other, and the candidate filled out the declaration in accordance with the explanations of the NACP. He acquired the right to use this apartment much later. The cost of the apartment was listed according to the register, although he and his wife were unaware of the source of this amount. In general, they accidentally discovered the cost from the extract in 2021.

The Commission had a similar question about the house in Sumy, with an area of 163 sq.m and a listed cost of UAH 569,812. The Commission clarified whether the candidate made a mistake in the date of acquisition of the right to use this property. The candidate replied that the situation with the date there is difficult and that “we need to simplify the explanation of the declaration, because anyone can get lost there.” The house belongs to his mother and was acquired by her through a purchase and sale agreement in 2010 or 2011. The candidate indicated these years in his declaration, following the guidance provided by the NACP. However, he himself acquired the right to use the house only in 2016. Stepanyan noted that, however, he is not sure whether he correctly understood the explanations of the NACP and, if necessary, will change this information in the declaration.

The Commission asked about Stepanian’s mother’s income. The candidate stated that the funds for the purchase of the house come from business activities his mother has been conducting since 1992. The candidate had a long conversation about his mother’s entrepreneurship, but he could not provide evidence to support her income before 1998, because there is no data left since then, and the mother has now left for Germany.

The Commission was interested in the situation with Stepanian’s son, who was stopped by the police for speeding in a Lexus car. He commented: “If you don’t have any problems, then your family helps you.” He promised to provide documents about the owner of the car, who, according to the candidate, is a family friend and a wealthy man from Kharkiv and gave this car to Serhii’s wife so that they could “preserve” it in Sumy. However, Stepanian was not aware of this situation, and when he found out, he insisted that the car be returned. In December 2023, the Lexus was returned to the owner, the candidate promised to transfer the declarations of this owner along with additional explanations.

In June last year, he went abroad, and he explained this trip by saying that he was studying with the permission of the management.

Andrii Teteruk

Head of the NACP Risk Analysis Department of the Security and Defense Integrity Policy Office

In 2016, the candidate purchased a Ford Kuga car for UAH 698,000. When asked about the sources of income, Teteruk explained that part of the calculation was a gift from his wife’s parents in the amount of UAH 700,000, which he later listed in the corrected declaration. This money came from the sale of an apartment in Vinnytsia, which was previously owned by the parents of the candidate’s wife.

The Commission also recorded a gap in income and expenses in the declarations for 2015-2016. The candidate admitted the mistake, because in the corrected declaration for 2015, he did not change the amount of savings. At the same time, according to the candidate, the Commission incorrectly applied the method of currency conversion of the amounts indicated in the declarations.

It is worth noting that this is not the first mistake of the candidate when filling out the declaration. In 2015, the candidate also did not declare income from the sale of a car.

On February 15, 2022, Teteruk purchased two land plots in the Kyiv region for only UAH 76,000 each. He explained the low price (ten times lower than the market price, as the Commission noted) by its geographical location, the fact that the purchase occurred during a full-scale Russian invasion, and the fact that no communications were connected to the land plots.

The Commission also raised the issue that Teteruk was on the verge of facing administrative consequences due to a conflict of interest. This stemmed from his actions as a MP, where he personally contacted the NACP seeking clarification on matters outside the scope of his authority.

The candidate explained that he applied to the NACP with a deputy request regarding his office apartment, which he acquired free of charge according to the declaration, and in the registers its price was UAH 19. Teteruk stated that he did not violate the law or exceed his authority but suggested that it would be better to send an impersonal request through his fraction.

Finally, Teteruk expressed the hope that we will not lose the institution (that is, the NACP), which “practically remained an island of freedom among others that have fallen into disrepair.”

Ivan Yuriichuk

Deputy Head of the State Service of Education Quality

First, the Commission inquired about a story that a former colleague of the candidate shared. According to her, during the summer of 2023, Yuriichuk used obscene language, engaged in mobbing, and coerced employees to provide false testimony against the head of the Department of Quality of Education, leading to the dismissal of 7 people.

In response, Yuriichuk stated that the woman was dismissed for violating the procedure for appointing extra bonuses to herself, which she did without the approval of the management. Because of this, the State Service initiated disciplinary proceedings against her with further dismissal. The specified person challenged that dismissal and the legality of the decision of the disciplinary commission but lost both legal disputes.

As for the accusations of mobbing, according to the candidate, that person attributes to him things that she did herself. All communication was in the presence of other employees. However, Yuriichuk confirmed that some such conversations were difficult.

During the interview, the Commission also examined the candidate’s political impartiality. He confirmed that after the Revolution of Dignity, he worked for two months as an assistant consultant to People’s Deputy Anatolii Matviienko, whom he had previously met in the Ivano-Frankivsk region. But I also talked to the current head of the State Service of Education Quality, who at that time worked in the state inspectorate of educational institutions. When he was offered to join that team, he agreed and for more than 6 years rose to the position of deputy chairman there.

When asked whether he was a member of the Petro Poroshenko Bloc in 2014, Yuriichuk objected, mentioning that he was a member of the party only in 2010-2012, and that party was Svoboda. In the Petro Poroshenko Bloc, Yuriichuk served as the authorized representative of presidential candidate Petro Poroshenko, and in the fall, he was the authorized representative of his party, which he never joined. He just likes to be a civil servant who is not connected with politics.

The Commission also asked about bringing Yuriichuk to administrative responsibility for hooliganism in 2012. He said that it was about his participation in a protest the “Victory Day parade” in Kolomyia, which was held during the Yanukovych era. Then so-called veterans were brought to the city, leading to a protest organized by locals. Law enforcement officers recorded the protest on cameras, capturing Yuriichuk’s face, and initiated an administrative case. However, the court acquitted the candidate and other participants of the protest, and Yuriichuk considers that episode to be “a good page in his history.”

Speaking about his property, the candidate explained that in the declaration he indicates the address in Kolomyia, where his family lives, as well as the address in Kyiv. Previously, he also indicated the place of registration, but does not have any property rights there. Additionally, in the declaration, he did not list his residential address but rather the address for correspondence, which is his office. He explained that this allowed for faster contact, if necessary, as the declaration form did not allow him to specify both addresses.

The candidate also spoke about the ownership of construction in progress in Kolomyia. According to him, it was a “summer kitchen” on the land of his father-in-law and mother-in-law, which he and his wife have been trying to reconstruct for 15 years. The appraisers have exaggerated the area of that property, considering the unfinished second floor. Yuriichuk is not even sure that such a reconstruction will ever end.

Artem Khavanov

Anti-Corruption Commissioner at Ukreximbank

The candidate’s driving license was known to be revoked due to drunken driving. Khavanov mentioned that at the celebration, he consumed four bottles of beer and had to urgently go to the pharmacy to purchase antihistamines for one of the guests who fell ill at his friend’s son’s birthday party. On the way from the pharmacy, he was stopped by the police.

In 2012, Khavanov bought a house in the Kyiv region for UAH 85,000. According to the Commission, this cost was seven times lower than the market price. The candidate explained that the house, which was without repair and finishing, was purchased using funds received from the sale of an apartment in Borshchahivka, among other sources. Also, his mother-in-law and father-in-law added some money for that.

In 2022-2023, the candidate’s mother-in-law purchased two cars: a Subaru Forester for UAH 489,000 and a Porsche Macan for UAH 2,870,000. According to the commission, those were reasonable purchases, because the candidate’s father-in-law then received about UAH 5 million in total income.

However, the Commission drew attention to another point: in both cases, the candidate’s mother-in-law transferred the right to dispose of cars to third parties on the basis of powers of attorney. Because of this, the Commission suggested that the cars were not bought for the mother-in-law. Khavanov could not explain the purpose of issuing powers of attorney, because he does not communicate closely with his mother-in-law and father-in-law.