illicit_enrichment - Transparency International Ukraine

The Illicit Enrichment Article: History, Challenges, and Results

TI Ukraine — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 12:08:47 +0000

It has been over six years since the Criminal Code was updated to include the illicit enrichment article. Since then, the number of criminal proceedings in this category has grown — yet virtually no senior official has ended up behind bars.

Does this point to a broader failure of the judicial system, or does the problem lie in the legislation itself, or perhaps in other factors? How does the illicit enrichment statute actually work, and what shapes its effectiveness? Our Senior Legal Advisor Pavlo Demchuk addressed these questions and more in a comment for Channel 24.

Among other things, he drew attention to the peculiarities of the article’s first version, which lawmakers attempted to introduce over a decade ago. At the time, it essentially duplicated the existing offense of “bribe-taking” — though that hardly mattered in practice, since that version never actually took effect. It was postponed repeatedly, abolished under Yanukovych, and then reinstated after the Revolution of Dignity in a new form that genuinely addressed illicit enrichment. It was in that post-Maidan period, following the creation of the NABU and the SAPO, that the first suspicion notices under this article were issued.

In February 2019, however, the norm was ruled unconstitutional. On this point, our expert notes the lack of unanimity within the Constitutional Court and cites dissenting opinions from individual judges — including Vasyl Lemak, who believed his colleagues could have grounded their ruling differently. By the autumn of that same year, a new version of the article had been adopted, and it remains in force to this day.

That said, the HACC has handed down effectively only two verdicts since then, and both were concluded through plea agreements. One of them involves former MP Iryna Kormyshkina, who was found guilty of illicit enrichment, among other charges. The verdict itself remains classified under the terms of the deal. Still, from public statements by prosecutors, it is known that the court ordered her to transfer UAH 20 million to the state and an additional 2 million to the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In essence, what is at stake here is a balance between a defendant’s desire for a reduced sentence and society’s expectation of receiving something in return.

It should also be noted separately that the absence of custodial sentences is less a systemic failure than a reflection of the internal logic of criminal procedure. Moreover, it is worth bearing in mind that electronic asset declarations — one of the key forms of evidence in illicit enrichment cases — were suspended following the start of the full-scale invasion. The true measure of the article’s effectiveness, therefore, is not the number of convictions, but the consistency of its application over time.

The absence of custodial sentences is less a systemic failure than a reflection of the internal logic of criminal procedure.

The post The Illicit Enrichment Article: History, Challenges, and Results first appeared on Transparency International Ukraine.

First Charges of Illicit Enrichment by NABU and SAPO

Наталія Сліпенко — Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:54:47 +0000

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office have served Mykola Ilyashenko, former First Deputy Head of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv, with charges of illicit enrichment.

This was reported by Slovo i Dilo outlet.

According to journalists, Ilyashenko was served with charges of illegal enrichment for receiving USD 1 million out of USD 6 million, which was to be handed over to NABU and SAPO leaders for closing criminal proceedings on taking over refinancing of the National Bank Real by oligarch Serhii Kurchenko.

According to the investigation, the case was to be closed in the interests of the Minister of Ecology. The investigation considered him the organizer of this transaction. In August, the High Anti-Corruption Court detained Zlochevsky in absentia and allowed him to be investigated in absentia.

Currently, the NABU and the SAPO do not comment on this story. We are waiting for their official confirmation and consideration of the interim measures in the HACC.

We remind you that in February 2019, the Constitutional Court ruled the previous article of the Criminal Code on illicit enrichment to be unconstitutional. The NABU was forced to close 65 criminal proceedings under this article.

Last year, on October 31, the Parliament passed a new law to restore liability for this crime, which also provides for civil forfeiture of unexplained assets of public officials. By the way, this law is also under consideration by the Constitutional Court.

The post First Charges of Illicit Enrichment by NABU and SAPO first appeared on Transparency International Ukraine.

Attempted Murder of Asset Declarations and Lifestyle Monitoring: Constitutional Petition

TI Ukraine — Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:37:05 +0000

The Constitutional Court again tries the standards of anti-corruption legislation for compliance with the Constitution. And again- at the request of members of the Parliament.

On August 4, 47 MPs sent the constitutional motion, which in particular concerns the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention”. Asset declarations are the focus of attention.

In fact, this is another attempt to call into question the obligation of public officials to submit declarations. According to the authors of the motion, this may restrict their rights and freedoms.

The CCU opened the case and on October 8, the open part of the plenary session took part. Unfortunately, so far, we have not heard the positions of the parties, because the meeting was deferred.

However, even now we can conclude that acknowledging certain provisions of the Law as inconsistent with the Constitution will lead to serious repercussions.

This will be a significant blow to the system of corruption prevention and generally successful experience with public officials’ asset declarations.
The absence of the obligation to declare assets will lead to a number of changes in criminal prosecution, for example, for declaring false information or illicit enrichment.
In general, such a decision will be a significant rollback of the achievements of the anti-corruption reform in Ukraine.

Now let me come to the details.

Declaring the assets of state and local officials is not an innovation in the Ukrainian legal system. The e-declaration system has been operating/working on the official website of The National Agency on Corruption Prevention since 2016. These declarations, except for personal ones, are published for review in accordance with the current legislation. Asset declaration is one of the most effective anti-corruption tools. This is confirmed by numerous successful examples of international experience.

As of the day of passage of the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention,” corruption was on the list of the main real and potential threats to the national security and public stability of Ukraine. In particular, this was defined in Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Fundamentals of National Security of Ukraine”.

Therefore, any possible restrictions on the rights and freedoms that the declaration system may entail are inflicted in the interests of national security, as stipulated by the Constitution of Ukraine.

The provisions that members of the Parliament are trying to challenge are based on the principles of regulating anti-corruption activities contained in acts of international law- the Civil Law Convention on Corruption ratified in 1999, The Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, 1999, and the United Nations Convention against Corruption, 2003.

According to the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention,” the imposition of a declaration obligation on a person authorized to perform the functions of the state or local government cannot be considered as interference in the private and family life of this person.

In terms of open round-the-clock access to the Unified State Register of Declarations on the NACP website:

The content of the right to private and family life is not identical for persons authorized to perform the functions of the state or local government, and for persons who do not perform such functions.

The public also has the right to be informed about aspects of the private life of public persons, as indicated in the ECtHR decision (Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland). At the same time, the limits for interfering with the privacy of public persons, including access to information about them, are wider compared to individuals who do not have a public status.

Public figures, especially politicians, voluntarily and deliberately let every word and every act to be an object of a meticulous analysis by journalists and society as a whole (Porubova v. Russia).

However, public figures are not completely deprived of the right to privacy. Therefore, the court considers reports, even controversial ones, that may contribute to public debate. If the information/data concerns a person’s purely private life and cannot affect the public interest, an interference with the right to privacy will not be necessary and permissible (Von Hannover v. Germany).

In terms of the possibility of disclosing medical secrets in the process of entering data in the declaration and their further publishing, the declaration subject is not obliged to indicate personal data. Third parties will not be able to find information about the health conditions, illnesses, diagnosis, the fact of requesting medical assistance, treatment methods, private and family aspects of life (such fields are not even available in the declaration form). That is why information that makes it possible to identify a particular medical service will not get into the public space.

At the same time, if the results of a full verification of the declaration reveal characteristics of the unreasonableness of assets, the NACP can ask the declaration subject for written explanations. However, in this situation, the relevant employee of the NACP, who receives such data and illegally discloses it, will potentially be held liable under Article 145 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine “Unlawful disclosure of confidential medical information.”

If a certain person needs additional information, they can contact the NACP, which provides the necessary explanations. Thus, we do not consider this situation as a violation of the principle of legal certainty.

Lifestyle monitoring of declaration subjects

The arguments in the constitutional motion are based on assumptions. Based on the provisions of Article 51 of the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention,” lifestyle monitoring does not contain any signs of investigative activities/police operations.

The concept of “selective monitoring” adopted by the legislator does not give grounds to assert that the NACP actions violate the constitutional principle of equality. Article 51 of the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention” does not contain any specific instructions or criteria for selectivity. According to its powers, the NACP carries out law enforcement activities (it can bring guilty persons to administrative liability, etc.) and is a central executive authority with a special status.

Lifestyle monitoring of the declaring subjects is a form of state control over the integrity of persons performing certain functions of the state or local government.

In terms of the unconstitutionality of Article 366-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

The law considers that family members of the declaration subject cannot be required to provide information about their transactions, expenses, etc. At the same time, the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention” imposes the obligation to obtain this information on the declaration subject.

If a family member refuses to provide the necessary information about their income, the declaration subject can submit a declaration without such information. Choosing such an option does not lead to the criminal liability of the declaration subject. At the same time, if the declaration subject does not notify about a change in the material status — an amount equivalent to 250 minimum living wages, they will be criminally liable. We consider such actions to be socially dangerous and such that require persistent criminalization.

Moreover, for declaring deliberately false information and deliberately failing to submit a declaration, disciplinary, administrative, and if the previously mentioned limits are reached, criminal liability can be applied. Asset declarations are effective tool for tracking the property status of persons authorized to perform the functions of the state and local government. Its aim is to prevent their illegal enrichment and malfeasance.

Declaring deliberately false information and deliberately failing to submit a declaration violates the requirements provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention.” Thus, it jeopardizes the effective functioning of the financial control system, which makes it impossible to effectively fight corruption in Ukraine, which is recognized at the official level as a threat to the national security.

The challenged provisions of legislation that MPs indicate in the constitutional motion generally and fully comply with the Constitution of Ukraine.

The post Attempted Murder of Asset Declarations and Lifestyle Monitoring: Constitutional Petition first appeared on Transparency International Ukraine.

IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS FILE ASSET DECLARATIONS? ANALYSIS OF THE PETITION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Наталія Сліпенко — Fri, 09 Oct 2020 09:44:57 +0000

On August 4, MPs from the Opposition Platform for Life political party produced another constitutional petition, which was signed by a total of 47 MPs. The submission concerns the compliance of certain provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention,” the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine and other relevant laws of Ukraine affecting the rights and freedoms of citizens with the Constitution of Ukraine.

In fact, this is another attempt to question the obligation of civil servants to file declarations and a number of other related issues.

The CCU opened the proceedings and the open part of the plenary session took place yesterday. Unfortunately, we have not heard the positions of the parties yet, because the meeting was adjourned. However, the results of declaring the provisions unconstitutional, as requested by MPs, could lead to catastrophic consequences.

Most importantly, this could be a significant blow to the system of corruption prevention and the generally successful experience with asset declarations. If officials are not obliged to declare their assets, this will lead to some changes in bringing them to criminal liability, for instance, for declaring false information or illicit enrichment.

We can enumerate the consequences for a while, but this could be a significant setback to the achievements of anti-corruption reform in Ukraine.

It should be noted that this is far from the first attempt to get certain aspects of anti-corruption bodies’ activity ruled unconstitutional. This is partly a consequence of the effective work of anti-corruption institutions.

Declaration and more

Declaring the wealth of state and local officials is nothing new in the Ukrainian legal system. The e-declaration system has been working on the official website of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention since 2016. The data of declarations, excluding personal data, are published for review under the law. Public declaration of wealth is an effective anti-corruption tool. This is proven by international practice.

As of the day of adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention,” corruption was on the list of key real or potential threats to Ukraine’s national security and social stability. This, among other things, is established in Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Fundamentals of National Security of Ukraine.”

Therefore, any possible restrictions on the rights and freedoms that may be caused by the declaration system are caused in the interests of national security, as provided by the Constitution of Ukraine.

The provisions that the deputies are trying to challenge are based on the principles of anti-corruption regulation contained in acts of international law — the 1999 Civil Law Convention on Corruption, the 1999 Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, and the UN Convention of 2003, all ratified by Ukraine.

Imposing the obligation to declare assets in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention” on a person authorized to perform the functions of national or local self-government cannot be viewed as interference with the private (personal) and family life of this person.

Regarding open round-the-clock access to the Unified State Register of Declarations on the NACP website:

The ECtHR recognizes the right of the public to receive socially important information and the possibility of violating Article 10 of the Convention in relation to access to information. That includes data requests of journalists or CSOs which perform a watchdog function and collect publicly important information to subsequently inform the public.

It should also be noted that the content of the right to private and family life is not identical in persons authorized to perform the functions of state or local self-government, and in persons who do not perform such functions.

The public also has the right to be informed about aspects of the private life of public figures, as stated in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland). The limits for interference in public persons’ private life, including through access to information about them, are broader compared to private individuals without a public status.

Public figures, especially professional politicians, voluntarily and consciously “open” their every word and every action for meticulous analysis by journalists and society at large (Porubova v. Russia).

However, public figures are not completely deprived of the right to privacy. In this context, the Court distinguishes reports of facts, even controversial ones, which may contribute to the public debate. If the information concerns a person’s purely private life and cannot affect the public interest, interference with the right to privacy will not be deemed necessary and permissible (Von Hannover v. Germany).

The exchange of information containing confidential information about a person, for example, between authorized entities, must take place in the manner prescribed by law (Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine), including the provisions of other legislative acts.

Regarding the possibility of disclosing medical secrecy in the process of entering data into the declaration and their subsequent publication, we inform that the declarant does not have to indicate personal data while describing a transaction. Third parties will not be able to establish information about the state of health, illness, diagnosis, the fact of seeking medical care, treatment methods, personal and family life (such fields are not even in the form of a declaration). Thus, no information on identifiable medical services can end up in the public domain.

At the same time, if the NACP identifies unexplained wealth based on verification of asset declarations, it may request that the public official provide written explanations — however, in this situation, if the NACP official discloses medical information, he or she will be potentially criminally liable under Article 145 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine “Innegal Disclosure of Medical Secrecy.”

Thus, this approach, based on the provisions of the current legislation followed by the NACP, renders violation of constitutional rights impossible.

If a person needs additional information, they can contact the NACP, which provides the necessary clarifications. Thus, we do not see that this situation may violate the principle of legal certainty.

Lifestyle Monitoring of Declaration Subjects

The arguments of the applicants are based on assumptions. Based on the provisions of Article 51 of the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention,” lifestyle monitoring does not have any characteristics of investigative activity.

The notion of “selective monitoring” used by the legislator does not give grounds to claim that the actions of the NACP violate the constitutional principle of equality. Article 51 of the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention” does not contain any specific indicators or criteria of “selectiveness.” Based on its powers, the NACP performs law enforcement activities and is a central body of executive power with a special status.

This approach enables implementation of Recommendation I of GRECO, provided based on the first and second evaluation rounds, as well as relevant recommendations of the European Commission Experts as part of the Action Plan on Visa Liberalization Regime for Ukraine. It is a tool for implementation of UN Convention against Corruption, Article 6 into the national legislation for creation and operation of an anti-corruption policy agency.

Performing such lifestyle monitoring of declaration subjects is a form of public oversight over the integrity of persons authorized to perform certain functions of state or local self-government.

Regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 366-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

The law takes into account the fact that family members of the declaring subject cannot be obliged to provide information about their transactions, expenses, etc. At the same time, the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention” obliges the declaration subject to obtain this information.

If a family member refuses to provide the required wealth information, the declarant may file a declaration without such information. This does not lead to criminal liability of the filer. The NACP has provided its official position on this issue: if a family member has refused to provide this information, but the declaration subject has this information or can obtain it from official sources, the declaration subject must reflect all known information in the declaration (item 34 of the Clarification).

At the same time, the limits of criminal liability for indicating inaccurate data in the declaration are set: if such information differs from the reliable by at least 250 subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons. That is, for the onset of criminal liability, the declarant must hide from the declaration the equivalent of the subsistence minimum of 250 able-bodied citizens of Ukraine. We believe that such actions are socially dangerous and require that criminalization be preserved.

Moreover, disciplinary, administrative, and criminal liability may be applied for declaring knowingly inaccurate information and intentional failure to submit a declaration. Declaring the wealth of officials is an effective tool for tracking the property status of persons authorized to perform the functions of the state and local self-government in order to prevent their illicit enrichment and the commission of official crimes.

Declaring knowingly inaccurate information and intentionally failing to declare assets violates the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention,” thus jeopardizing the effective functioning of the financial control system, which makes it impossible to effectively fight corruption in Ukraine.

Regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

The authors of the constitutional petition also note the following: “The use in the disposition of part one of Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine of the following legal phrasing: ‘exceeds their official income’ (…) creates legal uncertainty, since it is impossible to define unequivocally for what period the income of a respective individual must be calculated to establish illicit enrichment in their actions.”

This criminal violation is formal under Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. This means that for the violation to occur, it is not necessary that it should entail socially dangerous consequences.

The objective aspect of this criminal violation is the sheer fact of acquisition of assets by a public official whose value exceeds the official’s legal income for over 6,500 pre-tax minimum incomes. In that case, the criminal violation occurs regardless of the consequences.

Therefore, in classifying such a criminal offense, the legislator provides that it may be prolonged in time (without setting a clear time frame), but must be covered by a single criminal intent (for example, illicit enrichment through several separate illegal actions, stretched in time), but it can also occur in one moment, when one action already forms the finished structure of a criminal offense.

Regarding the definition of “legal income”

The authors of the constitutional petition indicate the following: “Paragraph 4 of the Note to Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine defines the legal income of a person authorized to perform the functions of state or local self-government, and means income lawfully obtained by the individual from legal sources, defined, inter alia, by clauses 7 and 8 of part 1, Article 46 of the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention.”

At the same time, this provision does not define and does not provide for unequivocal definition of what sources are understood as legal sources, while reference to Article 46, part 1, clauses 7 and 8 of the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention” narrows such sources and maintains the ambiguity of the notion of “legal income.” The period of acquisition of such income may vary from a month to the entire life.

Indeed, the above paragraph 4 of the note to Art. 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is by its legal nature a blanket norm, i.e. it does not provide a direct definition of legal income and refers to clauses 7, 8 of Part 1 of Art. 46 of the Law of Ukraine, which stipulates that legal income is that received by the declaring subject or members of their family, including income in the form of wages (cash security), received both at the main place of work and part-time, fees, dividends, interest, royalties, insurance payments, charitable assistance, pension, income from the alienation of securities and corporate rights, gifts and other income. The Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention,” Article 46, part 1, clauses 7, 8 clearly define the list of legal income, the means and subjects of their receipt.

If the income of a person authorized to perform the functions of state or local self-government exceeds the limit specified in the Criminal Code of Ukraine, but is legal (i.e. those obtained from legitimate sources), the actions of the above person do not constitute a criminal offense.

If a person’s income exceeds the specified threshold and the pre-trial investigation authorities prove that such income is obtained from illegal sources and the person has an influence on them, i.e. the ability to dispose of them (even if they belong to the person’s relatives), such a person may be prosecuted.

In this case, the burden of proof rests with the pre-trial investigation agencies, which must record such facts, collect evidence and prove guilt in a criminal proceeding in court.

Regarding the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof

The authors of the constitutional petition stated that: “Imposing on a person authorized to perform the functions of the state or local self-government the obligation to prove non-involvement in the assets of another person contradicts the constitutional provisions of parts one and two of Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine, under which an individual is considered innocent of the commission of a crime and may not be subjected to criminal punishment until their guilt is proved in a lawful manner and established by a court conviction; no one is obliged to prove their innocence in committing a crime.”

This statement contradicts the current legislation. Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine does stipulate that an individual is considered innocent of the commission of a crime and may not be subjected to criminal punishment until their guilt is proved in a lawful manner and established by a court conviction; no one is obliged to prove their innocence in committing a crime.” No one is required to prove their innocence.

Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine are norms of direct action. Article 2, parts 1, 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine stipulates that criminal liability occurs when an individual commits a socially dangerous act which constitutes a criminal offense under the Code.

An individual is considered innocent of the commission of a criminal offense and may not be subjected to criminal punishment until their guilt is proved in a lawful manner and established by a court conviction.

These provisions are all-encompassing, that is, they apply to Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which in no ways shifts the burden of proof to the suspect/accused. Moreover, Article of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine clearly states that an individual is considered innocent of the commission of a criminal offense and may not be subjected to criminal punishment until their guilt is proved pursuant to the Code and established by a court decision. The authors of the constitutional petition say that “the disposition of Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine allows to apply the provisions of Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to actions committed before the Article came into effect.

A person authorized to perform functions of state or local self-government who acquired assets before criminal liability was introduced under Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine could not know that in the future, they would have to explain the difference between them and the income of this individual and thus could not predict criminal liability for such a difference.”

This statement is not true given the following. Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that laws and other regulatory acts do not have retroactive effect, except in cases when they mitigate or cancel a person’s liability. The decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in case № 1-7 / 999 of February 1999 states that the provisions of part one of Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine on retroactive effect of laws and other regulatory legal acts in cases when they mitigate or cancel the liability of a person applies to individuals and does not apply to legal entities.

As stated above, the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine are norms of direct action and have supreme legal power. All laws of Ukraine must be adopted in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine. In view of this, the Criminal Code of Ukraine regulates by an imperative norm the impossibility of applying criminal liability to a person for actions committed before the entry into force of Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Regarding the automatic establishment of guilt

The authors of the constitutional petition claim that “Thus, if a person authorized to perform the functions of state or local self-government does not provide proof that assets or funds required for the purchase of assets were acquired through legal means, such an individual immediately becomes a perpetrator with negative legal consequences stipulated by section 12 of chapter III of Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine, or, if criminal offense is identified, such a person is brought to criminal liability.”

Under NACP Order No. 144/20 of 15 April 2020, clause 8, if the author of the declaration does not provide written clarifications and evidence or does not provide them fully within the indicated period (including if the evidence does not contest the conclusion on unexplained nature of assets), the authorized officer who conducted the verification has to compile a conclusion on the characteristics of unexplained assets in two copies within five business days.

After the conclusion is approved by the head of division, it is approved by the Head of the National Agency or the Deputy Head of the National Agency. The approved reasonable conclusion and accompanying materials are sent to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, or, in cases established by the law, to the Prosecutor General’s Office.

The Head or the Deputy Head of the NACP raise the question with the SAPO or, in certain cases stipulated by the law, with the Prosecutor General’s Office, on filing a lawsuit with the court to recognize the assets as unexplained and recover them to the national budget.

In this case, it does not make sense to speak about automatic establishment of guilt, given the above standard only regulates the right of the PGO to file a lawsuit with the court. This does not constitute either establishment of guilt, or a fact of bringing the person to liability.

Thus, the constitutional petition in question is unfounded and inconsistent with the current legislation of Ukraine. The substantiation of the constitutional submission is based on manipulative allegations, which significantly distort the content of the regulatory substantiation of the document and cite the law selectively.

It should be noted that the legislative standards have been requested to rule unconstitutional form the fundamentals of the anti-corruption system, while corruption has been recognized a threat to the national security.

The disputed norms of the legislation, which are specified in the constitutional petition, generally and fully comply with the Constitution of Ukraine.

The post IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS FILE ASSET DECLARATIONS? ANALYSIS OF THE PETITION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT first appeared on Transparency International Ukraine.

Illicit Enrichment Liability Comes Back

Наталія Сліпенко — Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:19:25 +0000

The liability for illicit enrichment is back, and now it is accompanied by civil forfeiture.

The Parliament has adopted the urgent draft law No. 1031 on civil forfeiture of corrupt assets of high-ranking officials and restoring the criminal liability for illicit enrichment.

After the President signs the law:

Embezzlement is to be defined as the cost difference between the acquired assets and legitimate income.
A government official with over 6 243 250 Hryvnias of unexplained wealth (6 500 tax-free minimum incomes) will face criminal charges instead of simple civil asset forfeiture.
The assets will include not only the funds, properties, works and services, but also cryptocurrencies and tax avoidance rates.
The unexplained wealth lawsuit can be brought without the bill of indictment against the suspect. Asset forfeiture will take place in accordance with the court’s ruling in a civil case.
The High Anti-Corruption Court will hear the civil unexplained wealth cases. NABU officials or the prosecutors from the Prosecutor General’s Office will act as plaintiffs.
The statute of limitations will apply to the cases that are over 4 years old.

The post Illicit Enrichment Liability Comes Back first appeared on Transparency International Ukraine.

Illicit Enrichment. A Comeback: Analysis of the Draft Law

Наталія Сліпенко — Tue, 01 Oct 2019 16:08:27 +0000

On 29 August 2019, the President of Ukraine submitted urgent draft law No. 1031 on civil forfeiture of high-ranking officials’ assets obtained through corruption and restoring criminal liability for illicit enrichment.

UPDATE of October 1, 2019

Before the second reading, the anti-corruption committee did reduce the threshold for criminal liability for illicit enrichment.

If the draft law is adopted in the current version, an official with unexplained wealth for the amount of over UAH 6,243,250 (6,500 minimum pretax wages) will be brought to criminal liability as opposed to just civil forfeiture.

Analysis of the presidential draft law

What will change?

Illicit enrichment is defined as the difference between acquired assets and legal income.

For an act to be criminalized, the difference must constitute more than fifteen thousand tax-free minimum incomes of an individual (as of 1 January 2019 – UAH 14,407,500, i.e. approximately EUR 480,000). This amount reduces the potential number of cases on illicit enrichment, but it helps law enforcement agencies to focus on the most significant violations.

Assets include not only money, property, works or services, but also, for instance, reduction of financial liability and cryptocurrency.

A lawsuit on recognition of assets as unfounded can be filed without a guilty verdict concerning the individual. Forfeiture of public officials’ illegally obtained assets will take place by court decision in civil proceedings.

The High Anti-Corruption Court will review civil lawsuits on recognition of assets as unfounded. The claimants are representatives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine or prosecutors of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine.

The option of civil forfeiture is provided concerning assets illegally obtained within four years before the Law comes into effect. As of 1 January 2019, the assets in question should be over UAH 960,500, or approximately EUR 31,000. This partially resolves the problem of cases closed after the illicit enrichment provision was repealed.

Our recommendations

It is advisable to restrict the period of asset acquisition and define more clearly what is meant under legal income.

Where we are now

On 26 February, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine recognized the Article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – the Code) criminalizing illicit enrichment of public officials unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine believes that the current version of Article 3682 of the Code violates Arts. 8, 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine. TI Ukraine has explained why this judgement was not factually correct. In spite of this, the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is binding, final and cannot be appealed, and Article 3682 of the Code has become invalid since the day when the Constitutional Court of Ukraine made this Decision.

On 29 August 2019, the President of Ukraine submitted draft law No. 1031 on civil forfeiture of high-ranking officials’ assets obtained through corruption and restoring criminal liability for illicit enrichment.

Key aspects

TI Ukraine has emphasized that it was necessary to extend the civil forfeiture institute and restore criminal liability for illicit enrichment:

With consideration of the concerns expressed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine;
In a way that would minimize the risk of the article being repealed;
In a way that would make it possible for law enforcement to establish all elements of a crime.

Criminal liability for illicit enrichment

The proposed text introduces the following approaches to regulating criminal liability for illicit enrichment:

The interpretation of illicit enrichment as the difference of value between acquired assets and income is introduced, which is consistent with the approach proposed by TI;
For an act to be criminalized, the difference must constitute more than fifteen thousand tax-free minimum incomes of an individual (as of 1 January 2019 – UAH 14,407,500, i.e. approximately EUR 480,000). This amount is fifteen times greater than the minimum proposed by TI and the old version of the illicit enrichment article, and corresponds to what was suggested by TI as an act “on a large scale.” On the one hand, this version reduces the potential number of cases on illicit enrichment, on the other hand, it helps law enforcement agencies to focus on the most significant violations. For assets that exceed five hundred tax-free minimum wages (as of 1 January 2019 – UAH 960,500, or approximately EUR 31,000), it is proposed to apply civil forfeiture.

Definitions of assets and income are removed from the description in the article itself and are added as notes. Assets are defined as not only money, property, works, but also, for instance, as the amount of reduction of financial liability, which has also been suggested by TI Ukraine and makes for an as broad definition of the notion as possible. It is also important that the article defines legal income as income rightfully obtained by the individual from legal sources, namely those specified in Article 46, part 1, clause 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention,” that is, legally acquired assets.

It is also advisable to restrict the period of asset acquisition and define more clearly what is meant under legal income.

Civil forfeiture

Civil forfeiture is a potential tool to collect the property illegally obtained by public officials in recent years for the benefit of the budget. It should be regarded as a way to forfeit property of an individual to public domain when such property has not been subject to seizure or special seizure and when legal grounds of its acquisition have not been proven. Finding and identification of illegally obtained assets will take place as part of the pre-trial criminal investigation, during which funds and other illegal assets will be traced, recorded and seized. Afterwards, a civil lawsuit will be filed to recognize such assets as unfounded.

The following approaches to extending the civil forfeiture institute are implemented:

- A lawsuit on recognition of assets as unfounded can be filed without a guilty verdict concerning the individual. Forfeiture of public officials’ illegally obtained assets will take place by court decision in civil proceedings.
- The jurisdiction of the High Anti–Corruption Court extends to review of civil lawsuits on recognition of assets as unfounded. The claimants are representatives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine or prosecutors of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine.
- The burden of proof of the connection between the assets and the public official and the fact that such assets are unfounded lies on the NABU or the PGO. At the same time, if such evidence is provided, the burden of proof of the fact that the assets are legal lies on the defendant.
- The option of civil forfeiture is provided concerning assets obtained within four years before the Law comes into effect, if the value of such assets exceeds 500 minimum incomes (as of 1 January 2019 – UAH 960,500, or approximately EUR 31,000). This partially resolves the problem of cases closed after the illicit enrichment provision was repealed. Now, illegally obtained assets can be seized in civil proceedings.

Civil forfeiture of assets acquired after the Law comes into effect will be used for assets of the following amounts: between five hundred minimum wages to fifteen hundred tax-free minimum incomes (as of 1 January 2019 – UAH 960,500 to UAH 14,407,500, or approximately EUR 31,000 to EUR 480,000). Everything that exceeds this amount means criminal liability for illicit enrichment.

Seizure of assets within three days of addressing the court. Assets are transferred to the ARMA following agreement of the owner or a court decision.

It should be noted that the European Court of Human Rights recognizes that seizure of assets beyond the scope of a criminal proceeding does not contradict the presumption of innocence, does not violate property rights and does not constitute punishment without trial (see cases M v Italy, Arcuri and Others v Italy, Riela and Others v Italy, Butler v the UK, Welch v the UK, Gogotidze and Others v Georgia).

Asset forfeiture beyond the scope of criminal proceedings is used in such countries as Australia, Israel, Ireland, Canada, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, South African Republic, Slovenia, the UK, Thailand, Fiji, Philippines, Switzerland. Civil forfeiture is permitted under Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Conclusion

The civil forfeiture institute can really become an effective tool to use property illegally obtained by public officials in public domain, since it will not require to prove the person guilty in the criminal process and the process will be faster. It will also allow to resolve the problem of 65 criminal cases closed after the illicit enrichment provision was recognized unconstitutional. Assets illegally obtained during the past four years in these cases may also add to the national budget.

At the same time, it is necessary to establish checks and balances against possible violations of property rights. Among other things, it is important to reboot the judiciary, which will receive a broad discretion concerning prevention of human rights violations when this tool is applied. Peaceful property ownership and compliance with proper legal procedure should be ensured.

The post Illicit Enrichment. A Comeback: Analysis of the Draft Law first appeared on Transparency International Ukraine.

On the Anti-Corruption Elephant

TI Ukraine — Mon, 29 Jul 2019 16:05:40 +0000

Interview of TI Ukraine’s Executive Director Andrii Borovyk for Espreso.TV

We should be careful about the trap that may happen with the scandal around Kyiv Administrative Court. When the NABU and the PGO presented those conversations, the court was viewed as the bad guy, because it was trying to block the High Qualification Commission of Judges. That probably makes the HQCJ the good guy. But not really, because the judicial reform produced virtually no result in other courts where it did happen. Out of 2,000 judges who had gone through the qualification assessment only 15 were fired. So that means that almost all the judges have passed the qualification test, but complaints about the judicial system keep coming both from within the country and from outside, from investors and analysts.

We imagine judges as these huge wallets that demand bribes to get stuffed with money. But the Administrative Court has demonstrated that it’s less interesting now. What is more fun is influencing the situation and even the entire country and other public agencies. For instance, when on the recording, they say that they can influence the Human Rights Commissioner so she would dismiss her representatives in the HQCJ. These judges feel like the kings of the entire country.

What is important is not to stop at the presentation, audio recordings and short summaries. There should be actual charges, and the case should be sent to the new Anti-Corruption Court.

The point of a court is not to put somebody in prison, it is a fair decision that nobody would question. People often say that nobody is behind the bars yet. Even though there have been many major case presentations over these past years, even those involving judges.

The Public Integrity Council performed assessment of judges’ integrity, and the HQCJ ignored all of their opinions completely.

Kyiv Administrative Court has demonstrated that it’s less interesting now. What is more fun is influencing the situation and even the entire country and other public agencies. These judges feel like the kings of the entire country.

Interviews by the HQCJ and by the Public Council of International Experts can be compared with the level of a first-grader vs. a school graduate. The Presidential Office has already stated that the judicial reform should be completed, that is, the HQCJ and the HCJ should be reformatted. We have had good experience with the Public Council of International Experts that was formed specifically to select High Anti-Corruption Court judges. The interview process was the most public part. Compared to the PCIE, the HQCJ was not interested in questioning the candidates, did it formally. The level of questions themselves was also very different. Why don’t we ask the PCIE to participate in the selection of HQCJ members?

The anti-corruption reform is a proverbial elephant that is sick and needs to get better. We need more than political will, we need a lot of actual effort to get this thing moving.

If we “break up” the elephant into components, let’s start with the most obvious one – the NACP. During three years of its functioning, the NACP managed to check only 600 declarations out of 2,000,000. The agency has also been sabotaging implementation of an automatic declaration verification mechanism in every possible way. The NACP does not work with conflicts of interest in any way whatsoever. So this agency needs to be rebooted completely. How?

When we speak about rebooting the NACP, the first point is to announce a competition for the head of the NACP. The NACP is a collegiate agency consisting of several members who replace each other regularly. This management process is too democratic for this agency. Corruption prevention is more important than punishment for corruption that has already been perpetrated. Thus, the format needs to change from a collegiate model to a single manager. This is a way to move away from collegiate avoidance of responsibility.

The likelihood of system resistance and manipulations will be high. Let’s keep in mind how the system of electronic declarations was launched in the autumn of 2016. Then, MPs were organizing press conferences and demonstrating how easy it was to forge an electronic declaration.

Now, the system of e-declarations is working, but it only serves as a source of information for investigative journalists. It would be good if we could launch the automatic verification after all.

At the level of NACP staff and management, there is no knowledge, expertise or willingness to make effort. For instance, last week, the Council on Anti-Corruption Policy that works in affiliation with the Presidential Office, had a meeting. Mr. Manhul from the NACP was among those invited, but he decided not to show up. Why?

Liability for illicit enrichment should be restored. The draft law on restoring this provision was filed by President Zelenskyy back at the beginning of June.

Civil forfeiture functions in developed countries. If assets acquired by an individual illicitly are identified as part of a criminal investigation, they can be seized within a civil process. In that case, the NABU, the SAPO and in certain cases the PGO will have to prove the fact that these assets have been acquired illegally as part of a civil judicial process. This is much easier than seizing assets within a criminal process.

All illicitly obtained assets for the amount of up to UAH 12 million can be seized within a civil process. If assets exceed this amount, it will be impossible to seize them in the civil process. In that case, there is still confiscation as part of criminal liability. Such cases will pertain to assets obtained during the past three years. This partly solves the problem of NABU and SAPO cases closed when the illicit enrichment provision was repealed by the Constitutional Court.

I don’t think civil forfeiture can be used as a tool of political pressure. Cases on illicit enrichment concerning high-ranking officials will be examined by the High Anti-Corruption Court, which consists of carefully selected judges. This mitigates the risk of this provision being used for scheming.

Interviews by the HQCJ and by the Public Council of International Experts can be compared with the level of a first-grader vs. a school graduate.

The Security Service of Ukraine is a quasi-special service. The SBU is not a classic special service the way it is viewed in the Western world. It exists, among other things, to pressure businesses. They investigate cases on economic crimes, which is not something they are supposed to do. The SBU is also not supposed to handle corruption-related violations, this is the task of the NABU and partly the State Investigation Bureau. The SBU should focus on national security.

The first step of the SBU reform is to remove their anti-corruption function and investigation of economic crimes. But to do this, we need to create the Service of Financial Investigations, whose launch has been discussed in Ukraine for over three years.

Millionaires can feel jealous of the cars parked at the place of the head of the Department for Investigation of Economic Crimes. Furthermore, there are numerous publications about SBU officers making money from covering up people involved in criminal schemes.

It may seem tempting to leave the SBU be the way it is now. The SBU supposedly serves as an extra motivator against corruption-related crimes. But political parties have claimed that the reform is necessary, so legislation should be updated.

It is hard to speak about the future of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. A few months ago, the NABU and the SAPO met with the President. They allegedly were given three months to show “actual results” without specifying what these results should be. Now it looks like the Presidential Office has gotten through to the NABU and SAPO management and their cooperation is starting.

Kholodnytskyi cannot remain in office after the scandal. TI Ukraine’s stance concerning the head of the SAPO has remained the same. When cases like the one with the fish tank happen in Western European countries, the official resigns within an hour. In Kholodnytskyi’s case, it has gone a different way.

Courts need to be rebooted, so that only qualified judges remain in the system and Ukraine stops being associated with bad judiciary; so that the business doesn’t need to complain about this and people who go to court receive a fair decision based on the rule of law.

The Security Service of Ukraine is a quasi-special service. The SBU is not a classic special service the way it is viewed in the Western world. It exists, among other things, to pressure businesses.

The post On the Anti-Corruption Elephant first appeared on Transparency International Ukraine.

Illicit Enrichment: Analysis of President’s Draft Law

Наталія Сліпенко — Tue, 04 Jun 2019 14:46:49 +0000

Where We Are Now

On 26 February, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine recognized the Article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – the Code) criminalizing illicit enrichment of public officials unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine believes that the current version of Article 368² of the Code violates Arts. 8, 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine. In its previous brief, TI Ukraine explained why this judgement was not factually correct. In spite of this, the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is binding, final and cannot be appealed, and Article 368² of the Code has become invalid since the day when the Constitutional Court of Ukraine made this Decision.

On 3 June 2019, the President of Ukraine submitted draft law No. 10358 on civil forfeiture of public officials’ assets obtained through corruption and restoration of criminal liability for illicit enrichment.

Key Aspects

TI Ukraine has asserted that the institute of civil forfeiture of illegally obtained assets has to be extended, and criminal liability for illicit enrichment has to be restored:

With consideration of the concerns expressed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine;
In a way that would minimize the risk of the article being repealed;
In a way that would make it possible for law enforcement to establish all elements of a crime.

Criminal Liability for Illicit Enrichment

This is the version of the illicit enrichment provision put forward by the president:

Article 368⁵. Illicit enrichment

1. Acquisition by a public official of assets the value of which exceeds twelve thousand tax-free minimum incomes of an individual–

is punishable by imprisonment for five to ten years and revocation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activity for up to three years.

Note.

Public officials are individuals specified in the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention,” Article 3, part 1, clause 1.
Acquisition of assets should be understood as acquisition of assets by a public official for possession, or acquisition of assets by a different private individual or legal entity financed by a public official, by agreement of a public official or at the direction of a public official.
Assets should be understood as money (including cash, funds on bank accounts or stored in banks or other financial institutions), other property, property rights, intangible assets, amount of reduction of financial liability, as well as works or services provided to a public official.
Income of a public official should be understood as any type of income received (accrued) by the public official in accordance with the requirements and restrictions set forth in the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention.”
When the difference between the value of acquired assets and the income is calculated, assets that are simultaneously reviewed in a proceeding on recognition of assets as unfounded and their forfeiture by the government, as well as assets forfeited to the national budget as part of such a proceeding, are not taken into account.

The proposed text introduces the following approaches to regulating the criminal liability for illicit enrichment:

The interpretation of illicit enrichment as the difference of value between acquired assets and income is introduced, which is consistent with the approach proposed by TI;
For an act to be criminalized, the difference must constitute more than twelve thousand tax–free minimum incomes of an individual (as of 1 January 2019 – UAH 11,526,000, i.e. approximately EUR370,000). This amount is twelve times greater than the minimum proposed by TI and the old version of the illicit enrichment article, and corresponds to what was suggested by TI as an act “on a large scale.” On the one hand, this version reduces the potential number of cases on illicit enrichment, on the other hand, it helps law enforcement agencies to focus on the most significant violations. For assets that exceed five hundred tax-free minimum wages (as of 1 January 2019 – UAH 960,500, or approximately EUR 31,000), it is proposed to apply civil forfeiture.
Definitions of assets and income are removed from the description in the article itself and are added as notes. Assets are defined as not only money, property, works, but also, for instance, as amount of reduction of financial liability, which has also been suggested by TI Ukraine and makes for an as broad definition of the notion as possible. It is also important that the article defines income as any kind of income received in accordance with the requirements and restrictions of the anti-corruption legislation, that is, legally obtained income.

Civil Forfeiture

Civil forfeiture is a potential tool to collect the property illegally obtained by public officials in the recent years for the benefit of the budget. It should be regarded as a way to forfeit property of an individual to public domain when such property has not been subject to seizure or special seizure and when legal grounds of its acquisition have not been proven. Finding and identification of illegally obtained assets will take place as part of the pre-trial criminal investigation, during which funds and other illegal assets will be traced, recorded and seized. Afterwards, a civil lawsuit will be filed to recognize such assets as unfounded.

The text on civil forfeiture proposed by the president:

Article 290. Filing a lawsuit on recognition of assets as unfounded and their forfeiture.

A lawsuit on recognition of assets as unfounded and their forfeiture to the national budget is filed by a representative of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine as approved by the prosecutor of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. In cases on recognition of assets as unfounded and their forfeiture to the national budget where the defendant is the director, a deputy director, a staff member (a manager, an official) of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the prosecutor of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, filing the lawsuit and representation of the national interests in court is assigned to prosecutors of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine at the directive of Prosecutor General.
A lawsuit is filed about unfounded assets:

– acquired during three years before the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning Forfeiture of Assets Owned by Public Officials and Punishment for Acquisition of Such Assets” comes into effect, if the difference between the value of assets and the public official’s income is five hundred or more times greater than the minimum wage as of the day when the aforementioned Law comes into effect;

– acquired after the aforementioned Law comes into effect if the difference between the value of assets and the public official’s income is five hundred or more times greater than the minimum wage as of the day when the aforementioned Law comes into effect but does not exceed the limit set forth in Article 368⁵ of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

A lawsuit on recognition of assets as unfounded and their forfeiture to the national budget can be filed against a public official if the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine or, in cases set forth in the law, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, has established that this official has acquired unfounded assets or that a different individual or legal entity has acquired unfounded assets funded by the public official, by agreement of the public official or at the directive of the public official.

If the lawsuit is filed, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine or, in cases set forth in the law, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine takes measures to identify assets about which there is evidence that they have been acquired by a public official for possession or acquired by a different individual or legal entity as funded by the public official, by agreement of the public official or at the directive of the public official, and takes measures to secure the lawsuit concerning such assets.

For the purposes of this Chapter:

1) Assets are money (including cash, funds on bank accounts or stored in banks or other financial institutions), other property, property rights, intangible assets, amount of reduction of financial liability, as well as works or services provided to a public official;

2) Public officials are individuals specified in the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention,” Article 3, part 1, clause 1.

3) Income of a public official is any type of income received (accrued) by the public official in accordance with the requirements and restrictions set forth in the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention.”

The following approaches to extending the civil forfeiture institute are implemented:

A lawsuit on recognition of assets as unfounded can be filed without a guilty verdict concerning the individual. Forfeiture of public officials’ illegally obtained assets will take place by court decision in civil proceedings.
The jurisdiction of the High Anti–Corruption Court extends to review of civil lawsuits on recognition of assets as unfounded. The claimants are representatives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine or prosecutors of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine.
The burden of proof of the connection between the assets and the public official and the fact that such assets are unfounded lies on the NABU or the PGO. At the same time, if such evidence is provided, the burden of proof of the fact that the assets are legal lies on the defendant.
The option of civil forfeiture is provided concerning assets obtained within three years before the Law comes into effect, if the value of such assets exceeds 500 minimum wages (as of 1 January 2019 – UAH 960,500, or approximately EUR 31,000). This partially resolves the problem of cases closed after the illicit enrichment provision was abolished. Now, illegally obtained assets can be seized in civil proceedings.
Civil forfeiture of assets acquired after the Law comes into effect will be used for assets of the following amounts: between five hundred minimum wages to twelve hundred tax-free minimum incomes (as of 1 January 2019 – UAH 960,500 to UAH 11,526,000, or approximately EUR 31,000 to EUR 370,000). Everything that exceeds this amount means criminal liability for illicit enrichment.
It should be noted that the European Court of Human Rights recognizes that seizure of assets beyond the scope of a criminal proceeding does not contradict the presumption of innocence, does not violate property rights and does not constitute punishment without trial (see cases M v Italy, Arcuri and Others v Italy, Riela and Others v Italy, Butler v the UK, Welch v the UK, Gogotidze and Others v Georgia).

If the draft law is adopted, public officials who have acquired assets illegally may face not only criminal liability but also civil forfeiture.

The post Illicit Enrichment: Analysis of President’s Draft Law first appeared on Transparency International Ukraine.

International Partners Ask Ukraine to Postpone Review of Illicit Enrichment Provision

Наталія Сліпенко — Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:57:46 +0000

The IMF, the U.S. Ambassador and the Head of the EU Delegation have sent a letter to the Committee on Law Enforcement asking it to postpone review of all 13 draft laws on criminal liability for illicit enrichment, because all the initiatives registered in the Parliament have to be improved.

“The U.S. Ambassador, the IMF mission and Head of the EU Delegation wrote a letter, which has arrived today: they are asking to postpone review of all the draft laws because they are flawed, including the one submitted by the President,” said head of the Law Enforcement Committee Andrii Kozhemiakin.

MP Mustafa Nayyem published the letter on his Facebook page.

The post International Partners Ask Ukraine to Postpone Review of Illicit Enrichment Provision first appeared on Transparency International Ukraine.