We are monitoring how Ukraine implements these obligations
The National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine is the law enforcement agency that has exclusive authority to investigate corruption offences of top officials. The reason for setting it up was to remove political influence on the investigation of high-profile corruption. NABU performs investigation under procedural guidance of prosecutors of the Specialised Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Cases of NABU are considered by courts of general jurisdiction until the system of specialised anticorruption courts is created.
According to the law there are no more than 700 NABU detectives of which more than 200 people are senior officers. Also three regional departments of NABU should be created. Annual budget: 480 million UAH (2016)
Public reports:
The National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine is the law enforcement agency that has exclusive authority to investigate corruption offences of top officials. The reason for setting it up was to remove political influence on the investigation of high-profile corruption. NABU performs investigation under procedural guidance of prosecutors of the Specialised Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Cases of NABU are considered by courts of general jurisdiction until the system of specialised anticorruption courts is created.
According to the law there are no more than 700 NABU detectives of which more than 200 people are senior officers. Also three regional departments of NABU should be created. Annual budget: 480 million UAH (2016)
Public reports:
The National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine is the law enforcement agency that has exclusive authority to investigate corruption offences of top officials. The reason for setting it up was to remove political influence on the investigation of high-profile corruption. NABU performs investigation under procedural guidance of prosecutors of the Specialised Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Cases of NABU are considered by courts of general jurisdiction until the system of specialised anticorruption courts is created.
According to the law there are no more than 700 NABU detectives of which more than 200 people are senior officers. Also three regional departments of NABU should be created. Annual budget: 480 million UAH (2016)
Public reports:
The National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine is the law enforcement agency that has exclusive authority to investigate corruption offences of top officials. The reason for setting it up was to remove political influence on the investigation of high-profile corruption. NABU performs investigation under procedural guidance of prosecutors of the Specialised Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Cases of NABU are considered by courts of general jurisdiction until the system of specialised anticorruption courts is created.
According to the law there are no more than 700 NABU detectives of which more than 200 people are senior officers. Also three regional departments of NABU should be created. Annual budget: 480 million UAH (2016)
Public reports:
The National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine is the law enforcement agency that has exclusive authority to investigate corruption offences of top officials. The reason for setting it up was to remove political influence on the investigation of high-profile corruption. NABU performs investigation under procedural guidance of prosecutors of the Specialised Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Cases of NABU are considered by courts of general jurisdiction until the system of specialised anticorruption courts is created.
According to the law there are no more than 700 NABU detectives of which more than 200 people are senior officers. Also three regional departments of NABU should be created. Annual budget: 480 million UAH (2016)
Public reports:
The National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine is the law enforcement agency that has exclusive authority to investigate corruption offences of top officials. The reason for setting it up was to remove political influence on the investigation of high-profile corruption. NABU performs investigation under procedural guidance of prosecutors of the Specialised Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Cases of NABU are considered by courts of general jurisdiction until the system of specialised anticorruption courts is created.
According to the law there are no more than 700 NABU detectives of which more than 200 people are senior officers. Also three regional departments of NABU should be created. Annual budget: 480 million UAH (2016)
Public reports:
The National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine is the law enforcement agency that has exclusive authority to investigate corruption offences of top officials. The reason for setting it up was to remove political influence on the investigation of high-profile corruption. NABU performs investigation under procedural guidance of prosecutors of the Specialised Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Cases of NABU are considered by courts of general jurisdiction until the system of specialised anticorruption courts is created.
According to the law there are no more than 700 NABU detectives of which more than 200 people are senior officers. Also three regional departments of NABU should be created. Annual budget: 480 million UAH (2016)
Public reports:
The National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine is the law enforcement agency that has exclusive authority to investigate corruption offences of top officials. The reason for setting it up was to remove political influence on the investigation of high-profile corruption. NABU performs investigation under procedural guidance of prosecutors of the Specialised Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Cases of NABU are considered by courts of general jurisdiction until the system of specialised anticorruption courts is created.
According to the law there are no more than 700 NABU detectives of which more than 200 people are senior officers. Also three regional departments of NABU should be created. Annual budget: 480 million UAH (2016)
Public reports:
The National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine is the law enforcement agency that has exclusive authority to investigate corruption offences of top officials. The reason for setting it up was to remove political influence on the investigation of high-profile corruption. NABU performs investigation under procedural guidance of prosecutors of the Specialised Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Cases of NABU are considered by courts of general jurisdiction until the system of specialised anticorruption courts is created.
According to the law there are no more than 700 NABU detectives of which more than 200 people are senior officers. Also three regional departments of NABU should be created. Annual budget: 480 million UAH (2016)
Public reports:
Ukrainian Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU, official name: the State Financial Monitoring Service of Ukraine) is the state authority, coordinated by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. FIU is carrying out an analysis of information about suspicious financial transactions which they receive from financial institutions according to the law. FIU is cooperating with the state authorities, the National Bank of Ukraine, competent international authorities (FIUs of other countries) in terms of counteracting legalization of funds and terrorist financing. It is the main authority of the country responsible for blocking any suspicious/fraudulent financial activity of any entity with further reporting to the law enforcement agencies.
The National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine is the law enforcement agency that has exclusive authority to investigate corruption offences of top officials. The reason for setting it up was to remove political influence on the investigation of high-profile corruption. NABU performs investigation under procedural guidance of prosecutors of the Specialised Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Cases of NABU are considered by courts of general jurisdiction until the system of specialised anticorruption courts is created.
According to the law there are no more than 700 NABU detectives of which more than 200 people are senior officers. Also three regional departments of NABU should be created. Annual budget: 480 million UAH (2016)
Public reports:
Ukrainian Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU, official name: the State Financial Monitoring Service of Ukraine) is the state authority, coordinated by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. FIU is carrying out an analysis of information about suspicious financial transactions which they receive from financial institutions according to the law. FIU is cooperating with the state authorities, the National Bank of Ukraine, competent international authorities (FIUs of other countries) in terms of counteracting legalization of funds and terrorist financing. It is the main authority of the country responsible for blocking any suspicious/fraudulent financial activity of any entity with further reporting to the law enforcement agencies.
SAPO is the department of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, which has special guarantees of independence, created to oversee activities of NABU. SAPO performs procedural guidance in NABU investigations, represents public prosecution in courts, and has the right to appeal to the courts with civil, commercial, and administrative claims in the public interest. Creation of SAPO is one of the basic guarantees of NABU independence and efficiency. According to Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine procedural guidance include the following rights and obligations:
1) start pre-trial investigation;
2) have full access to materials, documents, and other details related to pre-trial investigation;
3) assign pre-trial investigation agency to conduct pre-trial investigation;
4) assign investigator, pre-trial investigation agency to conduct within a time limit set by the public prosecutor, investigatory (detective) actions, covert investigatory (detective) actions or other procedural actions, or give instructions in respect of conducting such actions, or participate in them, and where necessary, conduct investigatory (search) and procedural actions;
5) assign the conduct of investigatory (search) actions, covert investigatory (search) actions to the relevant operational units;
6) institute audits and examinations in accordance with the procedure established by law;
7) overturn illegitimate and ungrounded rulings of investigators;
8) initiate with the head of the pre-trial investigative agency the issue of suspending the investigator from pre-trial investigation and appointment of another investigator;
9) take procedural decisions, including with regard to termination of criminal proceedings and to extending the time limits for the pre-trial investigation;
10) support or refuse to support the motions of investigator addressed to investigating judge on the conduct of investigatory (search) actions, covert investigatory (search) actions, other procedural actions in cases specified by the present Code or individually submit such motions to the investigating judge;
11) notify the individual of suspicion;
12) enter civil action for the Government and those individuals who are unable to defend their rights;
13) approve or refuse to approve the indictment, submissions on the application of measures of medical or educational nature, modify an indictment drawn up by the investigator or submission above, draw up himself indictments or motions concerned;
14) refer to court an indictment, request to enforce measures of medical nature, request to enforce compulsory medical or educational measures, or request to discharge an individual from criminal liability;
15) prosecute on behalf of the State in court, resign from supporting public prosecution, alter the accusation or lay additional accusation according to the procedure;
16) coordinate requests for international legal assistance or referral of criminal proceedings made by pre-trial investigation authority, or independently file such motion;
17) commission a pre-trial investigation authority to respond to a request (commission) for international legal assistance or criminal referral made by a competent authority of a foreign state, verify the completeness or legitimacy of procedural actions and also the completeness, comprehensiveness and objectiveness of investigation under the referred criminal proceeding;
18) verify the documents concerning surrendering a person (extradition) provided by a pre-trial investigation authority prior to referring them to a higher level prosecutor, and return these documents to an appropriate authority with written comments, if these documents are unjustified or fail to meet the requirements of international treaties to which the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine consented to be bound or laws of Ukraine;
19) commission pre-trial investigation authorities with search and apprehension of those individuals who committed a criminal offense outside Ukraine, and carry out specific procedural actions to surrender (extradite) a person at the request made by a competent authority of a foreign state.
SAPO is the department of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, which has special guarantees of independence, created to oversee activities of NABU. SAPO performs procedural guidance in NABU investigations, represents public prosecution in courts, and has the right to appeal to the courts with civil, commercial, and administrative claims in the public interest. Creation of SAPO is one of the basic guarantees of NABU independence and efficiency. According to Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine procedural guidance include the following rights and obligations:
1) start pre-trial investigation;
2) have full access to materials, documents, and other details related to pre-trial investigation;
3) assign pre-trial investigation agency to conduct pre-trial investigation;
4) assign investigator, pre-trial investigation agency to conduct within a time limit set by the public prosecutor, investigatory (detective) actions, covert investigatory (detective) actions or other procedural actions, or give instructions in respect of conducting such actions, or participate in them, and where necessary, conduct investigatory (search) and procedural actions;
5) assign the conduct of investigatory (search) actions, covert investigatory (search) actions to the relevant operational units;
6) institute audits and examinations in accordance with the procedure established by law;
7) overturn illegitimate and ungrounded rulings of investigators;
8) initiate with the head of the pre-trial investigative agency the issue of suspending the investigator from pre-trial investigation and appointment of another investigator;
9) take procedural decisions, including with regard to termination of criminal proceedings and to extending the time limits for the pre-trial investigation;
10) support or refuse to support the motions of investigator addressed to investigating judge on the conduct of investigatory (search) actions, covert investigatory (search) actions, other procedural actions in cases specified by the present Code or individually submit such motions to the investigating judge;
11) notify the individual of suspicion;
12) enter civil action for the Government and those individuals who are unable to defend their rights;
13) approve or refuse to approve the indictment, submissions on the application of measures of medical or educational nature, modify an indictment drawn up by the investigator or submission above, draw up himself indictments or motions concerned;
14) refer to court an indictment, request to enforce measures of medical nature, request to enforce compulsory medical or educational measures, or request to discharge an individual from criminal liability;
15) prosecute on behalf of the State in court, resign from supporting public prosecution, alter the accusation or lay additional accusation according to the procedure;
16) coordinate requests for international legal assistance or referral of criminal proceedings made by pre-trial investigation authority, or independently file such motion;
17) commission a pre-trial investigation authority to respond to a request (commission) for international legal assistance or criminal referral made by a competent authority of a foreign state, verify the completeness or legitimacy of procedural actions and also the completeness, comprehensiveness and objectiveness of investigation under the referred criminal proceeding;
18) verify the documents concerning surrendering a person (extradition) provided by a pre-trial investigation authority prior to referring them to a higher level prosecutor, and return these documents to an appropriate authority with written comments, if these documents are unjustified or fail to meet the requirements of international treaties to which the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine consented to be bound or laws of Ukraine;
19) commission pre-trial investigation authorities with search and apprehension of those individuals who committed a criminal offense outside Ukraine, and carry out specific procedural actions to surrender (extradite) a person at the request made by a competent authority of a foreign state.
SAPO is the department of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, which has special guarantees of independence, created to oversee activities of NABU. SAPO performs procedural guidance in NABU investigations, represents public prosecution in courts, and has the right to appeal to the courts with civil, commercial, and administrative claims in the public interest. Creation of SAPO is one of the basic guarantees of NABU independence and efficiency. According to Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine procedural guidance include the following rights and obligations:
1) start pre-trial investigation;
2) have full access to materials, documents, and other details related to pre-trial investigation;
3) assign pre-trial investigation agency to conduct pre-trial investigation;
4) assign investigator, pre-trial investigation agency to conduct within a time limit set by the public prosecutor, investigatory (detective) actions, covert investigatory (detective) actions or other procedural actions, or give instructions in respect of conducting such actions, or participate in them, and where necessary, conduct investigatory (search) and procedural actions;
5) assign the conduct of investigatory (search) actions, covert investigatory (search) actions to the relevant operational units;
6) institute audits and examinations in accordance with the procedure established by law;
7) overturn illegitimate and ungrounded rulings of investigators;
8) initiate with the head of the pre-trial investigative agency the issue of suspending the investigator from pre-trial investigation and appointment of another investigator;
9) take procedural decisions, including with regard to termination of criminal proceedings and to extending the time limits for the pre-trial investigation;
10) support or refuse to support the motions of investigator addressed to investigating judge on the conduct of investigatory (search) actions, covert investigatory (search) actions, other procedural actions in cases specified by the present Code or individually submit such motions to the investigating judge;
11) notify the individual of suspicion;
12) enter civil action for the Government and those individuals who are unable to defend their rights;
13) approve or refuse to approve the indictment, submissions on the application of measures of medical or educational nature, modify an indictment drawn up by the investigator or submission above, draw up himself indictments or motions concerned;
14) refer to court an indictment, request to enforce measures of medical nature, request to enforce compulsory medical or educational measures, or request to discharge an individual from criminal liability;
15) prosecute on behalf of the State in court, resign from supporting public prosecution, alter the accusation or lay additional accusation according to the procedure;
16) coordinate requests for international legal assistance or referral of criminal proceedings made by pre-trial investigation authority, or independently file such motion;
17) commission a pre-trial investigation authority to respond to a request (commission) for international legal assistance or criminal referral made by a competent authority of a foreign state, verify the completeness or legitimacy of procedural actions and also the completeness, comprehensiveness and objectiveness of investigation under the referred criminal proceeding;
18) verify the documents concerning surrendering a person (extradition) provided by a pre-trial investigation authority prior to referring them to a higher level prosecutor, and return these documents to an appropriate authority with written comments, if these documents are unjustified or fail to meet the requirements of international treaties to which the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine consented to be bound or laws of Ukraine;
19) commission pre-trial investigation authorities with search and apprehension of those individuals who committed a criminal offense outside Ukraine, and carry out specific procedural actions to surrender (extradite) a person at the request made by a competent authority of a foreign state.
In order to complete building of the effective system of fight against high profile corruption and ensure effective operation of NABU and SAPO, establishment of independent anticorruption courts is crucial. Anticorruption courts should have exclusive jurisdiction over the corruption crimes of top officials. Special procedure of selection of judges, separate budgeting, and exclusive appellate procedures should guarantee independence and high level of expertise of these courts.
In order to complete building of the effective system of fight against high profile corruption and ensure effective operation of NABU and SAPO, establishment of independent anticorruption courts is crucial. Anticorruption courts should have exclusive jurisdiction over the corruption crimes of top officials. Special procedure of selection of judges, separate budgeting, and exclusive appellate procedures should guarantee independence and high level of expertise of these courts.
In order to complete building of the effective system of fight against high profile corruption and ensure effective operation of NABU and SAPO, establishment of independent anticorruption courts is crucial. Anticorruption courts should have exclusive jurisdiction over the corruption crimes of top officials. Special procedure of selection of judges, separate budgeting, and exclusive appellate procedures should guarantee independence and high level of expertise of these courts.
In order to complete building of the effective system of fight against high profile corruption and ensure effective operation of NABU and SAPO, establishment of independent anticorruption courts is crucial. Anticorruption courts should have exclusive jurisdiction over the corruption crimes of top officials. Special procedure of selection of judges, separate budgeting, and exclusive appellate procedures should guarantee independence and high level of expertise of these courts.
Ukrainian legislation allowed only the seizure of assets belonging to suspect or convict, and did not allow to seize property owned by the third parties. Due to this, during the criminal proceedings the assets either were not seized at all or the seizure was made at the later stage of investigation when the property could have been lost already. Similar situation existed with regard to assets confiscation: it was possible to confiscate only those assets owned by the person who committed the crime.
The National Agency for the Detection, Tracing and Management of Assets Derived from Corruption and Other Crimes (ARMA) is the special executive body that ensures detection and tracing of assets which can be seized in criminal proceedings, and/or management of assets which are seized or confiscated in criminal proceedings. Before 2016, there was no system of effective detection, tracing and management of criminal assets in Ukraine. As a result, criminal assets were not seized or were improperly maintained during the investigation, or sold at a lower price after the confiscation.
Establishment of the Agency is aimed at taking a burden off the law enforcement agencies and making the process of detection, tracing and managing criminal assets more transparent, effective and accountable.
The National Agency for Corruption Prevention is the central executive authority of Ukraine with the special status, responsible for development and implementation of the national anticorruption policy. NACP is tasked to administer the registry of electronic asset declarations, clarify subject legislation, verify e-declarations, enforce administrative penalties for failure or late submission of e-declarations and declaring false information. In addition, the NACP has the following responsibilities:
Electronic asset declarations of individuals performing public functions are designed to establish transparent mechanism for monitoring income and fortune of civil servants. Previous declaration mechanism was ineffective because of limited access to declarations, lack of mechanisms of control over their submission and verification of the information indicated, as well as lack of penalties for illicit enrichment and false statements.
The list of persons obliged to submit e-declarations is defined in Art.3 of the Law On Corruption Prevention. The scope of information to be disclosed is established by Art.46 of the same Law: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1700-18/conv/print1443182583583872
Electronic asset declarations of individuals performing public functions are designed to establish transparent mechanism for monitoring income and fortune of civil servants. Previous declaration mechanism was ineffective because of limited access to declarations, lack of mechanisms of control over their submission and verification of the information indicated, as well as lack of penalties for illicit enrichment and false statements.
The list of persons obliged to submit e-declarations is defined in Art.3 of the Law On Corruption Prevention. The scope of information to be disclosed is established by Art.46 of the same Law: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1700-18/conv/print1443182583583872
Electronic asset declarations of individuals performing public functions are designed to establish transparent mechanism for monitoring income and fortune of civil servants. Previous declaration mechanism was ineffective because of limited access to declarations, lack of mechanisms of control over their submission and verification of the information indicated, as well as lack of penalties for illicit enrichment and false statements.
The list of persons obliged to submit e-declarations is defined in Art.3 of the Law On Corruption Prevention. The scope of information to be disclosed is established by Art.46 of the same Law: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1700-18/conv/print1443182583583872
Conflict of interests is individual’s private interest in the area where they perform representative office or powers that can influence the objectivity or impartiality of their decisions, or cause committing or non-committing acts during the execution of powers.
The law defines real and potential conflict of interests. Potential conflict of interest is the private interest that may affect further decisions or actions. Real conflict of interest is the private interest that have already affected decisions or actions.
Transparent funding of political parties is aimed at preventing political corruption, ensuring accountability of political parties, creating conditions for fair political competition, and reducing dependence of political parties on individuals or oligarchic groups.
Electronic asset declarations of individuals performing public functions are designed to establish transparent mechanism for monitoring income and fortune of civil servants. Previous declaration mechanism was ineffective because of limited access to declarations, lack of mechanisms of control over their submission and verification of the information indicated, as well as lack of penalties for illicit enrichment and false statements.
The list of persons obliged to submit e-declarations is defined in Art.3 of the Law On Corruption Prevention. The scope of information to be disclosed is established by Art.46 of the same Law: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1700-18/conv/print1443182583583872
The High Council of Justice (HCJ) is a collective,independent judicial self-
In Ukraine, public procurement used to be an area of high corruption risk. Each year, millions of dollars were siphoned off the state budget. Effective and transparent procurements are designed to save money for the state budget and create a healthy business environment.
In Ukraine, public procurement used to be an area of high corruption risk. Each year, millions of dollars were siphoned off the state budget. Effective and transparent procurements are designed to save money for the state budget and create a healthy business environment.
Today, on October 8, the Plenum of the Supreme Court considered the appeal of the High Council of Justice regarding unconstitutionality of the judicial reform. Judges of the Supreme Court (SC) decided to appeal to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU). This means the beginning of the abolition of the judicial reform. The appeal was […]
On September 27, the Selection Commission of the SAPO head made the step towards unblocking the competition. They appointed the date of next stage (practical task) and approved its procedure. The task will be completed by two finalists on October 9. The practical task is the penultimate stage of the competition. It will be followed […]
Yesterday, on September 22, the Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence approved for the second reading the final text of draft law 3196-d on the SBU reform. The key indicator of the reform, namely deprivation of the Service of investigative function, remained unimplemented. This can only be changed by a separate law, the draft […]
At a meeting held on 13 September, members of the Council of Judges refused to delegate their representatives to the Ethics Council, which is tasked with checking the integrity of the HCJ members. This means that the Council of Judges, controlled by the judicial mafia, is sabotaging judicial reform. Judicial reform envisages the establishment of […]