Executive Summary of the Shadow report on evaluating the effectiveness of state anti-corruption policy implementation

Kyiv, 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OF THE SHADOW REPORT
ON EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF STATE
ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Authors:
М.І. Khavronyuk – doctor of law, professor (department of criminal law and criminology
of Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University), honored lawyer of Ukraine, director on
the scientific development of the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform;
І.B. Koliushko – Head of the Board of the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform; member
of the Commission on Senior Civil Service;
V.P. Tymoshchuk – PhD in law, deputy Head of the Board of the Centre of Policy
and Legal Reform, senior researcher of Koretsky Institute of state and law of National
Academy of Science of Ukraine;
B.V. Malyshev – doctor of law, expert of the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform;
D.О. Kalmykov – PhD in law, senior researcher, expert of the Centre of Policy and
Legal Reform; researcher of Luhansk State University of Internal Affairs (laboratory of
legal, organizational and tactical problems of investigative activities);
Y.R. Yurchyshyn – executive director of the Transparency International Ukraine;
О.V. Kalitenko – policy analysis expert of the Transparency International Ukraine;
O.V. Lemenov – manager of anti-corruption reform taskforce of the Reanimation
Package of Reforms;
R.V. Sivers – independent expert.
Executive Summary of the Shadow report on evaluating the effectiveness of
state anti-corruption policy implementation / [М. І. Khavronyuk, I.B. Koliushko,
V.P. Tymoshchuk, and others] ; General editor: M.I. Khavronyuk. – Кyiv, 2017. –
56 pages.
The Summary presents main conclusions formulated based on the results of
public evaluation of the efficiency of state anti-corruption policy implementation. The
evaluation covers mainly 2016, but it extends in some aspects (in particular, in the
context of historical comparison) back to 2013-2015 and earlier periods, as well as
January - February 2017.
Shadow report on evaluating the effectiveness of state anti-corruption policy
implementation (basic analytical document) prepared on the basis of specially
developed methodology of comprehensive internal evaluation of country's progress
in the anti-corruption area, which was first applied during the preparation of analytical
report in 2015 and covers the following four areas: 1) anti-corruption policy;
2) prevention of corruption; 3) criminalization of corruption and law enforcement activity;
4) international cooperation.
© Authors, 2017
© Centre of Policy and Legal Reform, 2017
© Transparency International Ukraine, 2017

3
ЗМІСТ
LIST OF ACRONYMS........................................................................................ 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... 6
SECTION 1. ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY........................................................ 7
1.1. Political will to combat corruption
(D. Kalmykov, І. Koliushko)..................................................................... 7
1.2. Anti-corruption strategy and action program/plan
(І. Koliushko, O. Soroka) ...................................................................... 13
1.3. Research on corruption state of affairs
(Y. Yurchyshyn, О. Kalitenko)............................................................... 14
1.4. Civil society and business participation in the development
and monitoring of anti-corruption policy implementation
1.5. Building a climate of corruption non-acceptance
1.6. Specially authorized institutions for anti-corruption policy
(O. Soroka, V. Tymoshchuk)................................................................. 17
SECTION 2. PREVETION OF CORRUPTION ................................................. 20
2.1. Specialized agency for prevention of corruption
(R. Sivers)............................................................................................ 20
2.2. Civil service integrity............................................................................. 23
2.2.1. Compliance of civil service legislation with international
standards (D. Kalmykov, V. Tymoshchuk) ..................................... 23
2.2.2. Conflicts of interest, ethical standards, declaration of income
and expenses of civil servants (R. Sivers) ..................................... 25
2.3. Introduction of good governance standards ......................................... 28
2.3.1. Anti-corruption expert evaluation of draft legal acts
(D. Kalmykov)................................................................................ 28
2.3.2. Anti-corruption programs (D. Kalmykov)..................................... 31
2.3.3. Legislation on administrative procedures (V. Tymoshchuk)......... 34
2.3.4. Financial control and audit (D. Kalmykov) .................................. 36
2.3.5. Government procurement (O. Lemenov)..................................... 39

4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE SHADOW REPORT
2.3.6. Access to information (O. Lemenov)........................................... 40
2.3.7. Prevention of corruption in the private sector
(O. Lemenov)................................................................................. 41
SECTION 3. CRIMINALIZATION OF CORRUPTION
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY (M. Khavronyuk)........................... 43
3.1. Criminalization of corruption in line with
international legal standards................................................................. 43
3.2. Application of criminal law, existence of effective procedures for
investigation and trial of criminal cases on corruption crimes................ 47
3.3. Specially authorized institutions for detection
and investigation of corruption crimes................................................... 48
3.4. Statistical information on the application
of anti-corruption criminal legislation..................................................... 49
SECTION 4. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION (B. Malyshev)...................... 53
4.1. Ukraine’s participation in international legal
instruments against corruption ............................................................. 53
4.2. International cooperation and mutual legal assistance.......................... 55

5
LIST OF ACRONYMS
MOJ – Ministry of Justice
NACS – National Agency on Civil Service
NAPC – National Agency for Prevention of Corruption
NACB – National Anti-Corruption Bureau
ОЕСD – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
SACP – Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecution Office
SBI – State Bureau of Investigations
UNCAC United Nations Convention Against Corruption

6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Shadow Report on Evaluating the Effectiveness of State Anti-
corruption Policy Implementation is the result of an evaluation conducted
by the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform in collaboration with experts
from Transparency International Ukraine, Reanimation Package of
Reforms civic initiative, and independent experts from October 2016 to
March 2017.
The evaluation covers mainly 2016, but it extends in some aspects (in
particular, in the context of historical comparison) back to 2013-2015 and
earlier periods, as well as January - February 2017.
The goal of the Report is to conduct a comprehensive internal
independent evaluation of the real state of affairs with corruption in
Ukraine and the state’s actions undertaken to combat corruption, and,
based on the results of such evaluation, to draw conclusions on the
effectiveness of these measures and to propose its own recommendations.
Conclusions and recommendations are presented following each
subsection of the Report.
The evaluation was carried out based on the specially developed
methodology by independent civic experts, who have for a long time
specialized in the area of corruption prevention: D.O. Kalmykov,
I.B. Koliushko, O.O. Soroka, Y.R. Yurchyshyn, O.V. Kalitenko,
V.P. Tymoshchuk, R.V. Sivers, O. Lemenov, M.I. Khavronyuk, B.V. and
Malyshev. Two of the experts, including team leader M.I. Khavronyuk,
also participated in the preparation of the first report in these series in
2015.
On April 3, 2017, the Report was discussed at a roundtable “The state
anti-corruption policy: is it effective?”. Results of this discussion were
taken into account during finalization of the Report in April 2017.
The target audience of the Report is the entire population of Ukraine,
but its beneficiaries include primarily the Parliament, the President, and the
Cabinet of Ministers, along with Parliament’s Committee on Preventing
and Combatting Corruption, the National Agency for Prevention of
Corruption, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Specialized Anti-
corruption Prosecution Office, the State Bureau of Investigations, the
National Agency for Detection, Search, and Management of Assets
Derived from Corruption and other Crimes, the National Police, courts,
and other state bodies.

7
SECTION 1.
ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY
1.1. Political will to combat corruption
1.1.1. Priority for issues of combatting corruption in policy
programs of the President and the Cabinet of Ministers
1. Political will in the anti-corruption area is the ability and
willingness of the state (represented by the relevant institutions and
individuals) to effectively prevent corruption. Externally, it is reflected in
the processes and events that allow to draw conclusions on its authenticity
or lack thereof, presence or absence, strength or weakness.
2. In 1997-2013, the President was formally the key carrier of political
will in the area of preventing corruption, and he assumed the role of
identifying the main priorities in the anti-corruption area. The government
positioned itself (mainly through the MOJ) as the main implementer of
the majority of measures aimed at carrying through of these priorities.
Strategic documents in the anti-corruption area were of poor quality,
did not meet the real needs of corruption prevention, and went largely
unimplemented.
The President’s and the Government’s activities during 1997-2013
should be described as ongoing imitation of combatting corruption.
3. In 2014, the situation with political will in the anti-corruption
area began to improve rapidly, with the adoption of a series of extremely
important and high-quality basic and strategic documents in this area.
In 2014, a fundamental reassignment of “roles” of various government
entities involved in making and implementation of anti-corruption policy
also occurred. Parliament became the key carrier of political will in the
area of preventing corruption. Not only did it adopt the Anti-Corruption
Strategy for 2014-2017, but it will also continue to define the principles
of anti-corruption policy (Anti-corruption strategy) (see Art. 18, para.
1 of the Law “On Preventing Corruption”). Since March 16, 2016, the
NAPС is also responsible for the development and implementation of
anti-corruption policy.

8
President Petro Poroshenko’s real influence over anti-corruption
policy in 2014-2016 has turned out to be minimal.
4. The current Government Action Program adopted on April
14, 2016, is a quality program document, which in general correctly
identifies a significant portion of measures (directions) that would have
to be implemented in the immediate term. However, the priorities that
are declared in it do not fully comply with the commitments placed upon
the Government by the Anti-corruption Strategy for 2014-2017 and State
Program for Its Implementation.
5. The Plan of Government’s Priority Actions for 2016 adopted on
May 27, 2016 is low-quality strategic document that disregards the vast
majority of the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2014-2017
and the State Program for Its Implementation; is out of line with anti-
corruption provisions of the Government Action Program; incorrectly
identifies the placement of description of anti-corruption measures in the
overall structure of the Plan of Government’s Priority Actions for 2016;
and does not contain anything resulting from Government’s own initiative.
6. In 2017, it will be necessary to ensure the highest degree of
implementation of all anti-corruption measures arising from the Anti-
corruption Strategy for 2014-2017 and specified in the State Program on
Implementation of the Anti-corruption Strategy for 2015-2017, as well
as to ensure the revision of current State Program on Implementation
of the Anti-corruption Strategy for 2015-2017 to facilitate the best
implementation of its provisions.
Based on the analysis of the corruption situation, as well as the results
of implementation of Anti-corruption Strategy for 2014-2017, the NAPC
should develop a new Anti-corruption Strategy.
7. The process of developing the anti-corruption provisions of the
Government Action Program should be based both on current provisions
of the Anti-corruption Strategy and State Program for Its Implementation
and properly specified obligation of the government set forth in the
Coalition Agreement.
In preparing the Government Action Plan, it is necessary to keep in
mind that it should be aimed at the implementation of priorities (including
those relating to anti-corruption) set forth in the Government Action
Program.

9
1.1.2. Placement and significance of anti-corruption issues in
program documents of political parties and in the Agreement
Creating the Coalition of Deputy Factions in Parliament of Ukraine
1. The programs of parliamentary parties differ significantly in form
and content with respect to the planned anti-corruption measures.
However, as of 2014, none of these programs of parliamentary parties
(as far as he planned anti-corruption measures are concerned) can be
considered as the result of thorough analysis of Ukraine’s international
obligations in the anti-corruption area or recommendations made by
international institutions (including GRECO recommendations based on
the results of three rounds of evaluation in Ukraine, or recommendations
provided as part of the monitoring of implementation of the OECD
Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan), or of the current situation in the
country (i.e., analysis of the development and implementation of anti-
corruption policy, identifying of key problems in this area, etc.).
Anti-corruption provisions in the programs of the vast majority of
parliamentary parties could be described as kind of balancing between
the parties’ own intuitive vision of corruption problems (and thus, of the
ways to resolve them) and the fight for citizens’ approval in the following
elections. Therefore, some, or sometimes even all, of the measures are
more populist than substantive in nature.
In the context of planned anti-corruption measures, only three of
the political parties’ programs can be viewed as more or less substantive
(those of the People’s Front, Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc “Solidarity”, and
All-Ukrainian Union “Fatherland”). Anti-corruption provisions in the
programs of Opposition Bloc and “Self-Reliance” Union political parties
are too brief, and those in Oleh Lyashko’s “Radical Party” too lacking in
specificity.
Despite this, different parliamentary parties have some common
ideas with respect to anti-corruption priorities. In particular, four of
the six parliamentary parties (the People’s Front, Petro Poroshenko’s
Bloc “Solidarity”, “Self-Reliance” Union, and All-Ukrainian Union
“Fatherland”) discussed the need to establish an independent anti-
corruption body in their programs; three political parties (the People’s
Front, Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc “Solidarity”, and All-Ukrainian Union
“Fatherland”) mentioned the introduction of transparent and effective
declaration of income and expenses by officials; while three other
parties (the People’s Front, Opposition Bloc, and All-Ukrainian Union

10
“Fatherland”) speak of deregulation and optimization of the provision of
administrative services.
2. In developing the party’s program and formulating the party’s anti-
corruption priorities, its members should focus on the current corruption
situation in the state, Ukraine’s international commitment in the anti-
corruption area, and recommendations made by international institutions,
and also take into account the content of the current Anti-Corruption
Strategy and the State Program for Its Implementation.
3. In the context of anti-corruption initiatives, the Coalition Agreement
of November 27, 2014 is a quality strategic document that, as of the end of
2014, envisaged the implementation of truly the most important measures
that would open the door for comprehensive implementation of anti-
corruption reform.
However, it would have been an even higher quality document had
Section III of the Coalition Agreement been the result of quality study of
provisions of the Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2014-2017 and evaluation
of the existing corruption situation in the country.
4. In defining anti-corruption priorities in the Coalition Agreement,
the representatives of political parties should preferably be guided by the
requirements of the current Anti-Corruption Strategy and State Program
for Its Implementation rather than by their intuition (the only exception
could be decisions on any conceptual change of course in the state’s anti-
corruption policy).
The Coalition Agreement, on one hand, should be a kind of a
coordinated (joint) action plan of the new government (i.e., it should
reflect the ideas contained in the programs of respective parties), and on
the other hand, it should reflect a clear understanding of what should be
done at this particular stage in each area (including anti-corruption).
1.1.3. Consistency between actions of key political will carriers
and priorities declared in program documents
1. As of March 1, 2017, none of the problems mentioned in Anti-
Corruption Strategy for 2014-2017 has been fully resolved, and none of
the objectives have been achieved. Out of 44 anti-corruption measures
partially identified in the Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2014-2017, only 9

11
have been completed in full (21%), 19 (43%) implemented partially, 16
(36%) remain unfulfilled.
2. The overall level of the implementation of the State Program on
Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2015-2017 makes up 60% (124 of 207
planned activities), rather than 93% (192 of 207 measures) that were
supposed to be implemented as of March 1, 2017.
3. The Coalition Agreement (subsections 1-5 of Section III) identified
the five most important anti-corruption measures (as of the end of 2014).
Among these, only one has been implemented in a quality fashion and
on time: the law aimed at ensuring transparency in the financing of
political parties and election campaigns, in line with to the GRECO
recommendations, was adopted. The second measure (ensuring the
functionality of the NACB) has been implemented with a slight delay,
while the remaining three have remained unfulfilled (60%).
4. The Government Action Program of April 14, 2016 provides for the
need to carry out 15 anti-corruption measures, of which only 8 (53%) have
been implemented as of March 1, 2017.
5. The Government Plan of Priority Actions for 2016 of May 27,
2016 defined three anti-corruption objectives (creation and ensuring the
full operation of the NAPC, the National Agency for the Identification,
Investigation, and Management of Assets Derived from Corruption and
other Crimes, and the SBI). None of these have been implemented in full.
6. In 2014-2016, the Parliament has distinguished itself as a highly
productive body in the anti-corruption policy area, since all the basic anti-
corruption laws and the absolute majority of those anti-corruption laws
that were submitted for its consideration have been adopted. However,
Parliament’s anti-corruption policy was not based on the assessment of
previous anti-corruption policy or a comprehensive analysis of the current
situation in the area. Thus, in some cases, its effectiveness was low. At
present, this “policy” is chaotic (especially when it comes to Parliament
members’ initiatives), situational (for example, as happened with
implementation of the Visa Liberalization Action Plan), and occasionally
even intuitive.
7. The Government generally managed quite well with its role in
the development and implementation of anti-corruption policy, having

12
approved a high-quality State Program on the Implementation of
Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2015-2017 and fulfilled almost all of its
obligations under this Program. At the same time, the Government recused
itself from responsibility for the performance of measures envisaged
by the Program, nor did it provide for any mechanisms to control its
implementation by other entities. Moreover, despite requirement of sec.
5 art. 18 of the Law “On prevention of corruption”, the State Program on
the Implementation of Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2015-2017 has never
been revised.
8. In 2014-2016, the President had insignificant influence over the
making and implementation of anti-corruption policy in Ukraine. In those
isolated cases when he intervened in this process as part of his authority,
his position in the context of anti-corruption reforms was ambiguous (in
some cases, he facilitated the anti-corruption reform implementation,
while in others, he sabotaged it).
9. The Parliament, the Government, and the President should ensure
gradual transition from Parliament’s situational decisions to decisions
resulting from the implementation of high-quality anti-corruption policy.
In other words, the principal drafter of the respective draft laws (and the
generator of ideas) should be the NAPC, rather than Parliament members,
the Government, or the President.
Furthermore, the Government should ensure control over the
implementation of measures envisaged by the subsequent programs on
implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy (at least with respect
to those entities whose activities are directed and coordinated by the
Government directly or through relevant ministers), while the President
should ensure more intensive operation the National Council on Anti-
Corruption Policy, organize effective cooperation between this Council
and the NAPC, and use the results of its activities to introduce in
Parliament legislative initiatives aimed at improving of anti-corruption
legislation.
10. The activity of the NAPC in 2016 - early 2017 should be
considered satisfactory, especially given the fact
For now, the NAPC should undertake a comprehensive assessment
of the state of implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2014-
2017 and the State Program on the Implementation of Anti-Corruption
Strategy for 2015-2017. Based on this analysis, it should develop

13
both recommendations to responsible entities in connection with rapid
implementation of all outstanding anti-corruption measures and effective
mechanisms for encouraging the authorities to fulfill their obligations.
In the nearest future, it is necessary to:
1) complete all processes associated with ensuring the NAPC’s
operation (election of the fifth member, full staffing of all vacancies,
development and approval of all necessary procedural and other regulatory
legal acts);
2) ensure quality fulfillment of all obligations that the NAPC is
charged with under the Law “On Prevention of Corruption”;
3) ensure 100% implementation of all measures that the NAPC is
charged with under the Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2014-2017 and the
State Program for Its Implementation.
11. In 2015-2016, the MOJ’s efficiency in the context of
implementation of anti-corruption measures was low. The Ministry has not
developed even half of the draft laws that it was supposed to work on. As
a result: a) some of those laws had to be developed by other institutions
or individual entities, who also had to independently carry out advocacy
(for example, the law aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability
of political parties); b) some of them had not been developed at all, or the
process of their development or introduction in Parliament was blocked
due to inactivity of the MOJ (this happened with the draft laws “On Public
Consultations” and “On Administrative Procedure”).
During 2017, the MOJ should develop and facilitate the adoption
of all outstanding laws, the development of which is envisaged by the
Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2014-2017 and the State Program for Its
Implementation (see. Attachment 5).
1.2. Anti-corruption strategy and program/action plan
1. For the first time in the history of independent Ukraine, the
Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2014-2017 and the State Program for Its
Implementation are distinguished by outstanding textual quality and the
capacity to create conditions for implementation of real anti-corruption
policy.
These documents are characterized as compliant with international
standards and, at the same time, taking into account the specific conditions

14
of the state development and the level and scale of corruption, containing
clear guidelines for achieving the set goals, and providing for procedures
and responsible entities, annual parliamentary hearings on the state of
implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy, and the possibility for
annual adjustment of anti-corruption policy.
However, the absence of previous quality research on anti-corruption
policy did not allow to fully take into account the needs of the state.
This resulted in the failure to fulfill (or partial/delayed fulfillment) of a
substantial number of measures specified by the mentioned documents.
Miscalculations that were made in previous years should be taken into
account by the NAPC during the preparation of the new Anti-Corruption
Strategy and the Program of Its Implementation.
2. In 2017, it is necessary to ensure the implementation of
all outstanding measures envisaged by the State Program on the
Implementation of Fundamental Principles of State Anti-Corruption
Policy in Ukraine (Anti-Corruption Strategy) for 2015-2017.
To accomplish this, it is necessary first of all to conduct research of
quantitative and qualitative indicators of corruption in Ukraine, as well as
of the state of implementation of the Law “On the Principles of State Anti-
Corruption Policy in Ukraine (Anti-Corruption Strategy) for 2014-2017”
and the State Program of Its Implementation. Then, based on the analysis
of corruption risks, the state of implementation of the current strategy,
broad public discussion, and international expert evaluation, it will be
necessary to develop a draft of the new Anti-Corruption Strategy and to
ensure the adoption by Parliament of the new Anti-Corruption Strategy for
2018 and the subsequent years; as well as for the NAPC to develop and
for the Cabinet of Ministers to approve the State Program Actions for the
Implementation of Anti-Corruption Strategy.
1.3. Research on corruption state of affairs
1. A national system for evaluating the level of corruption is starting to
be introduced in Ukraine. Its basic element involves special sociological
tools, which will help to capture the dynamics on indicators relating to
corruption prevalence and to citizens’ perception of the effectiveness
of anti-corruption activity. To increase confidence in these tools, the
capacity to verify primary data, their interpretation, and results of state
measurement of corruption levels should be envisaged. In conducting

15
the research on corruption state of affairs and in decision-making by
government authorities and local self-governments based on such
research, any political and ideological speculations must be avoided.
2. The approved methodology of standard polling on corruption
levels in Ukraine, which is offered as a standardized tool for systematic
monitoring and evaluation of corruption level and effectiveness of anti-
corruption activity in Ukraine, is a positive first step towards eliminating
the government’s inability to conduct anti-corruption studies and
introducing a new model of public policy on corruption prevention.
It is recommended to develop an Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2018
and subsequent years and the State Programs for their implementation on
the basis of quality interdisciplinary (sociological, legal, etc.) analysis of
anti-corruption policy and research on corruption level in Ukraine, as well
as of results of implementation of the previous strategy. It is necessary
to carry out systematic monitoring of the implementation of the State
Anti-Corruption Strategy and the State Program, and to provide tools for
responding to their non-implementation or inadequate implementation.
3. Civil society organizations remain among the most active
researchers on the state of corruption affairs, but they largely lack
the opportunity to obtain state financing for this activity. To address
this problem, it is necessary to provide for the state budget funds for
commissioning and conducting of anti-corruption studies by non-
governmental analytical centers (including under the expenditures for
NAPC support line item).
1.4. Civil society and business participation in the development
and monitoring of anti-corruption policy implementation
1. Active cooperation between the state and the civil society remains
fragile.
Despite the progress with carrying out of civic control and civic
assistance in monitoring of the implementation of anti-corruption policy
and prevention of corruption, it turned out that the government mainly
views the civil society as a dangerous opponent rather than a partner.
Anti-corruption sector specifically, which carries the greatest risk of
conflict with the state, is being put “on a leash”, creating a possibility for
its activists to find themselves “subject to a criminal article” in case of

16
potential disagreement with the government or exposing its corruption,
thus returning Ukraine to the threat of authoritarianism.
It is necessary not only to repeal the recent regressive revision to
anti-corruption legislation, but also to establish the complete legislative
protection of whistleblowers – from the moment of selection of a secure
channel for reporting on corruption up until to obtaining the guarantees of
confidentiality and financial and employment protection. The respective
draft law No. 4038-a “On Protection of Whistleblowers and Disclosure of
Information about Harm or Threat to Public Interests” has been pending
at Parliament since July 2016.
2. The initiative “Together against Corruption” is a unique example
of the public’s positive cooperation with the Government, but certain
ministries, including the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment
and Natural Resources, and the State Agency for E-Governance, are yet
to show better progress in the implementation of identified anti-corruption
measures. Unfortunately, in other cases, there is still a gap between the
public recommendations and the managerial decisions made by the
government, due to the latter’s difficulties accepting anything generated
from outside.
With the establishment of mechanisms of responsibility for the
government’s refusal to cooperate with civil society or inadequate
enforcement of approved decisions, such cooperation should reach a new
level. The government should also create opportunities for more powerful
engagement of the private sector in anti-corruption activity. Strengthening
advocacy of the final product to ensure its proper perception, avoiding the
practice of “knowing how to cook, but not knowing how to serve” will be
similarly useful.
3. After the approval of model anti-corruption programs for
government authorities and legal entities, the NAPC’s next step should be
the monitoring of anti-corruption programs’ quality and implementation.
To reduce the incidence of poor-quality programs, a general online
training course on legal principles and practical aspects of preventing
corruption should be developed for officials of government and local self-
governance authorities.
To ensure equal distribution of functions among all members of the
NAPC, it is necessary to select the NAPC’s fifth member and to establish

17
effective cooperation with the newly formed Public Council under the
NAPC.
1.5. Building a corruption non-acceptance climate
1. The state’s goal to instill a negative attitude towards corruption
within the society has not been achieved. Many people do not understand
the meaning of anti-corruption reforms, what is corruption, and above
all – their rights and violations resulting from corruption.
The NAPC, as the main body responsible for developing such
attitudes, should develop a communication strategy and implement
measures provided under the State Anti-corruption Program regarding
shifting the public opinions on corruption in order to implement the
priorities identified in the Anti-corruption strategy, as well as designate
appropriate funds in the state budget. Informational and awareness-raising
efforts should also be carried out by leadership and authorized officials
in state and local self-governance bodies and in legal entities, under the
NAPC’s coordination and methodological support.
2. Given the successful anti-corruption campaigns conducted by
NGOs, it appears worthwhile for the government’s anti-corruption policy
to apply the civil society’s experience, especially regarding the use of
modern technologies, by expanding the area of their application to places
where certain public services are being provided to citizens.
Anti-corruption campaigns should also focus on the violations of
universal moral values rather than on the potential punishment, in order
to instill the culture of reporting on corruption and rejection of corruption
as a tool of resolving problems.
1.6. Specially authorized institutions on anti-corruption policy
1. Year 2016 became the year of transition. Its greatest achievement
was the long-expected launch of the NAPC and of the electronic
declaration system.
In the initial stages of its work, the NAPC was faced with significant
obstacles: inadequate material and technical base, staff vacancies, lack of
support from the Cabinet of Ministers, conflicts with the MOJ, intentional
delays with the election of the NAPC’s fifth member, etc.
In 2016, the anti-corruption policy was somewhat chaotic in nature,

18
due to the lack of the NAPC’s full-fledged operation and the desire on
the part of interested pro-government parties to transform it from an
independent institution to a controlled one.
The Parliament, the Cabinet of Ministers, and the MOJ have retained
significant influence over anti-corruption policy in Ukraine. Unfortunately,
it was not possibly to fully utilize the potential capacity of the National
Council for Anti-Corruption Policy under the President of Ukraine.
2. In 2017-2018, the following priorities will be necessary to:
for the National Agency for Prevention of Corruption:
- take all necessary measures to conduct transparent competitive
selection of the 5th NAPC member as soon as possible;
- provide the NAPC with appropriate logistical support and fill all
vacant staff positions at the NAPC;
- ensure the NAPC has access to information databases of government
and local self-governance bodies;
- ensure the organization of annual research studies on the state
of corruption, in accordance with the Government-approved national
methodology for assessing the level of corruption in line with the UN
standards;
- ensure rapid provision of information to the public on the state of
implementation of anti-corruption program documents;
- prepare and publish interim reports on the implementation of the
State Program on the Implementation of Anti-Corruption Strategy for
2014-2017;
- formulate a strategic vision for the state financing of political parties;
- ensure a comprehensive process for verification of declarations;
- develop the Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2018 and for subsequent
years, based on the analysis of corruption situation and the results of
implementation of previous Anti-Corruption Strategy;
- create adequate conditions for full-fledged operation of the Public
Council under the NAPC;
- fine-tune the mechanism for protection of individuals who provide
assistance in preventing and combatting corruption (whistleblowers);
- conduct awareness events aimed at developing the culture of
corruption intolerance within the society, involving the Ministry of
Education and Science, the media, etc. in these events;

19
- ensure that anti-corruption expert evaluations are conducted for draft
laws and regulations;
for the Parliament of Ukraine:
- ensure constructive cooperation between Parliament (its specialized
committees) and the NAPC concerning the review of anti-corruption
legislation and development of draft laws on issues requiring resolution;
for the Parliament’s Committee on Corruption Prevention and
Counteraction:
- create conditions for adequate expert support to the Committee’s
Secretariat, in view of to its excessive overload with the draft laws subject
to anti-corruption expert evaluation;
for the Ministry of Justice
- focus its efforts on: a) exercising the authority to conduct anti-
corruption expert evaluations of legislative acts and draft legislative acts,
as well as developing the recommendations for legislative improvements;
b) drafting legislative acts arising from the provisions of the law “On
Preventing Corruption”;
- ensure constructive cooperation with the key institution for anti-
corruption policy matters (i.e., the NAPC);
- provide the NAPC with access to the databases necessary for
ensuring its full-fledged operation;
for the Government’s Commissioner (Ombudsman) for Anti-
Corruption Policy:
- the Cabinet of Ministers is to issue a decree on elimination of this
position;
for the National Council on Anti-Corruption Policy:
- create conditions for its smooth operation and delivery of results
(prepared draft laws), as well as improve cooperation with Parliament and
the NAPC in order to effectively utilize its potential capacity.

20
Section 2.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
2.1. Specialized agency for prevention of corruption
1. The history of activity (or inaction) of the competition committee
for the election of NAPC’s members during 2015-2017 gives grounds
to suggest that its main operational problems rest with the inability of
professional and objective decision-making by its members and the lack
of the political will of all entities responsible for the formation of the
commission’s composition and results of its activity – rather than with the
legislative aspects.
In their turn, manipulations by the Commission’s chair and certain
members, in the absence of a principled position by other members, had
undermined confidence not only in the commission’s decisions, but also
in the competitive procedure as an instrument for objective selection of
the NAPC members.
Completing the appointment (staffing) of the NAPC’s members
remains the top priority for the Government. However, given the fact that
substitutions in the Commission’s membership are unlikely lead to major
changes in its working approaches, control by representatives of the civil
society, international organizations, and donor countries remains the main
instrument of ensuring transparency in its activities.
2. Despite a number of negative aspects, the Government and the
NAPC’s leadership generally managed to ensure filling the vacancies
on the Agency’s staff during 2016. The main positive results should be
recognized as follows:
- allocation of office space;
- establishing comprehensive regulatory support for the NAPC
Secretariat operations;
- approving the NAPC Secretariat structure based on the Agency’s
functions and authority set forth by laws;

21
- filling more than half of the NAPC staff vacancies;
- launching the process of establishing the network of regional
branches.
3. To improve the NAPC’s operations, it will be necessary to carry out
the following in the nearest future:
- ensure the publication of all documents and information relating to
competition for positions with the NAPC Secretariat (conducted in 2016)
on the NAPC’s official website, and organize subsequent open access to
the relevant information.
- analyze the reasons that caused the inefficiencies in testing during
competitions for vacant positions with the NAPC Secretariat in 2016;
- taking into account the results of NAPC Secretariat performance,
develop a medium-term personnel policy strategy, which should include
issues relating to criteria (conditions) for issuance of decisions by the
NAPC leadership announcing competitions for vacant positions; criteria
for the selection of applicants, drawing primarily on the evaluation of
prior experience in the anti-corruption area;
- continue with the policy of retaining the NAPC’s personnel capacity
by raising the specialists’ professional level and practical skills;
- intensify the process of establishment of the NAPC’s regional
branches and ensure their subsequent personnel, methodological, and
logistical support.
4. During 2016, the NAPC’s leadership generally succeeded
in ensuring full-fledged and adequate implementation of the Law’s
requirements to provide for regular training and professional development
of the Secretariat staff, and took additional measures to continue this work
in the near-term.
Subsequently, it is necessary to:
- ensure implementation of the Planned Schedule of Trainings for the
Agency’s Secretariat Staff for the first half of 2017, as well as of the
Concept Paper on Organizing and Conducting Anti-Corruption Education
(Trainings) by the NAPC for Authorized Units (Officials) on Prevention
and Detection of Corruption;
- introduce detailed record-keeping on all staff who attended trainings
and their annual personal schedules of participation in relevant events;
- ensure providing timely and complete information on the training

22
events, as well as posting of educational, methodological, and other
supporting materials on the relevant section of the NAPC’s official
website.
5. The Government has, for the most part, followed through with
the provisions of the State Budget for 2016 in terms of financing the
NAPC activity in the key areas of its work. In addition, the problem
with reallocation of expenditures for the NAPC development has been
resolved, albeit with some delay. The high level of financial security
of the Secretariat’s staff is worth noting, as it generally promoted the
implementation of the NAPC’s financial independence guarantees as
stipulated in the Law “On Preventing Corruption”.
Subsequently, the Government and Parliament will need to:
- ensure full and timely financing of the NAPC operations;
- promote the development of the NAPC’s regional branches by
providing appropriate financial and logistical support;
- respond promptly if needed to the NAPC’s recommendations
for reallocation of financial resources between different expenditure
categories;
- ensure comprehensive and complete consideration of the NAPC’s
recommendations during the drafting of the State Budget for 2018.
6. It must be stated that, in 2016, the NAPC’s work with regard to
establishment of the Public Council as the main instrument of public
control over activities of the Agency was generally unsatisfactory. As
for ensuring transparency trough public information, while this work is
being conducted, it is not systematic in nature due to the lack of a clear
information strategy (policy).
Subsequently, it is necessary to:
- adopt the NAPC’s communication strategy;
- formulate the principles and uniform rules for posting information
on the NAPC resources;
- keep the posted information up to date by filling the gaps that exist
in the relevant sections of the NAPC’s website;
- ensure ongoing control over the content of the NAPC’s website, as
well as over the relevance of posted information;
- eliminate technical deficiencies in the functioning of NAPC’s

23
website and improve the search capacities in connection with posted
information;
- ensure the NAPC staff’s unconditional compliance with the
requirements of the Law “On Access to Public Information”.
2.2. Civil service integrity
2.2.1. Compliance of civil service legislation
with international standards
Legislation on civil service that was in effect before April 31, 2016
did not meet international civil service standards.
The Law “On Civil Service” of December 10, 2015 is based
on European civil service standards and takes into account the best
international experience in this area. The principal innovations of this
Law are as follows: ensuring depoliticization of civil service; establishing
clear separation of civil service from other positions in state government
bodies; regulating the status of civil servant; defining general conditions
for entry into civil service; introducing exclusively competitive selection
process for civil service; establishing additional guarantees for creation
of professional and politically neutral senior civil service; reforming
civil servants’ remuneration system; upgrading the institution of their
disciplinary responsibility; eliminated retirement preferences for former
civil servants; enhancing the role of the NACS; etc.
2. Other achievements of the civil service reform include the
adoption of the new Law “On service in local self-governance bodies”;
Government’s approval of the Strategy of public administration reform in
Ukraine for 2016-2020 and the Plan for its implementation, as well as of
the Concept Paper on introduction of reform experts’ positions.
Another positive aspect is the fact that, as of March 1, 2017, the
Government and the NACS adopted (approved, confirmed etc.) almost all
regulations necessary for the successful implementation of the new 2015
Law “On Civil Service”.
3. Despite significant breakthrough in civil service reform, a number
of new challenges will face the civil service reform in 2017-2020,
primarily relating to the need for effective implementation of already
adopted legislation and policy documents and the need to introduce
certain targeted amendments to them in the near furfure.

24
4. At present, it is necessary to:
1) ensure effective implementation of changes in the operation of the
ministries resulting from the appointment of state secretaries: to improve
the knowledge of newly appointed state secretaries and other senior civil
service representatives, to ensure their acquisition of necessary skills, to
develop “good practice” of state secretaries, and to provide expert and
advisory support to their activities (comprehensive assistance);
2) conduct reorganization of the ministries’ secretariats: to ensure
enlargement of departments, transparent procedures for preparation and
adoption of government decisions based on policy analysis, with adequate
public consultations, deconcentration and rationalization of functions of
officials within the ministries; to separate the departments that formulate
and implement state policy and the departments that perform other
functions defined by law (administrative services, inspection authority,
etc.);
3) introduce the practice of policy analysis and strategic planning in
the ministries;
4) provide for the operations of the Coordinating Council and working
groups in the areas aligned with the implementation of the Strategy for
Reform of Public Administration System for 2016-2020, as well as of the
ministries and other entities charged for its implementation;
5) set forth political leadership and responsibility for civil service
reform by one of the Government members;
6) urgently implement measures of civil service reform identified by
the Strategy for reform of public administration system for 2016-2020,
starting with the following:
- finalize and adopt the following regulations: “Certain matters of
implementation of Ukraine’s international treaties, as related to the use of
funds received by the State Budget as part of aid programs of the European
Union, foreign governments, international organizations, and donor
institutions”; “Procedure for Reimbursement of Civil Servant Expenses
and Provision of Other Types of Compensation In Connection with
Business Trips (drafted by Ministry of Finance); “Procedure for testing
of candidates for entry into civil service on the fluency of command of
state language”; “Model Procedure for conducting evaluations of official
performance results of civil servants (drafted by NACS);
- develop a highly qualified and competent group of experts on civil
service reform;

25
- determine the optimal number of civil servants, taking into account
the functions and organizational structure of state bodies, and optimize
the number of employees of state government and local self-governance
bodies;
- reform the civil servants’ remuneration system in order to increase
the level of salaries, conditioned on ensuring stability of public finance;
- create a service for personnel management in ministries and other
central executive bodies;
- create an integrated information system for management of human
resources in civil service;
- reform the system of civil servants’ professional education;
- increase the level of NACS’s institutional capacity to ensure
effective implementation of the Law “On civil service” and a full-fledged
civil service reform;
7) draft a new Procedure for conducting competitions for civil service
positions, taking into account the prior experience of competitions in
2016-2017;
8) adopt the Law “On amending some legislation of Ukraine due
to adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On Civil Service” (draft law No.
4526-d of July 14, 2016), which sets forth conditions for further reform
of organization and operation of the Cabinet of Ministers and other central
executive bodies;
9) the adoption of the draft law “On amending the Law of Ukraine
“On civil service” to address certain issues of civil service” of April
15, 2016 (No. 4370-1), which proposes to provide the President with
unconstitutional authority and casts doubt on significant part of civil
service reform.
2.2.2. Conflicts of interest, ethical standards, declaration of income
and expenses of civil servants
1. Having ensured a comprehensive normative regulation of the
institution of preventing the conflicts of interest in 2015, Ukraine not
only provided for legal sustainability, but also moved ahead with practical
application of these standards. Approval of the relevant Guidance became
an important step towards the formation of a clear legal position and the
relevant practice of application of the law by officials,, law enforcement
bodies and courts.

26
At present, the NAPC’s active awareness-raising activity facilitates
behavioral changes among civil servants, who are starting to pay greater
attention to the evaluation of their own private interests in the light of
conflict with official duties.
At the same time, serious problems have been observed with
the NAPC’s law enforcement activity, which need to be addressed
immediately. In the future, it is necessary to:
-analyze the reasons behind unsatisfactory operation and the level
of influence of each of them reason on the effectiveness of the NAPC’s
control function in the area of preventing and resolving conflict of interest;
- develop and approve inspection procedure, clearly defining the
rights and obligations of the NAPC’s officials during the inspection, the
deadlines for inspection, grounds of responsibility and responsibility
measures in the context of improper fulfillment of obligations etc.;
- with the Public Council’s assistance, review the results of the NAPC
activity for 2016 in the area of “Conflict of interest, ethical standards, the
declaration of income and expenditure by civil servants”;
- identify corruption risks that may cause poor efficiency of the
NAPC’s operation in this area, and include these risks, along with as
measures to address them, into the NAPC’s Anti-corruption program;
- continue internal and external educational and methodological work;
- ensure the development of sectoral codes of ethical conduct.
2. Despite a number of unresolved problems and obvious resistance
on the part of certain entities, the NAPC and the civil society, supported
by international organizations, managed to protect the launch of the
electronic declaration system.
The introduction of this system not only forced the senior level civil
servants to demonstrate their wealth to the society, but also, in the longer
term, initiate the process of bringing the corruption proceeds out of the
shadow. Information that was publicized has resulted in a lots of questions
to law enforcement bodies concerning the legality of origins of movable
and immovable property of many officials, which will require conducting
the respective investigations.
The launch of the new financial declaration system has, in turn,
become an important indicator of the genuineness of anti-corruption
reform and a clear signal for the need of further political and financial
support of Ukraine for international organizations.

27
In the future, it is necessary to:
- immediately remove the technical inconsistencies between the
actual electronic template of declaration and the regulatory and other
acts of the NAPC that approved the respective template and its technical
requirements;
- undertake measures to provide the NAPC with access to all registries
necessary for effective verification of electronic declarations;
- ensure flawless operation of the Unified State Registry of
Declarations of Individuals Authorized to Perform State or Local
Self-Governance Functions, as well as appropriate financing for rental
equipment necessary for this purpose;
- conduct effective verification of annual declarations, primarily those
filed in 2016 and those to be submitted in 2017;
- continue to provide methodological interpretations and assistance
for submitting entities on technical issues relating to Registry’s operation;
- ensure administration of the Registry and financing for the
development of modules necessary for conducting automatic verification
of declarations.
3. Notwithstanding the existence of progressive legislation in
the area of protection of individuals reporting on corruption offenses
(whistleblowers), the NAPC did not manage to demonstrate any
achievements in 2016. The NAPC has not started to develop the practice
of whistleblower protection measures, and has not approved any
methodological guidelines for the organization of work with whistleblower
reports of corruption.
Thus, it is necessary to:
- approve methodological guidelines on the organization of work with
whistleblower reports of corruption;
- organize trainings for authorized corruption prevention divisions
(authorized officials) related to the organization of work with
whistleblower reports;
- explore international experience regarding the reward system for
corruption whistleblowers, and introduce proposals based on the obtained
result.

28
2.3. Introduction of good governance standards
2.3.1. Anti-corruption expert evaluation of draft legal acts
1. Anti-corruption expert evaluation is an effective instrument for
identifying corruption factors in the draft and effective legislation, which
allows to minimize the commission of corruption offenses justified by
deficiencies of Ukrainian legislation.
2. Currently, anti-corruption expert evaluation should be conducted
by the MOJ and the Parliament’s Committee charged with combatting
corruption issues (mandatory anti-corruption expertise), and may be also
conducted by the NAPC and the public (optional expertise).
3. Legislation places the main burden (duty) of conducting anti-
corruption expert evaluation of existing and draft legislation with the
MOJ. However, in 2011-2014, the MOJ only simulated such evaluations,
as it almost never found any corruption factors in the draft legislation.
Thus, during 2012-2013, based on the analysis of 9,757 drafts, the MOJ’s
experts issued only 41 opinions that refer to the presence of corruption
factors (0.4%). None of these opinions have been made available to the
public.
Since 2014, the MOJ stopped even simulating this activity. The
MOJ’s reports on the results efforts taken for prevention and combatting
corruption are not being published. The MOJ does not respond to public
information requests on this matter.
In almost four years (June 9, 2013 - March 1, 2017), the MOJ has
analyzed only a handful of effective legislative acts, in which corruption
factors were found only in three. The MOJ has not undertaken any
measures to eliminate these factors.
4. According to the logic of Article 55 of the Law “On prevention
of corruption”, the Parliament’s Committee charged with the combatting
corruption issues should to be ranked as the second (after the MOJ) most
important authority in anti-corruption expert evaluations. However, in
2013-2016, this Committee used this instrument to prevent corruption
much more actively and effectively as compared to the MOJ. In 6 years
of having such authority, none of the Ministers of Justice has shown any
interest in the use of this anti-corruption instrument, and has not realized
its true value and possibilities. At the same time, V. Chumak, and even

29
more so Ye. Sobolev (both Parliament members) showed real will to
prevent corruption both through anti-corruption expert evaluations and
through cooperation with the public on this issue.
5. Overall, from June 9, 2013 to January 31, 2017, the Parliament’s
Committee charged with combatting corruption issues received 8,445
legislative drafts for review, of which the Committee was able to analyze
7,645 (90.5%). 454 (5.9%) drafts were deemed by the Committee
to contain corruption factors and not meet the requirements of anti-
corruption legislation. According to Ye. Sobolev, as of the end of 2016,
none of these drafts have become a law.
6. The Parliament’s Committee charged with the combatting
corruption issues productively cooperates with public representatives on
conducting expert evaluations, both through the Public expert council
and the Council for public expert evaluations that were established by it,
and through cooperation with certain CSOs focused on conducting civic
anti-corruption expert evaluations (Centre for Policy and Legal Reforms,
Ukrainian Institute for Public Policy, Center “Eidos”, etc.).
7. The NAPC does not implement the provisions of article 55 of the
Law “On prevention of corruption”:
- it does not carry out anti-corruption expert evaluations of draft
legislation introduced for Parliament’s or the Government’s consideration;
- it does not conduct periodic review (monitoring) of existing
legislation for the presence of corruption factors provisions, and does
not provide the MOJ with recommendations on including respective
legislative acts in the MOJ’s Plan for conducting of corruption expert
evaluations of the existing legislation.
As for March 1, 2017, the NAPC has not approved:
- its own Methodology for conducting of anti-corruption expert
evaluations;
- the Procedure for NAPC’s monitoring of effective legislation to
identify the presence of corruption factors and presentation of its results;
- an act that would set forth the rules or list of those legislative acts
that will be subject to the NAPC’s monitoring.
8. In terms of conducting the anti-corruption expert evaluations, civil
society institutions have turned out to be the most active. The results of
such evaluations were used not for destructive criticism of the authorities,

30
but also to maximize the support for the latter in conducting mandatory
anti-corruption expert evaluation of existing and draft legislation.
In particular, due to the productive cooperation between the
Committee charged with combatting corruption issues and the experts on
the Public Expert Council, the Council on Public Expert Evaluations, and
certain CSOs, this Committee finally managed to ensure quality analysis
of all draft laws submitted for its review.
9. Despite the requirement of sec. 8 of art. 55 of the Law “On
prevention of corruption”, the results of public anti-corruption expert
evaluations are either not taken into by the relevant adopting entities
(exception is the Parliament’s Committee charged with combatting
corruption issues) or are formally reviewed without any response (not to
mention taking into account the provided recommendations).
10. In the nearest term (I-II quarters of 2017), it will be necessary
to ensure 100% implementation of legislation on anti-corruption expert
evaluations, including:
1) ensure the fulfillment of the MOJ’s obligation relating to
development, approval, and implementation of the annual plan for
conducting anti-corruption expert evaluations of effective laws, acts of
the President, and the Government in areas identified in sec. 4 art. 55 of
the Law “On prevention of corruption”;
2) ensure conducting of quality anti-corruption expert evaluations of
draft legislation introduced in the Government’s, as well as of effective
legislation;
3) develop its own methodology of conducting anti-corruption expert
evaluations by the Parliament’s Committee charged with corruption
prevention, ensuring the same approach in the process of examination by
all experts on the Committee;
4) The NAPC should:
- develop and adopt its own methodology for conducting anti-
corruption expert evaluations;
- develop and adopt the Procedure for NAPC’s periodic review
(monitoring) of effective legislation for the presence of corruption factors
and the Plan of implementation of such monitoring in 2017;
- begin conducting anti-corruption expert evaluation of draft
legislation carrying potentially high levels of corruption risks, which is
being introduced in Parliament or the Government;

31
- ensure periodic review (monitoring) of legislation for the presence
of corruption factors, and provide the MOJ with proposals on including
the respective legal acts into the Plan for conducting of anti-corruption
expert evaluation of existing legislation.
11. In somewhat distant term (2017-2018), it is necessary to develop
amendments to the legislation (or to adopt specific law), that will:
1) vest the NAPC with authority to conduct anti-corruption expert
evaluations of all legislative drafts introduced in Parliament by the
Government or the President; of all legislative drafts pending before
the Cabinet of Ministers and the President, as well as acts of Ukrainian
legislation related to the most dangerous areas (from the point of potential
corruption factors)1
;
2) eliminate the MOJ’s duty for conducing mandatory anti-corruption
expert evaluation of legislative drafts that are being introduced in
Parliament by the Government or the President, as well as of the effective
legislation. This will allow to prevent a conflict of interests in matters of
anti-corruption expertise of legislative drafts introduced in Parliament by
the Government, as well as to efficiently use the NAPC’s special status
and independence in matters of anti-corruption expert evaluation of
legislative drafts being introduced in Parliament by the President, and of
the effective legislation.
3) define the general principles and special features of legal regulation
of conducting of anti-corruption expert evaluations (clearly define the
entities and objects of anti-corruption expert evaluation, as well as a
unified list of corruption factors, etc.);
4) set forth the general requirements for the methodology of
conducting anti-corruption expert evaluations (which will apply to all
entities), presentation, publication, and, most importantly, review and
taking into consideration of anti-corruption expert evaluation outcomes.
2.3.2. Anti-corruption programs
1. One of the reason for corruption in the state government and local
self-governance bodies during 1991-2014 was the fact that their annual
corruption prevention plans that existed were mostly pro forma and did
1 The special status of this body should ensure additional guarantees for an independent
external expert evaluation of these acts.

32
not change from year to year, and therefore their implementation in
principle could not ensure effective corruption counteraction.
The new anti-corruption legislation adopted in 2014 provides for the
introduction of two types of anti-corruption programs: 1) for public law
legal entities (state government bodies, local self-governance bodies, and
state targeted funds); and 2) for private law legal entities.
2. In developing and implementing the anti-corruption programs by
state government and local self-governance bodies and state targeted
funds, a number of mandatory requirements must be complied with
in order for such programs to be effective. These requirements can be
fulfilled only with full-fledged functioning of the NAPC, including the
development of all necessary regulatory and methodological materials, as
well as carrying out the coordination, analysis, control, etc.
3. In 2016, the NAPC performed part its designated duties in this
area, which enabled some of the public law legal entities to prepare better
quality anti-corruption programs (as compared to previous documents in
this area). However, these cannot be viewed as the result of “a systemic
approach to the prevention of corruption in state government and local
self-governance bodies on the basis of the results of analysis of corruption
risks”.
4. As of the beginning of 2017, the NAPC carried out a significant
part of its duties aimed at ensuring the development of quality anti-
corruption programs by public law legal entities (e.g., the Methodology
for evaluating corruption risks in the work of government authorities was
approved, necessary trainings were conducted, etc.). This provided the
state government and local self-governance bodies and the state targeted
funds, working jointly with the NAPC, with an opportunity to develop and
approve potentially effective anti-corruption programs.
However, not all of these bodies took advantage of this opportunity,
because only 60 programs were approved by March 1, 2017, which is not
more than 49% of the programs that should have been approved by that
date. An additional 6 anti-corruption programs (5%) were approved with
slight delay. According to information provided by the NAPC as of March
27, 2017, 57 anti-corruption programs have not yet been adopted (46%).
5. An anti-corruption program for a private law legal entity must be
approved only by a legal entity’s head as designated by law.

33
As of March 1, 2017, several private law legal entities have adopted
such anti-corruption programs. However, even the NAPC does not
have any summarized or general information on these entities (as these
programs are not subject to government approval).
6. Control over the state of implementation of mandatory anti-
corruption programs, both for public law and private law legal entities,
is delegated to the NAPC. However, this does not eliminate the ability of
civil society institutions to exercise civic control over these processes, by
using generally available instruments.
7. During the first half of 2017, the NAPC needs to develop, approve,
and publish the following documents:
- Recommendations for the elimination of typical corruption risks
for state government and local self-governance bodies and state targeted
funds;
- Methodological recommendations for the preparation of anti-
corruption programs and model anti-corruption programs of state
government and local self-governance bodies;
- Methodological recommendations for the prevention of corruption
in the private sector;
- Strategy for the implementation of anti-corruption standards in the
private sector;
- Special information programs for entrepreneurs.
8. Throughout 2017 and in the future, the NAPC must engage in the
following activities in the context of anti-corruption programs of public
law legal entities:
- coordinate and provide methodological assistance to state
government and local self-governance bodies on the most effective ways
of identifying corruption risks in their activities and implementation of
measures to remove them, including in the context of the preparation and
implementation of anti-corruption programs;
- analyze anti-corruption programs of state government and local
self-governance bodies and make binding recommendations for their
consideration;
- verify the organization of work on the preparation of follow-up anti-
corruption programs;

34
- coordinate the implementation of anti-corruption programs of state
government and local self-governance bodies;
- conduct inspections of organization of activity on the
implementation of anti-corruption programs, facilitate improvements in
their implementation, and, if necessary, initiate disciplinary responsibility
for failure to implement or improper implementation of these programs.
9. Throughout 2017 and in the future, the NAPC must engage in the
following activities in the context of anti-corruption programs of private
law legal entities:
- conduct campaigns aimed at informing business representatives on
anti-corruption legislation and the practice of its application;
- conduct trainings for authorized individuals responsible for anti-
corruption programs;
- make recommendations concerning the application of so-called
“integrity pacts” (e.g., within infrastructure projects or other projects that
anticipate significant costs for State Budget);
- ensure conducting periodic monitoring of the implementation of the
Law “On amending some legislative acts regarding the determination of
final beneficiaries of legal entities and public figures” and, if necessary,
develop proposals to improve legislation in this area.
2.3.3. Legislation on administrative procedures
1. As of March 27, 2017, most of the procedural element of the
relationships between government authorities and the citizens in Ukraine
are either not governed by legislation at all or are governed only by
regulations. Exceptions include only those segments of such relationships
that are currently governed by the effective Laws “On Citizens Petitions”
and “On Administrative Services”.
2. After almost 19 years since setting course towards the development
and adoption of the law on general administrative procedures, as well
as lengthy period of activity by the MOJ working group (resulting in
the development of rather high quality draft Law “On Administrative
Procedure”), government was not able to manage ensuring its adoption.
3. The main reasons behind non-adoption of a law on general
administrative procedure in Ukraine include: 1) general problems in the

35
development of administrative law scholarship and education (especially
in the context of teaching administrative law); and 2) lack of public and
political demand for relevant legislation, due to the information vacuum
in this area.
4. In the nearest future (II-III quarters of 2017), it is necessary to
finalize the process of development of the draft law “On Administrative
Procedures”. In order for this to happen, it is necessary to:
- create a renewed and efficient working group under the MOJ to
expedite the finalization of the draft law “On Administrative Procedure”.
As the basis of finalized version, preferably should take The text of the
draft that existed as of the beginning of 2015 (which is the best text of
the draft and, incidentally, has received a positive opinion from SIGMA
experts) should preferably be taken as the foundation for the revised
version (responsible party: MOJ);
- make recommendations to involve representatives of local self-
governance bodies (or, at least, of the associations of local self-governance
bodies) in the relevant working group, to ensure utmost possible
consideration of the local self-governance bodies’ needs, capacity, and
experiences (responsible party: local self-governance bodies);
- in an open and inclusive way, review all recommendations and
feedback on the draft law that will be provided by the experts and the
public (responsible party: MOJ working group);
5. Simultaneously with the processes aimed at finalizing the draft Law
“On Administrative Procedure”, it is necessary to:
- assist the MOJ in improving its institutional capacity in terms of
general administrative procedure, by conducting trainings(including
study visits) for the ministry’s staff, members of the relevant working
group, Cabinet of Ministers Secretariat staff, etc. (such assistance could
be provided by international organizations);
- study and promote foreign experience (especially of certain socialist
countries) in the area of adoption and implementation of legislation on
general administrative procedure (responsible parties: scholars and CSOs);
- prepare training programs on general administrative procedure for
all civil servants and local self-governance officials (responsible parties:
MOJ, NACS);
- secure organizational and financial support from international
organizations for the development, testing, and implementation of

36
training programs and activities on the theme of general administrative
procedure for a wide range of future users (public officials, law professors,
institutions that provide training and advanced training education for
public officials, judges, etc.).
6. In July – August, 2017, the revised draft law “On Administrative
procedure” should be submitted to the Government for its consideration,
followed by introduction in Parliament in September 2017.
7. During Parliament’s consideration of this draft law, it is necessary
to provide for an adequate information and advocacy campaigns
aimed at creating a steady conviction among the public and Parliament
representatives on the need for adoption of the Law “On Administrative
Procedure” (responsible parties: MOJ, Government, scholars and CSOs).
2.3.4. State financial control and audit
1. External and internal state financial control and audit have been
introduced in Ukraine. External financial control and audit are currently
carried out primarily by Parliament and the Government, whereas internal
control is done by administrators of budget funds.
2. External financial control and audit on behalf of Parliament is
carried out by the Accounting Chamber, which, during the periods of
October 22, 1996-December 31, 2005 and September 30, 2010-October 5,
2013 had control authority only in connection with the use of state budget
funds. During January 1, 2006-September 29, 2010 and from October 6,
2013 onwards, the Accounting Chamber is endowed with control authority
over both the use and the receipt of state budget funds.
The latter should be viewed positively, since the lack of financial
control over state budget revenues significantly reduces the efficiency
of its receipts. The need for such control is also supported by annual
reports of the Accounting Chamber, which detects more violations in this
area each year and is taking measures to eliminate them (in particular,
violations totaling UAH 10 billion were detected in 2015 alone).
3. On July 2, 2015, Parliament adopted a new Law “On the Accounting
Chamber”, which is based on the constitutional provisions and takes into
account the universally recognized international standards of external
audit of public finances, as well as the best practices of foreign countries.
In the event of adequate implementation of the Law, the activity of the AC

37
should become more transparent and open to the public, and efficiency of
its control measures should fundamentally improve.
4. Despite many years of complaints by international experts relating
to the unacceptable situation in the area of monitoring of public finances of
local government authorities, the situation in this area remains unchanged.
Currently, such monitoring conducting by the State Audit Service, which
is a central executive body whose activity is coordinated directly by the
Government, and which therefore cannot be impartial on these issues.
Therefore, in the nearest future, it is desirable to develop a legislation
package aimed at implementation of the GRECO recommendations in this
area. The most effective way of implementing these recommendations
involves systemic amendments to Article 98 of the Constitution, Law
“On the Accounting Chamber”, Regulations on the State Audit Service of
Ukraine, etc. An alternative way to address the problem involves creating
a separate independent body charged with monitoring of public finances at
the local level. For this purpose, a special law on central executive bodies
with special status must be adopted, along with introducing appropriate
amendments to the budget legislation. Furthermore, the Government
Resolution No. 242 “On optimization of the system of central executive
power bodies” of September 10, 2014, among other documents, should
also set forth that none of the bodies (including the Cabinet of Ministers)
has the right to guide and coordinate its activities.
5. Despite the fact that Parliament had until October 10, 2015 to
appoint a new membership of the Accounting Chamber, it is yet to be
formed.
To ensure effective functioning of the AC and independent external
financial control of public finances, Parliament ought to appoint a new
membership of the AC from among professional candidates of integrity
as quickly as possible.
6. The analysis of the AC’s activity during 2012-2015 suggests
that, despite the gradual reduction in the number of control, analytical,
and expert measures, as well as in the number of entities subject to
inspection, the total value of budget legislation violations and damages
from inefficient use of state budget funds are increasing (from UAH 12.9
billion in 2012 to UAH 22.7 billion in 2015). This situation is a cause
for concern, as it shows that the situation in this area is not significantly
improved.

38
7. A systemic analysis of the AC’s reports for 2012-2015 leads to a
conclusion that the vast majority of violations of budget legislation, as
well as incidents of poor management and use of state funds are systemic
in nature and repeating from year to year. All of this indicates the low
efficiency of measures undertaken by the AC.
One of the reasons behind poor efficiency of the AC’s work may also
involve the fact that, having uncovered thousands of different violations
over four years (2012-2015), only 94 case files were transferred to
law enforcement agencies (including the Prosecutor General’s Office).
However, since 2014, the situation began to gradually improve, with the
number of transferred case files increasing by almost twice every year.
8. In the nearest future, it is desirable for the AC to:
- increase the annual number of control, analytical, and expert
measures, as well as the number of entities subject of inspection;
- analyze the efficiency of measures undertaken in previous years, and
provide for more effective measures in the future based on this analysis;
- establish more precisely all circumstances of the offense, identify
guilty persons, and, should there be grounds for doing so, transfer relevant
materials to law enforcement agencies in order to bring guilty persons to
legal (including criminal) responsibility.
9. Starting from 2013, the number of control measures carried out by
the SFI/SAS and the annual scope of inspection coverage of the controlled
institutions has been constantly decreasing. As of the end of 2016, these
numbers went down by almost 10 times. The volume of the use of funds
covered by such inspections has similarly been rapidly decreasing.
The number of financial offenses detected by the SFI/SAS is
decreasing each year, which causes a decrease in all other related
indicators (e.g., the number of audit case files transferred to law
enforcement bodies, the number of initiated pre-trial investigations, the
number of court claims, the number of persons brought to administrative
and disciplinary responsibility, etc.). However, some indicators of the SFI/
SAS activity have been declining independently of the overall reduction
in the scope of state financial control. For example, in 2016, the ratio
of the number of initiated pre-trial investigations to the number of audit
case files transferred to law enforcement agencies has decreased to a
shamefully low level of 46.1%.

39
10. In the context of the SAS’s activity, in the nearest future it is
necessary to:
1) eliminate its authority to exercise state financial control over the
receipt and use of funds of the state and local budgets;
2) significantly intensify its activity (in terms of the number of entities
and control measures);
3) ensure high quality level and implementation of auditing and other
financial control case files.
2.3.5. Government procurement
1. Even taking into account the fact that government procurement has
undergone through significant changes over the past few years, this areas
still remains a field for inefficient use of state and local budget funds.
The biggest problem is the use of pre-threshold trading, where billions of
UAH are being manually distributed outside of a competitive procedure.
Excessive activization of customers is typically observed at the end of
the year (November - December). This proves inefficiency of established
limits (UAH 200 thousand for goods and services, UAH 1.5 million for
works).
The MEDT is currently working to improve the legislation and is
going to reduce these limits by introducing a relevant draft law in
Parliament.
2. Another problem is posed by non-participation of a large number
of suppliers in electronic trading. The number of offers, 2,45 participants
per one trade, can hardly be called satisfactory.
Reduction of corruption component during bidding and improved
efficiency in the use of public funds can only be achieved through
optimization of procurement “thresholds” and activization of suppliers.
Introduction of changes provided for by the Law “On public
procurement” will facilitate the harmonization of national and EU
legislation in accordance with requirements of the Association Agreement
between Ukraine and the EU1
, as well as with the Strategy for Reforming
1 Угода про Асоціацію між Україною, з однієї сторони, та Європейським Союзом,
Європейським співтовариством з атомної енергії і їхніми державами-членами, з іншої
сторони. – Режим доступу: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/984_011

40
the Public Procurement System (“roadmap”)1
approved by the Cabinet
of Ministers in February 2016. The Strategy also envisages further
legislative improvements, and therefore there a potential opportunity to
amend the Law “On public procurement” in order to bring it in line with
EU Directives in the area of public procurement.
3. In the future, it is necessary to:
1) continue reforming the public procurement system on the basis
of regular assessment of the application of the new Law “On public
procurement”, while minimizing the use of non-competitive procedures.
At the same time, ensure that any amendments to this Law can only be
considered by Parliament following consultations with the public and
international experts;
2) cover all procurement procedures available under the Law “On
public procurement” by the electronic public procurement system
ProZorro;
3) enhance the anti-corruption effect by introducing the procedure of
automatic electronic evaluation of tender bids and the electronic auction;
4) organize regular trainings for business representatives and officials
of public authorities on conducting public procurements at the central and
local levels;
5) approximate the national legislation on public procurement with
the leading international practices recognized by the EU member states.
2.3.6. Access to information
1. Since 2011, the national legislation on access to public information
has been moving toward the European practices, whereby every citizen
has the utmost opportunity for the exercise of respective rights. A new
stage in the implementation of the Western practices began in 2014 when,
after the fleeing of former president Viktor Yanukovych, a number of
legislative novelties were adopted that have significantly improved access
to public information (e.g., regarding open data format).
As a result, this movement facilitates the exercise of respective rights
and increases awareness of the public authorities’ activities, thus enabling
increased control over them.
1 Розпорядження Кабінету Міністрів України від 24.02.2016 №175-р «Про Стратегію
реформування системи публічних закупівель (“дорожню карту”)». – Режим доступу:
http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/175-2016-%D1%80

41
The issues of control over violations that occur in the relevant area,
inadequate compliance with legislation on access by the authorities and
their officials, as well as unjustified denials of access to public information
or disregard of the obligation to disclose relevant information still remain
not fully resolved.
1) clearly identify the independent public authority on monitoring
the compliance with requirements of legislation on access to public
information;
2) continue to fill new content into the Unified State Open Data Portal;
3) ensure verification of information regarding the final beneficiaries
of legal entities containedspecified in the state registry;
4) ensure adequate access to the State Registry of Real Property
Rights, by filling it with data from the local bureaus of technical inventory
control;
5) transfer the Unified State Registry of Persons Who Committed
Corruption Offenses to the NAPC, which is charged with administering it.
2.3.7. Preventing corruption in the private sector
1. Prevention of corruption in the private sector is gradually becoming
increasingly widespread not only among enterprises with the state share
in statutory capital, but is also being popularized among the business
community representatives. The Law “On Prevention of Corruption”
has a dedicated section on prevention of corruption in the private sector,
which clearly establishes the possibility of introducing an anti-corruption
program, its structure, and the obligations of a person responsible for its
implementation.
Ukraine has a functioning business ombudsman institution, which
performs its designated functions and facilitates the implementation anti-
corruption processes in the business environment.
Overall, however, the current efforts for prevention of corruption in
the private sector are generally in an embryonic state. At present, it is not
even possible to identify any representative results of the introduction of
relevant principles and regulations.
1) adopt the Law “On Business Ombudsman” and ensure the

42
development of the business ombudsman institution by engaging this body
in addressing the current problems faced by business representatives that
are directly related to corruption;
2) formulate an anti-corruption compliance “agenda” for
representatives of domestic businesses;
3) complete the implementation of the measures for preventing
corruption in the private sector envisaged by the State Program on the
Implementation of the State Anti-Corruption Policy in Ukraine (Anti-
Corruption Strategy) for 2015-2017.

43
Section 3.
CRIMINALIZATION OF CORRUPTION
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
3.1. Criminalization of corruption in line
with international legal standards
1. Criminalization of corruption in line with international standards
and creation of specialized law enforcement bodies accountable to the
state and the society provide opportunities to ensure the principle of
inevitability of punishment for corruption. As such, these should be a
mandatory condition of successful corruption counteraction, including
transnational corruption.
2. The state of implementation of provisions of anti-corruption
conventions establishing criminal responsibility in the Criminal Code can
be considered satisfactory. However, there are instances both of excessive
criminalization (Articles 364-1, 365-2 of the Criminal Code), resulting in
difficulties in criminal qualification, and of non-recognition as criminally
punishable of the acts, the criminalization of which is directly provided
for by relevant international conventions (specifically, certain financial
crimes ).
3. The list of corruption crimes as defined in Article 45 of the Criminal
Code is still imperfect, because contradicts the elements of a corruption
offense as defined in article 1 of the Law “On prevention of corruptiom”.
In particular, the crime provided for by Article 320 of the Criminal Code
should be removed, while Article 210 of the Criminal Code should be
amended to define the intent to obtain an illicit benefit as a constructive or
a qualifying element of the crime.
Both the crimes provided for by Articles 159-1 and 160 of the
Criminal Code and any other crimes committed by a person authorized
to perform state or local self-governance functions or by a person in an
equivalent role with the intent to obtain an illicit benefit, as well as crimes
committed by any person with the intent to bribe the mentioned persons
should be recognized as corruption crimes.

44
All corruption crimes need to be brought under the special jurisdiction
of anti-corruption investigations bodies.
4. Over the recent years, following numerous amendments to the
Criminal Code, it was possible to succeed in generally bringing in line
with international standards all elements of anti-corruption crimes, in
particular those regarding actus reus (objective element), mens rea (mental
element), and perpetrator of the crime.
However, in some cases, there certain inconsistency still remains. In
particular, this includes certain provisions of Articles 14, 15, 354, 357,
368-2, 368-3, 368-4, 369, 370, 410, and, especially, Article 364 of the
Criminal Code.
5. In 2013, as part of the implementation of relevant treaty
provisions, a new Section XIV-1 “Measures of Criminal Law Nature for
Legal Entities” (Article 96-3–96-11) was added to the Criminal Code.
It established quasi-criminal responsibility of legal entities for certain
corruption crimes, particularly those related to legalization of property, or
with promising, offering, and providing an illicit benefit (Articles 209 and
306, section 1-2 of Articles 368-3 and 368-4, Article 369 and 369-2 of the
Criminal Code). These provisions took effect on June 4, 2014.
It is clear that these provisions also need to be extend to Article 159-1
of the Criminal Code, as well as to all crimes committed with the intent
to obtain an illicit benefit.
It is also necessary to consider the possibility of introducing
debarment of certain participants from participating in procurement
procedures (including participants in preliminary qualification rounds) or
in preliminary qualification rounds as one of the criminal law measures
that can be imposed on legal entities, if the information on a legal entity
participating in procurement or in preliminary qualification rounds is
listed in the Unified State Registry of Persons Who Committed Corruption
or Corruption-Related Offenses.
The list of sanctions that can be imposed on legal entities as part
of criminal law provisions should also be expanded, in particular by
including the following measures:
- prohibition on engaging in certain activity; prohibition on advertising
of legal entity’s activities, products, services, etc.;
- emoval from office of the director and appointment of a trustee;
- withdrawal of license;

45
- prohibition on the use of grants, subsidies, and other forms of
publically funded financial assistance;
- prohibition on the use of aid from international organizations;
- closing of certain business units of the enterprise;
- termination of the enterprise’s activity;
- publication of a court decision.
6. Treaty requirements concerning the application of criminal
sanctions that take into account the gravity of corruption crimes have
been implemented in an inconsistent manner.
Thus, these sanctions do not always take into account the gravity
of these crimes, while the amounts and durations of fines, community
service, correctional labor, arrest, restriction of liberty, and deprivation
of liberty, as set forth under these sanctions, are internally inconsistent
among themselves.
To correct this defect in the Criminal Code, it is necessary to unify
all sanctions in a manner, so that specific amounts and durations of each
primary type of punishment correspond to specific amounts and durations
of other primary types of punishment.
For example, if a certain crime is punishable by imprisonment for a
term of two to five years, its alternative punishment could be a fine ranging
from 1,000 to 2,000 non-taxable minimum incomes; if the punishment is
imprisonment of up to two years, the alternative fine could range from
500 to 1,000 non-taxable minimum incomes; and if imprisonment is
not provided for as a possible sanction, the imposed fine could be in the
amount of up to 500 minimum incomes.
The same approach should also be used in setting the amount and
duration of other types of punishment.
7. In contradiction to Article 30 of UNCAC, the Criminal Code in
many cases does not take into account the gravity of respective crimes
during reviewing the possibility of early release or conditional release
(parole) for individuals convicted for such crimes.
The legislation still leaves open a lot of options for individuals
who committed corruption crimes to avoid criminal responsibility or
punishment, as well as opportunities for obtaining an unjustly mild
sentences as compared to the gravity of their corruption crimes.
In such circumstances, there is the possibility for the courts

46
(sometimes in violation of the law, but often without a clear violation)
to yield to pressure or bribery, and continue rendering mild sentences.
According to court statistics, such court practice has become the rule
rather than an exception.
To remedy this situation, it is necessary to:
- make disciplinary responsibility of judges for violation of the law
more effective;
- narrow the limits of sentencing sanctions provided for by the
relevant articles;
- eliminate all outstanding possibilities for unjustified mitigation of
the sentence and for relief from punishment for corruption crimes, both
those directly mentioned in the footnote to Art. 45 of the Criminal Code
and all others.
8. In contradiction to Article 30 of UNCAC, the Criminal Code in
many cases does not provide for the deprivation of the right to hold
government office or occupy position in any enterprise wholly or partially
owned by the state for a certain period as a mandatory punishment for
individuals convicted of official crimes committed with the intent to
obtain an illicit benefit (i.e., for corruption crimes).
9. Ukraine has fulfilled its international obligations regarding the
implementation of common measures that may be necessary to ensure
possible forfeiture of: a) income from corruption crimes, or property the
value of which corresponds to the amount of such income; b) property,
equipment, and other means used or intended for use in the commission
of corruption crimes.
However, the practice suggests that the measures that have been
implemented are insufficient in terms of ensuring the detection, tracing,
freezing, or seizure of the mentioned income or property with the view of
subsequent confiscation, as well as for management of frozen, seized, or
confiscated property.
Moreover, generally with respect to those articles of the Criminal
Code that establish responsibility for corruption crimes, some of them
do not provide for the possibility of property seizure (due to the effect of
the rules set forth by art. 59 of the Criminal Code). This applies to crimes
provided for under secs. 1-3 of art. 159-1, sec. 2 of art. 191, arts. 354,
357, sec. 1 of art. 364, sec. 1 of art. 364-1, sec. 1 of art. 368, secs. 1-2 of
art. 365-2, secs. 1-3 of arts. 368-3 and 368-4, sec. 1 of art. 369, secs. 1-2

47
of art. 369-2, and secs. 1-3 of art. 369-3. There are also no provisions for
special property seizure (due to the effect of the rules set forth by art. 96-1
of the Criminal Code) for crimes provided for under sec. 1 of art. 159-1
and sec. 1 of art. 357.
At the same time, seizure of property is mentioned as a penalty for the
crime provided for under sec. 1 of art. 368-2 of the Criminal Code, which
is neither a grave crime nor a crime against the principles of national
security or public safety – and which, therefore, directly contradicts the
exhaustive rules set forth by art. 59 of the Criminal Code.
3.2. Application of criminal law, existence of effective procedures
for investigation and trial of criminal cases on corruption crimes
1. The CPC provides for effective procedures for investigation and
trial in criminal cases involving corruption crimes. At the same time,
improvement of the Code’s select provisions to make them the most
suitable for investigation of corruption crimes in particular creates risks
of violation of human rights in general; while some proposals that are
introduced for Parliament’s consideration are directed at making the
investigation of corruption crimes more difficult.
2. Criminal proceedings into crimes under the NACB’s investigative
jurisdiction are frequently subject to irregularities, and these crimes are
being investigated by other pretrial investigation bodies.
This creates risks of acquittals of defendants. Therefore, such practice
must be strictly ceased.
3. Certain problems may result due to a conflict between provisions
of the CPC and the Law “On Prevention of Corruption”, since the latter
envisages a special procedure for notification of law enforcement agencies,
in the form of the NAPC opinion, and violations of this procedure can be
deemed a violation of a legally established manner of proving a person’s
guilt in committing a crime (art. 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine).
4. It is necessary to gradually narrow the content and scope of
Parliament members’ immunity, at least to the extent not expressly
provided for by the Constitution of Ukraine. First and foremost, this
means authorizing the conduct of covert investigative (intelligence)
activities into actions of a Parliament member without having to first
obtain Parliament’s consent.

48
5. It is necessary to immediately provide the NACB with the authority
to independently intercept (wiretap) information from communication
channels and to conduct investigation actions undercover.
3.3. Specially authorized institutions for detection
and investigation of corruption crimes
1. Special Ministry of Internal Affairs units for fighting organized
crime and State Security Service units for combatting corruption and
organized crime have proven ineffective in countering corruption. Due to
this, new specialized law enforcement agencies – the NACB, the SACP,
and the SBI have been established (or are presently being creating).
At present, the independence in the activities of the NACB, the
SACP, and the SBI is adequately guaranteed by the law. At the same time,
ensuring such independence in practice is much more difficult due to the
influence by individuals who abuse their immunity.
Independence of the NACB is partially ensured in practice through:
- special procedure for competitive selection of the NACB Director;
- competitive principles of selection of other NACB employees, their
special legal and social protection, and adequate remuneration conditions;
- procedure for financing and logistical support of the NACB;
- means of personal security of the NACB employees, their close
relatives, and property.
At the same time, there are persistent attempts to use the NACB in
party, group, or personal interests, to put the NACB under illegal control
of other state bodies and their officials, in particular through failure to
provide the NACB detectives with appropriate capacity for conducting
all possible undercover investigation actions, and the threat of removal
the NACB Director from office through a mechanism of appointment of
auditors controlled by certain political forces.
2. The procedure for selection of the NACB Director and the SBI
Director are spelled out, respectively, by the Law “On the National
Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine” (articles 6 and 7) and the Law “On
the State Bureau of Investigations” (article 11) and are consistent with
democratic standards.
Nevertheless, there are problems with constitutionality of appointment
of the NACB and the SBI leadership.

49
3. The Law sets forth the requirements for the structure of the NACB,
the SACP, and SBI, as well as their staffing levels, educational and
experience requirements, mandatory trainings for staff, overall budget and
the procedure for its formation, accountability and transparency, including
mandatory periodic reporting to the public, etc.
These requirements of the law are followed in practice. However, the
NACB and the SACP remain only partially staffed, while the SBI is not
yet in place at all.
The State Budget of Ukraine for 2015-2017 envisaged appropriate
expenditures to ensure the operation of these bodies.
4. Accountability and transparency of the NACB, including mandatory
periodic reporting to the public are provided for by law and actually exist
in practice, although there are some deficiencies, including the fact that
the audit of the NACB’s effectiveness and its operational and institutional
independence has not yet been conducted, even though it has now existed
for nearly two years.
The law also provides for accountability and transparency of the
SACP and the SBI, including mandatory periodic reporting to the public,
but these actually do not exist in practice (due to the SBI’s nonexistence,
or apparently due to some subjective reasons for the SACP).
3.4. Statistical information on the application
of anti-corruption criminal legislation
1. In 2015 there was an outburst in the number of registered criminal
corruption offenses, and this number almost did not decrease in 2016.
However, the following facts are concerning:
- in 2016, as compared to 2015, the number of criminal corruption
offenses where formal suspicions were announced decreased by 5.6%,
while the number of those where cases were forwarded to court with
criminal indictment decreased by 8.4%;
- in 2015, as compared to 2014, the number of closed criminal
proceedings on corruption offenses grew 76 times, while decreasing by
only 22.6% in 2016 as compared to 2015;
- in 2016, as compared to 2015, the number of criminal offenses
forwarded to court with criminal indictment decreased by 2.3% when

50
compared to the number of criminal offenses where formal suspicions
were announced (from 79.1% to 76.8%).
2. The data on the number of persons convicted of corruption crimes
are disappointing. In particular:
- every year, the number of such persons is steadily and significantly
decreasing and, over three years, has dropped by almost 60%. Thus,
the measures that should have facilitated a more intensive detection of
corruption crimes and ensuring the inevitability of punishment remain
inefficient;
- in 2013-2016, almost no top-level state officials and civil servants
of Category 1 (“A”) were brought to criminal responsibility for criminal
corruption offenses;
- the share of persons convicted of corruption crimes (as it relates to
the total number of those who were subject to criminal proceedings tried
by court) has also decreased from 82% to 80% since 2013;
- the share of persons brought to responsibility for these crimes and
acquitted by court has increased from 2% in 2013 to 5.6% in 2016. While
this is a positive thing overall (acquittal verdicts, provided they are lawful
and fair, are an indicator of quality work of the courts), in the context of
realities of combatting corruption, especially in comparison with much
smaller number of acquittal verdicts in non-corruption crimes (0.3%),
such trend is alarming;
- the share of persons criminal cases against which were closed is
hardly decreased. When comparing the indicators from 2013 and 2014
(17% and 23%, respectively) with those for 2015 and 2016 (15% and
14,4%, respectively), a slight decrease in such informal practices is
observed. However, amendment to the Criminal Code that almost
prohibited the relief from criminal responsibility for corruption crimes
(and, therefore, closing the proceedings) were adopted just at the end of
2014. Therefore, statistics should show not a minor, but a rapid decrease
in these indicators;
- from 2013 to 2016, the number of persons deprived of the right to
hold certain positions or engage in certain activities due to corruption
offenses has been continuously decreasing, eventually dropping from 975
to 317 persons (i.e., more than three-fold). Thus, persons who committed
the mentioned offenses are continuing, or have the opportunity to
continue, their corrupt activities.

51
3. In the context of applying the anti-corruption provisions of the
Code on Administrative Offences, the following problems are apparent:
- in 2013-2016, the number of persons administrative corruption
offenses cases against which were closed varied between ¼ to almost
1/3 of the total number of persons whose cases were heard, and were
increasing each year;
- at the same time, in 2013-2016, the total number of persons who
were subjected to penalties decreased by almost 12%;
- during 2015-2016, there were no instances of courts imposing the
deprivation of the right to hold certain offices as an auxiliary penalty for
these.offenses.
4. Available statistical data on the implementations of criminal anti-
corruption legislation suggests the following:
- this information is clearly insufficient, incomplete, and does not
allow adequately analyzing activity on countering corruption by its
subject, actors, and other indicators.
For example, form No. 7 of the Report on the demographic make-up
of the convicted persons compiled by the State Court Administration
contains data on convictions for corruption crimes, where there are
employees and students of universities, and even school and lyceum
students – but no judges, prosecutors, heads of central executive bodies,
and other specific categories of persons authorized to perform state and
local self-governance functions – among those convicted;
- the stated information is not standardized, there are no legislative
requirements regarding the procedure for collecting, recording,
systematizing, or arranging it; every single government body (e.g.,
prosecution, Ministry of Internal Affairs, MOJ, State Court Administration,
Supreme Court, High Specializes Courts, etc.) creates it based on their
own preferences;
- there is no general information on the number of cases under
operative investigation opened by specially authorized entities in the area
of countering corruption, or the results of such investigations. Thus, the
public is unable to even approximately assess the effectiveness of the
work of operative and investigative units. Such data is only available in
the NAB’s Report and relates only to this agency’s work;
- the exact statistics on relevant criminal proceedings, that were closed
during pretrial investigation stage, as well as on administrative cases that

52
were closed at the stage of drawing up the minutes, including following
corruption interventions, does not exist, while the tracking and recording
system for such cases from discovery to completion of a sentence has not
been created;
- the information on the volume of losses and damages caused by
corruption and corruption-related offenses or on the status and amounts
of their reimbursement are extremely controversial; there is no adequate
general recordkeeping on such losses and damages, including those
reimbursed, or information about the confiscation of objects and income
received from criminal corruption offenses. Their recording, which is kept
by the NAB, has shown that the majority of proceedings transferred by the
NAB and SACP to the court were related to instances involving relatively
minor corruption acts, and the damages are almost never compensated. To
some extent, this serves as a kind of a proof of inadequate efficiency of
the work of these bodies;
- reports on funds and other property obtained from corruption
offenses that were repatriated ton Ukraine from abroad or on management
of such assets do not exist, and centralized records are not kept in this
regard.
Thus, the issue of developing and adopting the Law “On Criminal
Statistics”, as well as its subsequent implementation remain topical.
It is necessary to develop and adopt general requirements for criminal
statistics, which should take into account not just the absolute level and
the rate of corruption and other crimes, their structure, and dynamics,
but also index criminal conviction, latency, social danger, victimization,
etc. For each type of criminal offenses, including corruption offenses, a
complete picture should exist:
a) all circumstances of commission of offense, starting from
characteristics of the perpetrator and his/her motive through detailed
characteristics of the act;
b) legal consequences of the crime, i.e. sentence and other criminal
law measures, relief from punishment, as well as causes of dropping the
prosecution and real consequences of this decision.

53
Section 4.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
4.1. Ukraine’s participation in international legal
instruments against corruption
1. In general, the situation with the implementation of anti-corruption
policy in Ukraine in 2014-2016, with respect to the state of implementation
of recommendations of international organizations, can be characterized
by two main trends:
1) legislative regulation is slowly but surely approaching the
requirements of international standards;
2) practical implementation of many rather progressive provisions
of the new anti-corruption legislation is largely stymied due to various
factors, the main of which is the lack of political will on the part of
executive authorities and the law enforcement bodies.
Some colorful illustration of this include, for example: extremely
delayed procedures for appointment of the leadership to newly created
anti-corruption bodies (NAPC, National Agency for Detection, Search,
and Management of Assets Derived from Corruption and Other Crimes);
attempts to sabotage the inaugural e-declaration process through
artificially delaying the introduction of software for the Unified State
Registry of Declarations; insufficient efficiency in the investigation of
large corruption schemes by the NAB and the SACP, despite publication
of information on these schemes through special investigative journalism
reports; etc.
Parliament also frequently demonstrates insufficient political will.
This is especially clearly seen from Parliament’s unwillingness to
implement international recommendations to amend the Constitution of
Ukraine to provide for a narrower immunity for Parliament members, as
well as from constant efforts aimed at adjusting the legislation adopted
in 2014 in order to weaken the effective anti-corruption requirements
(illustrative examples include numerous attempts to reduce the scope
of information that must be filed in declarations, attempts to reduce the
level of legal responsibility for failure to file declaration or filing of false

54
information, etc.), to reduce the level of civic control over the activities
of anti-corruption bodies, etc.
As such, international partners should make constant and systemic
effort to monitor and control the practical implementation of the
provisions of international treaties and national anti-corruption legislation
by Ukraine’s government authorities.
2. Based on the foregoing, it is necessary to recommend the following:
1) based on the methodology adopted by the NAPC, conduct a research
on the level of corruption following the implementation of measures
provided for by the Law “On Principles of State Anti-Corruption Policy
in Ukraine (Anti-Corruption Strategy) for 2014-2017”. The findings of
this research should become a subject of further analysis by the NAPC and
the National Council for Anti-Corruption Policy, in order to studying the
identified tendencies, achievements, and problem issues and serve as the
basis for the development of the Anti-Corruption Strategy;
2) ensure comprehensive implementation of the Law “On Civil
Service” in practice, especially regarding the new model of competitive
selection of candidates for civil service and the upgraded mechanism of
imposing disciplinary sanctions;
3) ensure adequate staffing and material resources for the National
Agency for Detection, Search, and Management of Assets Derived from
Corruption and Other Crimes to begin full-fledged functioning as soon as
possible;
4) finalize and adopt the Administrative Procedure Code in order
to substantially decrease the discretion of state executive authorities in
exercising their regulatory and supervisory functions and provision of
administrative services. It is necessary to unify and specify the appropriate
procedures by a law, in order to ensure their utmost transparency and
non-ambiguity and eliminate corruption risk factors; to define mandatory
characteristics, content requirements, and grounds for adoption of the acts
on application of the law by executive authorities, and to provide that
failure to comply with these requirements may be grounds for declaring
such acts invalid;
5) develop and adopt a law “On Regulatory Legal Acts”, which would
address the following issues: a) establishing an exhaustive list of types of
regulatory legal acts; b) hierarchy of regulatory legal acts by their legal
force; c) mandatory requirements for the structure of regulatory legal acts;

55
d) mandatory requirements for the procedure of adopting the regulatory
legal acts; d) methods of addressing all types of standard conflicts
between legislative provisions and overcoming legislative gaps. This law
should bring clarity and predictability to the actions of state government
bodies relating to legislating and regulating, and reduce possibilities for
manipulations due to ambiguities in legislative regulation;
6) increase transparency and integrity in the private sector through
the development and adoption of a law “On Lobbying” (OECD
Recommendation 3.9) in accordance with the best international models.
This will significantly reduce the avenues for businesses to influence
norm-making activity of the state authorities by corrupt means, establish
equal and clear lobbying rules for all entrepreneurs, and identify the types
of responsibility of politicians, civil servants, and lobbyists for violation
of such rules;
7) adopt the necessary legislative framework for the politically
unbiased and transparent competitive selection of judges to the Anti-
Corruption Court and carry out such respective selection in the speediest
manner possible, as well as provide the Court with adequate staffing and
material resources.
4.2. International cooperation and mutual legal assistance
4.2.1 Analysis and comparison of statistical data on the number
received / submitted and executed / rejected
requests for international legal assistance
1. Generally, Ukraine is adequately fulfilling its international
obligations relating to provision of mutual legal assistance and extradition
of offenders to other States.
At the same time, there is certain passivity in the international legal
field in terms of prosecuting and returning of assets obtained by corruption
means that are due to domestic top officials and entrepreneurs.
It is worth noting that Ukrainian state government bodies almost
completely lack meaningful and systematized data on submitting the
requests for international legal assistance in corruption crimes, as well as
on the results of review of such requests by foreign institutions. As such,
objective evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of mutual legal

56
assistance procedures during pretrial investigation and judicial trial of
corruption crimes appears impossible.
2. It is necessary to: intensify international cooperation by all of
Ukraine’s authorized bodies in the area of search and detection of assets
derived from corruption crimes, as well as to ensure systemic cooperation
for their recovery and repatriation; establish constructive cooperation
between law enforcement bodies and the newly established National
Agency for Detection, Search, and Management of Assets Derived
from Corruption and Other Crimes; develop clear standards and action
algorithms for law enforcement officials in the area of international legal
assistance in the investigation of corruption crimes, as well as during
the implementation of measures relating to search for and recovery/
repatriation of assets obtained by corrupt means.

Executive Summary of the Shadow report on evaluating the effectiveness of state anti-corruption policy implementation

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Executive Summary of the Shadow report on evaluating the effectiveness of state anti-corruption policy implementation (20)

More from Centre of Policy and Legal Reform (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Executive Summary of the Shadow report on evaluating the effectiveness of state anti-corruption policy implementation