Ukraine is a country where corruption has long ceased to be a secret and has become a kind of ‘industry’. For decades, people have been watching an endless parade of officials, businessmen and law enforcement officers who, using their position, easily circumvent the law and remain unpunished. It’s a paradox: the more the public and the authorities claim to fight corruption, the more confidently corrupt officials continue to steal from the state. From intricate schemes in tenders to hidden offshore accounts, corruption seems to have become synonymous with ‘public administration’ for some officials. And while the criminals remain at large, society is increasingly losing faith in justice and the law, realising that the system is designed not to fight, but to cover up.
The scale of corruption: the war is not an obstacle
Corruption in Ukraine continues to be one of the main challenges, and even the war has not hindered this phenomenon. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the country has faced a new wave of cases being considered by the judicial system. According to the Unified State Register of Persons Who Committed Corruption or Corruption-Related Offences, the number of corruption convictions is as follows:
– 2021 – 6,877;
– 2022 – 2612;
– 2023 – 2507;
– 2024 – 1758.
Such data is also published in Opendatabot.
This data showed an interesting trend – every year the number of court sentences handed down to corrupt officials is significantly decreasing. However, even this number of sentences is only a drop in the bucket.
The highest number of prosecutions was recorded in Lviv, Vinnytsia and Odesa regions. This may indicate both the effective work of local authorities in these regions and the scale of corruption schemes that exist there. These regions are often in the spotlight for various corruption cases, and this activity can be explained by both the intense economic life of the regions and the growing number of scandalous revelations.
What punishment did corrupt officials receive in 2024?
What is behind these figures? As it turned out, only 1.5% of corruption cases resulted in actual imprisonment of the perpetrators. The rest simply got off with fines or, at best, just ended up in the Register of Corrupt Officials.
Here’s what the Ukrainian ‘fight’ against corruption looks like in numbers, according to Opendatabot:
Fines are a favourite ‘lever of influence’ on corrupt officials, as 1,714 people, or 97.5% of offenders, received them. Thus, for those who have been making money on schemes and ‘paper declarations’ for years, fines are like paying for a subscription to the ‘Corrupt Practitioners Club’. Of course, when it comes to people who are able to distort public finances at their discretion, the fine turns out to be a ‘symbolic’ payment for participation in corruption schemes.
Only 23 people, or 1.3%, were imprisoned. Does this mean that this is the proportion of corrupt officials who deserve to go to jail? Rather, it is simply the percentage of those who failed to negotiate or pay for their freedom.
Restriction of liberty – as many as 7 people, or 0.4%. Apparently, their freedom was restricted to such an extent that now they are simply ‘free’, but in their usual office with coffee.
Community service – also 7 people or 0.4%. I wonder what kind of work these ‘lucky’ people will have to do? Perhaps they will instruct others on how to ‘successfully’ avoid serious punishment?
Probationary period – 4 people or 0.2%. This is for those who have been given a chance to show their ‘honesty’ during the next test of fate – not to get caught in another corruption case.
The ‘icing on the cake’ is these two indicators. Exemption from punishment – 2 people or 0.1%. They are simply ‘released’ because why try someone who has probably already realised their mistakes?
And finally, arrest – only one case or 0.1%. Perhaps for statistics, to make it look like a ‘tough’ fight. Hopefully, this one arrested person was not too upset about his ‘unfair’ fate.
This is exactly the situation when punishment turns into a formality, and corrupt officials become ‘entrepreneurs’ with conditions for safe ‘business’. These statistics clearly reflect the true picture: corrupt officials have every chance of a ‘happy’ life even after being exposed.
Is 1.5 per cent of corruption cases that result in actual imprisonment of the perpetrators a victory? The question is rhetorical. If 1.5% is a success, then it is probably time to reconsider the meaning of this word in the Ukrainian dictionary. In fact, this minuscule number of people sentenced to real life sentences shows the systemic incapacity of the judicial system, which plays the role of an observer rather than a true defender of justice. Perhaps this lenient attitude towards corrupt officials is due to the reluctance of judges to lose ‘profitable contacts’ or fear of facing more serious consequences if the case goes to high-ranking officials.
Judges in Ukraine, who are supposed to uphold the law, sometimes seem to be nothing more than clever players in a game of corruption, as some of them are involved in the very dark schemes they are supposed to be eradicating. The Ukrainian justice system is turning into an ironic theatre in the public eye: prosecutors prepare cases, law enforcement officers investigate, and judges, having all the power in their hands, ‘accidentally’ fail to see enough evidence or find ‘mitigating circumstances’ for corrupt officials. And while corruption is being ostentatiously fought, money is flowing in the offices of those who are supposed to administer justice, and loyal decisions are being made with it.
It should be noted that among all the regions, the largest number of court verdicts was handed down in Lviv Oblast – 9.8% of the total. Slightly less in Vinnytsia (8.6%) and Odesa (6.5%). It would seem that these regions have a problem with corruption that is off the charts, but in fact, this is more an indicator of the work of local courts than the actual number of violations. In other words, this is the ‘work statistics’ of regional structures, not an indicator of the activity of corrupt officials, because in other regions the situation may not be better, but there are fewer sentences there. Could it be because it is simply not profitable for someone to judge their own?
The most common article among this year’s sentences for corrupt officials is ‘offering, promising or giving an undue benefit to an official’ – 37.7% of the sentences. It sounds promising, but compared to last year, the number of such cases decreased by a third. The second most common offence is late submission of declarations, and this figure, on the contrary, increased 34 times. Apparently, the officials decided that if the declarations were voluntary, then filing them ‘whenever they want’ would not be a problem. The third ‘prize’ place in the ranking of violations is occupied by the conflict of interest, which was recorded in half as many cases as last year. Impressive, isn’t it?
The situation with fighting corruption is further complicated by the ‘gift’ of the legislators, who, since the beginning of the war, have allowed officials to submit declarations voluntarily. It seems that in times of war, the issue of income transparency fades into the background, but in reality, this has only created even more opportunities for ‘clever’ schemes and twisted business plans at the expense of the state. Thus, the legislation almost automatically allows violators to avoid serious punishment.
It was only in April 2024, when the NACP started checking declarations again, that it became clear how much the ‘servants of the people’ had actually concealed. Now the agency is talking about tens of thousands of unprocessed declarations, and this wave is likely to grow even more in the coming years. But will it lead to real convictions? It is unlikely. This year, the NACP is trying to be more active: after resuming verification of declarations, 126 criminal proceedings have been opened in 9 months based on the materials of full verifications. However, the public has long since lost faith that these checks will make a difference. Without political support, independent courts and a real desire to reform the system, corruption will remain part of ‘public administration’. Ukrainians continue to hope for change, but so far they see only more steps that seem more like a staged performance than a real fight against corruption.
Level of trust in public authorities
The trust of Ukrainians in state authorities is at a critically low level, reflecting the deep problems of inefficiency and corruption that have plagued these institutions. Systematic studies, including recent polls by the Razumkov Centre, show that citizens have an extremely negative assessment of the government’s performance in key areas: fighting corruption, justice, rebuilding the country and the economy. For example, when asked about the effectiveness of the fight against corruption, 82% of Ukrainians said that the government is doing ‘very poorly’ or ‘rather poorly’, while only 12% of those who consider the fight successful.
It is noteworthy that the judiciary has the lowest level of trust among all state institutions, with only 16% of respondents believing that it is working well. This is a serious concern, as without trust in the judiciary, no state can ensure stability and protect the rights of its citizens. The reasons for this distrust are clear: the judicial system in Ukraine has long been corrupt, with numerous cases of officials avoiding responsibility through bribes or political connections. Instead of being a guarantor of justice, the courts have become a tool for preserving the interests of elites and protecting corrupt schemes.
Other structures of the law enforcement sector also do not enjoy a high level of trust. The State Bureau of Investigation is trusted by only 45% of Ukrainians, while 50% are distrustful. The figures for the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the State Customs Service are even worse: trust hovers around 33%, but more than 60% of respondents have a complete lack of trust in them. This indicates that citizens do not see any real efforts by these agencies to combat crime and corruption. Instead of the expected results, they often face new corruption scandals and impunity.
At the same time, against the backdrop of declining trust in the judiciary and law enforcement, trust in the military and volunteer organisations remains high. The Armed Forces of Ukraine are trusted by 91.5% of respondents, volunteer organisations by 80%, and the State Emergency Service by 83%. These figures indicate that society supports institutions that demonstrate effectiveness and are at the forefront of defending the country. Their credibility is based on genuine results and human commitment, which distinguishes them from law enforcement agencies that are associated with abuse, bribery and manipulation.
At a time when the country is at war, the war has become a source of income for many of the ‘cronies’. The system benefits only those who are already at the top. The reality is that as long as corrupt officials are allowed to ‘buy’ their impunity, they will continue to enrich themselves at the expense of the state without fear of consequences, and Ukrainians will increasingly lose trust in government agencies.
The impunity of corruption in Ukraine is not an accident or a consequence of ‘systemic errors’, but a natural result of the lack of real political will to change. When almost all offenders get off with fines or suspended sentences, it signals that corruption is not just tolerated, it is well protected. In this case, the justification of war or lack of resources is only a cover for maintaining a comfortable status quo. Under such conditions, as long as corruption has actually become a profitable business model, the real fight looks like nothing more than a facade imitation, where corrupt officials feel as free as ever, without any fear of the law.
