Corruption remains one of the main problems of modern Ukraine, undermining citizens’ trust in state institutions and creating significant obstacles for the country’s development. During the years of independence, corruption schemes penetrated all levels of state power, and the state apparatus often becomes a tool for protecting the personal interests of officials. However, the fight against corruption is greatly complicated by the fact that top corrupt officials accused of criminal cases often find opportunities to escape abroad. This raises serious doubts about the effectiveness of existing control mechanisms, particularly in cases where corrupt persons avoid justice abroad through legal loopholes. One of the examples of such cases is the recent events with the deputies of the Verkhovna Rada, in particular with the representatives of the “Servant of the People” party, who were given the opportunity to travel outside of Ukraine, despite existing suspicions of corruption.
Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) Semyon Krivonos considers, that NABU cannot grant permits for foreign trips to such persons, as the corresponding decision on movement restrictions is made by the court. The situation when people’s deputies, involved in criminal cases, leave the territory of Ukraine has become a frequent phenomenon. For example, Serhii Kuzminykh, deputy of the “Servant of the People” party, who has been suspected of bribery for several years, recently received permission to travel abroad.
“NABU did not allow to go abroad on a business trip. There are some suspects and those who have already been charged in court, in which the obligation to limit is changed by the court. The obligation not to leave the place of residence or the territory of the region can be changed to permission to travel only on the territory of Ukraine. Or the period of restriction of movement generally expires and the court does not extend it anymore.” Kryvonos said.
As Kryvonos noted, courts have the right to change restrictions for suspects. If at first the persons involved may be prohibited from leaving their place of residence or the territory of the region, over time these restrictions may be revised, allowing movement within the country or canceling them altogether. These decisions are often based on the fact that statutes of limitations are running out and courts do not always extend them, allowing suspects to escape justice.
Another case is MP Andriy Odarchenko, who is suspected of bribery with cryptocurrency. According to NABU, he left the country without passing customs control. In this case, as Krivonos explained, he was not obliged to wear an electronic bracelet due to the lack of a corresponding court decision.
“NABU does not have the right to control those involved in criminal cases from the moment the case is brought to court, without the appropriate sanction of the court. Border control is the area of responsibility of the border service. But here again it is a question of the system. Top corruptors are released on bail, after a certain time their obligations “movement restrictions are usually relaxed” – emphasizes Kryvonos.
He emphasized that the trial of criminal cases can drag on for years. This is in the hands of the defendants, who seek to buy time by using the legal loopholes left after the adoption of the “Lozovoy amendments”. One of the main problems is also the lack of electronic bracelets, which makes it impossible to effectively monitor suspects. As a result, the absence of a system that would guarantee punishment allows corrupt people to remain free.
“There is a lack of bracelets at the Ministry of Internal Affairs… That is, there is no clearly established state system that would guarantee the inevitability of punishment.” – said the director of NABU
Regarding the issue of extradition, Kryvonos noted that the decision to extradite a suspect is made by foreign states exclusively within the framework of a court procedure. At the same time, the decision often depends on the circumstances, including possible threats to the suspect’s life.
“It is the judicial authorities of a particular country that decide whether to extradite a suspect or not, taking into account the circumstances, including those that may threaten life. And it is the full-scale war that is ongoing in our country that often becomes the reason for refusing extradition. But there are also positive cases when a person is still managed to be brought back to Ukraine for prosecution. – believes Kryvonos.
