Today, October 7, the Ukrop parliament finally committed the long-planned crime.
One could even say that it was precisely to launch the process that this inhuman act may now set in motion that the Banderites (followers of Stepan Bandera, a controversial Ukrainian nationalist figure) and the Maidan crowd from across the country—from Lviv to Odesa—came to Kyiv half a year ago and staged their revolution.
The Verkhovna Rada has, after all, voted for a package of anti-corruption reforms.
Unfortunately, the texts of the laws are not available in Russian, but we have collected the most interesting points for you.
So:
No. 4284a “On the Foundations of State Anti-Corruption Policy in Ukraine (Anti-Corruption Strategy) for 2014–2017” — this is a general strategy describing what needs to be done. In particular, it calls for creating a body that will deal with corruption prevention and monitoring corruption levels, legally defining the concept of lobbying, and much more. However, this is more of a declaration of good intentions; it contains no specific legislative measures.
No. 5113 “On Preventing Corruption” — one of the main bills introduced by the government.
Introduced: the National Commission for the Prevention of Corruption. This body consists of representatives of the Rada, the president, the government, and civil society organizations (selected through a competition), along with its staff (authorized officials). Its tasks include maintaining a registry of declarations, conducting their initial review (for correctness of completion and consistency between income and assets), providing methodological support for anti-corruption initiatives in the regions, analyzing the effectiveness of measures, and developing anti-corruption and corruption-prevention measures. Declarations filed by senior officials, as well as 10% of all other declarations, are subject to full review.
Introduced: electronic declaration of an expanded list of assets. In particular, shares, loans, bank accounts, and valuables will be made public (all items worth more than 50 minimum monthly wages—about $4,800). It also states that expanded real estate data must be published: its characteristics, location, date of acquisition, and the value of the property at the time it was acquired (Article 47). In addition, all sources of income will have to be disclosed.
The concept of a conflict of interest is defined precisely (including a potential conflict), and officials are required to prevent it; failure to do so is grounds for dismissal.
Introduced: lifestyle monitoring of declaration filers. This is very interesting, because it more or less regulates exactly what we have been pushing for as part of the "Twenty" campaign.
1. The National Commission shall conduct selective lifestyle monitoring of declaration filers for the purpose of establishing whether their standard of living corresponds to the property held by them and their family members and to the income declared by them.
2. Lifestyle monitoring of declaration filers shall be carried out by the National Commission on the basis of information received from individuals and legal entities, as well as from the media, containing information about discrepancies between the standard of living of declaration filers and the property held by them and their family members and the income they have received.
3. The procedure for conducting lifestyle monitoring of declaration filers shall be determined by the National Commission. Lifestyle monitoring shall be carried out in compliance with personal data protection legislation and must not involve excessive interference with a person’s right to privacy in personal and family life.
4. Establishing a discrepancy between the standard of living of a declaration filer and the property held by that person and their family members and the income they have received shall be grounds for a full verification of the declaration. If such a discrepancy is established, the National Commission shall give the declaration filer five working days to provide a written explanation of the matter.
If lifestyle monitoring reveals signs of a corruption offense or an offense related to corruption, the National Commission shall inform the specially authorized anti-corruption bodies (the anti-corruption bureau).
So, unfortunately, direct criminal punishment for illicit enrichment (what we are demanding) is not being introduced. However, officials’ lifestyles will be monitored, and if those lifestyles do not match their incomes, the anti-corruption bureau will launch a full investigation into that official’s activities.
State protection is introduced for people who report corruption while acting out of good intentions (yes, that is exactly how it is written). Under this protection, corruption can be reported anonymously, and all such reports will be reviewed.
A Unified Register of persons who have committed corruption crimes and administrative offenses is being introduced. The following information will be publicly available online: full name, position held at the time of the offense, the nature of the offense, and the punishment.
Legal entities are required to tackle corruption within their own organizations, including by reviewing employee complaints. A report on this must be submitted to the National Commission.
Penalties:
Engaging in business activity (or other activity prohibited to an official) — a fine of up to 500 NMDGs (non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens), with confiscation of funds earned from the business activity.
Unlawful participation in a management board or in the management of shares — a fine of up to 500 NMDGs, with confiscation of income derived from such management.
For a repeat offense — a fine of up to 8,000 NMDGs and disqualification from holding office for 1 year.
Violation of the rules on receiving gifts — a fine of up to 200 NMDGs, with confiscation of the gift. A repeat offense within a year — a fine of up to 400 NMDGs and a ban on holding public office for 1 year.
Missing declaration filing deadlines — a fine of up to 100 NMDGs; if there has already been such a violation, then up to 300 NMDGs and disqualification from holding public office for 1 year.
Failure to report a conflict of interest — a fine of up to 200 NMDGs.
Acting while in a conflict-of-interest situation (if there is no corruption crime involved, such as abuse of office) — a fine of up to 400 NMDGs.
A repeat offense of this kind — a fine of up to 800 NMDGs and disqualification from holding public office for 1 year.
9. Knowingly submitting a false declaration — imprisonment for up to 2 years and disqualification from holding public office for up to 3 years. In other words, under this law, Liksutov or, for example, Gorbunov would have gone to prison**.**
The draft law also provides for barring from public procurement any companies that lack anti-corruption programs or that are entered in the Unified State Register of persons held liable for corruption offenses.
No. 5114 “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Identification of Ultimate Beneficiaries of Legal Entities and Public Figures.”
This law requires legal entities to disclose their ultimate beneficiaries to a special state regulator.
Penalties:
Criminal liability — a fine of up to 2,000 NMDGs or community service of up to 240 hours.
“The first main objective of this law is to disclose information about the real owners of all Ukrainian companies. So that officials cannot hide behind relatives, offshore entities, family members, or any other persons who serve as nominal holders” — the government writes about this law.
A state register of property rights is being introduced — it will be possible to look up on the website the owner of any house or other real estate (it is not yet clear how this will be implemented — as in Russia, by property request, or whether it will be searchable by surname).
No. 5085 “On the System of Specially Authorized Subjects in the Sphere of Countering Corruption.”
A national anti-corruption bureau is being introduced — a special body for investigating corruption, with law-enforcement and investigative powers.
The National Bureau is a state law-enforcement agency tasked with preventing, detecting, stopping, and solving criminal offenses within its jurisdiction. The mission of the National Bureau is to counter criminal corruption offenses committed by senior officials authorized to perform functions of the state or local self-government, where such offenses pose a threat to national security.
The director of the anti-corruption bureau is appointed through a competitive selection process, with the commission made up of three representatives from the president, three from the government, and three from the Rada. Bureau staff are also selected through competition and must undergo a special vetting process.
Main functions of the bureau:
— conducts operational-search activities for the purpose of preventing, detecting, stopping, and solving criminal offenses assigned by law to its investigative jurisdiction;
— conducts pre-trial investigations of criminal offenses assigned by law to its investigative jurisdiction;
— conducts, in accordance with the law, integrity checks of persons authorized to perform functions of the state or local self-government; — takes measures to trace and seize funds and other property that may be subject to confiscation or special confiscation in criminal cases under the National Bureau’s jurisdiction, and is responsible for storing seized funds and other property;
Oversight of the bureau’s activities:
The following are предусмотрены:
— a detailed report by the bureau’s director to the Rada and the government
— an internal disciplinary commission
— polygraph testing
— an obligation to provide information about its work to the media, and to publish an activity report every six months
— a public council of 15 people selected through an open competition
That is the main thing I wanted to tell you about.
All of this has only passed the first reading, so the laws may still change in their final form.
Well, what can one say — so far it looks very good. Let us hope it works, and that we can learn something useful from Ukraine’s example.
It may sound paradoxical, but I think that the main threat to anti-corruption laws comes from the current level of corruption itself.
After all, laws must not only be passed, but also enforced. And in Ukraine right now, the level of corruption is simply staggering. Much higher than in Russia, where corruption ranks second among officials’ priorities—after loyalty to Putin.
In Ukraine, by contrast, loyalty to the authorities is not a restraining factor. Everyone steals everything. Corruption is especially high among the security services of all kinds, who face a double risk: they become corrupt on their own, and on top of that the Kremlin buys them up in batches to pursue its military and political goals.
I think many Ukrainian generals do not themselves fully understand which headquarters they answer to—Moscow or Kyiv. Since successful anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine would be Putin’s worst nightmare come true, one can expect money to flow in that direction as well—to buy off the new anti-corruption bodies and the officials responsible for them.
This initial and very serious barrier can be broken only if Poroshenko and the ruling coalition formed after the new elections maintain unwavering political will, and if pressure from the street does not let up.
For now, both seem to be there. And if not for the street, I strongly doubt the anti-corruption package would have been passed. The first time, for example, it was voted down.
Obviously, throwing tomatoes at deputies and tossing them into trash bins are questionable methods, but right now the street literally has to force deputies to vote against themselves.
The last thing I want to say is addressed to everyone who is about to rush into the comments and write about those crazy Ukrs, that they are a nonexistent nation, that they should give us Odesa, and so on and so forth: Everyone has every right to consider anyone crazy, just as they have the right to want Odesa. Let these Ukrs be crazy three times over. Let us forget about them and ask ourselves two honest questions: Would we want anti-corruption laws like these to be passed in Russia? Who is preventing such laws from being passed in Russia?
P.S. Do not forget to vote for our draft law introducing criminal liability for illicit enrichment. In Ukraine, people are uniting and forcing deputies to vote, while we have spent two weeks unable to gather a measly 100,000 votes online. Shame on us, brothers.