According to a survey conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, the vast majority of Ukrainians – 71% – believe that the level of corruption in the country has increased since the full-scale invasion. Anatoliy Burmich, a member of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy, explained in a comment to UNN that only the elimination of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau's monopoly on fighting corruption can change the situation. The first step should be an independent external audit of the NABU's work with the involvement of Ukrainian representatives.
"At a meeting with the European Commission, when Ms. Kos (European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos – ed.) came and we met, I also asked her this question (the need for an independent external audit – ed.), because the situation with corruption in Ukraine is only growing, the problems are only growing. It's not going anywhere," Burmich noted.
In his opinion, this situation arose because NABU formed a monopoly on fighting corruption, which proved to be ineffective.
"The whole problem is that we created a monopoly on fighting corruption. But this monopoly is so independent that the state of Ukraine has absolutely no influence on it - neither on its effectiveness, nor on anything else. And the state of Ukraine itself is actually forbidden to fight corruption. And the state of Ukraine is actually not responsible for the state of corruption that we have in the state today," Burmich explained.
At the same time, according to him, international partners "point fingers" at the authorities regarding the high level of corruption in Ukraine. The MP does not rule out that this situation arose due to the insufficient professionalism of those who carried out the anti-corruption reform.
Burmich added that in a conversation with the European Commissioner, he noted that monopolies always lead to abuse.
"I suggested that the state of Ukraine and its state bodies, whether it be the police or the Security Service, should join the fight against corruption. And then, firstly, there will be a competitive process. We will eliminate the monopoly, and then we can ask the state why it is not fighting," the MP believes.
He is convinced that if NABU's monopoly on fighting corruption is not eliminated, the level of corruption in Ukraine will not decrease.
"Therefore, if the situation with us does not change in terms of not overcoming the monopoly itself, then, of course, an audit of NABU, all anti-corruption bodies, should be conducted, because no one has audited the National Anti-Corruption Agency for several years either. Therefore, I would consider it necessary to conduct an audit, but necessarily with the involvement of the state of Ukraine. I would gladly take part in this audit, because I know that in many cases there are not just abuses, but simply terrible things, when cases are initiated for thoughts, for statements, for provocations, and there is no systemic fight against corruption," Burmich emphasized.
Add
One example of persecution that appears illegal is the case against businessman Oleksiy Fedorychev, owner of the TIS-Grain and TIS-Fertilizers terminals in the Pivdennyi port. Detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine have been persecuting the entrepreneur for over 10 years. The criminal proceedings against him rather resemble an attempt to raid the terminals with the help of NABU, which has dragged on for too long.
In fact, for 10 years they have not been able to serve the businessman with a notice of suspicion or choose a pre-trial restraint for him. And regular attempts to seize property, although they end in failure every time, significantly hinder the conduct of critically important business during wartime, related to ensuring food security.
A clear indication that the case against Fedorychev is a business dispute involving law enforcement anti-corruption officials is the decision of the court of the Principality of Monaco, where the businessman has long resided. Monaco judges refused to serve Oleksiy Fedorychev with a notice of suspicion, stating that his case is a commercial dispute, not a criminal one.
"...the information set out in the requests does not allow to determine the nature of the case as criminal, which allows the competent authorities of the Principality of Monaco to conclude: the essence of the case largely concerns facts that underlie a dispute of a purely economic nature," the decision stated.
Judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court held a similar opinion, seeing no grounds for seizing property or choosing a pre-trial restraint for Fedorychev. Moreover, they even refused to extend the pre-trial investigation period after it had expired.
However, the ingenuity of NABU detectives is striking. Instead of accepting defeat and admitting that the case was fabricated, they formally transferred it for investigation to the National Police. Upon joining the investigative group, the first thing NABU officers did was force their colleagues in the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv to push through a decision to extend the investigation period.
Not getting what they wanted in the HACC, the detectives are trying to push through the necessary decisions in the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv. So everything indicates that NABU is overly interested in the terminals in the Pivdennyi port.
NABU as an instrument of pressure
Experts interviewed by UNN point to the selectivity of the Anti-Corruption Bureau's detectives' work, as well as their inefficiency. In particular, over the 10 years of the body's existence, there has been a minimal number of top officials brought to justice for corruption. In fact, there is one conviction per detective that has entered into force.
They also note that NABU detectives often investigate criminal cases for years that should have been completed in the shortest possible time.