The attempt by the Bureau of Economic Security (BES) to pass off old budget revenues as results of its 2025 operations has not only drawn criticism from Danylo Hetmantsev, Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Finance, Taxation, and Customs Policy, but has also raised questions about the accountability of officials for disseminating false information. As experts interviewed by UNN explain, the practice of manipulating reports is not new to Ukraine, but there must be accountability for it.
BES accused of manipulating performance indicators
During a hearing on the BES performance report for 2025, the head of the Rada's tax committee, Danylo Hetmantsev, questioned the reliability of the figures provided by the bureau.
"You won't let me lie—I am one of the first on my channel to publicly express sincere gratitude to the BES if something positive happens. But if you publish and announce unreliable data, you discredit yourself, us, and our entire cause. This cannot be. Look, you stated in the report that as a result of 2025, damages to the state were reimbursed in cash—you just confirmed this—in the amount of 3.8 billion UAH. Our analysis of the information you provided to us shows that 2.8-2.9 billion UAH is not from 2025 at all. It is from 2022 to 2024. Why are you writing unreliable data in the BES report?"
According to him, the reimbursement amount in 2025 was only about 47 million UAH, not 3.8 billion UAH as the BES tried to claim.
Misleading Parliament and society
According to retired judge Oleksandr Sytnykov, it is first necessary to establish exactly which BES officials formed these indicators and why data that raised questions in the parliamentary committee was included in the report.
"There should be an appeal to the BES to conduct an internal investigation into who provided such data and why. That is, first there must be an internal investigation, and then disciplinary responsibility,"
The retired judge noted that manipulating data in the Bureau of Economic Security's reporting is misleading not only to the relevant parliamentary committee but also to society, as this is public information that must correspond to reality.
At the same time, Denys Neviadomskyi, President of the All-Ukrainian Association of Retired Judges, believes that the consequences for the leadership of the Bureau of Economic Security could be much more serious than disciplinary responsibility. In his opinion, this involves possible official misconduct and even criminal prosecution of BES officials.
"These are official crimes. In addition to general articles for official forgery (Art. 366 of the CCU) and abuse of power (Art. 364 of the CCU), special norms apply in this case: obstructing the activities of people's deputies and committees (Art. 351 of the CCU) – providing deliberately false information upon request or during reporting to a committee of the VRU is punishable by a fine, arrest, or restriction of liberty for up to three years,"
Why no one is held accountable for false statistics
Meanwhile, former Deputy Director of the SBI Oleksandr Babikov points to the actual lack of personal responsibility for unreliable reports in the law enforcement system. According to him, the practice of 'beautifying' statistics has existed for decades and has long been part of the bureaucratic culture.
"Law enforcement officers who report their staggering successes bear no responsibility whatsoever for the reliability of the information they make public,"
The former SBI official points out that heads of law enforcement agencies usually try to rely on collective responsibility to minimize personal risks.
"He will always say: look, on this document, before I signed it, ten people put their signatures, confirming the reliability of the information. Well, what responsibility should I bear? I trust my subordinate employees,"
According to Babikov, the issue of inflating indicators is not new to Ukraine. He recalled that in Soviet times and in the early years of Ukraine's independence, there was even separate criminal liability for so-called 'padding' (pripiski), i.e., entering false data to improve the performance indicators of enterprises and institutions.
"Previously, one could be held accountable. The vast majority of heads of law enforcement agencies would find themselves in the dock if such a thing still existed,"
BES needs an audit
The report scandal has become another blow to the reputation of the Bureau of Economic Security, which has regularly been in the spotlight recently.
According to Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko, in two separate criminal proceedings, a senior detective of the BES territorial department in the Kyiv region and an analyst of the Bureau's central office were exposed for using their official positions for illicit gain.
One, according to the investigation, demanded 15 thousand dollars from a man who had previously appeared in a case regarding the manufacture and sale of counterfeit money, in exchange for not prosecuting him again. The other promised a company representative to facilitate the issuance of a fuel storage license through his connections in the tax service for 2 thousand dollars.
"A system that is supposed to protect the state's economy cannot be a place for those who try to use their position for personal enrichment,"
People's deputies interviewed by UNN stated the need for an audit of criminal proceedings investigated by the BES for potential 'contractual' nature. They also point to the need for a reboot and cleansing of the law enforcement agency.
A series of criminal proceedings against air carriers could become a representative case for checking the legality of criminal proceedings investigated by the Bureau of Economic Security. As UNN reported, the BES is investigating a number of cases regarding at least five Ukrainian airlines, including UIA, Constanta Airline, Urga, H3OPERATIONS, and Skyline. These air carriers lease aircraft abroad from non-resident companies of Ukraine. The Bureau is convinced that the airlines should pay royalties in Ukraine, i.e., a fee charged for the use of intellectual property. At the same time, the fact that transport is not intellectual property is completely ignored, and Conventions on the avoidance of double taxation are in force between Ukraine and a number of countries. According to these agreements, Ukrainian companies pay taxes specifically for leasing and in those countries where the lessor companies are residents.
It is on this legal construction, unsupported by legislation, that criminal proceedings for tax evasion are based. However, the problem is that such a position contradicts both international practice and court decisions that have already been established in Ukraine.
Ukrainian courts have repeatedly considered similar disputes regarding the rental and leasing of vehicles from non-residents and have sided with business, indicating that vehicle leasing is not a royalty.
This position is shared by specialized lawyers, tax experts, and specialists in the field of international taxation interviewed by UNN. They emphasize that international conventions on the avoidance of double taxation take precedence over internal interpretations of tax authorities, and leasing payments for transport cannot be equated to royalties.
That is why criminal proceedings against airlines increasingly resemble not a fight against economic crimes, but an attempt to create an artificial tax dispute through criminal prosecution mechanisms.