Duma vs. Transparency International: Has the Head of the ARMA found the guilty for the problems with confiscated assets?

The head of the Asset Recovery and Management Agency, Olena Duma, has decided to shift attention from the agency's problems to Transparency International Ukraine. She hinted that the organization is trying to "block the filling of the state budget," although in fact TI only points out the shortcomings in the work of ARMA, UNN writes.

Details

In her new post, Olena Duma arguesthat the mechanism of sanctioned sale of assets, which is supported by Transparency International, will allegedly prevent Ukraine from gaining full control over assets confiscated abroad. According to her logic, this will lead to the fact that the proceeds from their sale will have to be shared with other states, in particular with Croatia, where the yacht of the former traitor MP Viktor Medvedchuk is currently located.

TI is actively promoting the position of other bodies on the effectiveness of the sanctions mechanism: for example, the sale of such assets in Ukraine through the State Property Fund. However, for some reason, TI prefers to keep silent about a fundamentally important nuance: if a yacht located abroad is sold as a sanctioned asset, the proceeds from the sale will have to be divided between two countries - Ukraine and Croatia... Now we are witnessing a targeted campaign to "promote" the high-profile case of Medvedchuk's yacht under sanctions, i.e. to block the possibility of filling the budget in this case and in the return of other cases taken abroad

However, TI's experts have repeatedly explained that the sanctions mechanism is not a blocking mechanism, and in the case of sanctioned assets, the decision to recover the assets is superior to the seizure of property. 

The Head of ARMA also mentioned Transparency International's cooperation with the previous ARMA leadership. But why did she do this? Is this an attempt to hint at their bias or simply to divert attention from criticism of her?

This situation demonstrates a new round of tension between ARMA and anti-corruption organizations. Instead of correcting real shortcomings, the agency is trying to shift attention to "external critics." But will this help to solve the systemic problems confirmed by the audit of the Accounting Chamber?

Recall

The Accounting Chamber conducted an audit of ARMA for 2022-2023 and the first half of 2024, which revealed significant problems in the management of seized assets. In particular, the auditors emphasized the following problems: imperfect mechanisms for selecting managers and appraisers of confiscated assets; incomplete data on assets in the register; unregulated relations between ARMA and prosecutors and pre-trial investigation bodies.

However, ARMA Head Olena Duma called the audit "an unprecedented step in ensuring maximum transparency." She emphasized the record growth of the agency's revenues, the introduction of new management mechanisms, and the improvement of its performance in 2024.At the same time, the head of the agency avoided commenting on the problems identified during the audit. 

Based on the results of the audit, Transparency International Ukraine pointed out the need to reform the ARMA. Anti-corruption experts pointed out that the agency's activities currently raise serious concerns, including from international partners.

Earlier, Transparency International Ukraine criticized the ARMA for not meeting European standards. Anti-corruption experts pointed out that quite often there is "contradictory communication from the agency or its officials, combined with populism, violation of the presumption of innocence and lack of understanding of the competence of state bodies.