NACP comments on information about enrichment of anti-corruption bureau detectives with land and apartments in the EU
Kyiv • UNN
The NACP refused to verify information on the acquisition of elite assets in Europe by NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors. The agency stated that it had conducted only 12 full checks of NABU employees' declarations in 8 years.
The National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (NAPC) has commented on the information provided by former Deputy Head of the Presidential Office Andriy Smirnov regarding the enrichment of detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and prosecutors of the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, namely the acquisition of elite assets, in particular in Europe, UNN reports citing the agency's response.
The NACP, as expected, did not check either NABU detectives or SAPO prosecutors , arguing that the information provided by Smirnov "does not contain factual data that could be verified within the rights and powers" of the agency.
The National Agency did not verify the information published by the former Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Smirnov about NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors
The anti-corruption agency added that in total, over 8 years (from 2016 to August 2024), the NACP conducted 12 full audits of the declarations of NABU employees, of which only 5 were detectives. Anti-corruption activists did not find any violations.
Context
Earlier, Andriy Smirnov ofclaimed that some NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors had acquired elite assets that were registered in their mothers' names.
"...I send my greetings to the key SAPO prosecutors who officially buy apartments in the EU countries for $10,000, detectives who officially live in elite apartments in the Kyiv suburbs registered in their relatives for $12,000, other NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors with hundreds of land plots registered in their mothers' names for nothing..." Smirnov said a month ago.
Add
As practice shows, anti-corruption agencies created by "one idea" turn a blind eye to each other's violations. For example, the NACP did not check forensic examinations ordered by NABU detectives from their friends and former colleagues. Although the fact was recorded by the NACP itself.
Manipulation of examinations is a common practice for NABU, but it often plays against the detectives themselves. For example, as was the case with the examinations in the cases of Rotterdam+ and former Infrastructure Minister Volodymyr Omelyan. According to lawyer Iryna Odynets, NABU lost in court because during the investigation, detectives in these cases "drew" forensic examinations in friendly private offices, and then unsuccessfully tried to confirm their accusations with them. Volodymyr Omelyan himself also noted that detectives engaged "dubious experts" during the investigation of the case against him.
In addition, the NABU tried to leak the expert examination in the case against former Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solsky, which they themselves had ordered and which was apparently supposed to testify to Solsky's innocence.
Given the repeated facts of such manipulations, the idea of NABU head Semen Kryvonos to create his own expert institution for the bureau looks extremely alarming. In this case, there may be many times more "painted" examinations, and thus NABU investigations may turn into biased persecutions similar to the mass political terror of the Soviet NKVD.
This was also emphasized by foreign experts who audited the NABU. The auditors believe that the creation of a criminal institution under the Anti-Corruption Bureau will not solve the issue of the objectivity of examinations in criminal proceedings investigated by detectives.
Political analyst Ruslan Bortnyk also criticized the idea of creating a separate expert institution for the NABU, emphasizing that this would only lead to even more chaos in public administration.
