The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) implements preventive anti-corruption policy and exercises financial control over officials’ assets, in particular through lifestyle monitoring and full audits of declarations. The powers of the NACP are defined in Article 11 of the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption” (hereinafter – the Law), and its rights are outlined in Article 12 of the Law. In particular, the Agency has the right to request and receive information, to have automated access to state registers, and to obtain information from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations in accordance with the procedure established by a joint order of the NACP and the Prosecutor General. In addition, Article 13 of the Law regulates the status and powers of authorized officials of the NACP who conduct inspections within the Agency’s competence.
Therefore, the NACP is not vested with powers to carry out pre-trial investigations or operational-search activities. Such powers are assigned to law enforcement bodies within their investigative jurisdiction. This refers to procedural actions such as searches, temporary seizure of items (phones) and documents, covert investigative (search) actions, and so on. These actions are carried out in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and, as a rule, on the basis of a ruling of an investigating judge.
At the same time, a number of statements from the media, civic activists and other sources have criticized the NACP for allegedly superficial lifestyle monitoring of a senior official of the Security Service of Ukraine. However, the Agency acted strictly within the powers granted by law, having reviewed all information and facts available at that time. It should be emphasized that within the framework of lifestyle monitoring, the NACP cannot verify such circumstances as fictitious business activities, access personal correspondence or conduct searches. These powers belong exclusively to law enforcement bodies.
It should be noted that upon identifying grounds to conduct lifestyle monitoring of the official, the NACP addressed the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine (OPG) (at that time, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) was a structural unit of the OPG). The Agency informed the OPG of the monitoring being conducted and requested information on any existing criminal proceedings regarding the declarant, as well as whether civil-law measures had been taken to declare assets unjustified. In response, it was reported that no such facts existed.
In conclusion, it should be stressed that the results of NACP lifestyle monitoring and the results of pre-trial investigations conducted by law enforcement bodies may differ due to the different range of instruments established by their respective powers.
The NACP also states that there is no external influence on its activities in any area of its work. In connection with the position expressed by a SAPO prosecutor during a court hearing, the Agency has submitted an official request for the factual grounds on which the prosecutor relied in his statement. The NACP expects a prompt response from SAPO and, if necessary, is prepared to take appropriate measures.
