Corruption

65 cases of illicit enrichment closed: what are the consequences for the defendants?

EXCLUSIVE

The criminal proceedings on illicit enrichment closed in 2019 cannot be reopened. Even though the repealed law was eventually reinstated. However, enrichment-related episodes can be investigated under other articles. This was stated in an interview with the YouTube channel [Kommersant] anti-corruption law expert, attorney-at-law Andriy Mazalov said in an interview with the YouTube channel "Komersant Ukrainian".

“It is impossible to return to closed proceedings because there is a principle of ‘no crime when there is no law’. At that time, the law was repealed, and in fact, these actions did not fall under the crime,” Mazalov explained.

At the same time, he emphasized that the fact that the proceedings were closed does not mean complete impunity. Some episodes can be investigated under “neighboring” articles.

“The article “illicit enrichment” cannot exist by itself. There is always Article 366 – false information. There is also Article 209 – money laundering. There is a list of articles that go hand in hand,” the lawyer noted.

Mazalov explained that the original version of the article on illicit enrichment was declared unconstitutional due to violation of the basic principle of presumption of innocence.

“The Constitutional Court concluded that the article violated the presumption of innocence. The person was a priori recognized as guilty and had to prove the legitimacy of his or her income. This contradicts the fundamental principles of law,” he added.

After that, lawmakers urgently returned the rule, but in a modified form, while introducing a civil forfeiture mechanism for amounts that do not reach the criminal threshold.

Andriy Mazalov also explained the difference between criminal liability for illicit enrichment and civil confiscation of unjustified assets. Thus, while in criminal proceedings the prosecutor must prove guilt, and any doubts are interpreted in favor of the accused, in civil proceedings the court takes into account the proof of the arguments of each party.

Mazalov noted that despite the high-profile nature of this category of cases, the actual court practice has not yet been formed.

“As of today, I have seen only one verdict in the register concerning illicit enrichment. It is about nothing – the official made a deal and received a year’s suspended sentence. Such cases, of course, do not form the practice,” he added.

As written by [Kommersant], the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office have recently brought a case against the current head of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) to court . The official is accused of failing to declare a significant amount of real estate and a premium car, and his wife is accused of aiding and abetting illicit enrichment.

Reading now

Temporary protection in the EU: all possible scenarios for Ukrainians after the expiration of the term

SBI to open criminal proceedings against Ukrenergo head Kudrytskyy, – court ruling

Can the war really end by the end of the year: analysis of insights and statements about peace

ZNPP reconnected to the Ukrainian power grid: how the plant was brought out of record blackout