corruption scheme; ‘off-duty’ agent sponsored letters from NABU to private companies).

NABU commented on all these allegations and rebutted them. 

We considered the initial reaction of NABU being inadequate and called on Sytnyk to suspend deputy director and two detectives, who were mentioned in the investigation, from office while the official investigation takes place. This would ensure an objective, independent and unbiased investigation. 

On March 14 Sytnyk suspended the detectives from office.  

At the same time, we are convinced that materials published by journalists should not undermine confidence in the results of NABU work. 

NABU must draw conclusions from this. It should develop clear internal rules and procedures that allow the agency to detect and identify possible violations conducted by employees. Such rules and standards exist throughout successful independent law enforcement agencies internationally. Also, NABU should introduce clear internal control guidelines for avoiding of extra-procedural communications of NABU employees with the potential subjects of their investigations, conduct an audit of communications of its employees with other governmental agencies and private entities that are subjects to NABU investigations, as well as introduce an effective policy on cooperation with ‘off-duty’ agents that shall include provisions on confidentiality. 

The Agency must learn from this experience and strive to make itself more robust, effective and publicly trusted.

Illicit enrichment updates

All legal consequences of the decision are already enacted, including the closure of all existing 65 criminal cases into illicit enrichment. Please, see our legal brief for more details on possible solutions (requesting an additional explanation from the Constitutional Court, adoption of the new draft law with subsequent confirmation by the Constitutional Court, and civil forfeiture). 

Regarding requesting the explanation from the Constitutional Court. The common practice of the Constitutional Court is to establish that the provision which preceded the one that was deemed unconstitutional returns into effect. For example, on December 4, 2018, the Court passed a ruling on the size of judges' remuneration; in its decision, the Court recognized that the wording of 2015 version does not comply with the Constitution of Ukraine and that the provision should be applied in its original formulation of 2010. Thus, by stating that the norm of 2015 is unconstitutional, the Court did not rule that it should disappear from the legislation but decided to bring back the original version.

Regarding adopting new legislation. On March 13 Rada committee on law enforcement planned to consider a number of bills on illicit enrichment. However, the consideration was postponed, most likely to March 20. We would like to remind that neither President's, nor Tymoshenko's bills offer an effective resolution for the problem.