Anticorruption updates Ukraine

- tangible victory in war on corruption;
- Euromaidan Press documentary on the creation of the Anticorruption Court in Ukraine;
- Former GRECO chair Drago Kos urged SAPO head to resign;
- George Kent, US State Dept official commented on the SBU reform;
- attacks on activists;
- recommended reading

Tangible victory in war on corruption

Over years, management of two thermal power plants in Lviv region were misusing for their commercial purposes discounted gas, which they had received for producing heat for households.

The theft was stopped by a real struggle. First, the thermal plants were seized by the court decision upon NABU request and transferred to the Asset Recovery and Management Agency.

Then it took a lot of efforts of ARMA and a new managing company, selected by them, to gain de-facto control over the plants and start to manage them.

As a result, a scheme that caused ~50 million USD state losses in 2013-2015 was shut down. Isn't it a real tangible victory of the anticorruption reform? Daria Kaleniuk and Olena Halushka claim - yes! With this story we want to prove that even without the operational anticorruption court in place, NABU and SAPO stop notorious corruption schemes already today. Full text.

Euromaidan Press documentary on the creation of the Anticorruption Court in Ukraine

(With English subtitles. Please click on the picture to watch)

Drago Kos about SAPO head

In his comment for Novoe Vremya radio, former chair of Council of Europe's anticorruption body GRECO Drago Kos called on Nazar Kholodnytskyi, head of the Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutor's Office, to resign for the sake of Ukraine's fight against corruption. More details.

George Kent about SBU

Attacks on activists.
Assassination of Kateryna Handziuk

On December 3, the Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko announced publicly that those who ordered, organized and executed the murder of Kateryna Handziuk are identified.

Activists and friends of Handziuk ask: why does Lutsenko disclose details of investigation regarding the case of her murder?

Is this deliberate breakdown of investigative actions or elementary incompetence? Did he warn some suspects by his statements? Or did he want to self-promote once again? Yevheniya Zakrevska, attorney of Handziuk’s family is confident: Lutsenko's statements harm the investigation.

The Criminal Code prohibits disclosure of such an information. Zakrevska also criticised statements of the investigation regarding identification of all subjects of Handziuk's case. "How can one talk about confidence of investigation in something, if there are no first steps - notices of suspicion and detentions?"

Zakrevska said that it was known long ago about Oleksiy Levin, whom Lutsenko called suspect in Handziuk’s case. Why wasn't he arrested by the police at the moment when his involvement was established - in August, when some performers were detained? Why wasn't he detained before he ran away?

Earlier Lutsenko accused activists of "PR on the blood", as publication of information regarding involvement of a middleman Ihor Pavlovskyi allegedly damaged investigation. Activists ask: how many people, likely involved in ordering Handziuk’s murder, received necessary information after Lutsenko's statements? Original text.

Op-ed by Handziuk's friend Kateryna Mola "Who ordered Katya Handziuk’s murder?"

Court ordered to investigate inactivity of the police during attack on Shabunin

Human Rights Information Center's short film:
Human rights activists against violence

Recommended reading