This issue of our updates covers:

- our op-ed for EU Observer explaining the progress of Ukraine's anticorruption reform;
- NABU reports for the second half of 2017; 
- NABU arrested Odesa mayor Trukhanov, court released him without bail; 
- anticorruption court updates;
- recommended reading
Ukraine's fight against corruption
has started to work

There might be an illusion that Ukraine is following the post-Orange Revolution path, where resistance to change from Kyiv's political class led to the failure of reforms. This is not true. Full text


NABU reports for the second half of 2017


As a result of NABU detectives’ and SAPO prosecutors’ work more than 9,3 million USD of public funds were returned to the state. Embezzlement of nearly 80 million USD was prevented. NABU filed 35 lawsuits regarding invalidation of illegal agreements for a total amount of over 225 million USD. As a result, almost 5 million USD have already been restored in favor of the state. Full text


NABU arrested Odesa mayor Hennadiy Trukhanov, court released him without bail

Odesa mayor Hennadiy Trukhanov was detained by NABU on February 14. He is suspected in embezzlement of ~6,5 million USD. AntAC has gathered publicly available facts about Trukhanov's bio, assets, family, close associates, criminal investigations against him etc:
On February 15 the court released Trukhanov without bail, upon personal guarantees of the Poroshenko's Block MP Dmytro Golubov, elected in the single constituency in Odesa oblast. Golubov is reported by media to be a cybercriminal, tied to identity theft. Poroshenko's Block did not expel him, but claimed thatpersonal guarantee was his own initiative.
On February 15 all the court building and the roads to it were full of titushky (well-organized group of unknown men wearing the same clothes and looking like sportsmen). Right in the courthouse titushky attacked an Automaidan activist, and police officers did not prevent it. More details

Anticorruption court updates

Civil society representatives met with Rada Speaker Andriy Parubiy on February 14.He reassured that draft law on anticorruption court is a priority, will be included in the plenary agenda and has to be improved for the second reading in line with Venice Commission’s recommendations. We are grateful to Mr Parubiy for this stance! 

In the meantime, on February 13 the High Qualification Commission of Judges amended the Methodology of qualifications assessment. Clause 46 envisages that the information that was provided in the opinion [of the Public Integrity Council] is to be taken into account by the HQCJ while deciding on scores for specific criteria. However, it is also mentioned that the HQCJ is not assessing judicial rulings, reported in the opinion, unless there is a reference to the decision of the competent authorities on bringing the judge (candidate) to liability or the fact of violations of the law by the judge (candidate) is ascertained. This means that should there be no decision of the High Council of Justice or the court on violations, the HQCJ won't consider this information.

This may significantly hamper the selections of anticorruption judges. As an example, having responsibility to bring to justice the judges, who prosecuted Maydan activists, the High Council of Justice failed to do it in ~85% of cases - mostly due to expiry of the limitation period in early 2017.
Medical examination in the case against Shabunin is falsified - more details

Recommended reading

‘Provocateur’ used in prosecution of prominent Ukrainian anti-corruption activist? - Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group

Can Ukraine Win Its War on Corruption? - Melinda Haring, Maxim Eristavi  

Is This the End of Mikheil Saakashvili in Ukraine? - Atlantic Council