On 26 June, the Ukrainian Bar Association held its Second Anti-Corruption Forum. In his opening remarks, UBA President Mykola Stetsenko noted that it marked the 1,218th day of Russia’s full-scale invasion and invited participants to honour the memory of those who gave their lives for Ukraine’s independence with a moment of silence.

He emphasized that for the second time, the UBA has brought together civil society, legal professionals, business, and the state to create a platform for discussing transparency, fair play, and new anti-corruption initiatives. Among the Association’s priorities are strengthening the rule of law, reforming the legal profession, combating corruption, and advancing transitional justice.

In his welcome address, Artem Krykun-Trush, Partner and Head of the White-Collar Crime Practice at Miller, emphasized that despite the ongoing challenges at the front and the daily strain, anti-corruption efforts remain highly relevant and continue to evolve. Today, they increasingly encompass issues such as military investigations, sanctions, and international cooperation.

Trends in Anti-Corruption Practice

The forum's first session opened with a discussion on the limits of using covert investigative actions, particularly those involving attorney-client privilege. Participants also examined a recent decision by the Grand Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court concerning Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which introduces new risks for the management of state institutions. Additionally, the panel analyzed the role of investigative journalism as a source of evidence in corruption-related criminal proceedings.

The discussion was moderated by Maksym Sheverdin, Chair of the UBA Committee on Criminal and Criminal Procedure Law and Partner at LCF Law Group.

Nazar Kulchytskyy, Managing Partner at Nazar Kulchytskyy & Partners Law Firm, highlighted that the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights' case law on the protection of attorney-client privilege in Ukrainian courts has been delayed by nearly a decade. He referred to several ECtHR rulings that reveal inadequate safeguards during searches and wiretapping of lawyers and their clients — including cases where recordings of their communications were simply destroyed, and law enforcement authorities refused to include them in the case files.

Nazar Kulchytskyy emphasized the lack of effective oversight mechanisms in Ukraine regarding the scope and conditions of covert investigative actions. While courts may formally restrict data extraction from a phone, they rarely verify which specific files were actually copied or intercepted. He noted that law enforcement lacks the technical capacity to separate privileged communications between lawyers and clients from the general data pool—unlike in other jurisdictions, where this task is carried out by independent experts.

He stressed the urgent need to develop and implement a clear plan to address these systemic gaps and called on the Ministry of Justice to schedule appropriate measures to ensure a balance between effective investigations and the inviolability of the right to legal defense.

Judge Arkadiy Bushchenko of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court shared his perspective on the Court’s recent interpretation of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In his view, the Grand Chamber’s decision does not introduce any new legal approaches or conclusions. He specifically noted that the ruling states the existence of an agreement between the recipient of an unlawful benefit and a public official has no legal significance under criminal law, and that the amount of the benefit does not necessarily indicate specific actions by the official.

Judge Bushchenko emphasized that he expressed a dissenting opinion on these findings, which he detailed in a separate opinion, though it was not supported by the majority of the judges.

Judge Bushchenko also underscored a troubling practice among law enforcement authorities, who often treat Article 364 as a “catch-all” provision, resorting to it in cases where they fail to prove other crimes such as bribery or embezzlement. He stressed that this is a misguided approach, as Article 364 outlines a specific and distinct offence and should not be seen as an “incomplete version” of other Criminal Code provisions.

He further drew attention to the risks public officials face when making decisions amid legal uncertainty. Any mistake in such circumstances, he noted, can lead to real consequences — someone may unjustly benefit or, conversely, be deprived of certain rights or advantages.

Ruslan Volynets, Doctor of Law, Professor at the Department of Criminal Law Policy and Criminal Law of the Educational and Scientific Law Institute at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, attorney, and Chair of the Partners’ Council at Quantum Law Firm, focused on the evidentiary value of journalistic investigations in criminal proceedings. He highlighted the challenge of verifying the accuracy of information submitted by journalists to law enforcement and the courts, as the sources behind such materials are often unverifiable. According to the expert, the procedures for collecting and verifying evidence are strictly regulated, whereas journalistic investigations frequently present information in an emotional—and sometimes even altered—manner.

Mr. Volynets emphasized that this presents a serious challenge for the criminal justice system, as high-profile information can shape a negative public narrative and potentially influence the objectivity of prosecutors and judges. He stressed that even minor changes in wording can drastically alter the legal assessment of a case. Therefore, he argued, journalistic materials must be approached with great caution when considered as evidence, with a clear understanding of both their potential benefits and inherent risks.

Effective Judicial Administration as a Prerequisite for Building Trust in the Judiciary: An Interview with Bohdan Kryklivenko

As part of the Forum, an in-depth conversation took place between Denys Buhai, Chair of the UBA’s Section of Attorneys, Law Firm Lawyers, and Solo Practitioners, and Founding Partner at VB Partners, and Bohdan Kryklivenko, Chief of Staff of the High Anti-Corruption Court. The interview provided a platform for thoughtful reflection on six years of operation of this unique judicial institution, which was built from scratch while bearing significant responsibility before the public.

Bohdan Kryklivenko recalled that when the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) began its operations in 2019, it lacked even basic infrastructure, internal regulations, and human capital—everything had to be built from the ground up. According to Kryklivenko, it was the clear guiding principles, high standards of transparency, and a responsible approach to team selection that made it possible not only to launch the institution but also to earn its reputation.

“Our greatest asset is our people. From the outset, we deliberately cultivated a culture where staff don’t just ‘show up for a paycheck,’ but function as part of a living organism with clear responsibilities, accountability, and motivation. We aimed to recruit not mercenaries, but co-creators of change,” Kryklivenko noted.

One of the key accomplishments of the HACC’s administrative staff, according to Kryklivenko, has been not only its strategic approach to staffing but also its ability to turn crisis conditions into opportunities for institutional development. He highlighted the implementation of open feedback practices, regular internal audits, and participation in public reporting as part of the Court’s everyday operations. The HACC remains one of the few institutions in Ukraine that transparently discloses the results of its administrative and financial activities—and has undergone two external audits.

Special attention is given to the Court’s internal culture. At the HACC, a continuous improvement system is in place, where even feedback from trial participants is transformed into a tool for institutional development. Feedback can be submitted via QR codes placed throughout the courthouse, and seemingly small innovations—like installing coffee machines—were implemented at the suggestion of external colleagues.

“This is what a service-oriented, human-centered model of a state institution looks like. It’s built not on rigid discipline, but on trust, teamwork, and a shared sense of purpose. When an employee leaves the institution, they become a high-quality professional for other public bodies. That, too, is part of our contribution to the system as a whole,” Kryklivenko noted.

Current Challenges and Future Prospects: How the HACC Prepares for a New Stage

During the interview, Bohdan Kryklivenko outlined the key challenges facing the administrative staff of the High Anti-Corruption Court—both in day-to-day operations and at a strategic level.

Among the primary influencing factors, he pointed to the difficult economic situation in the country, shifting priorities in international assistance, and limited resources. One of the institution’s core tasks, he noted, is to preserve its achievements and ensure resilience moving forward.

The HACC is also preparing for a significant expansion in staffing, with 23 new judges and over 120 additional administrative personnel expected to join the Court. “This is not merely an expansion—it’s the creation of a new organization. We are preparing for this process with great care, taking into account both resource and managerial challenges,” Kryklivenko emphasized.

Among the unresolved issues, he mentioned the Court’s current facilities: the first-instance divisions remain physically separated, and the conditions of the appellate chamber require substantial improvement. He also noted that certain legislative changes regarding case procedures could significantly optimize the Court’s operations. In his view, it would be entirely reasonable for cases involving unjustified assets in civil proceedings to be heard by a single judge—just as is already the practice in criminal proceedings.

Judicial Practice in Anti-Corruption Cases

Opening the mini-session dedicated to judicial practice in corruption-related cases, moderator Yevhen Riyako—Deputy Chair of the UBA Committee on Criminal and Criminal Procedure Law and Managing Partner at Riyako & Partners—emphasized the symbolic importance and value of judges participating in professional discussions.

“Today’s panel is not just about ‘seven minutes per speaker.’ We envisioned it as a space for exchanging views and engaging in real dialogue with those who are directly shaping judicial practice in high-level corruption cases,” the moderator noted.

Judge Oleksii Kravchuk of the High Anti-Corruption Court highlighted key legislative developments in 2024 concerning plea agreements in corruption cases. He drew attention to the evolving interpretation of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which allows for a suspended sentence. According to the judge, the HACC has supported the position that this provision should be applied only in exceptional cases—such as when a public official pleads guilty and promptly resigns from office—where the agreement clearly serves the public interest.

Judge Kravchuk also noted a growing number of agreements involving substantial penalties, including multimillion-hryvnia fines and partial asset confiscation. At the same time, courts are rigorously scrutinizing compliance with legal requirements: agreements that lack a sufficiently detailed description of the circumstances or are improperly executed are not approved. He emphasized that while plea agreements are a vital tool in combating corruption, their effectiveness depends on proper legal formulation and full transparency.

Bail Amounts: An Individualized Approach over Formal Calculations

In his address, Mykola Hlotov, Judge of the HACC Appellate Chamber, provided a detailed explanation of how bail is determined in criminal proceedings related to corruption offences. He emphasized that the primary purpose of precautionary measures is not only to ensure the suspect's appearance in court but also to minimize the risk of interference with the investigation. According to the judge, when setting bail, the court must take into account the circumstances outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as well as the suspect’s personal characteristics—such as age, health, social ties, financial status, and conduct in previous proceedings.

Judge Hlotov also drew attention to the limits of judicial authority: the court cannot set bail higher than the amount requested by the prosecution, as exceeding that threshold risks the decision being overturned.

He further highlighted current challenges in judicial practice. According to him, two primary approaches dominate HACC proceedings—either calculating bail based on the amount of damages or on the suspect’s financial standing. However, each case requires an individualized assessment. Defendants before the HACC often have access to substantial resources, making it difficult to accurately evaluate their assets. Income is frequently concealed or registered under other individuals. A suspect’s refusal to post bail does not necessarily indicate a lack of funds—it may be a deliberate tactic, he stressed.

In closing, Hlotov emphasized that the gradual digitalization of financial transactions in Ukraine is a crucial step toward transparency and the effectiveness of the bail system: “A cashless economy is the foundation for a fair and realistic approach to preventive measures.”

Judicial Practice and the Admissibility of Evidence: The Supreme Court’s Perspective

Serhii Fomin, Judge of the Supreme Court, focused his remarks on the standards for assessing the admissibility of evidence in corruption-related cases. He emphasized that admissibility is not a formality but a complex legal concept that requires case-by-case evaluation. All evidence must be obtained in accordance with the law, and determining whether it meets procedural standards falls exclusively within the competence of the court.

The judge emphasized that the significance of a piece of evidence lies not only in its content, but also in the context in which it was obtained: the competence of investigators, adherence to procedure, and proper documentation are all critical factors. Particular attention must be given to cases where an individual enters into a plea agreement with the prosecution—this does not relieve them of their subsequent procedural obligations. Even after such an agreement is approved, related issues may remain open within other proceedings.

In his remarks, Fomin also addressed the need for careful use of judicial precedents. He noted that references to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights or the Supreme Court must be based on a genuine understanding of the legal position rather than a superficial similarity of facts. According to the judge, citing judicial decisions in procedural documents without proper analysis can distort the defense’s argument and mislead the court.

In conclusion, Serhii Fomin shared examples from Supreme Court practice, including a 2016 ruling that confirms the possibility of entering into plea agreements even with individuals holding special status. In his view, this demonstrates the flexibility of legal application—provided the principle of the rule of law is upheld.

Military White Collar Crime: Emerging Legal Challenges in Wartime

During one of the thematic mini-sessions at the UBA Forum, participants focused on the category of military white collar crime—a new phenomenon in Ukrainian criminal law that has emerged against the backdrop of full-scale war. The session was moderated by Roksolana Lukinchuk, Partner and Head of the White Collar Crime Practice at ADVANQ. The discussion featured Marina Mkrticheva, Counsel and Head of Criminal Law Practice at LA Law Firm, and Viacheslav Kolomiichuk, Senior Associate at Miller Law Firm.

At the outset, the moderator outlined three key areas for discussion: defining the category of military white collar crime, examining the specific characteristics of perpetrators and the legal qualification of offences within the security and defense sector, and addressing the evidentiary challenges inherent in such proceedings.

In response to Roksolana Lukinchuk’s question about the essence of military white collar crime, Viacheslav Kolomiichuk explained that the term refers to official misconduct, corruption, or economic crimes linked to the defense sector—committed both by officers within military units and by private sector representatives. At the same time, he noted that “military white collar crime” is not a legally defined concept under substantive or procedural law, but rather serves to describe a particular area of legal practice.

Marina Mkrticheva drew attention to the lack of “pure” white collar crime within the military sphere. According to her, law enforcement authorities often interpret criminal provisions broadly in order to bring officials or military personnel under economic or corruption-related charges. She cited examples of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (misappropriation of property) being applied in cases involving the supply of substandard goods or delivery failures under combat conditions. Particularly concerning, in her view, is the combination of this article with charges under Article 114-1 (obstruction of the Armed Forces of Ukraine), a dual qualification that likely rests more on procedural convenience than on a substantive legal basis.

Ms. Mkrticheva emphasized the complexity of assessing the actions of military commanders who make decisions under extreme stress and often without full control over the situation. These individuals may become subjects of criminal proceedings not due to personal gain, but as a result of objective circumstances or the actions of their subordinates.

Roksolana Lukinchuk pointed to a range of practical issues that arise during investigations into military white collar crime. She highlighted, in particular, the defense’s limited access to information—stemming both from the classified status of key documents and the recurring practice of withholding them. Additional complications arise during the appointment and conduct of expert examinations, especially military-related ones, which are meant to establish causal links between failures to fulfill obligations (such as in supply deliveries) and damage to national defense capability.

According to the moderator, these challenges present serious obstacles for defense attorneys and hinder the exercise of the right to a fair defense. At the heart of the issue is not only access to information, but also the quality and feasibility of conducting objective expert analysis under martial law conditions.

Viacheslav Kolomiichuk shared two practical tools that may prove useful for the defense in cases involving military white collar crime.

First, he pointed to the possibility of using the results of an internal service investigation as evidence in criminal proceedings. According to existing regulations, the mere fact of opening a criminal case against a service member automatically triggers a service investigation, which is conducted independently of prosecutorial influence. If the investigation concludes that no violations occurred, the resulting report can play a significant role in the defense’s strategy.

Second, Kolomiichuk cited examples from his own practice illustrating the inconsistency of prosecutorial approaches in qualifying offences related to defense procurement. In one case, both the procuring authorities and the suppliers were held liable; in another, only the commander of a military unit was charged, with no mention of other parties involved. Prosecutors justified this approach by citing the principle of sole command within the Armed Forces of Ukraine, arguing it suffices to place full responsibility on the commander alone. However, Kolomiichuk highlighted the Supreme Court’s position, which rejects such interpretations, emphasizing that co-perpetration cannot be properly qualified in the absence of other identified participants in the case.

In closing, Kolomiichuk urged his colleagues to remain attentive to such nuances and to diligently defend their clients, making full use of all procedural opportunities.

Anti-Corruption Compliance and Sanctions

The third session of the forum, dedicated to anti-corruption compliance and sanctions, was moderated by Artem Krykun-Trush, Partner and Head of the White-Collar Crime, Compliance, and Investigations Practice at Miller. He opened the discussion with a broad question to all participants: “Since the onset of the full-scale invasion, what challenges has anti-corruption compliance faced? What has changed in your work? What are the key needs and pain points you've encountered under the new circumstances?”.

In response, Dmytro Boryk, Deputy Head of the Internal Control Unit at the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), noted that the war has profoundly transformed operational approaches in the public sector. Traditionally grounded in procedures and stability, civil service had to adapt to a new reality—one that demands flexibility, dynamism, and a more human-centered approach. According to Boryk, internal control has effectively shifted from a supervisory function to a supportive one: today, it is primarily about assisting people and addressing their real-life challenges.

Anastasiia Renkas, Head of the Whistleblower Development Division at the NACP, echoed her colleague’s remarks, adding that 2023 marked a turning point for the development of Ukraine’s whistleblower protection framework. According to her, the whistleblowing system became a kind of “mirror” reflecting internal processes within many organizations—revealing that not all were genuinely prepared to implement anti-corruption mechanisms. She emphasized the importance of ensuring that internal compliance systems stand first and foremost on the side of employees.

Hanna Horbenko, Director of the Compliance and Financial Monitoring Department at OTP Bank and Chair of the Ukrainian Compliance Association, noted that the banking sector is experiencing a talent drain—with many professionals having moved abroad and chosen not to return, creating significant staffing challenges. At the same time, she emphasized that compliance in the banking industry plays a preventive role and, unlike in the public sector, cannot always position itself “on the side of the employee.” On the contrary, compliance often acts as a safeguard for the business, responding to unethical conduct by staff members.

Yuliia Azarina, attorney and Director of the Anti-Corruption Office at Ukrzaliznytsia, noted that anti-corruption compliance as a distinct function began to take shape within the company only after the start of the full-scale invasion. She highlighted that over the past year and a half, an internal culture of seeking justice has started to emerge among employees. According to her, compliance mechanisms—such as prevention tools, whistleblowing systems, and internal audits—are gradually being recognized by staff as instruments that help fulfill this demand for fairness.

Reflecting on state-business cooperation in the field of anti-corruption compliance, Hanna Horbenko remarked that businesses are currently being tasked with responsibilities traditionally outside their scope. A notable example is the requirement to identify ultimate beneficial owners—a responsibility now effectively borne by the banking sector. She pointed out that businesses often face ethical dilemmas in this context: by reporting questionable cases to government authorities, institutions risk breaching banking secrecy or losing client trust.