Open statement on the adoption of the draft law No. 12374-d, which provides for the reform of the ARMA and the system of management of seized assets
On 26 March 2025, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is scheduled to consider Draft Law No. 12374-d, which provides for the long-awaited reform of the National Agency for Finding, Tracing and Management of Assets Derived from Corruption and Other Crimes (ARMA).
This draft law is an important component of Ukraine's fulfilment of its obligations under the Ukraine Facility Plan, which opens access to financial support from the European Union.
On 24 March 2025, the Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy approved the final version of the draft law for the second reading. The Committee changed its earlier decision to support amendment No. 886, initiated by MPs Oleksandr Tkachenko and Alyona Slavytska, and refused to include it in the draft law. We welcome this responsible decision and urge MPs not to support this amendment during the voting in the parliamentary hall.
- Why is it important?
Amendment No. 886 is not related to the activities of the ARMA, but provides for amendments to the procedure for lifestyle monitoring conducted by the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (NAPC).
It proposes to
- limit the monitoring to the period when the person had the status of a declarant;
- to set the maximum period of monitoring at three months.
- Position of the Institute of Legislative Ideas:
For many years, the Institute of Legislative Ideas (ILE) has been systematically researching problems in the work of the ARMA and has repeatedly called for its reform. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion , 13 legislative initiatives related to ARMA have remained unaddressed. In this context, the adoption of the draft law No. 12374-d is a critical and timely step.
Moreover, the Institute of Legislative Ideas is a member of the NACP Public Council and our goal is to prevent a possible weakening of the NACP's effectiveness and anti-corruption policy in general. Amendment No. 886, which has nothing to do with the scope of this draft law, creates such risks.
We recognise the need to improve the institution of lifestyle monitoring. However, we are convinced that such changes should take place within a separate legislative process or by amending the NACP's bylaws and only after a separate and professional discussion.
