ILI Head on Kyiv 24 on the Stefanishyna case: Unexplained wealth provisions allow authorities to address the consequences of corruption
Unexplained wealth provisions establish liability not only for assets that cannot be substantiated as belonging to a public official, but also for property that they effectively own through close associates or other related persons. Tetiana Khutor, Head of the Institute of Legislative Ideas, said this during an interview with Kyiv 24, commenting on the case of Olha Stefanishyna.
“If assets belong to a public official directly or indirectly, and law enforcement authorities can prove this, the official must explain their origin. And when there is no official and lawful income to account for them, such assets, depending on their value, may be subject to recovery,” the expert explained.
She added that unexplained wealth is one of the mechanisms that allows law enforcement authorities to address not the fact of receiving an undue benefit itself, but the consequences of possible corrupt activity – the assets acquired as a result.
“Once the assets have already been acquired, it is very difficult not to use them – to buy expensive cars, apartments, houses, and so on,” Tetiana Khutor noted.
The ILI Head also drew attention to the length of criminal proceedings in corruption cases. Among the reasons, she cited the high evidentiary standards, statutes of limitations, and actions by individuals involved in cases aimed at making it more difficult to find evidence.
“Criminal proceedings involve very high standards of proof. It is extremely difficult to prove that everything actually happened that way, especially when it took place 10-15 years ago. In addition, there are issues related to limitation periods in criminal proceedings,” the expert said.
According to her, in cases involving unexplained wealth or civil forfeiture of unjustified assets, the state has a legal mechanism that can be significantly faster than criminal proceedings. If a person cannot explain the lawful origin of their property, it may be recovered in favor of the state through the High Anti-Corruption Court.
“This is a very innovative and relatively fast mechanism that can ensure such justice. The state gets back what may potentially have been diverted from its budget, particularly when we are talking about top-level public officials,” Tetiana Khutor said.
In her view, civil forfeiture also has a preventive effect, as it demonstrates to other public officials the risks associated with acquiring assets whose lawful origin they will be unable to substantiate.
“Assets with an unexplained origin can be recovered quickly. This reduces the incentive to engage in such actions, whereas criminal proceedings can take years and sometimes even decades,” the ILI Head concluded.
Watch the full broadcast here: