Combating corruption

Such possibility was in the Draft law on Anti-corruption Bureau but after the final text of the Law went through the Presidential Administration the mention of President has gone. And that was the only compromise that allowed to gather the majority of votes for the law in the Parliament The State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) could possibly be such authority but we are all witnessing how much effort the Government makes to stop its creation.  And it is – an illusory opportunity, because supervision – control over the investigation of the Bureau is also under the Prosecutor General’s Office. Now you understand why the PGO is so fundamental authority for the political stability of the presidential vertical. Before the creation of SBI such financial crimes are controlled should be investigated by the Prosecutor General’s Office controlled by the President. This is called a vicious circle of corruption, controlled personally by the President Poroshenko. So, while Poroshenko hold

Ukraine’s new National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) may have netted its first big fish. The arrest of State Fiscal Service Head, Roman Nasirov on 2 March on suspicion of helping to embezzle 2 billion hryvnias ($75 million) suggests that Ukraine’s anti-corruption reforms are breaking new ground. The Nasirov case is part of a wider battle for control of the anti-corruption agenda pitting an alliance of civil society organizations, reformist forces in parliament and Western governments against a group of entrenched interests in government, parliament and business. Ukraine’s leaders are the products of a system of institutionalized corruption based on state capture by a narrow group of wealthy individuals. Not surprisingly, they are reluctant to give up their control of the state’s economic resources. Nor are they willing to relinquish their hold over the law enforcement agencies or the politically dependent judiciary. As a result, they pay only lip service to the need to clamp