Who investigates corruption cases in Ukraine, and what does it mean for the suspect?

• Corruption offenses are investigated by different bodies depending on the perpetrator and the amount involved: the National Police, the State Bureau of Investigation and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.
• Jurisdiction is set by Article 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A breach of jurisdiction rules is a ground for appeal and may affect the admissibility of evidence.
• The National Agency on Corruption Prevention does not conduct pre-trial investigations; it detects violations and draws up administrative protocols.
• Cases investigated by NABU are heard by the High Anti-Corruption Court; all other corruption cases are heard by local general courts.
• Most bribery cases at the local level are investigated by the National Police, not by NABU.

The word “anti-corruption” in a body’s name creates the impression that any case involving an undue advantage ends up with NABU and the High Anti-Corruption Court. In practice it is the opposite: the vast majority of cases under Articles 368, 369, 364 and 366 of the Criminal Code are investigated by the National Police or the State Bureau of Investigation and heard by ordinary local courts. Attorney Oleksii Kobets, who has worked in criminal cases for more than 25 years and has a background in pre-trial investigation bodies, explains how jurisdiction is distributed and why this is not a formality for the suspect.

Why does it matter who investigates the case?

Jurisdiction, that is, the determination of the body authorized to investigate a specific offense, is set by Article 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This is not an internal matter of the law enforcement system but a guarantee for the individual: evidence collected by a body that had no authority to investigate that particular case may be declared inadmissible.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly considered the consequences of breaching jurisdiction rules. The general approach is that the court assesses whether the breach led to a material restriction of the person’s rights and whether procedural actions were carried out by an unauthorized body. That is why checking jurisdiction is one of the first steps of the defense in any corruption case.

Example. Proceedings against an official who, by status, falls under the jurisdiction of the SBI are investigated from the outset by National Police investigators, and only months later are the materials transferred to the proper body. The defense analyzes which evidence was collected before the transfer and raises the issue of its admissibility.

What does the National Police investigate?

Under Part 1 of Article 216, investigators of the National Police investigate all criminal offenses except those assigned by law to other bodies. This is the so-called residual jurisdiction.

In practice this is where the bulk of bribery and official misconduct cases end up: undue advantages given to doctors, teachers, employees of municipal enterprises, inspectors, lower-level local government officials, as well as most cases under Articles 364, 366 and 191 of the Criminal Code where the perpetrator has no special status and the amount does not reach the thresholds set for NABU.

For the suspect this means that the case will be heard by a local general court under the general rules of criminal procedure, not by a specialized court.

What does the State Bureau of Investigation investigate?

Under Part 4 of Article 216, SBI investigators investigate offenses committed by persons listed in the law: in particular, law enforcement officers, judges, officials holding a responsible or especially responsible position who do not fall under NABU’s jurisdiction, as well as military offenses.

So if an undue advantage was received by, for example, a police officer, a prosecutor’s office employee or a judge, the case will be investigated by the SBI rather than the National Police. Such cases are also heard by local general courts.

What does NABU investigate, and what does the SAPO do?

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine has special jurisdiction defined by Part 5 of Article 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code. NABU detectives investigate corruption offenses under two groups of criteria. The first concerns the perpetrator: top state officials, members of parliament, judges, senior prosecutors, heads of central executive bodies and other persons on the list set out in the law. The second concerns the amount: certain offenses fall to NABU if the amount involved or the damage caused exceeds a statutory threshold calculated in subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons.

The Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office supervises NABU proceedings and conducts the public prosecution before the High Anti-Corruption Court.

If a person does not fall into any of the categories of Part 5 of Article 216 and the amount does not reach the threshold, the case will not go to NABU, however “corrupt” it may be in substance.

What does the Bureau of Economic Security investigate?

BES detectives investigate offenses in the sphere of economic activity, tax evasion and related economic offenses listed in Part 3 of Article 216. BES jurisdiction does not extend to corruption offenses as such (Articles 368 and 369 of the Criminal Code), but in practice economic and corruption episodes are often joined in one proceeding, and the question of jurisdiction is then decided by the prosecutor under Part 10 of Article 216.

What is the role of the NACP?

The National Agency on Corruption Prevention is not a pre-trial investigation body. Its functions are preventive and supervisory: verifying declarations, monitoring lifestyle, overseeing compliance with restrictions and conflicts of interest, and protecting whistleblowers.

If the NACP detects signs of a criminal offense, in particular false declaration under Article 366-2 or failure to file a declaration under Article 366-3 of the Criminal Code, it forwards the materials to the relevant pre-trial investigation body. For less serious violations the NACP draws up administrative protocols, for example under Article 172-6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

Where are corruption cases heard?

The High Anti-Corruption Court hears cases investigated by NABU under the supervision of the SAPO. It is a court of first instance, and its Appeals Chamber reviews decisions on appeal. Cassation review is carried out by the Supreme Court.

All other corruption cases, that is, those investigated by the National Police and the SBI, are heard by local general courts at the place where the offense was committed, and appeals are heard by the regional courts of appeal. For most suspects in bribery cases, this is the typical path.

What follows for the defense?

First: from day one, the defense checks whether the body conducting the investigation is authorized to do so under Article 216 and records any violations.

Second: the nature of the evidence depends on the body. NABU and SBI proceedings are usually saturated with covert investigative (search) actions, whereas in National Police cases procedural violations during arrest, inspection and seizure are more common. The defense strategy is built with this in mind.

Third: the court also depends on the body, and therefore so do the case law, the time frames and the procedural features of the hearing.

His background in pre-trial investigation bodies allows attorney Kobets to assess how proceedings are built in each of these bodies and what to watch for at each stage. Defense is provided at all stages of the proceedings in Kyiv and other regions.

Related materials: Article 368 of the Criminal Code: lines of defense, release from liability for the person who provided the advantage, search: your rights, measures of restraint.

Frequently asked questions

The examples given are hypothetical and generalized and do not relate to any specific case or person.

This material is for information purposes only and is not legal advice or a guarantee of any result. Every case is unique, and the application of legal rules depends on specific circumstances. For an assessment of your situation, seek a personal consultation with a lawyer. The author complies with the Rules of Attorney Ethics and the Law of Ukraine “On the Bar and Practice of Law”.