 |
Маєте Телеграм? Два кліки - і ви не пропустите жодної важливої юридичної новини. Нічого зайвого, лише #самасуть. З турботою про ваш час! |
The anti-corruption fight in Ukraine has been going on for years, but has the situation changed for the better? Do the new laws and the newly created anti-corruption bodies really produce real results? We talked about this with Semen Khanin, PhD in Economics, Managing Partner of AMBER Law Company, Honoured Lawyer of Ukraine. He is convinced that the main problem is not in the legislation, but in the state system that encourages corruption. How business survives under anti-corruption pressure, why judges cannot be independent and what three steps are needed to overcome corruption - read about this in our interview.
The Current State of Anti-Corruption Legislation
— Mr. Khanin, how would you assess the current state of anti-corruption legislation in Ukraine? Does it meet modern challenges?
— Legislation always looks good on paper. In every country, laws are adopted to regulate relations between citizens, business, and the state. The success of any anti-corruption policy depends not so much on the text of the regulations, but on how those laws are applied in practice.
I often hear people say Ukraine’s problem is flawed legislation. But that’s not true. Our laws are not worse than, say, Switzerland’s. In fact, Ukrainian anti-corruption legislation formally meets European standards. But there’s a catch: the laws are not enforced. Or if they are enforced, it’s selective.
— So the issue is not the laws themselves, but how they are applied?
— Exactly. If legal norms are applied only when it suits someone in power, we don’t have a rule-of-law state — we have a chaotic set of tools for manipulation. Corruption isn’t an exception — it’s a consequence of this system. So yes, the issue lies not in the laws but in their real enforcement.
— How has the situation changed for defense attorneys in criminal cases?
— Today, attorneys work in a constant environment of risk. Some face surveillance, others receive direct threats. This is a serious problem because when a lawyer is afraid to do their job, the entire justice system suffers.
Results and Shortcomings of Anti-Corruption Reforms
— Which recent changes in anti-corruption law do you consider the most effective? Have they influenced actual anti-corruption practices?
— It’s hard to pinpoint any change that has truly transformed the system. For example, the partial repeal of the so-called “Lozovyi Amendments” changed the timeframes for pre-trial investigations. But has it changed the situation overall? Hardly. It simply created more room for manipulation. The same can be said about many other reforms — they exist on paper, but their impact on real life is minimal.
— Why has no reform delivered the expected effect?
— Because these are not reforms, but imitation. We change something, adopt new laws, create new bodies, but the system itself remains unchanged. And if you try to "defeat" corruption while keeping the corrupt mechanisms intact, you’re only making corruption more expensive.
— What do you see as the main gaps in anti-corruption legislation? What prevents effective anti-corruption efforts?
— The issue is not with the legislation, but with the state's excessive interference in economic and social processes. Where there is state control, then there is corruption. Tax authorities, customs, public procurement — these systems create opportunities for abuse. Wherever the state takes on too many functions — road construction, service administration, business oversight — corruption risks arise. You don’t need to look far: compare the state postal service to private logistics companies. One works efficiently, the other doesn’t. Why? Because where there is real competition and private accountability, the system works. The same applies to other areas. More functions need to be transferred to the private sector.
Anti-Corruption Control and Business
— How is business adapting to the tightening of anti-corruption control? Has the attitude of entrepreneurs toward state regulation changed?
— Business and corruption are not allies, but victims and the system. No entrepreneur wants to pay bribes. But when they cannot operate without doing so, when they are forced to play by such rules, they become part of the system. And the more we try to “strengthen anti-corruption control,” the harder it becomes to run a business. Power changes, but the principles remain the same — the system itself creates conditions where corruption is nearly unavoidable.
— Are there realistic opportunities to reduce pressure on business?
— Yes, there are many. But to achieve that, we need not more control, but less government influence. The fewer contact points between entrepreneurs and state agencies, the fewer opportunities for corruption.
The Role of the State in Fighting Corruption
— Is there any real chance for genuine reforms?
— Here’s the main dilemma: power will never voluntarily give up its tools of influence. Imagine a scenario where the president or prime minister announces: “We are eliminating the tax authority and transferring everything to the private sector.” That won’t happen in real life. Why? Because it means losing control.
Any new political team that promises change eventually realizes that the system is very convenient. And then comes the classic pattern: first, “we need to recoup the money spent on elections,” then “prepare for the next campaign,” and in the end, reforms are postponed indefinitely. Every time we hear campaign promises about fighting corruption, but in practice, each new government only increases pressure. Will they voluntarily give up their levers of control? Unlikely.
— Can civil society play a key role in the fight against corruption?
— Yes, but only if people stop voting emotionally and start evaluating candidates based on their actual programs. We need not only political competition but real mechanisms of public oversight.
Judicial Independence
— How do you assess the independence of the judiciary, particularly in corruption-related cases?
— Let’s be honest: a judge is a human being like anyone else. When they’re constantly under pressure or face the threat of criminal prosecution for their rulings, can we really speak of independence? Every government seeks to exert control over the judiciary and always finds new mechanisms to do so. If every new government makes it clear that ‘correct’ decisions can only be expected from loyal judges, what will be the behaviour of judges?
Will they risk everything for the sake of principle? Some might. But most will look for a compromise. As long as pressure on the judiciary persists, genuine independence will remain unattainable.
— Is it possible to reform the judiciary so that judges are no longer influenced by politics?
— Only if the state’s influence over all spheres of public life is reduced. As long as judges are “invited for conversations” or subtly guided toward the “right” decisions, talk of judicial independence is meaningless.
Work of Anti-Corruption Agencies
— Which anti-corruption agencies are the most effective? Do you see any real outcomes from their efforts?
— If we measure their performance by the number of cases opened, they appear to be active. But if we assess by real outcomes — the system remains unchanged. These agencies catch individual officials, but the systemic problem persists.
Digitalisation as a tool for fighting corruption
— The government is introducing new digital tools. Does this help in the fight against corruption?
— This is good, but it is not a panacea. For example, the e-procurement system ProZorro. Formally, it made the process more transparent, but what happened in practice? Conditions are set for each tender so that the "right" company wins. This again proves that changes in the instruments do not change the essence of the problem. That is, as long as there is an interest in manipulation, no amount of digitalisation will help.
Prospects for fighting corruption
— Is it possible to completely eradicate corruption? Is there any international experience that we should be guided by?
— Look at Switzerland, where people decide for themselves how to manage community funds. This is a direct way to minimise corruption. At the same time, there is China, where the fight is being waged with tough methods, up to and including the death penalty, but corruption still remains.
— What are the three key steps needed for an effective anti-corruption policy in Ukraine?
— Minimise government control where it is not needed. The less regulation, the less corruption. Transfer some state functions to private hands.
Eliminate unnecessary regulations that create corruption risks, reduce bureaucratic procedures that create grounds for bribery. Many procedures are created only to allow officials to get a kickback. Fewer inspections and regulations mean fewer opportunities for bribery.
Real public control is the involvement of citizens in the actual management of the country, as it works in Switzerland. Not declarative, but one where people actually decide how and what to spend their money on.
For example, the tax service. The state should be interested in actual budget revenues, not in the process of tax administration. Business pays a fixed amount that it can predict, rather than wasting resources on endless audits.
— Is there a chance for positive change?
— We can only change the country if we are ready to change ourselves. This applies to both the government and society. We can follow the path of Switzerland, where people take responsibility, or we can stay in the reality where anti-corruption bodies are a tool of influence and the judiciary is a hostage to political will. When the war is over, we will have a choice: to continue living by the old rules or to finally create a country where corruption becomes the exception, not the norm.