In modern Ukraine, the declaration of income and assets by public officials has become a key tool in the fight against corruption, ensuring transparency, and public oversight of government activities.

The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) plays a crucial role in this process, being responsible not only for the organization and verification of filed declarations, but also for responding to cases of false declarations.
Legal assessment and punishment for submitting false information in asset declarations have sparked significant public and political debate, and evolving legislation illustrates continual adaption of control mechanisms to new challenges.

The Essence of Declaration and the Role of the NACP

The declaration of income and assets is not just a formality — it is a cornerstone of integrity for those holding positions in the public sector. According to the law, all public servants, judges, members of parliament, representatives of local governments, as well as their family members, are required to annually submit declarations detailing their property, income, financial liabilities, and other relevant information.

The NACP checks declarations based on a risk-oriented approach. A full audit is not done for every declaration; significant risks of inaccuracy or abnormal asset increases trigger a more thorough review.

Types and Criteria of False Information

The concept of “false information” in declarations is clearly defined:

• False information means figures or data in the declaration that differ from reality by an amount exceeding 100 subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons, or fail to identify a family member or declared asset.
• Inaccurate information refers to smaller discrepancies (up to 100 subsistence minimums), which may be corrected without severe penalties.

The threshold amount is determined annually based on the subsistence minimum at the time the declaration is filed.

Grounds and Types of Liability

Ukrainian law provides for three main types of liability for submitting false information in declarations:

Disciplinary Liability

This applies if the false information has no monetary value or the discrepancy is minimal (less than 100 subsistence minimums). Disciplinary actions depend on job regulations and may include reprimands, warnings, or dismissal.

Administrative Liability

Applies if the sum of false information ranges from 100 to 500 subsistence minimums (under Article 172-6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). The penalty is a fine of 1,000–2,500 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens.

• Separate provisions exist for late submission without valid reasons: a fine of 50–100 non-taxable minimum incomes.

Criminal Liability

The strictest penalties apply if the discrepancy exceeds 500 subsistence minimums (Art. 366-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine):

• From 500 to 2,000 subsistence minimums: a fine of 3,000–4,000 non-taxable minimums, community service (150–240 hours), or up to two years of restriction of liberty, with an additional ban on holding certain positions for up to three years.
• Over 2,000 subsistence minimums: a fine of 4,000–5,000 non-taxable minimums, community service, restriction or imprisonment for up to two years, and a similar ban on positions.

Criminal liability arises only if intent is proven. The legal definition requires “knowingly false information,” where the declarant deliberately submits false data.

Procedures and Stages of Declaration Verification

After submission, the verification process includes:

• Preliminary check — automatic verification of completeness and accuracy.
• Full check — an independent audit triggered by substantial risks or information from the public or law enforcement.
• Establishing a violation — the NACP draws up a substantiated conclusion about false data.
• Referral to law enforcement — if legal thresholds are exceeded, materials are sent for further investigation.

Problems of Interpretation and Enforcement

A main challenge in practice is proving intent when false information is submitted. Both administrative and criminal liability require established intent.

Typical issues:

• Mistakes in declarations are not always due to corrupt intent; some are complex procedures or objective difficulties in gathering data.
• The law allows correcting a declaration within 30 days after submission, without liability, if the error is fixed before the NACP review has begun.
• It is important whether a family member or asset can still be identified; if so, it is considered inaccurate, not false, information.

Anti-Corruption Register and Public Sensitivity

Data about individuals held liable for submitting false declarations is incorporated into the Unified State Register of Corrupt Officials. This has serious consequences for careers, reputation, and future eligibility for public office. Public scrutiny in such cases often triggers further investigations and affects trust in the government.

Constitutional Court Decision and Impact on Liability

In 2020, Ukraine’s Constitutional Court issued a landmark decision annulling criminal liability for false declarations, leading to many cases being dismissed and threatening the anti-corruption reform. After domestic and international pressure, liability was partially restored by new legislation.

International Experience and Ukrainian Specifics

Ukraine is not unique in implementing electronic asset declaration systems and liability for knowingly false information. Countries in the EU, USA, Canada, and others have similar anti-corruption infrastructure. The Ukrainian model, though, is distinct in its threshold amounts, oversight bodies, and enforcement practices.

Conclusions and Prospects

• The asset declaration and liability system is a vital part of anti-corruption reform in Ukraine but needs ongoing improvement.
• Procedures for registering and punishing false declarations are complex, making effective investigation and prosecution challenging.

• Mechanisms for correcting honest mistakes without liability humanize the system but should not become a loophole for concealing assets.
• The effectiveness of sanctions depends largely on consistent judicial and investigative practice.

Unavoidable liability, due diligence in declaration, and effective NACP performance are crucial for fostering public trust in government and ensuring the integrity of authorities.

Svitlana Krutorogova — attorney at the Law Firm “WINNER“.

At the bottom of the video, the team of the Law Firm Association ” WINNER” is defending a client in court.