Only one in five officials who take bribes receives a prison sentence, according to a study by Transparency International Ukraine, conducted jointly with the online publication "First Instance" as part of the "Judges in the Crosshairs" project.
An analysis of court decisions made under Article 368 of the Criminal Code (offering, promising, and accepting an unlawful benefit, i.e., a bribe) showed that corrupt officials often manage to avoid imprisonment, which courts lenient to corruption replace with fines and suspended sentences.
Of the 100 court decisions issued under this article over the past three months, only 21 people were sentenced to prison terms for corruption. Another 19 defendants had their prison terms commuted to suspended sentences. Of the 12 acquittals, 48 were fined.
Escape the sentence
In many cases, courts groundlessly acquit criminals despite compelling evidence of their guilt. Bribery is often reclassified as financial fraud to secure a more lenient sentence, and gifts are labeled as debt or charitable donations, according to Transparency International Ukraine.
"The conclusion is that bribes are profitable in Ukraine, and the government is essentially telling officials: if you have the opportunity, take it," says Fedor Orishchuk, editor of the online publication "First Instance."
Experts have compiled a list of the top 10 most questionable judicial decisions regarding corruption crimes. Topping the list is the decision of the Kyiv-Svyatoshinsky District Court of the Kyiv Region, which acquitted the chairman of the Vita-Pochtovyi Village Council, suspected of accepting a bribe of 400 hryvnias. The largest bribe was deemed to be sponsorship assistance to the village.
Another similar example is the corruption case against a judge in the Belyaivsky District Court in the Odesa region. The judge was acquitted. The intermediary, who received 285 hryvnias for the desired decision, was found guilty. The court ruled that the intermediary had committed fraud by merely creating the impression in the client that he could influence the judge's decisions. The judge was not at fault.
Crime and Punishment
Dmitry Yakimchuk, a senior analyst at the anti-corruption organization Transparency International, explains the courts' "lenient decisions" by saying that criminal law provides an excessively broad range of penalties for the same crime. For example, for a bribe of 60 hryvnias, a criminal can get away with a relatively small fine or a prison sentence of 2-4 years.
For example, the deputy chief physician of the Bar Central Hospital was fined 1 hryvnias for a bribe of 25 hryvnias. Meanwhile, a tax inspector from Cherkasy was fined 15 hryvnias for a bribe of 17 hryvnias.
Statistics show that the larger the sum, the lighter the punishment. Specifically, those acquitted were accused of accepting a bribe, the average amount of which was 112 hryvnias. Those receiving prison sentences, on average, accepted 40 hryvnias. The fine was typically comparable to the size of a one-time bribe: 16 hryvnias, compared to a fine of 20 hryvnias.
"Even for riding without a ticket on public transport, the punishment is much harsher," experts joke.
Judges outside the law
Dmitry Yakimchuk, who coordinates the campaign to monitor the declarations of high-ranking officials at Transparency International Ukraine (the "Declarations Without Decorations" project), notes a curious tendency characteristic only of the servants of Themis.
"An audit of some of the Kyiv judges' declarations revealed that the 'gifts, prizes, winnings' section for some judges' family members included enormous sums. The amounts in this column reached a million hryvnias!" Yakimchuk laments.
According to him, among 500 declarations filed by other high-ranking officials last year, more expensive gifts were recorded in isolated cases. However, for Moscow judges, this is far from uncommon. Moreover, many relatives of judges are reluctant to disclose their income. For example, Kyiv's Dniprovskyi District Court has not disclosed any income or property declarations for judges, as required by law.
Mykhailo Zhernakov, a legal expert on judicial issues in the Reanimation Package of Reforms and a former judge, believes that the current judicial system is unable to effectively combat corruption. This is documented by various studies and surveys. For example, according to the latest Global Corruption Barometer study, 66% of Ukrainians consider the courts to be the most corrupt sphere.
The level of trust in the judiciary is approximately 5% (including those who have only partial trust).
It should be noted that three new laws aimed at cleansing the judiciary have not yet been implemented.
Oleg Voloshin for ANTICORа
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!