Anti-Corruption Court Faces Scrutiny Over Lack of Convictions for High-Level Graft.

Comments from Anti-Corruption Agency Leaders

According to Novyny.live: During a press briefing on February 10, 2025, the heads of Ukraine's key anti-corruption bodies addressed the ongoing failure to secure final convictions for major corruption figures. Semen Kryvonos, Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), stated that the responsibility for this outcome lies with the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC). Oleksandr Klymenko, Head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), also commented on the significant delays plaguing court proceedings.

Semen Kryvonos emphasized that NABU's role concludes once an investigation is handed over to the judiciary:

“We transfer the case file and our role ends there. Further questions are for the HACC. We target the big fish; we indeed have many suspicions regarding high-ranking officials and leaders of criminal organizations. The matter of a final verdict is a question for the HACC.” — Semen Kryvonos

Oleksandr Klymenko, in turn, highlighted the protracted nature of trials at the HACC:

“This process is ongoing and the number of verdicts will increase. The HACC began its work in 2019 and they started all cases from scratch. Some cases have moved forward very slowly.” — Oleksandr Klymenko

The Critical Role of the HACC

Both officials pointed to the crucial function of the HACC within Ukraine's anti-corruption framework, stressing the urgent need to expedite trials to achieve justice. The persistent absence of convictions for top officials remains a pressing issue, particularly given that the HACC has been operational since 2019 and cases are reportedly progressing at a slow pace. This specialized court was established as a cornerstone of judicial reform to handle complex corruption cases independently.

The situation with court delays and the lack of final sentences for high-profile corrupt individuals underscores the profound challenges facing Ukraine's justice system. Public trust in institutions depends not only on the effectiveness of investigative bodies but also on the speed and conclusiveness of the judicial process. The prolonged case timelines noted by Kryvonos and Klymenko raise concerns about the system's capacity to deliver tangible punishment, which could potentially undermine broader anti-corruption reform efforts in the country.