Police Will Be Allowed to Check Officials' Property Outside Criminal Proceedings: What Bill 15260 Will Change

The fight against corruption in Ukraine may reach a new level. Or, conversely, it may take a step back. Everything will depend on how the Verkhovna Rada adopts bill No. 15260 and how it will be implemented in practice.

Recall that the Committee on Law Enforcement Activities supported bill 15260, which grants the National Police the right to detect unjustified assets and collect evidence for their recovery to the state budget.

As "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" has already explained, the project provides for amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, the Civil Procedure Code, and the Law "On the National Police."

The National Police is proposed to be given the right to take measures to detect unjustified assets, collect relevant evidence, and transfer materials to prosecutors to file lawsuits recognizing assets as unjustified and recovering them to the state budget through civil proceedings. Currently, these functions are mainly assigned to NABU, SAP, and the SBI.

The main change is the involvement of the National Police in the process of preparing materials for civil confiscation — a procedure that allows the recovery of property to the state budget if its value significantly exceeds the lawful income of the official. Since this mechanism is regulated by the Civil Procedure Code, not the Criminal Code, the police need powers that go beyond the usual pre-trial investigation.

The authors of the project argue this is necessary for implementing state anti-corruption policy and increasing the effectiveness of financial control. However, behind the declarative goal lies a complex legal mechanism that can either accelerate the cleansing of power or become a tool of pressure on local government officials and civil servants of categories "B" and "C."

According to the proposed changes, the police will have the right to receive information free of charge from state bodies, local governments, and legal entities, including access to automated systems and registries even with restricted access.

At the same time, the project sets quite strict deadlines. Entities that receive a request from the police are obliged to respond within 3 days (up to 10 days in case of a large volume).

Setting such a limited deadline for responding to requests may become a tool of pressure on local governments and legal entities, effectively suspending their work due to the excessive volume of requested information.

Moreover, the police gain the right to engage experts on a contractual basis to determine the value of assets.

The bill aims to fill the gap in control over middle and lower-level officials who are not under NABU’s jurisdiction. This concerns thousands of local council deputies and local government officials. It is precisely these officials to whom the mechanism of civil confiscation of unjustified assets will apply.

It is also proposed to change the approach to asset valuation. Instead of the term "minimum market value," the project proposes to use simply "market value" as of the date of acquisition of the asset. This will allow the prosecution to file claims for recovery of assets to the state budget based on more objective but potentially higher price indicators.

Potential Risks

Analysis of bill No. 15260 reveals several significant risks that may negate the declared anti-corruption goal and turn the new police powers into a tool for abuse.

The most significant risk is granting the National Police powers to act outside the scope of criminal proceedings. According to the project, the police will be able to detect unjustified assets and collect evidence without registering a case in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations and without procedural guarantees for participants.

Currently, the police investigate under Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code (illegal enrichment) but do not have legal grounds to collect evidence specifically for prosecutors' civil claims. The bill allows the police to prepare the basis for prosecutors' claims.

The bill does not establish clear criteria by which the police will select objects for inspection, allowing officials to act at their own discretion.

It is also not defined which materials the police must transfer to the prosecution and which not. This creates room for selective prosecution or, conversely, ignoring assets of certain officials.

Since actions take place outside criminal proceedings, the question remains open regarding the protection of participants in the inspection, as provided by the Criminal Procedure Code (for example, the right to a lawyer during data collection).

Current legislation provides for the possibility of recovering assets to the state budget through civil proceedings (Chapter 12 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine). This is a mechanism separate from criminal proceedings, where proof is based on the balance of probabilities, not on the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt."

Corruption Risks Due to Competition of Administrative Offense Code Norms

The Main Scientific and Expert Department draws attention to the creation of unjustified competition between norms of current legislation.

The new Article 185-13 of the Administrative Offense Code provides fines from 250 to 400 non-taxable minimum incomes, while current Articles 185 and 188-28 for similar violations establish significantly lower amounts (from 8 to 15 minimum incomes).

Such a significant difference in fine amounts creates corruption risks, as it allows law enforcement officers to choose the article for prosecution at their discretion, which may lead to violations of citizens' rights.

In addition, public discussions arise regarding the advisability of granting the National Police new powers to monitor officials' lifestyles, considering that police officers themselves may also be subjects of such control. At the same time, the effectiveness of the new model will largely depend on proper guarantees of independence, transparency, and control mechanisms over the implementation of these powers.

The introduction of police powers to act outside criminal proceedings is planned as a step to scale up the mechanism of civil confiscation, which will cover thousands of local-level officials not subject to NABU pre-trial investigation.

However, without clearly prescribed safeguards in the law — such as transparent inspection criteria, open competitions for leadership positions in the police, and mandatory integrity checks of the police officers themselves — bill No. 15260 may create risks of using new powers as a tool for selective pressure if the law does not contain sufficient procedural safeguards. Ukraine has obligations to international partners regarding the fight against corruption, but this fight should not come at the expense of destroying citizens' legal guarantees.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.