The NABU and the SAPO, in compliance with the decision of the HACC, ensured the seizure of assets abroad in the case following a suspicion notice served to Dmytro Sennychenko, the former head of the State Property Fund of Ukraine. According to the prosecution, the criminal group led by him seized millions of hryvnias from the Odesa Portside Plant and the United Mining and Chemical Company.
The authorities report that as part of the operation of the joint investigative group, Austrian law enforcement officers enforced the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court to seize premium cars used by members of the alleged criminal group. Earlier, French authorities had also seized the suspects' real estate, worth about EUR 6.5 million.
Information from the court register shows that the seizures of assets in this case were imposed to secure the confiscation of property as a penalty. TI Ukraine, in its study on confiscation of property from abroad, drew attention to the issues with the enforcement of final confiscation decisions, which are related to both legislative and practical nuances.
In particular, we recommended bringing the property confiscation system in Ukraine in line with international standards, limiting confiscation only to property related to an offense, and introducing a mechanism for “extended” confiscation in the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is also worth changing approaches to proving the criminal origin of property, especially when applying “extended” confiscation.
In addition, it is necessary to legislatively regulate the procedure for concluding and implementing agreements on the distribution of assets and on joint investigation teams, as well as expand the practice of their application to other law enforcement agencies. No less important is the correct choice of tools for bringing to criminal liability with an emphasis on “conventional” crimes.
Otherwise, final confiscation will not be possible abroad, and the property will not be returned to Ukraine.