OECD Integrity and Anti‑Corruption Review of Ukraine

8. Addressing the demand side of bribery

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the measures to address the “demand side” of bribery, i.e. the solicitation and acceptance of bribes by public officials. Ukrainian legislation prohibits solicitation and acceptance of bribes and establishes the course of action which public officials are to take if they receive a bribe offer, but the country continues to face challenges in this area as the bribe solicitation levels, as reported by businesses, remain high, while the level of willingness of companies to report such cases to the law enforcement authorities remains low. The assessment recommends that Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions develop detailed further guidance for public officials on conduct when bribes are offered, and Ukraine should also consider adding questions on bribery to civil service recruitment tests. The Business Ombudsman Council is an important channel for businesses to report corruption and Ukraine should reinforce its status through legislation.

8.1. Introduction

Bribery schemes often involve perpetrators on the supply side (those who offer or give bribes) as well as the demand-side (those who request or take bribes or accept offers). Deterrence of bribery will be strongest if both bribers and public officials face risks of prosecution and conviction. Concerning the demand side of bribery, the 2021 Anti-Bribery Recommendation advises to, inter alia, raise awareness of bribe solicitation risks among relevant public officials and the private sector, with particular attention to high-risk geographical and industrial sectors of operation. It also recommends providing training to public officials posted abroad on information and steps to be taken to assist enterprises confronted with bribe solicitation, where appropriate, and providing clear instructions on the authorities to whom allegations of solicitation and foreign bribery should be reported. (Section XII, i, ii)

Surveys of entrepreneurs suggest that Ukraine has significant challenges in terms of the demand side of corruption. Among entrepreneurs who dealt with the respective sectors, the share of those responding that this happened upon initiative of public officials or representatives of utilities supplier companies increased in several areas in 2023: for example, 27.1% in the customs (22.1% in 2022), 22.6% in the areas of services for connection and maintenance of power, gas, water supply and water disposal systems (16.1% in 2022), and 20.5% in the field of control and supervision of business activities (17.5% in 2022). (NACP, IS, 2023[1]) The reliability of these responses is limited because the respondents may find it comfortable to blame the officials rather than admit their own initiative in corruption. However, the increasing year-on-year changes are concerning.

8.2. The NACP or the NABU could develop more detailed guidance on conduct when bribes are promised, offered or provided in different circumstances

It is important for public officials to not only refrain from soliciting bribes but also conduct themselves correctly when facing offers or ambiguous hints of undue advantages. The Model code of conduct for public official of the Council of Europe prescribes recommended steps that a public official should take if he/she is offered an undue advantage. (Council of Europe, 2000[2])

The LPC partly reflects the Council of Europe code. The law prescribes actions of public officials in the event of receiving an offer of an undue benefit or gift (Article 24). The steps are:

• refuse the offer

• identify the person who made the offer

• engage witnesses if possible

• notify in writing the direct manager or the head of the relevant entity, and anti-corruption bodies (specially authorised subjects in the field of anti-corruption).

The law also obliges officials to report when they have found in their service premises or have otherwise received assets that may be an undue benefit or gift. In case of doubt regarding the possibility to receive a gift, a public official may turn in writing to the National Agency on Corruption Prevention for consultation. The LPC does not explicitly cover action in case of a promise of an undue benefit. The acceptance of a promise – along with the acceptance of an offer or receipt of an undue benefit – is criminalised under Article 368 of the CC. Detailed guidance on how to implement each step prescribed by Article 24 in different situations could facilitate compliance. It would be particularly useful to provide guidance on how exactly to respond to a promise, which may be just a commitment for the future rather than a demonstration of readiness to give (offer) a bribe.

Recommendation: The NACP or the NABU could prepare detailed guidance for public officials how to act when undue benefits are provided, offered or promised. The guidance could cover various situations, for example:

• when the benefits are offered with an explicit corrupt intent

• when the intent of the giver or offeror is ambiguous or when only hints are given

• when provided at the service place or outside, or through various technical means of communication

• when offered or provided to third persons (family members, etc.).

8.3. The NACP or another competent authority should prepare user-friendlier summaries of case law in bribery cases

Multiple Ukrainian public bodies engage in awareness raising about corruption and, directly or indirectly, also about the solicitation and acceptance of bribes. The NACP plays a prominent role in this regard. It has created a large volume of information resources on anti-corruption topics. Its online knowledge base contains materials on declaration, conflicts of interest, materials for authorised persons for prevention of corruption, etc. (NACP, n.d.[3])

The NACP surveyed 68 574 civil servants in 2023 and 75 162 in 2024 to determine their preferences and gaps that should be covered by training. According to the representatives of the NACP, common topics of interest are conflicts of interest, declarations and other matters regulated by the LPC. Thus, bribery does not appear to be a priority in this context. There is generally no reason to believe that either public officials or businesses have significant gaps in awareness about the illegality of bribe solicitation. Nevertheless, awareness-raising materials with a specific focus on bribery could clarify various grey-zone situations or legal nuances. For developing new information materials in the future, the NACP could consider the example of annual reports on bribery court cases in Sweden (Box 8.1). The Swedish reports are less technical and more accessible to the lay reader than the analyses of case law (NACP, n.d.[4]) (Верховний суд, 2024[5]), which are currently made in Ukraine and certainly useful for professionals.

Box 8.1. User-friendly summaries of bribery cases in Sweden

The non-profit organisation Swedish Anti-Corruption Institute has produced annual overview reports on bribery convictions since 2017. The reports provide statistics on the distribution of judgments among different levels of courts, types of cases (private to public and private to private bribery), sectors where bribery took place, amounts of bribes, applied penalties, etc.

For prevention of bribery probably the most useful parts of the reports are case summaries, which include main reasons why the actions were considered bribery.

• After the completion of inspection, the ship's master invited two ship inspectors to dinner at a value of SEK 450 (approx. EUR 40) per person. The inspectors had inspected safety on board the vessel and thus exercised authority. The court ruled that for the crime of bribery it is enough that the benefit, viewed from the outside, can be perceived as influencing the official conduct. It was of no importance that the exercise of the authority was not influenced by the dinner. The inspectors were convicted although no penalty was applied.

• A councillor and chairman of the board of a municipality accepted a trip to Scotland from a tourism agency operating in the municipality. The value of the trip was SEK 7 000 (approx. EUR 600). At the time of the trip, the municipality was handling a case regarding a bicycle project that was important for the tourism agency. The chairman of the municipal board was able to influence decision making regarding the bicycle project. The court emphasised that there was a concrete risk that suspicions that the decisions were made on improper grounds could damage the public trust in municipal operations. The official was convicted of taking a bribe.

Such information is useful in several ways. Officials can learn from real-life cases what is relevant for determining whether the acceptance of a benefit would qualify as bribery. They may get a clear idea about what situations to avoid. The public, including businesses, can follow how the fight against bribery proceeds in practice.

Source: (Institutet Mot Mutor, n.d.[6]), Rättsfallsbank, https://www.institutetmotmutor.se/rattsfallsbank/

(Institutet Mot Mutor, 2022[7]), Mutbrottsdomar i Sverige 2022, https://immse.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Mutbrottsdomar-i-Sverige-2022.pdf

Authorised units (persons) for prevention and detection of corruption, which are established (appointed) in public bodies, should also raise awareness of public officials on bribery and other topics (Article 13-1 of the LPC). Their tasks include, inter alia:

• developing, organising and controlling the implementation of actions for prevention of corruption and corruption-related violations

• providing methodological and consultative assistance for compliance with corruption prevention legislation.

Authorised persons are expected to familiarise newly recruited employees of their public bodies with requirements of the anti-corruption legislation. The NACP also surveys the authorised persons to determine their needs and to develop relevant supply of training opportunities.

Recommendation: The NACP or another competent anti-corruption authority should prepare user-friendlier summaries of case law in bribery cases, based on which authorised persons, other public officials and subjects of bribery offences would learn what qualifies as bribery and what situations to avoid.

8.4. Include more questions on bribery in the test for candidates to the civil service and resume the tests

Ukraine also uses other tools and channels for ensuring that public officials have knowledge on corruption issues. Candidates for civil servant positions have had to undergo a test on the knowledge of legislation, which includes knowledge of the LPC and questions such as: What measures must a manager of a responsible body implement in case of confirmation of information about possible corruption or corruption-related violations? What are public bodies prohibited to accept free of charge from physical and legal persons? What is an undue benefit in the understanding of the LPC (NACS, 2021[8]) However, the questions generally deal with the topic of bribery in a limited way. Moreover, according to the Law 389-VIII on the Legal Regime of the Condition of War, appointment to civil service positions takes place without competition (Article 10, Part 5) and hence also without the testing. While the simplification of recruitment under the martial law is understandable, it is not obvious why the knowledge testing must be completely suspended.

Recommendation: In light of the above, consider renewing the tests for candidates for civil servant positions before the termination of the martial law. Include additional questions in the test, for example:

• What actions of service persons regarding undue benefits are punishable according to the Criminal Code? The answer would be: acceptance of an offer or promise, receipt, request to provide.

• What and within what time limits must a civil servant do in case of receipt of an offer of an undue advantage?

Ukraine could also develop a new online test on corruption topics to be taken by all civil servants and other public officials on a regular basis during career.

8.5. Ukraine should explore possibilities for further protection for companies that report corruption

In 2021-22, the OECD review found that all governments in the region of the Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia have established reporting channels available for businesses. On the other hand, few businesses report corruption in practice. (OECD, 2022[9]) Considering this, it is important that measures keep being implemented to help businesses act right when facing solicitation of bribes. This includes dissemination of information about reporting channels and protection for those who report bribery. In principle, all public bodies should publish information on how to report of corruption. (United Nations, 2009[10])

On the one hand, reporting channels in Ukraine are generally quite clear. For example, the opening page of the NABU contains the button “Report corruption” on top (NABU, n.d.[11]). There is a form for reporting corruption in the bodies of the State Investigations Bureau (State Bureau of Investigation, 2025[12]). The “Pulse” service of the STS accepts notifications from individuals and business entities regarding illegal acts, inaction or possible corruption of the service’s employees (STS, n.d.[13]). The NACP has a form for reporting corruption as well as a phone number and e-mail for this purpose (NAPC, n.d.[14]). Other public authorities also publish information on how to report corruption with varied degrees of detail and technical sophistication. Moreover, the BOC considers complaints of business entities regarding corrupt acts and/or other violations of their legitimate interests (Statute of the BOC, approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers, dated 26 November 2014, No. 691, Article 5, Item 1). The public information is less clear regarding channels for reporting private-to-private corruption.

In the survey of companies of February 2024 conducted by UNIC, 63% of companies responded that they are aware of channels/hot lines for reporting bribe solicitation and whistleblower protection measures. In the 2023 survey commissioned by the NACP, the share of entrepreneurs willing to report corruption reached 26.9% and has been increasing since 2020 (17.9%). The proportion is much higher than among the general population (10.2% in 2023). (NACP, IS, 2023[1]) Thus, the data show a significant potential of the business community in contributing to the fight against corruption.

On the other hand, in consultations for this review, some NGO representatives claimed that companies still find it hard to report corruption, they are not sure where to do it and how to ensure that their legitimate interests will not suffer as a result. In a small survey of 18 business respondents conducted by UNIC for this review1, 10 respondents answered “no”, “don’t know” or expressed scepticism2 regarding the question whether the state has created opportunities for business to resolve issues in a legal way in case of extortion of a bribe. These concerns reveal a certain gap in not only Ukraine’s but also international standards and practices to protect persons who report corruption. Extensive standards apply for the protection of whistleblowers (physical persons who learnt about offences in connection with their work, professional, economic, etc. activity as per the LPC, Article 1, Part 1). As discussed in section 6.1 of this report, Ukraine has a dedicated portal for reports of whistleblowers (National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, 2025[15]). However, possibilities to gain protection for their legitimate interests are less obvious for legal entities who would report corruption and suffer retaliation from the authority where the alleged corruption has taken place. Such retaliation could be efforts to exclude the companies from public contracting, unreasonable oversight or regulatory actions, ungrounded repressive measures, etc.

Recommendation: Little international practice is available regarding the protection of companies that report corruption. However, recognising the concerns expressed in this section, the review recommends Ukraine to explore possibilities for further protection and provision of incentives for companies that report corruption. Continued awareness-raising efforts are also needed regarding reporting possibilities, including about private-to-private corruption.

Ukraine could also consider making it obligatory for officials and employees of state-owned companies, which are considered legal entities of private law, as well as employees (who are not officials) of local governments and legal entities of public law to report bribery that becomes known to them. Currently the obligation to report corruption established in Article 53, Part 6 of the LPC does not apply to these persons. While expanding the reporting obligation, it would be important to ensure that the reporting individuals remain eligible for protection as whistleblowers. For comparison, consider the Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code. The code stipulates in Article 242 that civil servants, including officers and employees of public companies, nationalised companies, companies with public capital or with a majority public capital share, as well as companies holding public service concessions, must report crimes they become aware of in the exercise of their functions and as a result of them (Assembly of the Portuguese Republic, 1987[16]).

8.6. All public bodies should publish the standards of conduct regarding gifts and undue advantages, including hospitalities and entertainment

The 2021 Anti-Bribery Recommendation urges countries to publish on a publicly available website their rules and regulations governing gifts, hospitality, entertainment, and expenses for domestic public officials so that individuals and enterprises are aware of such rules and can abide by them (Section XIII, ii). International guidance emphasises creating a climate where, inter alia, it is known that the offering and acceptance of gifts and hospitalities is discouraged. The publishing of relevant policies and rules is a key step to this end. (United Nations, 2009[10]) Hospitalities and entertainment are ordinary elements in business relations. They could also occur in relations between private companies and the public sector, but in this context significant legal and reputational risks arise.

In Ukraine, the LPC and the CC set rules regarding gifts and undue advantages. The laws are duly published and accessible to everyone online. Hence, in a strict sense, compliance of Ukraine with this provision of the 2021 Anti-Bribery Recommendation is under no doubt. However, it may also be useful for public bodies to publish relevant guidance on their own websites.

Multiple public bodies publish rules on gifts and (less explicitly) bribery applicable to their personnel. Thus, the website of the NABU contains the Code of Ethics of Employees of the NABU. The code includes guidance concerning gifts and undue advantages. The guidance refers to the Article 368 (bribery) of the CC, but it focuses primarily on gifts that are not bribes. (NABU, n.d.[17])

The National Police (NP) have also published guidance on restrictions to accept gifts, which contains references to the offence of passive bribery in the CC. (NP, 2021[18]) In consultations for the preparation of this review, representatives of the NP shared information about extensive work to make all newly recruited police officers aware of the rules of ethical conduct, ensure training for all officers, including biannual sessions with holders of leadership positions, online tests for all officers, the rating of units based on the test results, etc. This appears a good practice where the publication is just one means in the context of a complex set of actions to ensure that everyone is aware of the rules.

The anti-corruption sections of public websites of some other authorities such as the State Customs Service and the State Tax Service provide less guidance on how their employees should act regarding gifts and undue advantages. (SCS, n.d.[19]) (STS, n.d.[20]) These and other authorities, which are particularly exposed to corruption risks, should especially care that their publications encourage the climate of integrity and intolerance to bribery and other forms of corruption.

The LPC does not define hospitalities and entertainment. They would be covered by the general definition of gift as advantages, benefits, or services (Article 1, Part 1). Consequently, hospitalities and entertainment often do not appear explicitly in the materials published by the public bodies.

Recommendation: To ensure consistency across the public sector, publish the standards of conduct regarding gifts and undue advantages on the websites of all public bodies. Include in such publications explanations how the rules apply to hospitalities and entertainment.

8.7. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the NACP should undertake efforts to assist Ukrainian enterprises confronted with bribery abroad

The 2021 Anti-Bribery Recommendation advises to provide training to public officials posted abroad on information and steps to be taken to assist enterprises confronted with bribe solicitation, where appropriate, and provide clear instructions on the authorities to whom allegations of solicitation and foreign bribery should be reported (Section XII, ii). As mentioned above, the NACP organises training on matters related to the prevention of corruption and develops educational resources. However, bribery of foreign public officials is not dealt with as a separate topic. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has own anti-corruption programme (2023-25), which comprises awareness-raising and training activities for employees of the diplomatic service. However, there are no activities to assist Ukrainian enterprises confronted with bribery abroad. (MFA, 2023[21])

Box 8.2. Assistance to businesses facing demands of bribes abroad

Countries party to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention have accumulated some experience in providing such assistance. For example, the French General Directorate of the Treasury has conducted awareness-raising activities on bribery for French companies operating abroad through the economic departments of embassies.

Slovenia has developed operational guidelines for public officials and civil servants who encounter Slovenian companies operating in foreign markets. This document comprises advice on action in case of suspicions of corrupt practices and request officials to offer assistance in situations where the companies are exposed to corruption offers or claims.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Denmark has issued an anti-corruption policy for the Trade Council of Denmark (TCD) with guidelines on assistance to Danish companies in preventing corruption and other types of financial crime, including offering “companies information on the economic and political situation, the local business environment and challenges, as well as Government & Public Affairs (GPA) assistance in relation to specific challenges faced by the company”. However, the guidelines expressly remind that the TCD is neither expected nor allowed to give specific legal assistance. The Danish MFA has also participated in the development of a collective action against facilitation payments, which includes a reporting tool, through which members report instances of demands for such payments. Based on the reports, the initiative can approach governments and encourage them to take action against the demand.

The Australian Trade and Investment Commission has provided a targeted outreach programme for businesses, comprising practical advice on how to respond when bribes are solicited and details on the practical assistance, which the Commission can provide to those that are confronted with trade impediments created by corrupt foreign officials.

Sources: (OECD, 2021[22]), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. Phase 4 Report: France, https://doi.org/10.1787/2c7d8500-en; (OECD, 2021[23]), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. Phase 4 Report: Slovenia, https://doi.org/10.1787/9c63ac82-en; (OECD, 2023[24]), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention: Phase 4 Report: Denmark, https://doi.org/10.1787/a36c9917-en; (OECD, 2017[25]), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention: Phase 4 Report: Australia, https://doi.org/10.1787/d7fdce90-en.

Recommendation: To comply with the 2021 Anti-Bribery Recommendation and support legal business of Ukrainian companies in international markets, the MoFA should collect information on bribery rules and legal channels for countering bribery in jurisdictions where Ukrainian businesses are active. Based on the collected information, the MoFA in co-operation with the NACP should develop user-friendly information materials and ensure opportunities for affected companies to receive advice in Ukraine’s representations.

8.8. Ukraine should determine the status and other key aspects of the BOC in law and consider potentially adopting rules on integrity pacts

The 2021 Anti-Bribery Recommendation recommends for countries to consider fostering, facilitating, engaging, or participating in anti-bribery collective action initiatives with private and public sector representatives, as well as civil society organisations, aiming to address foreign bribery and bribe solicitation (Section XII, iv). Collective action represents joint efforts of various stakeholders, such as government bodies, businesses, civil society organisations, and other actors, working together to tackle corruption and promote integrity. (OECD/UN, 2024[26]) Collective actions may be entirely non-governmental, but government bodies may also be their initiators, participants or funders. (United Nations Global Compact, 2021[27])

The database of the Basel Institute on Governance lists four anti-corruption collective-action initiatives in Ukraine. The BOC was established as a collective action of international organisations, business associations and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in 2014-15. The BOC has become a major channel for reporting corruption and other forms of unfair treatment that businesses face in Ukraine. The Verkhovna Rada started the consideration of the draft Law on the Establishment of a Business Ombudsman in Ukraine in 2020. However, eventually the legislator only tasked the Cabinet of Ministers to regulate the business ombudsman institution as per the final provisions of the Law on Making Changes to Some Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Implementation of Investment Projects with Significant Investments (Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 2023[28]). Thus, the legal status of the BOC has not been settled adequately.

The other three collective actions are the UNIC, the Maritime Anti-Corruption Network in Ukraine (MACNU), and the Global Compact Network Ukraine (GCNU) Collective Action Initiative. (Basel Institute on Governance, n.d.[29]) UNIC has more than 40 companies as members and its purpose is promoting an ethical and responsible mode of doing business. The network’s activities are varied and include helping companies to build compliance, organising the annual Business Integrity Month as well as workshops and training, participating in the development of the policy for the recovery of Ukraine, advocating in a dialogue with the NACP for the implementation of anti-corruption standards and methodologies for building integrity in the private sector, etc. (UNIC, 2024[30]) MACNU belongs to an international business network for corruption-free maritime industry. In Ukraine it established the Anti-Corruption Helpdesk for reporting corruption and related grievances. (MACN, n.d.[31]) GCNU has been inviting civil-society organisations, state institutions, and business companies to sign the Memorandum on Joint Actions on Anti-Corruption in Ukraine. The signatories commit, inter alia, to refrain from paying bribes and not to allow their directors, employees, other company officers and third parties to pay bribes on their behalf. (Global Compact Network Ukraine, 2020[32]) The GCNU also publishes education materials such as “Fight against Corruption: Collective Actions”, which, inter alia, advises companies to report corruption to authorised state bodies or to collective protection mechanisms. (Global Compact Network Ukraine, 2021[33])

Ukraine also has significant experience with integrity pacts. Originally designed to ensure integrity in public contracting, integrity pacts commit public authorities and bidders to ensure compliance and transparency under monitoring of a third actor, usually a civil society organisation. (Transparency International, 2024[34]) Ukraine is a member of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) whose participants commit to disclose information about the way extraction rights are awarded and revenues used. In 2022, Ukrainian and international civil society organisations established the coalition RISE Ukraine to promote integrity, participation, accountability and transparency in Ukraine’s reconstruction and development. One of the workstreams of RISE Ukraine is monitoring reconstruction projects. (RISE Ukraine, 2024[35]) In terms of collective actions, Ukraine has had positive achievements albeit in part thanks to the involvement of international partners.

Ukraine could explore opportunities to strengthen legal grounds for some forms of collective actions. For example, in Italy the Law of 6 November 2012, No. 190 “Provisions for the Prevention and Repression of Corruption and Illegality in Public Administration” permits contracting authorities to stipulate in notices, calls for tender or invitation letters that failure to comply with clauses contained in legality protocols or integrity pacts constitutes grounds for exclusion from the tender (Article 1, Part 17). Guidelines of the National Anti-Corruption Authority also recommend providing sanctions in the protocols or pacts in the event of violation of the commitments signed commensurate to the seriousness of the violation. (ANAC, 2019[36]) The integrity pact in the Italian law does not require mandatory involvement of an independent monitor of compliance. However, it is possible to involve such monitor, potentially as a cosignatory of the pact. (Department for Public Administration, 2019[37]) Mexico has institutionalised in its law a tool similar to integrity pact even further (Box 8.3).

Box 8.3. Social witnesses in Mexico

The Mexican chapter of Transparency International started promoting integrity pacts as a means of corruption prevention in the late 1990s. In Mexico, integrity pacts developed into the tool of social witness (Testigo Social). The use of social witnesses has been introduced in law and, since 2009, made mandatory for public procurement procedures exceeding a set threshold.

Thus, the Law on Public Sector Acquisitions, Leases and Services stipulates that social witnesses will participate in public tenders, the amount of which exceeds five million days of the general minimum wage and in cases determined by the Secretariat of Public Service (SPS) considering the impact of the contract.

The SPS runs a public register of social witnesses who participate in all stages of the public bidding procedures. Social witnesses are selected through a public call, and the SPS accredits for this role persons who meet requirements set by law.

Social witnesses have the following functions:

• Propose improvements to strengthen transparency, impartiality and legal provisions regarding acquisitions, leases and services.

• Follow up on the implementation of the actions recommended as a result of their participation in the procedures.

• Issue a testimony at the end of their participation to be disseminated publicly.

When a social witness detects irregularities, he/she must forward his/her testimony to the internal control body of the contracting entity and/or to the Oversight Commission of the Chamber of Deputies of the Congress. The social witnesses shall receive compensation determined by relevant rules.

According to Transparencia Mexicana, the practice of social witnesses has led to a significant increase in the number of bidders and reduced the costs of public contracts.

Source: (Basel Institute on Governance, n.d.[38]) Integrity Pact case study in Mexico: Integrity Pacts to Social Witnesses, https://collective-action.com/explore/integrity-pacts/case-studies/mexico.

(Justia Mexico, 2021[39]) Law on Public Sector Acquisitions, Leases and Services (Ley de Adquisiciones, Arrendamientos y Servicios del Sector Público), with amendments as published on 20 May 2021, Article 26 Ter, https://mexico.justia.com/federales/leyes/ley-de-adquisiciones-arrendamientos-y-servicios-del-sector-publico/titulo-segundo/capitulo-primero/#articulo-26-ter.

Recommendation: Where appropriate, the institutionalisation of collective actions in law may bring stability in their operation and enhance legitimacy. Ukraine should determine the status and other key aspects of the BOC in law. It could also study the experience of Mexico and potentially determine modalities of integrity pacts in law. The legal rules could stipulate when integrity pacts are recommended or mandatory, how to select monitoring organisations/persons and potentially also what compensation the monitors could receive.

Summary of recommendations

Preventing solicitation and acceptance of bribes

• The NACP or the NABU should prepare detailed guidance for public officials how to act when undue benefits are provided, offered or promised. The guidance could cover various situations, such as when the benefits are offered with an explicit corrupt intent, when the intent of the giver or offeror is ambiguous or when only hints are given, when benefits are offered or provided to third persons (e.g. family members) and so on 

• The NACP or another competent anti-corruption authority should prepare user-friendlier summaries of case law in bribery cases, based on which authorised persons, other public officials and subjects of bribery offences would learn what qualifies as bribery and what situations to avoid

• Ukraine should consider renewing the tests for candidates for civil servant positions before the termination of the martial law and include additional questions on bribery in the tests. Ukraine could also develop a new online test on corruption topics to be taken by all civil servants and other public officials on a regular basis during career

• Ukraine should publish the standards of conduct regarding gifts and undue advantages on the websites of all public bodies. Include in such publications explanations how the rules apply to hospitalities and entertainment

Incentivising and facilitating the reporting of bribe solicitation

• Ukraine should explore possibilities for further protection and provision of incentives for companies that report corruption.

• Ukraine could consider making it obligatory for officials and employees of state-owned companies, which are considered legal entities of private law, as well as employees (who are not officials) of local governments and legal entities of public law to report bribery that becomes known to them. While expanding the reporting obligation, it would be important to ensure that the reporting individuals remain eligible for protection as whistleblowers

• The MoFA should collect information on bribery rules and legal channels for countering bribery in jurisdictions where Ukrainian businesses are active. Based on the collected information, the MoFA in co-operation with the NACP should develop user-friendly information materials and ensure opportunities for affected companies to receive advice in Ukraine’s diplomatic missions.

• Ukraine should determine the status and other key aspects of the BOC in law.

References

[36] ANAC (2019), Linee Guida n. 15 recanti «Individuazione e gestione dei conflitti di interesse nelle procedure di affidamento di contratti pubblici», https://www.anticorruzione.it/-/delibera-c2-a0numero-494-del-05/06/2019-1.

[16] Assembly of the Portuguese Republic (1987), “Code of Criminal Procedure Adopted by Decree-Law no. 78/87”.

[29] Basel Institute on Governance (n.d.), Collective Action B20 HUB, https://collective-action.com/.

[38] Basel Institute on Governance (n.d.), Integrity Pact case study in Mexico: Integrity Pacts to Social Witnesses, https://collective-action.com/explore/integrity-pacts/case-studies/mexico.

[2] Council of Europe (2000), Recommendation No. R (2000) 10 of the Committee of Ministers to Member states on codes of conduct for public officials, https://rm.coe.int/16805e2e52.

[37] Department for Public Administration (2019), 4th National Action Plan for Open Government: 2019-2021, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Italy-Action-Plan-2019-2021-English.pdf.

[33] Global Compact Network Ukraine (2021), Боротьба з корупцією: колективні дії, https://globalcompact.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/ac-publication-2021.pdf.

[32] Global Compact Network Ukraine (2020), Підписуйте Меморандум про спільні дії з антикорупції в Україні (текст документу), https://globalcompact.org.ua/news/pidpisujte-memorandum-pro-spilni-dii-z-antikorupcii-v-ukraini-tekst-dokumentu/.

[7] Institutet Mot Mutor (2022), Mutbrottsdomar i Sverige 2022 [Bribery Convictions in Sweden In 2022], https://immse.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Mutbrottsdomar-i-Sverige-2022.pdf.

[6] Institutet Mot Mutor (n.d.), Rättsfallsbank [Case Bank], https://www.institutetmotmutor.se/rattsfallsbank/.

[39] Justia Mexico (2021), Ley de Adquisiciones, Arrendamientos y Servicios del Sector Público [Law on Public Sector Acquisitions, Leases and Services], https://mexico.justia.com/federales/leyes/ley-de-adquisiciones-arrendamientos-y-servicios-del-sector-publico/#articulo-26-ter.

[31] MACN (n.d.), Ukraine, https://macn.dk/ukraine/.

[21] MFA (2023), Додаток 1 до Антикорупційної програми МЗС на 2023-2025 роки, https://mfa.gov.ua/storage/app/sites/1/SPK/dodatok-1-do-antikorprogrami-23-25.pdf.

[17] NABU (n.d.), Кодекс професійної етики працівників Національного антикорупційного бюро України, https://nabu.gov.ua/activity/zapobigannia-koruptcii/kodeks-etyky-pracivnykiv-nacionalnogo-antykorupciynogo-byuro-ukrayiny/.

[11] NABU (n.d.), Національне антикорупційне бюро України [NABU website hompage], https://nabu.gov.ua/.

[3] NACP (n.d.), База знань: Інформаційний ресурс для легкого пошуку роз’яснень, https://wiki.nazk.gov.ua/.

[4] NACP (n.d.), Звіт за результатами аналізу судовоїпрактики притягнення до відповідальності закорупційні та пов’язані з корупцією кримінальні правопорушення за 2022 рік, https://nazk.gov.ua/pdfjs/?file=/wp-content/uploads/Pages/a1/ef/a1efa0d545949c0a57be0bbd01e11b2291979bca21cb80ed66e3e58a829043be1321416.pdf.

[1] NACP, IS (2023), Corruption in Ukraine 2023: Understanding, Perception, Prevalence, https://nazk.gov.ua/pdfjs/?file=/wp-content/uploads/Pages/69/23/6923dbe799e19774817dbaf205ff3eb2504675290c284dae7917853c131f53834606420.pdf.

[8] NACS (2021), Order of 24 February 2021, No. 30-21, on amending the Order of the NACS of 30 August 2017, No. 178, National Agency on Civil Service (NACS), https://nads.gov.ua/npas/pro-vnesennya-zmin-do-nakazu-nads-vid-30-serpnya-2017-roku-178.

[14] NAPC (n.d.), Повідомити про корупцію [Report corruption webpage], https://nazk.gov.ua/uk/povidomyty-pro-koruptsiyu/.

[15] National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (2025), Unified whistleblower reporting portal, https://whistleblowers.nazk.gov.ua/#/.

[18] NP (2021), Обмеження щодо одержання подарунків, https://www.npu.gov.ua/pro-policiyu/zapobigannya-i-protidiya-korupciyi/obmezhennya-shchodo-oderzhannya-podarunkiv.

[24] OECD (2023), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Phase 4 Report: Denmark, Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a36c9917-en.

[9] OECD (2022), “Business integrity in Eastern Europe and Central Asia 2022”, OECD Business and Finance Policy Papers, No. 11, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1ed3fe17-en.

[22] OECD (2021), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Phase 4 Report: France, Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2c7d8500-en.

[23] OECD (2021), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Phase 4 Report: Slovenia, Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9c63ac82-en.

[25] OECD (2017), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Phase 4 Report: Australia, Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d7fdce90-en.

[26] OECD/UN (2024), A Resource Guide on State Measures for Strengthening Business Integrity, OECD Publishing, Paris/United Nations, New York, https://doi.org/10.1787/c76d7513-en.

[35] RISE Ukraine (2024), , https://www.rise.org.ua/.

[19] SCS (n.d.), Запобігання та протидія корупції, https://customs.gov.ua/zapobigannia-proiavam-koruptsiyi.

[12] State Bureau of Investigation (2025), Повідомити про корупцію в органах ДБР (Report corruption in the State Bureau of Investigation), https://dbr.gov.ua/kor.

[20] STS (n.d.), Запобігання проявам корупції, https://tax.gov.ua/diyalnist-/zapobigannya-proyavam-korupts/.

[13] STS (n.d.), Сервіс “Пульс” Державної податкової служби України [“Pulse” service of the State Tax Service of Ukraine], https://tax.gov.ua/others/puls-.

[34] Transparency International (2024), Integrity pacts, https://www.transparency.org/en/tool-integrity-pacts.

[30] UNIC (2024), Annual Report of Ukrainian Network of Integrity and Compliance (UNIC) 2023, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5iqxk3vypm9swdgfc0frb/Report-UNIC-2023-ENG.pdf?rlkey=x6ktl4refr3o59097yt3qba1l&e=1&st=fjhx6u7y&dl=0.

[10] United Nations (2009), Technical Guide to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/Publications/TechnicalGuide/09-84395_Ebook.pdf.

[27] United Nations Global Compact (2021), Uniting Against Corruption: A Playbook on Anti-Corruption Collective Action, https://ungc-communications-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/publications/2021_Anti-Corruption_Collective.pdf.

[28] Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2023), Law on Making Changes to Some Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Implementation of Investment Projects with Significant Investments 3311-IX.

[5] Верховний суд (2024), Огляд судової практики Верховного суду у кримінальних провадженнях щодо корупційних та пов’язаних з корупцією кримінальних правопорушень, https://supreme.court.gov.ua/userfiles/media/new_folder_for_uploads/supreme/sud_pract/Oglyad_KKS_korupc.pdf.

Notes

← 1.  The UNIC survey was addressed to 18 companies of various sizes (micro, small, medium and large), including both privately-owned and state-owned companies.

← 2.  For example, the answer: “Who will write to them? It's like drowning yourself. After that your problem will not only never be solved, it may even become bigger. Because the data are open, they will know you.”