Financial integrity in public service: legal risks and court cases

So, here are three reasons why financial control of public servants is important right now:

1. War and budgetary discipline

Every hryvnia of public funds matters, so transparency of public servants’ incomes directly affects the efficient use of resources.

2. Public trust

Openness in asset declarations strengthens citizens’ trust in the authorities and creates a barrier to corrupt practices.

3. European integration

Financial control and transparency in declarations are among the EU’s key requirements for Ukraine’s continued integration and international support.

Electronic declarations by public servants are not just a technical procedure, but a litmus test of integrity, openness, and accountability to society.

However, despite clear legislative regulation, the issue of declarations often becomes a field for manipulation, errors, excessive scrutiny, or, conversely, impunity. 

Are violations in declarations always intentional? Where is the line between a technical error and deliberate concealment of income? How can you defend yourself in court if you are falsely accused? 

Let’s figure it out.

Legal regulation and list of abbreviations

The key regulatory acts governing the mandatory electronic declaration are:

• Law of Ukraine No. 1700-VII of October 14, 2014, “On Preventing Corruption” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 1700-VII);
• Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (hereinafter referred to as the Code);
• Criminal Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the CC of Ukraine).

List of abbreviations:

• NAZK, National Agency — National Agency for Corruption Prevention;
• E-declaration (declaration) — a declaration of a person authorized to perform functions of the state or local self-government, which is submitted by filling out the official website of the National Agency in the established form.

Who is subject to income declaration 

Persons authorized to perform state or local self-government functions and other persons equivalent to them who perform organizational, administrative, or economic functions in state or municipal bodies/institutions are subject to income declaration.

These include, in particular:

• The President of Ukraine;
• members of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine;
• People’s Deputies of Ukraine, Deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Deputies of local councils, village, settlement, and city heads;
• judges, judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, other officials/public servants of courts, bodies, and institutions in the justice system, as well as jurors (while performing their duties in court); 
• officials and civil servants of the prosecutor’s office;
• police officers;
• civil servants and officials of local self-government;
• other officials and civil servants of state bodies, as well as persons who are equated to persons authorized to perform the functions of the state or local self-government, the list of which is defined in Article 3 of Law No. 1700-VII.

It is important to note that lawyers, notaries, private executors, and other public service providers are not subject to such declarations if they do not hold positions in the categories listed in Article 3 of Law No. 1700-VII.

When, what, and why to declare

Financial control of public servants is one of the most important tools for preventing corruption. It is based on the obligation of annual declaration and allows for the detection of discrepancies between the income and lifestyle of officials.

Each public servant must submit a declaration for the previous year by April 1, stating: 

• income for the previous year;
• real estate, vehicles;
• bank accounts and cash;
• corporate rights and business shares;
• financial obligations;
• cryptocurrencies;
• gifts received;
• other information specified in Article 46 of Law No. 1700-VII concerning the declarant and members of their family.

Why financial control is necessary

• To prevent illegal enrichment and control the origin of property and funds;
• to give society access to information about the finances of public officials;
• to enhance the authority of state institutions.

In addition, transparency in declarations increases public trust in state institutions and has a preventive effect — officials understand that their financial activities are under control and that any violations may result in disciplinary, administrative, or even criminal liability.

Responsibility of declarants

The responsibility of declarants is a legally established mechanism aimed at ensuring the transparency and accountability of persons performing public functions.

Its key importance lies in several aspects:

• Preventive function. Awareness of the inevitability of accountability encourages employees to submit declarations on time and with accurate information. This minimizes the risk of concealing income and property.
• guarantee of government transparency. The declaration system and accountability mechanisms provide the public with access to information about the integrity of officials, which strengthens citizens’ trust in state institutions;
• ensuring the inevitability of punishment. The existence of disciplinary, administrative, and criminal sanctions makes it impossible to take a formal approach to fulfilling the obligation to declare and demonstrates that the law is the same for everyone;
• The state’s anti-corruption policy. The actual application of accountability measures transforms the declaration system from a formal requirement into an effective tool for combating corrupt practices.

Thus, accountability in the field of declaration is not only a legal category, but also an important element of a democratic state governed by the rule of law, combining control, accountability, and protection of public interests.

According to Articles 45–52 of Law No. 1700-VII, public servants (civil servants, local government officials, judges, prosecutors, etc.) are required to submit an annual declaration of income, property, and financial obligations, including those of their family members, by April 1.

Failure to comply with this obligation entails various types of legal liability.

Types of liability of declarants

Administrative liability
Ground	Sanction	Regulatory
Late submission of a declaration without valid reasons	fine from 850 to 1,700 hryvnias	Article 172-6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses(part 1)
Failure to notify or untimely notification of the opening of a foreign currency account with a non-resident bank or of significant changes in financial status	finefrom 1,700 to3,400 hryvnias	Article 172-6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses(part 2)
Repeated actions committed by a person who has been subject to administrative penalties within a year	a fine of 1,700 to 5,100 hryvnias with confiscation of income or remuneration and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period offor 1 year	Article 172-6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses(part 3)
Submission of knowingly false information in the declaration of a person authorized to perform functions of the state or local self-government	finefrom 1,700 to42,500 hryvnias	Article 172-6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses(part 4)

It is important to note that liability under Article 172-6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for submitting knowingly false information in the declaration of a person authorized to perform functions of the state or local self-government regarding property or other objects of declaration that have value arises if such information differs from the true information by an amount ranging from 150 to 750 subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons. Thus, in 2025, this amount ranges from 454,200 to 2,027,1000 hryvnias.

Criminal liability
Ground	Sanction	Regulatory
Intentional inclusion by the declarant of knowingly inaccurate information in the declaration of a person authorized to perform the functions of the state or local self-government, if such information differs from the accurate information by an amount ranging from 2,271,000 to7,570,000 hryvnias	a fine of 68,000 to 102,000 hryvnias or community service for a period of 150 to 240 hours or restriction of liberty for a period of up to 2 years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to 3 years	Article 366-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine(part 1)
Intentional inclusion by the declarant of knowingly false information in the declaration of a person authorized to perform functions of the state or local self-government, if such information differs from the true information by an amount exceeding 7,570,000 hryvnias	a fine of 102,000 to 136,000 hryvnias or community service for a period of 150 to 240 hours or restriction of liberty for a term of up to 2 years or imprisonment for the same term with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to 3 years	Article 366-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine(part 1)
Intentional failure by a declarant to submit a declaration of a person authorized to perform functions of the state or local self-government	a fine of 42,500 to 51,000 hryvnias or community service for a term of 150 to 240 hours or restriction of liberty for a term of up to 2 years or imprisonment for a term of 1 year with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to 3 years	Article 366-3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

The responsibility of declarants is an integral part of the financial control and corruption prevention system.

It ensures that the obligation to submit declarations is not a mere formality, but is backed by real sanctions — from administrative liability to criminal punishment. This mechanism enhances the transparency of government, promotes the principle of inevitability of responsibility, and fosters a culture of integrity among public servants.

Judicial protection: practice and strategy, or how it actually works

At first glance, everything is obvious: if you don’t declare, you have to answer for it. But judicial practice shows that not everything is so clear-cut.

Situation No. 1

Case No. 638/1392/19

In 2019, the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv received a report of an administrative offense against the director of the regional department of the National Securities and Stock Market Commission. She was accused of failing to notify the NACP in a timely manner about the purchase of a Hyundai Getz car worth more than UAH 150,000. The law requires that such significant changes in property status be reported within 10 days, but the notification was only entered into the register several months later.

The official herself did not admit guilt. She and her lawyer emphasized that the protocol was drawn up by a person who did not have the authority to do so, and that the main evidence — the notification in the register of declarations — was not attached to the case. In addition, the National Police, which drew up the documents, does not have the right to independently verify declarations or notifications of changes in property status, as this is the exclusive competence of the NACP.

The prosecutor insisted that an offense had been committed and demanded that the public official be held accountable.

After examining the materials, the court took the opposite view. In particular, it established that:

1) only the NACP, and not the police, can verify declarations;

2) there is no evidence in the case confirming the official’s intent to avoid declaring;

3) the car was purchased with declared funds, so there was no corruption involved;

4) all doubts regarding the proof of guilt under the Constitution must be interpreted in favor of the person.

As a result, the proceedings were closed due to the absence of an administrative offense.

This case shows that even if an official has actually violated the deadline for submitting a notification, it is impossible to hold them accountable without properly documented evidence and compliance with the procedure. 

Situation No. 2

Case No. 127/13915/25

An official was held administratively liable for failing to submit his annual declaration and declaration after dismissal on time.

The court of first instance found him guilty and imposed a fine, considering that the violation had been proven.

The court of appeal reviewed the circumstances of the case and found that more than a year had passed since the NACP discovered the delay.

At the same time, the law provides for only six months to bring a person to justice from the date of discovery of the offense.

That is, despite the fact that there was a violation, the court concluded that the statute of limitations had expired and, therefore, the fine could not be imposed.

As a result, the first instance ruling was overturned and the proceedings were closed.

This case shows that even if a violation has occurred, the state must act within the time limits clearly defined by law. Failure to comply with these procedural guarantees means that it is impossible to bring a person to justice.

Situation No. 3

Case No. 639/2386/25

After taking office, a member of the Kharkiv Regional Council became subject to declaration requirements and was obliged to submit a declaration each year in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption.”

The law stipulated that the declaration for 2021 had to be submitted no later than January 31, 2024. However, the deputy submitted it on April 3, 2024. At the same time, he submitted declarations for 2022 and 2023 on time, but mistakenly believed that they were sufficient. After discovering the mistake, the deputy promptly corrected the situation by submitting the declaration for 2021.

The court of first instance found him guilty of late submission of the declaration. However, the court of appeal found that the offense under Article 172-6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses requires intent, and in this case, there was a mistake without malicious intent. In addition, the positive character of the person, his volunteer activities, and the absence of aggravating circumstances were taken into account.

As a result, the court of appeal found the offense to be minor, released the deputy from administrative liability, and limited itself to a verbal warning.

This case shows that when considering cases of late submission of declarations, courts take into account not only the fact of the violation of deadlines, but also the subjective side of the offense, the presence or absence of intent, as well as personal circumstances and the character of the person. This indicates that the mechanism of liability in the field of declaration is not purely formal, but allows for a fair assessment of each specific situation.

Situation No. 4 

Case No. 705/2540/25

A category “B” civil servant in the Secretariat of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights ceased his activities on September 12, 2023. In accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption,” he was required to submit a declaration upon dismissal within a specified period.

However, the declaration was submitted only on February 1, 2024, at 11:38 p.m., i.e., with a delay of almost 24 hours.

The court of first instance found the official guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 1 of Article 172-6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (violation of financial control requirements). He was fined UAH 850.

Appealing the ruling, the civil servant proved a number of important circumstances:

• the delay was only 23 hours;
• during this time, he attempted to submit the declaration and also performed other declaration duties;
• there were medical documents confirming the state of health that affected the possibility of timely submission;
• there was no intent to avoid declaring;
• the administrative offense report was drawn up with procedural violations (the place of the offense was not specified, which affected the determination of jurisdiction).

The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision and closed the proceedings, recognizing that there was no administrative offense.

This case shows that even a minimal delay in filing a declaration can be grounds for prosecution. At the same time, it confirms that courts are required to take into account objective circumstances that made timely filing impossible and to assess the good faith of the employee.

Situation No. 5 

Case No. 459/2270/24

A category “B” civil servant of the Sokal District Court of Lviv Region was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 4 of Article 172-6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and was fined UAH 25,500.

The court of first instance found that in his annual declaration for 2022, the civil servant had submitted knowingly false information, which differed from the true information by a total amount of over UAH 1.4 million. This conclusion was confirmed by an audit conducted by the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NAZK) and a number of documentary evidence (copies of the declaration, NAZK certificate, documents regarding property, receipt for cash, etc.).

At the same time, the defense insisted that the proceedings should be closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing administrative liability.

The Court of Appeal agreed with this argument: the date of discovery of the offense was determined to be June 21, 2024 (the date of the NACP certificate), from which the six-month period began. Therefore, at the time of the decision by the court of first instance (January 16, 2025), this period had already expired.

In view of this, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance and closed the proceedings in the case due to the expiration of the time limits established by Article 38 of the Code of Administrative Offenses at the time of consideration of the administrative offense case. 

This case shows that even when the fact of entering inaccurate information in the declaration has been proven, the courts are obliged to strictly adhere to procedural guarantees, in particular the time limits for bringing charges. It confirms the importance not only of the substantive evidence, but also of the procedural aspects that ensure fairness and legal certainty.

Judicial practice shows that each case has its own circumstances.

Transparency in financial reporting is not about fear of the law. It is about a new ethic of public service that builds public trust in state institutions. Therefore, if you have any doubts, including regarding the deadlines or procedure for submitting a declaration, it is worth consulting a lawyer in advance. This will allow you to avoid unnecessary risks (fines, reputational damage) and protect your rights.

Recommendations for public servants on declaration issues

• Keep track of deadlines

The deadline for submitting the annual declaration is April 1. During martial law, the deadlines may change (as was the case in 2022–2023), so it is important to check the current explanations of the NACP.

• Use reminders

Set calendar reminders (on your phone or in your email) one month and one week before the deadline for submitting your declaration.

• Check the correct period

When submitting your declaration, carefully select the year for which it is being completed. An error in selecting the year (for example, submitting for 2022 instead of 2021) may have consequences.

• Keep your confirmation

Always download or take a screenshot of the confirmation of your declaration submission from the NACP Register. This will serve as proof in case of technical failures or disputes.

• Correct errors in a timely manner

If you find an inaccuracy, it is better to immediately submit a corrected declaration, explaining the situation, than to wait for possible prosecution (this can only be done within 30 days after submitting the declaration, and no more than once).

• Consult with a lawyer both before filling out the declaration and in case of any doubts