UKRAINE: Corruption convictions statistics – A few answers and a few tools
HRWF (05.09.2016) – Statistics about convictions for corruption are not easy to find. Odessablog has investigated the issue posting an entry dated 1st September 2016 mentioning the statistics of Nashi Groshi.
Excerpt from Odessablog
“Between July 2015 and July 2016 not a single official of highest civil service or political position in Ukraine was convicted of corruption, abuse of power, embezzlement or misappropriation of State property. Not one.
During the same period 952 lesser mortals were convicted of corruption of which only 128 actually went to jail. Of those 128 people, 68 were sentenced to jail terms of between 2 – 5 years, and 47 people received 5 years (or more).
Of those 128 people given jail terms, only 33 are in jail. The other incarceration rulings are pending appeal.
Of the 952 convictions, only 3 are “Category A” people – Category A being within the statutorily defined elite civil servant and political circles. Another 153 are “Category B” officials/public servants. All the others are mere minions within the State machinery/institutions of State.
Between Category A and Category B convictions, a total of 4 people are actually in jail.
These statistics are a result of Nashi Groshi analysing 819 judicial verdicts relating to Articles 191, 364, 368, 369 and 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine between 1 June 2015 and 30 June 2016.
If not a complete picture, then Nashi Groshi at the very least paints a far more public picture than does the Ministry of Justice – for such easily digestable statistics remain exceptionally difficult to find.
The ever reliable Lana Sevastopolskaya, and upstanding citizen (and a friend) Sergiy Lesyk also made contact with two websites that allow for corruption conviction research based efforts – albeit neither are the easiest to navigate nor extract data from.
To be blunt so designed are these websites that when it comes to extracting empirical data to compare conviction rates, the actual official sentencing handed down including fines and/or property seizures (let us not even consider disposal thereof regarding seized assets), across the oblasts with regard to consistency and proportionality, it will take more than a little effort. Unquestionably more effort than the vast majority are prepared to put in, in order to produce sufficient simple data for dummies from which empirical observation can be made.
Lo it remains, for those that prefer swiftly accessible, easily digestible statistics – for example the external policymakers that are funding much of the Ukrainian anti-corruption effort and have little time for any other representational formats – for the Ministry of Justice to provide a simple, nationally accessible, oblast by oblast listing of corruption convictions and sentencing, of which all are a matter of public record anyway – somewhere.
Nevertheless, in the meantime thanks to those upstanding citizens that responded to the last entry – a little more light upon corruption convictions can be shed for those prepared to make the effort.”