«It's just a regular administrative offense, at most a fine» is what most civil servants, local self-government officials, prosecutors, police officers, or judges think when they learn about the drafting of a report on an administrative offense related to corruption against them (Articles 172-4–172-9 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses). In practice, a fine is the least of the problems. Real consequences occur separately from the fine and often do not depend on its amount at all: suspension from office even before a court verdict, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal with a ban on returning to civil service for years, and for certain categories—also the loss of the right to a long-service pension. This article systematically analyzes the exact consequences provided for by the Law of Ukraine «On Prevention of Corruption» and specialized laws for various categories of declarant subjects, and which specific violations are covered by Articles 172-4–172-9 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.
Consequences that occur regardless of the fine
Article 65-1 of the Law of Ukraine «On Prevention of Corruption» provides for a separate, independent block of consequences that is not related to the amount of the fine and is applied in parallel with administrative proceedings or immediately after them.
Suspension from office. A person in respect of whom a report on an administrative offense related to corruption has been drawn up may be suspended from performing official duties by the decision of the head of the body, institution, enterprise, or organization where they work, until the court concludes the review of the case. Important: the decision is made precisely by the head, not the court, and the law does not require mandatory official investigation for this—the Supreme Court confirmed this in its ruling of October 23, 2024, in case No. 335/2171/23. NAPC sends a notification about the drawing up of the report to the person's place of work specifically for the purpose of considering the issue of suspension.
At the same time, the law also protects the other party: if the proceedings in a case are closed due to the absence of the event or the elements of an offense, the suspended person is reimbursed their average salary for the entire period of forced absence from work. In practice, this right is often forgotten — and this is one of the main arguments of the defense after the case is closed.
Disciplinary liability. If a court has found a person guilty of committing a corruption-related administrative offense, but has not applied the penalty of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions, the person is still subject to disciplinary liability in the manner established by specialized legislation (separate disciplinary procedures apply to civil servants, local self-government officials, police officers, prosecutors, and judges).
Dismissal: grounds differ depending on the position category
The most tangible consequence is dismissal. Specific laws establish different grounds and different conditions for various categories of asset declarants, so there is no universal answer to whether one will be dismissed or not—it all depends on the position the person holds.
Civil servants. Article 84 of the Law of Ukraine «On Civil Service» provides for several independent grounds for the termination of civil service related to corruption: (1) the entry into legal force of a court decision on bringing a person to administrative liability for a corruption offense, which imposes a penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to hold positions — unlike prosecutors or police officers, dismissal for a civil servant occurs only when the court additionally assigns specifically this penalty, and not any penalty; (2) a court decision on recognizing assets as unjustified and recovering them into state revenue; (3) the existence of a real or potential conflict of interest of a permanent nature that cannot be resolved in another way — this ground is not related to a protocol or a verdict at all and is applied separately. In cases 1–2, the appointing authority is obliged to dismiss the civil servant within three days from the date the decision enters into legal force.
Village, settlement, and city mayors. The Law of Ukraine «On Local Self-Government in Ukraine» links dismissal to a court decision finding a person guilty along with the deprivation of the right to hold positions—the head is considered dismissed from the day the respective council adopts a decision taking this fact into account.
Prosecutors. Paragraph 3 of part one of Article 51 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Prosecutor's Office» establishes a less favorable framework for a prosecutor than for a civil servant: the ground for dismissal is precisely the entry into legal force of a court decision on holding a person administratively liable for a corruption offense — and unlike civil servants, the law does not require the court to additionally impose a penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to hold positions. The mere fact of being held liable is sufficient. This is compounded by a significant financial consequence: Article 86 of the same Law deprives persons dismissed in connection with being held administratively liable for a corruption offense of the right to a length-of-service pension — in such a case, the pension is granted only on general grounds.
National Police. Paragraph 10 of Part One of Article 77 of the Law of Ukraine «On the National Police» provides for the dismissal of a police officer using the same logic as for prosecutors—it is sufficient for a court decision holding the person liable for a corrupt administrative offense to enter into legal force, without the requirement of an additional deprivation of the right to hold positions. Separately, under Paragraph 9-1 of the same article, the ground for dismissing a police officer is a permanent, unresolved conflict of interest—just as for civil servants.
Judges. For judges, the consequence is limited to disciplinary liability: the issue of bringing a judge to disciplinary liability for a corruption-related administrative offense (if the court did not apply the deprivation of the right to hold positions to them) is resolved in the manner established by law—that is, through a separate disciplinary proceeding, rather than automatic dismissal.
An additional «bonus» that is often overlooked: for most categories, there is a ban on holding positions related to the performance of state or local self-government functions for three years after the relevant court decision comes into legal force. This means that even after formally «serving» the punishment in the form of a fine, a person will still not be able to return to the civil service for three years—and this is precisely the key difference from an «ordinary» administrative offense.
Unified State Register of Persons Who Committed Corruption Offenses
A separate and purely reputational consequence is the inclusion of information in the Unified State Register of Persons Who Have Committed Corruption or Corruption-Related Offenses (Article 59 of the Law). NACP publishes on its website the surname, first name, patronymic, place of work, and position of the person at the time the offense was committed, the nature of the offense, and the type of penalty imposed, with free and round-the-clock access, without any restrictions. This can be seen by any employer, counterpart, or journalist.
Starting in 2025, this «stain» will no longer remain for life: pursuant to Law No. 4496-IX dated June 17, 2025, Article 59 has been supplemented with specific storage periods, after the expiration of which the information is subject to exclusion from the Register — for an administrative penalty for a corruption offense, this is one year from the moment of entry. Previously, no such restriction existed.
Statutes of limitations
An important procedural detail that often influences the outcome of a case: an administrative penalty for an offense related to corruption can be imposed within six months from the date of its detection, but no later than two years from the date of its commission (Article 38 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses). If these time limits have expired by the time the case is considered by the court, the proceedings are subject to closure, and the guilt of the person is not established at all.
What specific violations are covered by Articles 172-4 through 172-9 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses
Chapter 13-A of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses combines six elements of administrative offenses related to corruption. Each has its own subject, its own sanction, and its own defense logic.
Article 172-4. Violation of restrictions regarding concurrent employment and combination with other types of activities. It covers engaging in other paid or entrepreneurial activities (except for teaching, scientific, creative, medical, and judicial practice), as well as serving on the board or supervisory board of a for-profit organization. The penalty is a fine ranging from 300 to 500 tax-free minimum citizen incomes with the confiscation of the income obtained, and for a repeated violation within a year — from 500 to 800 tax-free minimum citizen incomes with confiscation and deprivation of the right to hold positions for one year. In practice, courts distinguish between owning corporate rights (participating in a company as a share owner) and the actual management of an enterprise: for example, the Rivne City Court in a ruling dated July 19, 2019, in case No. 569/8379/19, closed the proceedings against the secretary of the city council, who was simultaneously a company participant, because participation in a general meeting is the exercise of ownership rights, not entrepreneurial activity, and the elements of an offense are absent.
Article 172-5. Violation of statutory restrictions on receiving gifts. It is prohibited to demand, request, or receive gifts in connection with the exercise of state or local self-government functions, except for gifts whose value does not exceed one subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons at a time and two subsistence minimums in total per year, as well as gifts from close persons. The sanction is a fine ranging from 100 to 200 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens with confiscation of the gift; for a repeated violation, from 200 to 400 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens with confiscation and deprivation of the right to hold positions for one year. The key protection issue is whether the donor is truly a «close person» within the meaning of the law: the Odesa Court of Appeal, in its ruling of November 29, 2019, in case No. 522/17102/18, clarified that the father of a joint child who is not married to and does not live together with the recipient of the gift does not qualify as a close person, although in this case the proceedings were closed due to the expiration of the limitation period for bringing to liability.
Article 172-6. Violation of financial control requirements. The most «technical» article covers the untimely submission of a declaration without valid reasons (a fine of 50–100 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens), failure to report the opening of a foreign currency account in a non-resident bank or significant changes in financial status (100–200 tax-free minimum incomes), repeated violation (100–300 tax-free minimum incomes with confiscation and deprivation of the right to hold positions), and submission of knowingly inaccurate information in the declaration (1000–2500 tax-free minimum incomes, if the discrepancy with the actual status ranges from 150 to 750 subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons). A classic defense argument is the validity of reasons for missing the deadline: by a ruling dated March 18, 2020, in case No. 314/164/20, the Vilnyansk District Court closed the proceedings, establishing that a technical failure on the NACP website or in the internet network during the submission of the declaration is a valid reason and excludes liability.
Article 172-7. Violation of requirements regarding the prevention and settlement of conflict of interests. It covers both the failure to report the existence of a real conflict of interest (100–200 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens) and the actual decision-making or commission of acts under conditions of a real conflict (200–400 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens), and for a repeated violation — 400–800 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens with deprivation of the right to hold positions for a year. For the corpus delicti, the person's awareness of the conflict is crucially important: by a ruling dated 09.04.2020 in case No. 761/33875/19, the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv closed the proceedings against an official who granted the application of his wife's relative's enterprise, because at the time of the decision he was not aware of the family connection, and the protocol did not contain a description of his private interest — a mandatory element of the offense.
Article 172-8. Illegal use of information that became known in connection with the performance of official powers. The sanction is 100-150 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens for the disclosure or use of official information in one's own interests; separately and much more severely (1000-2500 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens with deprivation of the right to hold positions) actions regarding the disclosure of information about a whistleblower or persons who can identify him are punished. A mandatory feature of the subjective side is the motive - the person's own interest: the Dnipropetrovsk Region Court of Appeal by a resolution dated 07.03.2018 in case No. 200/20738/17 closed the proceedings against a police officer who transferred information about weapons to a third party via Viber, since the protocol did not contain a description of whose interests the violator was acting in.
Article 172-9. Failure to take measures to combat corruption. Applies to officials of government authorities, local self-government, and legal entities who failed to take the measures provided for by law after detecting a corruption offense. The sanction is 125–250 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens; for a repeated violation within a year, it is 250–400 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens. By a resolution dated October 2, 2019, in case No. 452/940/19, the Lviv Court of Appeal closed the proceedings against the city mayor, who did not convene a council session to consider the issue of a deputy immediately after receiving a court verdict, because the law does not establish a specific timeframe for taking such measures, and an official investigation was ultimately conducted.
The cited judicial decisions illustrate the defense logic for each article. It is worth remembering that cassation appeal of rulings in cases involving administrative corruption offenses under the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (KUPaP) is not provided for, so the practice at the level of appellate courts remains inconsistent—this means that the quality of preparing the defense position precisely in the courts of first and second instance is of decisive importance, since it will be impossible to correct an unsuccessful outcome in the cassation court.
Defense strategy
Based on the above, an effective defense in an administrative corruption offense case is built simultaneously in three areas: (1) substantive appeal of the protocol — proving the absence of the event or corpus delicti, the absence of the subjective side (motive, awareness) or valid reasons; (2) control over the legality of related measures — suspension without proper grounds, violation of the protocol drafting procedure — with a demand for compensation of average earnings in the event of case closure; (3) use of procedural time limits — verification of compliance with the statute of limitations under Article 38 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. Bargen attorneys accompany clients in each of these areas — from receiving a summons to the NACP or police to the conclusion of the case in court.
