The Anti-corruption Action Centre gathers a list of MPs and other public figures who act as agents of the Kremlin who:
  • make decisions that block Ukraine's cooperation with the EU, the IMF, and Western partners;
  • distribute Kremlin anti-Western propaganda.
Such actions are part of the hybrid warfare of the Kremlin network against Ukraine and aim to change the Western vector of development of our state.

This can cost Ukrainians a visa-free regime with the EU and a future in Europe.

At the same time, public figures who promote Kremlin decisions in Ukraine have wealth in the EU, the United States, Switzerland, and the UK, spend their vacations there, and teach their children in the West.

Anti-Corruption Action Center asks the EU member states, the UK, Switzerland and the USA to impose travel bans and investigate the source of wealth of persons who attack Ukraine's cooperation with the West.

How to help?
Report to us if you know about Western assets of MPs in the list: .
DONATE to support our analytical and legal work on dossiers of the Kremlin agents.
Dossiers of key Kremlin agents in the Office of the President of Ukraine
In 2020, the term of office of the head of the SAPO Nazar Kholodnytskyi expired and the process of forming a Selection Commission for competetive selection of a new head began. According to the law, the Selection Commission consists of 11 persons: 4 are appointed by the Council of Prosecutors and another 7 are appointed by the Ukrainian Parliament following the proposals of factions. In June 2020, the Council of Prosecutors appointed 4 independent experts to the commission: recognized international experts (Drago Kos, Nona Tsotsoriya, Thomas Firestone) and Ukrainian expert Roman Kuybida.

Parliament was able to appoint its quota only on the 3rd attempt. Most of those appointed by Parliament have drawn criticism for failing to meet statutory criteria. According to the information provided to the Anti-Corruption Center, the selection of commission members from the Parliament was carried out by Tatarov, and later these persons were nominated by the Parliament on the proposal of various factions and groups. Later, journalists found numerous connections between most of the people appointed by the Parliament and Tatarov.

During the selection process, most members of the Commission under the parliamentary quota delayed the process in various ways, tried to establish procedures that did not involve integrity testing, unreasonably blocked independent candidates in the competition (for example, without any justification from the parliamentary quota, Roman Simkiv was blocked. He together with Bozhko was a member of the team, which investigated the case of Andriy Portnov. The same happened with a number of other independent candidates). Similarly, part of the Commission tried to artificially promote and give the green light to candidates who were suggested by the Office of the President (i.e., MP Andriy Kostin, friend of the hed of the Office of President Andriy Yermak).

Part of the Commission under the Parliament's quota artificially delayed the process, ignoring the commission meetings and breaking the quorum, especially when 2 candidates reached the finals, one of whom was NABU detective Oleksandr Klymenko (who was involved in the Tatarov's case). Some members of the Commission artificially sabotaged the process and made proposals to restart the competition in order to prevent Klymenko from winning, although he won by the number of points he received. As of December 2, 2021, the selection process continues for more than 14 months due to unjustified delays and sabotage.
On October 27, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine made the decision on the main provisions of the anti-corruption reform in Ukraine.

This decision cancels the number of provisions of the anti-corruption legislation without any justification in the motivational part. When this decision was made, the CCU judges went beyond the constitutional appeal and acted in real conflict of interest, and thus violated the Constitution of Ukraine. In turn, the appeal to the CCU was initiated by pro-Russian and pro-oligarchic forces and was considered in record time and with procedural violations.

Canceled provisions of the anti-corruption legislation have been among the greatest achievements of Ukraine in recent years, part of Ukraine's implementation of its international obligations, and have created important practical tools for fighting corruption.

On November 3, a statement of the EU spokesperson was issued stating that decision of the CCU had violated key obligations of Ukraine in its relations with international partners.

"The decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine as of October 27, 2020 on elements of the anti-corruption infrastructure have far-reaching consequences for the entire anti-corruption infrastructure in Ukraine, which had been created after the Revolution of Dignity in 2014. This decision also calls into question the number of international commitments that Ukraine has made in its relations with international partners, including the EU. The fight against corruption is one of key indicators and commitments that Ukraine has made under the Association Agreement, recently agreed EU-Ukraine macro-financial assistance program, and visa liberalization process", stated the document.

On December 11, 2020, the Venice Commission approved two Conclusions on the decision of the Constitutional Court as of October 27, 2020. In these conclusions, members of the Venice Commission stated that the decision of the Constitutional Court was not motivated, was not based on norms of the international law, and was made with gross procedural violations and in conditions of obvious conflict of interest of individual judges. The Venice Commission also stressed that the Constitutional Court could not usurp the role of the legislative power.
On September 17, 2020 the Ukrainian parliament with 239 votes appointed 7 members of commission, which will select the new head of Specialized AntiCorruption Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine (SAPO).

6 nominated members do not comply with requirements of the Law "On Prosecution" and commitments Ukraine took under agreements with the EU and IMF.

Ukrainian civil society organizations and G7 Ambassadors to Ukraine raised concerns over this decision. The EU Ambassador reminded that trustworthy selection commission for SAPO head is Ukraine's commitment under visa liberalisation plan and agreement on 1.5 bln Euro macrofinancial assistance.
Who voted for the decision?
Made on