TRENDS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICE REGARDING ILLICIT ENRICHMENT CASES

Abstract

This article examines key trends in law enforcement practice of courts and anticorruption institutions under Article 368⁵ of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (“Illicit Enrichment”), which entered into force in 2019. Despite the significant interest of the legal community and civil society with regard to matters of illicit enrichment, Ukrainian legal science currently lacks systematic academic research on the practical application of Article 368⁵ of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Conducting a comprehensive scholarly analysis of the relevant enforcement trends is particularly important, as in corruption-related offenses judicial and investigative practice plays a decisive role in developing approaches to the assessment of evidence and understanding the elements of the crime.

Based on the results of the research, the article identifies six main trends in the law enforcement practice under Article 368⁵ of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: 1) initial detection of illicit enrichment signs is usually performed by the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP); 2) anti-corruption bodies tend to equate the notions of “lawful income” and “taxed income” when qualifying illicit enrichment; 3) registering assets in the name of third parties does not shield a person from illicit enrichment charges; 4) to date, there are no known cases in Ukraine where “atypical” categories of assets (e.g. reduction in financial liabilities or gratuitous services) have been traced as the object of illicit enrichment; 5) during legal qualification, Article 368⁵ is often combined with Article 366² (“Declaring of false information”) and Article 209 (“Legalization [Laundering] of Property Obtained by Criminal Means”) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; 6) consistent judicial practice under Article 368⁵ of the Criminal Code of Ukraine has not yet been established.

The article concludes that law enforcement and judicial practice under Article 368⁵ of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (“Illicit Enrichment”) remains at the formative stage. Despite the evident public demand and active efforts of anti-corruption bodies, as of October 2025, only two judgments of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) have been delivered under Article 368⁵ of the Criminal Code, both based on plea agreements. The absence of consistent case law currently prevents drawing definitive conclusions as to which types of evidence courts will consider relevant, admissible, and sufficient to establish a person’s guilt in committing the crime of illicit enrichment beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings.