A public discussion was held at the National Asset Recovery and Management Agency (NARMA) regarding draft legislation on reforming the agency. Lawyers from Barristers outlined the key risks for law enforcement and emphasized the need to improve mechanisms for managing seized assets.

Key points:

Oleksandr Tananakin, CEO of Barristers and Deputy Chair of the UNAA Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure: “Increasing the level of public oversight does not guarantee the effectiveness of ARMA’s work. On the contrary, practice shows that the more such oversight there is, the more problems the agency faces, since it is carried out by individuals who lack the necessary expertise.”

“The draft law effectively introduces a new profession—that of a seized property administrator. However, the question arises: why are arbitration administrators specifically granted this right? Why is the legislature restricting other individuals’ access to this activity? This may contradict the Constitution of Ukraine.”

Yuriy Radzievsky, partner at Barristers and deputy chair of the NAAU Committee on Information Policy: “The bill sets forth integrity criteria for members of the competitive selection commission, but these criteria are not clearly defined and remain vague. This creates a risk of a non-transparent selection process.”

“The initiative to transfer the function of asset management to private enforcement agents could have unpredictable consequences. Their activities boil down to selling the debtor’s assets to repay debts, whereas ARMA is supposed to preserve the economic value of the assets and generate profit from managing them. The sale of assets is an exceptional measure in ARMA’s operations. Transferring these functions to private contractors could increase the number of unjustified sales of seized property instead of its effective management.”

The discussion is ongoing, and the legal community is ready to contribute to further efforts to refine the legislative changes.