The third session of the forum was devoted to one of the key areas of modern anti-corruption policy—inspections by the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NAZK) and the development of the institution of civil forfeiture.

Oleksandr Tananakin, managing partner at Barristers Law Firm, focused his remarks on the challenges of anti-corruption practices in Ukraine and on the methods used to shape public opinion regarding scandals. In his view, many cases are artificially presented as high-profile, but in reality have dubious legal prospects and often become tools for special operations with a predetermined outcome. He emphasized that public statements by anti-corruption agencies and related bodies are often prepared in advance and do not reflect the actual status of court proceedings.

The speaker highlighted examples of cases where the public is misled regarding the actual facts. For instance, Mr. Tananakin noted, in a number of high-profile cases, sensational language or manipulative headlines were used to create the illusion of “illicit enrichment,” although in reality the case files are often based on limited data or transcripts that the defense teams were unable to review.

He specifically noted cases involving real estate developers, where, in his view, the actions of anti-corruption agencies are not legally motivated but rather aimed at controlling construction. As a result, infrastructure projects are blocked, and the actual fight against corruption takes a back seat. The speaker emphasized that such approaches have a negative effect, undermine trust in the law enforcement system, and raise questions about adherence to the principles of the rule of law.

The Speaker also noted the problem of information leaks: court documents and rulings instantly find their way into the media or Telegram channels, which creates additional pressure on those involved in the proceedings and allows for the manipulation of public opinion. In his view, such practices turn anti-corruption agencies into a “factory of high-profile cases,” where the interests of the law are pushed into the background and public attention becomes the primary tool of influence.

The managing partner of Barristers concluded by emphasizing the need to return to the principles of law and the Criminal Procedure Code without resorting to special operations or external manipulation to create the effect of a “high-profile investigation.” He emphasized that anti-corruption efforts must remain transparent, legally sound, and governed by the law, rather than by public or media trends.