After facing criticism, ARMA has revamped its selection process for valuers of seized assets. Will this help prevent future abuses?

The head of the Asset Recovery and Management Agency, Elena Duma, after facing a wave of criticism, announced the modernization of the procedure for the competitive selection of appraisers for seized assets. The changes aim to make the process more transparent and accessible. UNN investigated why ARMA took a step towards transparency and whether these innovations will guarantee a fair selection process.

Details

ARMA is tasked with managing assets that have been seized in criminal proceedings, with the goal of preserving or increasing their economic value. To maintain or enhance the value of an asset, it must be appraised and, according to the law, this data must be entered into the Register of Seized Assets. However, reality often diverges from the prescribed norms. Particularly due to such opacity, society has increasingly questioned ARMA's operations, including the selection of appraisers and the appraisal process for seized property.

In response to public criticism, Elena Duma announced an update to the rules for the competitive selection of appraisers for seized assets. The new procedure includes electronic submission of documents, with a mandatory requirement for a qualified electronic signature. Additionally, clearly defined deadlines for submitting applications have been established: 10 working days for the first competition and 5 days for a repeat competition.

Furthermore, the agency has simplified the requirements—now the competition is considered valid even with only one candidate. If the winner declines, the commission will choose the next highest-ranked candidate, and in case of cancellation, a new competition is announced immediately.

“These changes are part of our course towards digitalization and simplifying administrative procedures. The modernization of ARMA's processes continues!” Elena Duma proudly stated.

However, such changes at ARMA are not coincidental, as a troubling trend has emerged in the competitive selection process since Elena Duma took the helm. About 65% of competitions were won by three companies—LLC “Consulting Company 'Ostriv', LLC “Independent Expert Appraisal 'Expert', and Individual Entrepreneur 'Expert-Analytic'. According to insider information, all these companies are interconnected. This situation raises suspicions of potential abuses and casts doubt on the transparency of the process. Whether the new rules will prevent such occurrences remains to be seen.

The initiative, at first glance, seems appropriate, but the question remains regarding the cost of such modernization: how much will be spent on implementing the new rules, and will this justify expectations for increased transparency?

Will these innovations guarantee a fair selection process and overcome doubts regarding possible corruption schemes? Society will undoubtedly monitor whether ARMA can achieve real changes in the selection of appraisers, ensuring transparency and efficiency in its operations.

Additionally

Claims about ARMA's opaque and ineffective operations, as well as its leader Elena Duma, have been voiced repeatedly. A petition even appeared on the website of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, calling for Elena Duma's dismissal due to her alleged connections with pro-Russian politicians and ineffective management of seized assets.

Moreover, more than three weeks ago, all members of the public council at ARMA resigned from their positions. At the meeting, they noted the lack of transparency in ARMA's operations and that the agency creates artificial obstacles to public oversight of its activities. They also stated that ARMA's leadership systematically ignores their appeals and, in violation of legal requirements, does not involve them in the development of regulatory acts.

One of the issues that raises suspicions about ARMA's lack of transparency is the competitions for asset appraisers and the appraisal process itself. For instance, recently, ARMA head Elena Duma reported that the agency received an appraiser's report on the value of the capital’s shopping mall “Gulliver.” It should be noted that ARMA staff were unable to conduct a full inspection of the entire mall and business center “Gulliver.” After a spectacle involving cover numbers, “mama's agents” were indeed made to act according to the law. Consequently, if a complete inspection of the asset was not conducted, how can its value be objectively assessed?

Lawyers also note the illegitimacy of such an assessment. In particular, managing partner of the law firm GRACERS, Sergey Lysenko, stated that property valuation must be based on lawful procedures, which among other things require a physical inspection of the object. If the procedure is conducted without an inspection, this may question the objectivity of the assessment and serve as grounds for its appeal.