Assets in a "suspended" state: The Accounting Chamber stated that ARMA has not yet taken control of all seized property

Assets in a "suspended" state: The Accounting Chamber stated that ARMA has not yet taken control of all seized property

The National Agency for the Detection, Search and Management of Assets has not yet taken under management all the assets it is supposed to manage by court decisions.

This is reported by the Accounting Chamber.

The Accounting Chamber conducted monitoring of the implementation of recommendations provided based on the audit of compliance with the use of state budget funds and asset management by ARMA.

"The National Agency of Ukraine for the Detection, Search and Management of Assets Obtained from Corruption and Other Crimes (ARMA) has conducted a full inventory of court decisions regarding the transfer of assets under its management, but it has not yet taken all these assets under management," the statement reads.

Previously, auditors identified a number of shortcomings that hinder effective management of seized assets and their preservation. In particular, some assets were not recorded, while others are not reflected in ARMA’s accounting records.

To address these shortcomings, the Accounting Chamber provided the Agency with a number of recommendations.

In response, ARMA reported, among other things, on updating the provisions on the Unified State Register of Seized Assets, defining performance indicators, and preparing draft government acts on the methodology for determining the possibility of asset management, the procedure for selecting managers of simple and complex assets, and the procedure for monitoring the effectiveness of management.

At the same time, five recommendations have not been implemented by ARMA within the specified timeframe, the Accounting Chamber currently notes.

This refers to recommendations on ensuring the full acceptance of assets under management as stipulated by court decisions, and their subsequent effective management, as well as on regulating ARMA’s interaction with prosecutor’s offices and pre-trial investigation bodies.

It also concerns improving the procedure for monitoring the effectiveness of asset management and establishing clear and transparent criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of asset management and preserving their economic value;

Recommendations regarding the refinement of the Unified State Register of Assets and the implementation of the "ARMA Asset Management System" for automating asset accounting, as well as regarding ARMA’s access to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, have not been fulfilled.