“Our goal is not only to prove the fact of the crime, but also to find the money obtained from it and return it to the state,” Ukraine’s newly appointed Bureau of Economic Security (BEB) director, Oleksandr Tsyvinskyi, said. He plans to transform the agency into a data-driven institution that targets billion-hryvnia schemes while creating equal conditions for domestic and foreign businesses.

In an exclusive interview for Euromaidan Press, Tsyvinskyi outlined his strategy to bring Ukraine’s shadow economy worth 600 billion to 1 trillion hryvnias ($14.6-24.4 billion) annually into legal channels.

“The key task is that every economic crime is committed to obtain money, hiding it to get more money. Accordingly, these funds are then converted into something else, i.e., laundered. Our goal is not only to prove the fact of the crime, but also to find the money obtained from it and return it to the state.”

The BEB investigates 32 types of offences, focusing on tax and budget crimes, smuggling, excise violations, including counterfeit cigarettes, alcohol, and fuel, illegal gambling, and international trade violations. Counterfeit cigarettes alone cost Ukraine 25 billion hryvnias ($604 million) in lost revenue, according to the director.

Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers appointed anti-corruption detective Oleksandr Tsyvinskyi as director of the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB) on 6 August, ending a month-long political standoff that threatened $2.3 billion in international aid, according to Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko.

The appointment resolves a crisis that risked Ukraine’s $15.6 billion IMF loan program, which included a 31 July deadline for naming a new BEB director. Tsyvinskyi won the official selection process in July, receiving unanimous support from the commission, yet the appointment stalled amid unsubstantiated “security concerns.”

The delay drew international criticism and jeopardised IMF funding as Ukraine missed the structural benchmark by a week. Under Ukrainian law, the Cabinet had ten working days to formalize the appointment after the selection commission’s decision.

Euromaidan Press spoke with Oleksandr Tsyvinskyi and found out how Ukraine’s new economic security chief plans to tackle the country’s trillion-hryvnia shadow economy, his vision for protecting foreign investments through fair competition, the political obstacles he overcame to secure his appointment amid IMF funding pressures, and the challenges in his first month in the position.

What are the biggest challenges in Ukraine’s anti-corruption efforts?

Our role focuses on economic security. I see several key challenges.

First are internal problems. We face imperfect laws, delays in Cabinet decisions, failure to pass needed legislation, constant changes to government resolutions, and insufficient funding.

Second is confronting powerful groups. In our actual work, we’ll be going up against very well-resourced organizations.

Then there’s the judicial system problem. Regular courts are completely overwhelmed. I think major cases involving large sums—cases that need real expertise—should probably go to the High Anti-Corruption Court instead.

The best deterrent we can offer is making punishment inevitable. When we go after representatives of powerful organised groups with huge resources and media influence, they need to know they can’t escape consequences.

The High Anti-Corruption Court judges have the right expertise and training, while regular courts are swamped. Cases drag on for a year, statutes of limitations run out—it’s completely ineffective.

What is the Bureau of Economic Security? Why is the BEB’s work important?

The Bureau of Economic Security ensures that all businesses compete on equal terms and brings money from the shadow economy back into the state budget.

The BEB also creates fair competition for businesses. Take McDonald’s—they’re a law-abiding restaurant that pays all their taxes. But many similar establishments don’t pay properly. Naturally, these non-compliant businesses can offer lower prices and higher salaries to employees. Our job is to level the playing field.

Our goal is to build an institution that identifies problems analytically and encourages businesses to operate honestly through prevention. When prevention fails, we use criminal law enforcement.

What does Ukraine lose without an effective bureau?

With an effective BEB, businesses earn more, and the state collects more taxes.

Ukraine has enormous internal resources that can be brought back from the shadows. Various analytical centres estimate this at 600 billion to 1 trillion hryvnias ($14.6-24.4 billion) per year.

These internal capabilities would allow us to be more self-sufficient and use additional foreign aid for other purposes.

The Bureau’s second key function is investigating budget fund embezzlement. What are some examples?

Protecting budget funds is our direct responsibility. We handle cases involving 5 to 15 million hryvnias ($120,000 to $360,000). Unfortunately, such embezzlements are common.

For instance, funds might be allocated for school reconstruction, but contractors inflate material costs or work volumes and steal 10 million hryvnias ($240,000). This falls under our jurisdiction. We hold the guilty parties accountable and prosecute them in court.

We also monitor international technical assistance—ensuring that funds from foreign taxpayers are used properly in Ukraine and preventing their theft.

What risks did Ukraine face with the IMF and EU if the BEB reform had failed?

I know that funding was at risk. I’d rather not state the exact details to avoid errors, but it was declared that funds would be lost. Appointing the BEB head and rebooting the institution were key indicators for the IMF. Failure could have dealt a serious reputational blow to trust in Ukraine.

The government refused to appoint you as BEB director, citing “security assessments” from the SBU. Don’t you believe political motives, rather than security concerns, were behind rejecting your candidacy?

I won the competition on 26 June, but in August, the Cabinet of Ministers rejected the draft resolution for my appointment.

After the government changed, the new Prime Minister suggested I take a polygraph test. I thought about it, agreed, and took the test. Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko then appointed me.

It’s hard for me to say definitively what the real reasons were. I work with facts. Some circumstances might suggest different interpretations, but as a lawyer, I can only confirm things when the facts are clearly established. Right now, I only have subjective assumptions, which wouldn’t be appropriate to share publicly.

If the government hadn’t changed, would the previous administration have eventually appointed you?

I think they would have. I’m not sure how it would have happened—whether through the same process or via a polygraph test. But I’m convinced the law would have been followed eventually. The only question was timing. You can spend years in court demanding legal compliance, but over time, the urgency of the issue fades.

Is the situation calm enough now for the BEB to work without obstacles? Is peace with politicians possible?

The Bureau is part of the government system and reports to Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers. We work with everyone, but we stick to clear principles. We’re building an organisation that benefits everyone—the Finance Ministry, the Cabinet, and businesses.

I think we’ll reach an understanding faster than we complete our staff re-certification. We’re starting to tackle major schemes, but results from this approach take time to show.

There are two ways to work: chase quick wins or build a solid foundation for real change. When we start going after powerful groups that stand to lose big money from bringing the shadow economy into the light, we’ll get more attention—and it won’t always be positive. They’ll try to find ways to stop us.

What mechanisms would you put in place to protect the BEB from political pressure?

Any kind of pressure could theoretically happen. Right now, there isn’t any. But if there is, we’ll push back and speak about it publicly.

The BEB has some built-in independence features. First is how we select our director and staff—through competitive processes.

Second, we have a special status that lets us operate differently from typical government agencies. We have more autonomy because our work requires it.

Since the BEB is a law enforcement agency, we’re not just another government department. We need protection, especially when it comes to funding.

It’s ironic—we’re supposed to create fair conditions for businesses, but we ourselves face very unfair conditions compared to other law enforcement agencies. You can’t expect outstanding results from an agency while underfunding it and creating discriminatory conditions.

You mentioned that the first thing you’ll do when you take office is change personnel: creating disciplinary and certification commissions, as well as a personnel selection commission. Besides this, what are your overall priorities as BEB director? What are the priority work areas?

The priority direction is building work in four sectors. One is law enforcement, and the other three are analytical sectors where we work with big data, identifying risks and trends.

The second sector is regulatory support – reviewing existing and new regulatory frameworks for risks. This is related to using analytical tools for preventing economic crimes.

Then there’s crime investigation across several areas: international technical assistance; controlled group; export-import operations and smuggling; taxes: local, state, and gambling business (which is quite problematic for us). And as a separate direction, money laundering.

We’re now creating a separate institute of financial investigators who will professionally handle this area of work. This is quite a specialised activity that has great significance for us.

The key task is that every economic crime is committed to obtain money, hiding it to get more money. Accordingly, these funds are then converted into something else, i.e., laundered. Our goal is not only to prove the fact of the crime, but also to find the money obtained from it and return it to the state.

What is the most problematic business? Are these the gambling, tobacco, and alcohol business spheres?

We divide the business into approximately three categories: black, grey, and white.

The most problematic are black businesses that produce goods completely illegally – no one pays any taxes, and no legal entity is registered. Grey business is when someone sells goods – partly legally, partly illegally. White business pays taxes and conscientiously fulfil all legal requirements.

In the black category, the most problematic is the excise group: tobacco, alcohol, and fuel. The gambling business is second. We separately identify smuggling.

Smuggling covers various goods – electronics, meat, milk, and other items or means. In this part, it doesn’t matter what kind of business it is. What’s important is that goods are moved in violation of the law without accounting and subsequent payment of corresponding taxes.

There’s another large block of taxes, where people evade paying them. Here, business spheres are extremely diverse – it can be anything.

For example, construction: instead of building according to the law, construction is carried out without registering a legal entity by an individual, thus not paying taxes. Entrepreneurial activity is carried out, but it’s disguised as another activity.

Another example is so-called business fragmentation. There’s a certain network that should be registered as a limited liability company or similar legal structure. But to minimise – so as not to pay income tax and social security contributions – they use individual entrepreneurs.

In reality, this is one organised structure that performs its work.

Therefore, by spheres, those I mentioned are the most problematic. And non-payment of taxes occurs in practically all types of business.

One of your main tasks is to create a level playing field for business. How will this affect the inflow of foreign investment?

Only developed countries have truly level playing fields for business. If you open a business in the Netherlands, USA, United Kingdom, or Germany, all government structures ensure that you operate legally—just like everyone else. You compete through creativity with other market participants.

I’ll give an example of a case I investigated with my team in my previous position. According to pre-trial investigation data, in Kyiv it was possible to buy a real estate property for 2 million hryvnias (over $48,000), pay 20 million hryvnias (over $480,000) in taxes, and for 22 million hryvnias (over $53,000) receive 3 hectares of land for development.

If this land were sold officially at auction, it would cost 500 million hryvnias ($12 mn). Imagine: a foreign investor comes, honestly buys this land at a competition for 500 million hryvnias ($12 mn), while next door another developer builds who received development rights for 20 million hryvnias ($480,000).

The foreign investor will never be able to properly compete with such a businessman. Our task is to eradicate such cases. This includes changes to Cabinet resolutions, possibly certain laws when we discover such schemes, as well as holding accountable those who distort competition.

Our key task is to make investors feel comfortable. An honest businessman can come to us and report problems. We work at the regulatory level, studying these problems.

You mentioned that BEB’s work will save Ukrainian lives. How is this connected?

I served on the front lines for a year on assignments. When a soldier is fully equipped, we don’t lose positions due to lack of shells or reconnaissance means. This is a matter of money. We lack them or don’t have enough.

Military salaries and motivational payments could be higher if funds were available. According to estimates by analytical unions that cooperate with official bodies, a huge amount of funds remains in the shadows.

Bringing them out of the shadows and directing them to defense means better provision for soldiers. Those who have better means of destruction and protection have significantly better chances of survival and more effective task execution.

In my view, military provision now directly correlates with its effectiveness.

Will you also deal with defence procurement?

Yes.

What constitutes victory for you? What indicator shows the results of the changes you’re working on?

Victory is a functioning institution with internal respect, where employees respect themselves and take pride in their work. Victory is when, according to defined indicators, we understand that we’re achieving our set tasks.

We face serious challenges. If we build a unified information system with neural networks, the agency’s activities will become transparent. Society will clearly understand where we spend funds, what we deliver, and how we measure it.

All internal activities—from organisational matters to determining investigation directions—will be built on algorithms. It’s important for me to create a system that is guided by data, not emotions.

If we can do this by the end of the term so that the institution functions properly, that will be a victory.

Are there known high-profile corruption schemes that haven’t been fully investigated yet?

Yes, we know of them.

Can you name them?

No. They haven’t been disclosed yet.

What sphere are these schemes in?

I can’t say. But we understand where, with proper application of efforts, results can be achieved.

To uncover big cases, you need a big team. And to build a team, you need to achieve compliance with the law regarding it. Justice cannot be built by a person who is treated unjustly.

When we build capabilities, we’ll be able to show results. But starting without resources is wrong. An employee fighting a billion-hryvnia scheme shouldn’t think about cheap products—they should think about how to bring billions to the budget.

Related: