The head of ARMA threatens competition participants: appealing to the Antimonopoly Committee could lead to criminal charges.

The head of the Asset Recovery and Management Agency, Elena Duma, has found a way to silence participants in the competitions. She openly signaled potential managers that if they plan to challenge the agency's actions in the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, they risk becoming subjects of criminal investigations, reports UNN.

Details

In August 2024, ARMA announced an open tender for the management of the assets of LLC "Romerm," LLC "Ermom," and LLC "Ermak Holod." Two participants took part in the competition, including LLC "Ukraine Group for Development and Consulting," which has twice appealed ARMA's actions to the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, thereby delaying the process by more than two months.

According to Elena Duma, after the auction concluded, ARMA discovered that this participant's documents allegedly contained false information and reported the matter to the National Police. Law enforcement has opened a criminal case, and investigative actions are ongoing.

"ARMA exposed document falsifications during the competition for the management of the 'ROMERM' plant... This is the first case where a potential manager of seized assets has become a subject of a criminal case due to the submission of false documents.... I emphasize: any attempts to manipulate the competitive procedures and submit counterfeit documents will have legal consequences. We will continue to ensure legality, transparency, and fairness in all tender procedures, protecting state interests," stated the head of ARMA.

However, there are many questions regarding the agency leader's statement. Firstly, the mere fact of filing a complaint with the National Police does not imply that the company is guilty; it only indicates that an investigation is underway. Yet, the head of ARMA has already drawn conclusions.

Secondly, her message is clearly directed not at a specific tender participant, but at all potential competitors. She is essentially hinting: if you challenge ARMA's actions in the AMCU, be prepared to be made a "subject" as well.

Thus, such a statement appears to be an attempt to intimidate potential tender participants who may disagree with ARMA's actions. This raises a logical question: if the agency is so afraid of appeals to the AMCU, does it not indicate that its competitive procedures are far from perfect?

Reminder

ARMA has repeatedly been at the center of criticism from Transparency International Ukraine for failing to meet European standards and due to "contradictory communication from the agency or its officials, combined with populism, violation of the presumption of innocence, and a lack of understanding of the competencies of state bodies."

In the Asset Recovery and Management Agency, such statements from anti-corruption activists are understandably not commented on, while they only talk about their "achievements" in developing legislative proposals.