The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) has published an opinion on the results of an anti-corruption review of bill №5716 “On providing housing for servicemen and members of their families with public funds and the transfer of land for rent, alienation of property.” It has to close the queue of service members for housing, in which there are 45,00 people. However, according to the NACP, it does not solve this problem and contains corruption risks.
The draft law proposes providing service members with housing through the sale of Ministry of Defence real estate and land plots. They plan to attract investors for housing construction. However, according to NAKO experts, it does not solve the problem but regulates the procedures for organizing auctions, allocating land, alienating real estate and transferring defence lands for rent. Now NACP has agreed with these conclusions.
The agency, in particular, says that the draft law:
- does not determine the status, the composition, nor the procedure for forming commissions for conducting competitions to select investors;
- is unclear how the winners will be determined;
- includes an unregulated procedure for calculating the share of housing for service members to be transferred to the customer;
- does not define criteria for selecting land plots for construction projects;
- makes it possible to hold a second auction with less than two participants.
NACP says that interested parties can initiate a tender to select an investor for a project to build any area belonging to the defence lands, and officials will allocate them for bribes.
The provisions of the bill allow concluding an investment agreement to construct housing for service members in Kyiv and fulfil it ahead of schedule, simply by transferring apartments already built in any other city. At one time, this is how the National Guard servicemembers lost their housing in the centre of Kyiv and were “deported” to the outskirts of the city.
Previously, NAKO analyzed this bill in detail and identified a number of corruption risks, including unfair competition, overly broad powers of public authorities, lack of safeguards against financial abuse, and unregulated use of proceeds from property transactions.