I am interested in whether, if an official acted within the scope of his authority, but his actions resulted in losses for the state due to a penalty for untimely returned value-added tax, can this be qualified as abuse of office?
If she illegally enriched herself during the war, but then voluntarily returned the illegally obtained assets? Would this be considered grounds for exemption from liability?
I am wondering whether it is possible to hold former members of the National Energy Regulatory Commission responsible for the damage caused to the state by their decisions if they were released from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations in the Rotterdam+ case? Are there any other mechanisms for influencing such officials?
If during the procurement process, an official did not conduct a proper analysis of market prices and this led to an overpayment, can his actions be considered grounds for prosecution under Ukrainian law?
Is it considered abuse of office if an official acted contrary to the interests of the service but did not intend to cause harm?
The article discusses the suspicion of the deputy director of the Department of Transport Infrastructure of the Kyiv City State Administration due to the stoppage of part of the blue metro line. The investigation established that the official did not control the work of the Kyiv Metro Enterprise, which led to the temporary closure of stations and caused losses to the capital's budget in the amount of UAH 164 million. Do you think that the guilty person should compensate the state for the damage caused?