The press release was prepared by Anton Hrushetskyi, executive director of KIIS

From February 14 to March 4, 2025, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) conducted its own all-Ukrainian public opinion survey "Omnibus", within the framework of which, on its own initiative, conducted experiments on which court cases and sentences against corrupt officials Ukrainians consider to be fair. By the method of telephone interviews (computer-assistedtelephoneinterviews, CATI) based on a random sample of mobile phone numbers (with random generation of phone numbers and subsequent statistical weighting) in all regions of Ukraine (the territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine), 2,029 respondents were surveyed. The survey was conducted with adult (aged 18 and older) citizens of Ukraine who, at the time of the survey, lived in the territory of Ukraine controlled by the Government of Ukraine. The sample did not include residents of territories temporarily not controlled by the Ukrainian authorities (at the same time, some of the respondents are IDPs who moved from the occupied territories), and the survey was not conducted with citizens who left abroad after February 24, 2022.

Formally, under normal circumstances, the statistical error of such a sample (with a probability of 0.95 and taking into account the design effect of 1.3) did not exceed 2.9% for indicators close to 50%, 2.5% for indicators close to 25%, 1.7% for indicators close to 10%, 1.3% for indicators close to 5%.

Under the conditions of war, in addition to the specified formal error, a certain systematic deviation is added. Factors that may affect the quality of results in "wartime" conditions were previously cited by KIIS.

In general, we believe that the obtained results are still highly representative and allow a fairly reliable analysis of the public moods of the population.

Corruption remains one of those problems that is widely represented in the media space and to which Ukrainians react especially sharply. Numerous surveys are conducted in Ukraine (by KIIS and other companies) to assess the prevalence and perception of corruption. In particular, since the 2000s, KIIS has been conducting a large-scale survey "State of corruption in Ukraine" (at least 10,000 respondents in each wave, the latest waves were conducted with the assistance of the ENGAGE project funded by USAID)[1]. After the full-scale invasion, two waves were carried out in the winter of 2022-2023 and the summer of 2024.

Thus, 92% of the population believe that corruption is a rather or very serious problem (95% consider war to be a rather or very serious problem). At the same time, if in 2022-2023 43% considered corruption to be very widespread in Ukraine, then in 2024 – 63%. In 2024, 49% of respondents expressed the opinion that the level of corruption has increased over the past 12 months (only 5% noticed a decrease, and the rest believed that the level had not changed or could not decide on an opinion).

At the same time, respondents were asked the question “Have you or your family members encountered any manifestations of corruption on the part of representatives of state bodies, including educational, medical or other organizations, in the last 12 months?” That is, in addition to a subjective assessment of the prevalence of corruption, we asked them to tell about their own objective experience. And the absolute majority of Ukrainians, neither in the last wave of 2024 (80%), nor in the previous wave of 2022-2023 (81%), did not personally encounter manifestations of corruption (or through family members). Encountered - 15% in 2024 and the same 15% in 2022-2023.

That is, we see a situation where personal experience of corruption has not changed, but at the same time, people's subjective reaction has become much more acute. The situation with distorted perception of dangers has reached the point that in May 2024, in our question (we have not published it yet) "What poses a greater threat to the development of Ukraine - corruption or military aggression of Russia?" 48% chose corruption and only 36% - military aggression. Supposedly, it should be obvious that Russian aggression is an existential threat (and most Ukrainians understand this[2]). However, the issue of corruption has become so emotional for citizens that it distorts the priority of threats to the country (and this creates information security risks and the potential to destabilize society).

Most likely, Ukrainians regularly see numerous cases of arrests and investigations against corrupt officials in the media (especially considering that the majority consume information from Internet sources, such as Telegram channels, etc.). That is, the perception of corruption does not come from personal experience, but indirectly through the media, especially social media. Numerous cases of arrests and investigations are supposed to lead to the idea that the fight against corruption is actually being fought. However, we see rather the opposite effect, when more and more Ukrainians perceive this as evidence of total corruption and that the situation is getting worse.  A similar situation occurred in 2015, when the population believed that the level of corruption had increased significantly compared to the presidency of V. Yanukovych, while researches showed that this had not happened, but the number of mentions of corruption in the media had increased (during the time of V. Yanukovych, it was not possible to write about corruption in power). It is difficult for people to distinguish between the intensification of the fight against corruption and the increase in the level of corruption.

One more explanation is that Ukrainians do not see real fair sentences. In early February 2025, KIIS asked a question (not yet published) “With which of these statements regarding the punishment of corrupt politicians and officials do you agree to a greater extent?” and 50% chose the option “politicians and corrupt officials should be punished as soon as possible, even if there is a violation of the law” (44% chose the option “politicians and corrupt officials should be tried in accordance with the law, even if it takes a long time”). The fact that half of the population is ready to support extrajudicial prosecutions is a very worrying trend. But it reflects a critically low trust in courts and prosecutors[3] and, as a result, a strong concern about the impossibility of achieving justice, especially in the context of war.

To deepen understanding of how ordinary Ukrainians perceive the (un)justice of certain cases against corrupt officials, we conducted an experiment. Of course, each case is unique in its own way and includes many aspects. We decided to focus on the following three dimensions:

• Duration of the case in court. Many people criticize that cases are considered for a long time, are deliberately delayed, etc. As part of the experiment, we considered three periods: 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years;
• Confiscation of family property.Another point that many people pay attention to is that the property of corrupt officials is registered in the names of family members, so punishing a corrupt official is not fairness, since the family still continues to use the property obtained dishonestly. Therefore, as part of the experiment, we noted whether the family's property was confiscated;
• Punishment for a corrupt person beyond a fine. In all cases, we noted that the corrupt official was punished with a “large fine.” However, we also considered three possible punishments: probation, 3 years of actual prison time, and 10 years of actual prison time. 

For all respondents, we provided a description of a corrupt official who was caught taking a $500,000 bribe and was found guilty by the court and given a large fine. In addition, a set of items from each dimension was randomly generated for each respondent, and the question could generally read, for example, as follows:

"Imagine, please, that a corrupt official was caught taking a bribe of $500,000. Then a trial took place that lasted 2 years. In the end, the court found the official guilty and he had to pay a large fine. In addition, the punishment provided that the family's property would not be confiscated and 3 years in prison. For you personally, is this trial and punishment fair or not?"

We had 18 combinations in total (the respondent was assigned only one of them), but first let's see how each dimension is related to the assessment of fairness (with "equal" representation of elements of the other dimensions). So, regarding the length of the proceedings, it can be said that it has almost no impact, other things being equal. That is, respondents are ready to wait for a longer proceeding if the required result is achieved.

At the same time, confiscation of property and prison time have a decisive impact. If the property is not confiscated as a result, then only 27% consider the sentence fair. If confiscation takes place, the majority (59%) will consider the situation fair.

In the case of a suspended sentence, only 27% would consider it fair. If at least 3 years in prison are imposed, 43% would consider the sentence fair. If a real term of 10 years is imposed, 58% would consider the sentence fair.

Thus, if the sentence does not include confiscation of the family's property and does not include at least a short but real imprisonment, Ukrainians will not consider it fair. At the same time, if these components of the sentence are present, Ukrainians are ready to react tolerantly to a long trial. If respondents did not say that the sentence was “completely fair,” we asked an additional open question why they did not think so. The results for each combination are given in the annex, but in fact it was about demanding a harsher punishment. In particular, if there is no real term, there is a significant emphasis on the importance of prison. If there is no confiscation, many said that it must be. At the same time, quite a few respondents expressed indignation at the long term of the case.

Graph 1. For you personally, is this process and punishment fair or not?

The table below shows the data for each of the 18 combinations. Recall that only one combination was read to the respondent, so we had an average of 100-120 responses for each combination. This means a higher margin of error and therefore some of the differences are explained by it.

So, as we noted, if there is confiscation of property and a 10-year real term, 74-80% will consider the sentence fair regardless of the length of the trial. Also, the majority (58-62%), regardless of the trial, would be ready to accept a sentence with confiscation of property and 3 years in prison as fair.

In all other cases where there is no confiscation and/or no real term, less than half of Ukrainians consider the sentence fair. For example, even in the case of 10 years in prison with a short (6 months) trial, but without confiscation, 46% would consider the sentence fair (and 49% would consider it unfair). At the same time, with a short trial and confiscation of property, but with a suspended sentence, 41% would consider it fair (57% would consider it unfair). If the sentence does not include confiscation and only provides for a suspended sentence or a term of 3 years, then no more than a quarter will consider it fair (and the vast majority will consider it unfair).

Table 1. For you personally, is this process and punishment fair or not?

A. Hrushetskyi, comments on the survey results:

The reaction of the Ukrainian public to the murder in Madrid on May 21, 2025 of A. Portnov very well illustrates and reflects the mood of the population to the demand for justice, even if it is about extrajudicial prosecution. It must be understood that this (extrajudicial prosecution) contradicts the European integration policy, but one should not ignore the thirst for punishment that Ukrainians demand. Critically low trust in the justice system is no longer just an alarming trend, but a loud alarm bell that requires urgent action.

In this context (in addition to effective actions), adequate communication from the authorities and the judiciary is important. Dry comments and confusing references to legislation when it is necessary to explain why a verdict has not yet been passed or why it is weak only irritate the population, increase confidence in the "circular guarantee" and dispel faith in the possibility of achieving justice. The very fact of an arrest or the opening of a case against an allegedly corrupt official in the eyes of Ukrainians does not mean that justice has been achieved and does not mean that the fight against corruption is being waged at all. As we see, Ukrainians are flexible and ready to wait even 5 years, but in the end it is important for them to see that the case was not hushed up, and the defendant did not get a small fine and a suspended sentence (and at the same time the family continues to demonstrate a standard of living that indicates dishonest sources of income). Therefore, when law enforcement officers and government representatives successfully report on another high-profile case in the media, the public's reaction is often quite restrained (if not cynical), because there is no certainty that it will be brought to a fair conclusion.

However, this situation does not apply exclusively to the actions of the authorities and bodies in the field of justice. The media play a very significant role in shaping public opinion and it is important to responsibly approach the coverage of anti-corruption activities. As we noted at the beginning, although personal experience of corruption has not increased, people subjectively feel that corruption is becoming more and more. Often, news is covered in such a way that the impression of hopeless corruption is created. Of course, emotional presentation of information attracts more readers and viewers, but in the long run it has a negative impact on public moods. We are already seeing an unhealthy situation where corruption is perceived as a greater threat than a full-scale war, and this should not be the case.

It is also important to pay attention that the typical discussion of corruption in Ukraine (both by politicians and by the media and public activists) often boils down to specific personalities (a specific politician, official, businessman, etc.). These personalities are demonized, presented as the personification of corruption, and a selfless holy war is waged against them. But much less attention is paid to the development of institutions and institutional changes. Of course, it is easier for the average Ukrainian to talk about corruption when it is personified by someone specific (and supposedly then it is even easier to fight it - you just need to remove the dishonest person). This is often the purpose of communication between politicians, the media and public activists with high-profile individual investigations. Investigations against “gaps” / “imperfections” of institutions or legislation will look much less interesting.

Therefore, we call for focusing primarily on institutional changes that will launch / accelerate the process of transforming the situation. Individual stories are important and the guilty must be punished fairly. However, even if a thousand Ukrainian politicians, officials, and businessmen end up behind bars, without institutional transformations, nothing will change and we will get a new thousand people who have become corrupt in the current system.

Annex 1. Formulation of questions from the questionnaire

We would also like to ask a question about justice in Ukraine.

Imagine, please, that a corrupt official was caught taking a bribe of 500 thousand dollars. Then there was a trial, which lasted … [RANDOMLY ONE OF THE LEVELS FROM THE TABLE, HIGHLIGHT IN RED TO THE OPERATOR]. In the end, the court found the official guilty and he had to pay a large fine. In addition, the punishment included … and… [RANDOMIZATION OF LEVELS AND FOR EACH LEVEL CHOOSE ONE OPTION].

For you personally, is this process and punishment fair or not?

Example:

Imagine, please, that a corrupt official was caught taking a bribe of 500 thousand dollars. Then there was a trial that lasted 2 years. In the end, the court found the official guilty and he had to pay a large fine. In addition, the punishment provided:

1. 1.    That the family's property will NOT be confiscated
2. 2.    and 3 years in prison

[IF 1-2 OR 5] And why don't you think it's fair?

[IF 3] And why don't you think it's completely fair?

Distribution of answers to the open-ended question why do not consider it completely fair (% among those who consider the verdict to be rather/completely unfair, rather fair or undecided)

Continuation of the table

Continuation of the table