Devil is in the details: What Ukraine’s law 12414 entails

The law addresses two key issues: the procedure for investigating cases of disappearance under special circumstances, primarily in combat zones, and changes to the legal status and functioning of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).

New procedure for investigations into missing persons

One major change is the establishment of a special procedure to determine which agency investigates criminal cases related to disappearances under special circumstances. Before the law’s adoption, such cases had to be investigated where the incident occurred — usually in temporarily occupied or frontline areas. This created significant difficulties for relatives of missing persons, who often could not communicate with investigators. Additionally, not all law enforcement bodies had sufficient personnel to handle these cases.

Under the new law, prosecutors can transfer these investigations to the applicant’s or a close relative’s place of residence. The law explicitly allows this change in jurisdiction during martial law or other emergency situations and up to three years after such conditions end.

The goal of the change is to ensure access to justice, prompt filing of applications, and more effective investigations.

Changes in the powers of NABU and SAPO

The law also introduces changes affecting anti-corruption investigations, particularly the relationship between the Prosecutor General’s Office, NABU, and SAPO.

The new legislation grants the Prosecutor General authority to:

• Issue written instructions to NABU detectives in specific cases.

• Request investigation materials from NABU and transfer them to other pretrial investigation bodies.

• Close criminal proceedings under NABU’s investigation, including at the defense’s request.

• Redistribute criminal proceedings, lifting a previous ban on transferring NABU cases.

The law also alters the procedural status of the head of SAPO. Previously recognized as a procedurally independent leader of an independent prosecutorial body, the SAPO head is now subordinate to the Prosecutor General without special status. This affects supervision, investigation organization, and prosecution support functions in anti-corruption cases.

The changes in Law 12414 are framed as part of optimizing investigative and procedural work during martial law. Legislators justify them by citing the need for operational coordination among law enforcement and more effective offense investigations. Regarding missing persons, the law responds to public demand for accessible investigations for relatives of those lost in combat zones. However, in the area of NABU and SAPO, the balance between institutional independence and the Prosecutor General’s powers shifts significantly. Time will reveal how these changes will function in practice.

Anastasiia Didenko, Counsel, Head of Anti-corruption & Compliance, exclusively for NV.