Much of the work in reviewing a public official’s finances happens before the analysis itself: collecting declarations for the relevant years, putting the records into a consistent structure, and comparing income, assets and owners. The DataClaris declarations module is designed to reduce that preparation and give analysts a consolidated view of changes to investigate.
Information checked as of 15 October 2026. The capabilities described here were checked against the current declarations product page. The examples below are hypothetical, not findings about real people. The images are conceptual illustrations, not product screenshots.
Where manual declaration analysis becomes repetitive
The register maintained by Ukraine’s National Agency on Corruption Prevention, NACP or NAZK, provides name searches and filters. After locating the declarations, an analyst still needs to reconstruct a sequence: which assets existed at the start, what appeared later, who held the relevant rights, and how income changed.
A declaration describes a particular reporting period. A multi-year review means returning to equivalent sections in different documents, checking versions and building a comparison table. If that table lacks the owner, type of right or source link, parts of the research have to be repeated.
A vehicle entry, for example, may concern the declarant’s ownership, a right to use the vehicle or a family member’s asset. A matching make and model is insufficient to establish that two entries concern the same vehicle. Matching requires the available characteristics, dates, parties and type of right.
Questions that require a view across reporting years
An asset list answers only part of the research question. A useful assessment also needs the sequence of changes and the context of each entry.
| Area | What needs to be compared | Required analytical output |
|---|---|---|
| Income | Reporting years, recipients, income categories and one-off receipts. | A trend with an explanation of the components that changed. |
| Monetary assets | Balances at different dates, holders, currencies and types of funds. | Comparable amounts with currency-conversion assumptions recorded separately. |
| Property and vehicles | Asset characteristics, acquisition date, value and type of right. | A history of declared assets and changes requiring verification. |
| Family assets | Who holds each asset and the period in which it is reported. | A clear distinction between the declarant’s and family members’ assets. |
| Corporate interests | Individuals, companies, ownership interests and entries across years. | A timeline of declared connections without assumptions about undisclosed control. |
All of these questions can be investigated manually. The case for a dedicated tool becomes stronger when collection and comparison recur and the team needs a consistent way to organise its findings.
What the DataClaris declarations module changes
DataClaris.declaration brings information from available declarations into an analytical report. Its product page presents income and monetary-asset comparisons across years, asset and declared-connection analysis, and a written analytical summary.
Income and assets in their historical context
Comparing reporting years helps identify periods that warrant attention: a newly recorded asset, a change in monetary holdings or a jump in income. This gives the analyst a basis for specific questions and for investigating what produced the change.
Keep flows separate from balances. Annual income and funds held at year end are different measures. An increase in savings alone does not establish the source of money used for a particular purchase.
Assets, owners and declared connections
A consolidated profile allows the declarant to be considered alongside family members, assets and corporate interests recorded in the available declarations. The structure helps identify whose entry is being examined and how it appears across reporting years.
The source defines the limits. A declared connection does not establish hidden ownership, and a missing entry in the following year does not prove a sale or the termination of a right. It identifies an issue to clarify with further evidence.
Valuation context and a written analytical summary
The module also presents market benchmarks for assets where suitable data is available. These estimates are unofficial. For example, the apartment methodology described on the site uses comparables in the same building; without those comparables, no valuation is available.
A written summary based on the collected declarations and calculations helps organise the main changes, financial context and limitations. Check report statements against the underlying records and documents before using them to make a decision.
A hypothetical example: four years in one review
Consider a review of declarations covering 2021–2024. The analyst has recorded the following observations in a consolidated history. They are invented to explain the method and do not describe a real individual.
| Year | Observation in the hypothetical example | Next check |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 | An apartment is listed as owned by the declarant. | Establish the baseline characteristics, acquisition date and basis of the reported value. |
| 2022 | The reported amount of monetary assets increases. | Check the holder, currency and comparability with the previous year. |
| 2023 | A vehicle entry appears for the first time in the period examined. | Verify the acquisition date, type of right, value and available evidence about funding. |
| 2024 | A corporate-interest entry from the previous year is not found. | Check the declaration version and company documents; do not treat absence as proof of a sale. |
The result is a focused list of questions, each tied to a year, asset and source. Having that context together reduces the need to revisit every document whenever a new clarification is required.
A practical workflow for using the consolidated analysis
- Define the assignment. Record the purpose, subject and relevant period. Resolve identity questions where namesakes exist.
- Check coverage. Identify the reporting years and declaration types available, corrected documents and gaps.
- Review changes. Select periods and assets that need explanation while keeping owners and types of rights separate.
- Return to the sources. Verify key amounts, dates, currencies and document references. Obtain additional evidence where needed to establish funding or a change in rights.
- Document the result. Separate established facts, questions, assumptions and limitations, and specify the next steps.
A useful starting structure for your own verification table is: reporting year, person, section, asset, type of right, date, amount, currency, source-document link and verification status. This is a suggested working structure, not a required DataClaris export format.
How to evaluate the tool on your own assignment
Choose one control case and hold the scope constant: the same individual, reporting years, questions and output requirements. Compare manual work with the tool-assisted process across four stages: collection, consolidation, verification and report preparation.
- Time: how long each stage takes and how often clarification requires reopening the documents.
- Completeness: whether the necessary years, owners and asset categories are covered and gaps are visible.
- Matching quality: whether different people, currencies, rights and document versions remain distinguishable.
- Verifiability: whether another analyst can reproduce a key finding from the recorded sources.
This is an evaluation method, not a published product speed benchmark. Measure the time needed to reach a verified result. Seconds until a report page appears do not represent the analyst’s entire workload.
Limits of the data and the automation
The NACP warns that certain declarations are excluded from the public register during martial law. An unavailable document cannot be treated as evidence that no assets exist or that the person did not declare them.
Corrections, incomplete disclosures, different spellings and unknown values also need attention. Where the data does not support an unambiguous match, record the limitation rather than filling the gap with an assumption.
Determining PEP status requires a separate check of public functions and legal criteria. A practical workflow is set out in “PEP Screening in Ukraine”. An asset profile alone does not establish that status.
Sources and review date
Sources checked on . The product description is based on its public page; this article is not an independent test of every operating mode.
- DataClaris declarations module: description of multi-year analysis, assets, connections, market benchmarks, analytical summaries and the demo-access enquiry form.
- Public NACP declarations register: search, document types and availability limitations.
- Official NACP open API page: documentation for machine-readable data. Documentation does not guarantee that every request will be available at a particular moment.
Discuss your declaration-analysis requirements
Need to compare several years of declarations, prepare an asset profile or assess a tool for recurring checks? Send the DataClaris team an enquiry. Have your research objective, required years and expected output format ready for the conversation.
Discuss declaration analysis with DataClaris
You can also email [email protected].