Blockage at the Commission for Illegal Assets Forfeiture: confiscation halted due to lack of quorum

The Commission for the Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Property (KPCONPI) is effectively paralyzed due to a lack of quorum, which practically blocks the entire process of filing confiscation claims. Following the resignation on February 13 of Anton Slavchev, who was serving as acting chairman, only two members remain on the commission out of the five required by law. Decisions, however, require a minimum of three votes, which is currently impossible.

Confiscation claims are filed only based on a decision by the commission. Currently, such a decision cannot be made, and this places all previously imposed freezes and foreclosures—used to secure future claims—at serious risk. Magistrates report that there are already requests submitted by individuals with frozen assets to lift the security measures, as no claim has been filed within the three-month legal deadline.

If the court grants such requests and the freezes are lifted, there will be no obstacle to the assets in question being sold off. Subsequently, even if the Commission manages to file a confiscation claim, it will be unable to claim assets that are no longer owned by the person under investigation. Thus, the commission's blockage becomes a direct risk to the effectiveness of the entire system for the forfeiture of illegally acquired property.

The legal procedure is clear: after the prosecution notifies the commission that an investigation is being conducted against an individual for crimes included in the scope of the forfeiture law, the Commission begins an audit of the assets. If discrepancies are found, the commission can ask the court to impose security measures. After that, it is obligated to file a confiscation claim within a three-month period. Currently, this final, key stage is blocked because there is no one to make a valid decision to file the case.

The total blockage of the Commission is a direct consequence of the parliament's inaction, as it failed to fill the commission's composition on time. As early as March 2022, Sotir Tsatsarov left the then-unified anti-corruption structure KPCONPI, which was also responsible for confiscation. This left it with four members, and his deputy Anton Slavchev took over the position of acting chairman.

During the following year, the original KPCONPI was divided into two separate bodies – the Commission for Anti-Corruption (KPK) and the new Commission for the Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Property. Slavchev continued to lead both bodies, and until the election of regular members, the existing members from the original KPCONPI – Silvia Kadreva, Plamen Yotsov, and Antoaneta Georgieva-Tsonkova – remained.

Meanwhile, Anton Slavchev won a competition for a prosecutor position, and shortly before the closure of the KPK, the path was quickly cleared for him to join the Sofia City Prosecutor's Office. As early as 2025, Silvia Kadreva was elected by GERB as a member of the National Audit Office. Thus, after Slavchev's departure, only two members remained in the Commission, and the quorum fell below the minimum required threshold.

Against this backdrop, a number of serious questions arise without public answers: how many pending cases regarding security for future claims are affected by the expiration of the three-month period after the commission was left without a quorum, and in how many of them is there a real risk that the court will cancel the security measures due to a non-filed claim? What is the total value of the assets on which these measures have been imposed?

It is also unclear in how many proceedings the commission has already completed its internal audit and only needs to file confiscation claims, but this cannot happen solely due to the lack of a third vote. The question of what the last filed claim or security request was—when it was submitted, at what value, and before which court—also remains open.

Public interest is also focused on whether there are already canceled security measures due to claims not filed on time, and what the value is of the assets for which freezes and foreclosures have been lifted. The question of whether publicly known individuals, public figures, or high-profile cases are among those affected, where confiscation will not be achieved solely because the Commission lacks a quorum, is especially sensitive.

Until the parliament elects new members and restores the functionality of the commission, the mechanism for the forfeiture of illegal assets remains blocked. This calls into question the effectiveness of anti-corruption policy and sends a signal that institutional gaps can invalidate even the strictest laws.