Donate

In response to the resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine dated August 28, 1987, which highlighted instances of unjustified bonuses for high-ranking officials, oblast committees of the Communist Party of Ukraine were tasked with investigating similar practices in their respective oblasts. The Crimean Oblast Committee submitted a top-secret report to the Central Committee, providing a typical account of their findings.

The violations uncovered followed a familiar pattern: exceeding prescribed bonus limits, lack of justification, and breaches of established procedures. The dubious grounds cited for awarding these bonuses reflected informal agreements between the heads of the awarding institutions and the beneficiaries. Notably, those involved were aware of the illegality of their actions and took steps to obscure these transactions, anticipating potential audits.

Interestingly, the report provides no information on penalties for those who initiated these awards, nor does it mention any party sanctions against them. Essentially, the recipients faced no significant consequences, as their consent was not required for the bonuses to be granted. These unjustified bonuses functioned as a kind of win-win lottery: recipients could benefit without risk, as the worst outcome was merely returning the funds—a consequence hardly considered punitive. While high-profile cases of such unjustified bonuses occasionally came to light, they failed to deter the ongoing practice. Managers continued to reward allies for lobbying institutional interests or for their leniency towards subordinates. 

Title:

Unjustified Bonuses for High-Ranking Officials in the Crimean Oblast, 1987

Year:
1987
Source:
Central State Archive of Public Associations and Ukrainian Studies. File 1. Description 11. Case 1784. Sheets 41-43. Original. Typewritten.
Original language:
Russian

Top Secret

Information of the Crimean Oblast Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine On Fulfillment of the Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, “On the Facts of Unjustified Bonuses to Senior Party, Soviet, Trade Union, and Komsomol Workers in Some Oblasts of the Republic’, October 23, 1987

In accordance with the resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, the validity of bonus payments to leading cadres was reviewed in the oblast during September-October of this year. This investigation revealed illegal expenditures totaling 11,125 rubles.

For instance, the Sevastopol city executive committees allocated 28.6% of the funds designated for bonuses—nearly double the permitted 15%—to reward released workers of Party, Soviet, trade union, and Komsomol bodies based on the results of socialist competitions. Between 1985 and 1987, such illegal payments in Sevastopol amounted to over 7,000 rubles. Similar violations were identified in Kerch, Dzhankoy, Yevpatoria, and other cities.

Significant irregularities were also found in bonuses distributed for participation in the collection, storage, and shipment of ferrous and non-ferrous metal scrap. For example, during the first quarter of this year, senior officials such as a resort department engineer, a juvenile affairs executive secretary, an instructor for awards, and executive secretary of the anti-drinking commission were rewarded—despite not being listed as eligible recipients by the regional executive committee.

Similar cases were uncovered in other cities and districts of the oblast.

Bonuses were frequently granted to workers in Soviet, administrative, and economic bodies under the pretense of aiding state insurance organization. In Krasnoperekopsk district, for example, the secretary and head of the general department were rewarded as members of a state insurance support group, though they held no such positions. Additionally, in Kerch – precisely in Kirovsk and Ordzhonikidze districts – more than 120 individuals, including district police department employees, received bonuses under similar dubious circumstances last October. Instead of transferring these bonuses to organizational accounts, recipients often collected the funds directly from other organizations.

Some senior officials also illegally received bonuses as members of societies such as those for the protection of historical and cultural monuments, book lovers, or nature enthusiasts. In many cases, regional society presidiums authorized these bonuses without Party or Soviet approval, distributing them via postal orders. Such practices were documented in Simferopol, Kerch, Saki, Sudak, and Yalta.

There are numerous facts of payment of monetary rewards to exempted party and especially trade union workers without the decision of party committees.

Numerous monetary rewards were paid to exempted Party and trade union workers without proper authorization. For example: the chairman of the trade union committee of the Yalta production association “Tavria” received 1,768 rubles from various bonus funds in 1986. The secretary of the Party committee at the state farm “Predgorye” (Bilogirsk district) received 50 rubles in 1986. The chairman of the trade union committee at the state farm “Kirovskyi” (Chornomorsk district) received 640 rubles in 1985.

Currently, city and district Party committees, prosecutor’s offices, and financial bodies are taking steps to address these violations. As of October 15, 1987, 180 individuals had returned illegally received bonuses amounting to over 5,000 rubles.

The review of compliance with the established procedures for bonus payments to leading cadres is ongoing.

 

Secretary of the Oblast Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine                                         A. Hyrenko


Chairman of the Oblast Executive Committee                                                                                     A. Roshchupkin

Related sources:

Documents (7)

icon
A satirical report by the Soviet magazine Perets on the use of official vehicles for private Affairs, 1960
The humorous and satirical magazine Perets, published (albeit intermittently) since 1922, served as a supplementary weapon for the government in its fight against social issues. Its editorial board frequently aligned with various official campaigns, wielding its sharp wit to expose violations, shortcomings, and vices, thereby shaping public attitudes. Hryhorii Bezborodko, an experienced feuilletonist for Perets, often targeted the “antipodes of Soviet morality,” such as indifference, mismanagement, careerism, and other societal flaws. His report was no coincidence; it aimed to bolster the campaign against the misuse of official vehicles. Despite the 1959 restrictions on the use of state cars, members of the nomenklatura continued to exploit loopholes, necessitating public shaming rather than relying solely...
icon
Corruption in Kolomyia, Stanislav (Ivano-Frankivsk) Oblast, 1962
In the early 1960s, the Ukrainian prosecutor's office reported to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine about “exposed groups of large-scale embezzlers of socialist property and bribe-takers who had long been operating within various sectors of the national economy.” The scale of the defendants' shadow income was staggering: during investigations into four cases, authorities seized hundreds of thousands of rubles, single-story houses, kilograms of gold, dozens of cars, and other assets. Such wealth was enabled by a well-developed “shadow economy.” Despite inflated economic plans, strict resource controls, and rigorous oversight, resourceful producers consistently found ways to generate “surplus” production, which they used to enhance their own comfort and secure patronage....
icon
Illegal Construction of Dachas in Kherson, 1970
The satisfaction of Soviet citizens’ basic needs led to a growing demand for an improved quality of life, with one key indicator being access to comfortable recreation. Members of the nomenklatura became active participants in the establishment of “gardening societies,” which involved allocating land plots to factory workers for gardening and horticulture. However, the widely publicized “Kherson case” revealed that their interest lay less in gardening and more in personal comfort. Instead of allowing the construction of simple “summer-type buildings,” the nomenklatura opted for “permanent brick large summer cottages, often equipped with heating.” These practices not only violated the 1960 government decree banning the construction of such dachas but also involved the illegal...
icon
Abuses of a Sugar Factory Director and his Party Rehabilitation, 1953
The case of H. illustrates the activities of the Party Control Commission under the Central Committee of the Communist Party, which reviewed appeals for reinstatement into the party. H. had been expelled for “the use of his official position for mercenary purposes and illegal spending of public funds” while heading a sugar factory. Specifically, he exchanged his old cow for a younger one and fed his pig on the farm of the Division of Workers' Supply (rus. Отдел рабочего снабжения), which was under his supervision. Additionally, he had two employees in excess of the factory’s staffing needs and persecuted the chief accountant for exposing his abuses. H. was also accused of selling sugar...
icon
“Connections” as a Preventive Measure of Punishment for Abuse, 1985
The discussion of Case N at the Party Control Commission under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine was initiated by letters from citizens—a typical occurrence in Soviet realities. What was unusual, however, was that these appeals eventually proved effective, leading to the punishment of a high-ranking official and his patrons. The central issue under the party commission’s consideration was N’s flawed management style, which resulted in a subjective personnel policy and adversely impacted the economic performance of the main department (abbreviated as Glavk), which had accumulated substantial receivables. Case N underscores the pervasive influence of patron-client relationships and sycophancy within the Soviet system. Despite repeated deficiencies in performance between 1981...
icon
Financial Fraud by High-Ranking Party Officials in the Voroshylovhrad Oblast of the Ukrainian SSR, Early 1970s
Nelia Nemyrynska, born in 1930 in Odesa, worked as a lawyer at the Luhansk Bar Association beginning in 1954. Over her career, she defended and provided moral support to dissidents such as Mykola Rudenko, Yosyp Zisels, and others. In her memoirs, written in 1995, she exposed the darker side of Soviet justice: backroom deals, the political dependence of judges, the dictates of the CPSU, the impunity of the nomenklatura, and more. A fragment of her memoirs recounts two cases she deemed “not quite ordinary for the period of communist rule in Ukraine and the former USSR.” These cases vividly illustrate the interplay between the nomenklatura and the legal system. The first case involves...
Show more Collapse all

Images (0)

Show more Collapse all

Videos (0)

Show more Collapse all

Audio (0)

Show more Collapse all
Worked on the material:
Research, comment

Viktor Krupyna

Translation into English

Yuliia Kulish

Comments and discussions