Credit History as a Tool of Control: What Draft Law No. 14013 Changes

Draft Law No. 14013 “On Credit History,” prepared for the second reading, effectively proposes a new architecture for the financial information market in Ukraine. This is no longer a technical update of existing regulation, but the creation of a comprehensive system for the centralized circulation of data on the financial behavior of individuals and businesses.

The readiness of the document for further parliamentary consideration was announced by its author, Olha Vasylevska-Smahliuk. However, behind its formal provisions lies a much broader transformation—from redefining the role of credit bureaus to rebalancing the interests of creditors and the rights of borrowers.

From “Archive” to Infrastructure of Influence

The core idea of the draft law is the transformation of credit bureaus from passive data repositories into full-fledged participants in the financial system. They are granted the status of de facto exclusive administrators of information on monetary obligations, along with expanded functions.

This includes not only data storage, but also processing, analytics, scoring, statistical services, and even cross-border data exchange. As a result, credit bureaus become institutions that directly influence access to financing by shaping an individual’s financial “reputation.”

In this model, credit history ceases to be a supporting tool for lenders and becomes an independent regulatory factor in economic behavior.

The Role of the Regulator: Centralization under the NBU

Another key development is the designation of the National Bank of Ukraine as the Authorized Body. The regulator is granted not only supervisory powers, but also an instrument of centralized control through the maintenance of the Register of Credit Bureaus.

This unified information and communication system will define which entities are legally permitted to operate in the market. While this increases transparency, it also concentrates control within a single institution.

In effect, the NBU gains an additional lever of influence over the financial system, extending beyond traditional banking supervision.

Credit History as a Digital Profile

The scope of credit history is significantly expanded. The draft law provides for the creation of a comprehensive dossier that includes not only information about loans, but also:

– personal identification data;

– residence and contact details;

– information on income and employment;

– marital status and dependents;

– detailed data on each credit agreement, including defaults, restructurings, and termination;

– court procedures related to insolvency;

– even information about death or missing status.

In this form, a credit history evolves into a full-fledged financial and social profile, potentially usable far beyond credit risk assessment.

The Most Controversial Provision: Data Without Consent

One of the most debated provisions concerns data transfer. The draft law stipulates that information about a credit agreement is transmitted to credit bureaus automatically, based solely on the fact of its conclusion. The borrower’s consent is not required.

This represents a departure from the traditional model of personal data protection, where informed consent is a key principle. At the same time, consent remains mandatory for lenders to access this information when considering a new loan.

This creates a structural asymmetry: data transfer without consent, but data access with consent. This legal construct is likely to become a focal point of future disputes.

Correction Mechanisms: Formal Safeguards vs Practical Challenges

The draft law establishes procedures for correcting credit history data. If a credit agreement is declared invalid, the information must be amended, and in the absence of other records, fully deleted.

Data providers are required to verify claims within 15 days (extendable to 30 days) and provide supporting documentation. If the data provider no longer exists, the individual must seek judicial relief.

While these provisions create formal safeguards, they raise a practical concern: whether correcting inaccurate data may become more burdensome than its initial inclusion.

Debt Collectors and Limits on Data Use

The draft also regulates the activities of debt collection agencies, restricting the use of obtained information strictly to debt settlement purposes.

Any other use is explicitly defined as a violation of ethical conduct requirements. This provision attempts to balance expanded data access, though its effectiveness will depend on enforcement practices.

Retention Periods and the System’s “Long Memory”

Credit history data will be stored for 10 years after the termination of a credit obligation. While standard for financial systems, this creates a long-term record of an individual’s financial behavior.

In effect, the system acquires a “long memory,” capable of influencing a person’s economic opportunities over an extended period.

Conclusion

Draft Law No. 14013 introduces a new model for credit histories in Ukraine—more centralized, more technologically advanced, and more sensitive in terms of personal rights.

On the one hand, it represents a step toward a more mature financial market driven by high-quality data. On the other, it raises a fundamental question: will credit history remain an assessment tool, or evolve into a mechanism of control?

The answer to this question will determine not only the effectiveness of the law, but also the level of trust in the financial system as a whole.