Audit Office Finds No Conflict of Interest in MRF Leader's Foreign Travel

On a quiet Monday in Sofia, the Bulgarian National Audit Office sent a letter to state officials explaining that it had found no breach of conflict‑of‑interest rules by Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF) leader Delyan Peevski, following an interior‑ministry tip‑off about his foreign travel expenses. The decision, released on 30 April 2026, was the product of a unanimous review that concluded the tip‑off was misguided and that Peevski had not violated the Anti‑Corruption Act’s disclosure requirements.

The tip‑off, forwarded by Interior Minister Ivan Demerdzhiev on 31 July, alleged that Peevski’s declared assets and income did not match his apparent lifestyle and that he had failed to report how he paid for overseas trips. Demerdzhiev, who has long accused fellow legislators of shielded conduct, claimed the agency had “dismissed the tip‑off” and expressed doubts that any institution would pursue the matter further. He blamed “regulators controlled by the assemblage” for protecting political allies.

Dimitar Glavchev, who serves as the BNAO head, posted a brief Facebook message that the audit office had found no conflict of interest and that the review was unanimous. He explained that the tip‑off had also been forwarded to the National Revenue Agency and the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office for additional checks. In a statement to the press, Glavchev emphasized that, under the Anti‑Corruption Act, a conflict is established only when a public office holder fails to declare income or significant expenditures, and the court found no such failure in Peevski’s case.

Glavchev’s announcement was made public on the day after the presidential run‑offs – a time when the country’s political structure is under intense scrutiny. The timing did not escape notice; Demerdzhiev, who had reportedly urged the BNAO to act swiftly in July, remarked that the decision was “a botched effort by state institutions that remain only umbrellas.” The Interior Minister also noted that the election of Glavchev to the BNAO chair a summer in 2023 by GERB, Continue the Change, and MRF could be interpreted as a partisan move that influenced the audit’s outcome.

Reactions from the Interior Ministry

In an interview following the release of the BNAO letter, Ivan Demerdzhiev said:

“Unfortunately, while the Interior Ministry is working, some of the state institutions are still being used as umbrellas.”

Demerdzhiev followed this up by demanding judicial reform and the election of a new Supreme Judicial Council, arguing that the current system allows the BNAO’s decisions to be swayed by political allies. He also noted that any challenge to the BNAO’s ruling would have to come from the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office, a body he questioned would be willing to act independently.

Demerdzhiev’s criticism reflects long‑standing concerns in Bulgaria that public oversight bodies are not fully autonomous. He has framed the audit outcome as a symptom of a larger problem: “regulators controlled by the assemblage” remain in place while institutional accountability falters. The interior minister’s comments demanded a shake‑up in the judiciary, citing the BNAO’s seven‑year chair appointment by multiple parties as an example of undue influence.

Historical Context of Peevski’s Controversial Career

Delyan Peevski’s name has been linked to a series of sanctions and accusations over the past decade. In 2021 the United States listed him under the Global Magnitsky Act for corruption and influence peddling. The United Kingdom followed in 2023 with separate sanctions that alleged similar wrongdoing. Despite these international admonitions, the BNAO’s review concluded there was no legal basis to flag his foreign travel as a conflict of interest.

The BNAO’s decision does not negate the broader controversies surrounding Peevski. It specifically addresses the allegation that his travel expenses should have been declared under the Anti‑Corruption Act. While the audit house found no violation, the question remains whether the MRF’s leadership culture contributes to a climate where oversight can be circumvented. The Interior Minister’s remarks suggest that the legal framework may be insufficient to hold top officials fully accountable.

Legal experts point to the necessity of a comprehensive judicial reform to restore public trust. They argue that cooperation between the BNAO, the National Revenue Agency, and the prosecutor’s office is essential to ensure that all financial transgressions are examined transparently. The BNAO’s decision to issue an unqualified ruling while urging external agencies for a deeper probe may hint at a balanced but cautious approach.

For citizens, the audit outcome means that Peevski’s foreign travel remains legally permissible under Bulgarian law, but it does not resolve prevailing concerns about political enrichment and use of public resources. The ministry’s push for reform signals an awareness that institutional barriers may impede accountability, and its insistence on a fresh Supreme Judicial Council underlines efforts that go beyond the scope of a single audit.

In the weeks that followed, the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office has yet to confirm or issue a directive concerning a potential review of Peevski’s finances. The possibility of a subsequent investigation remains on the table, although the Interior Ministry’s skepticism suggests it may be unlikely to materialize in the near term.

Overall, the BNAO’s finding illustrates the complex interplay between audit bodies, executive oversight, and the judiciary. It underscores the urgent need for reforms that enable independent scrutiny of top political figures while ensuring that the public remains informed about the legal boundaries surrounding political conduct.