This analysis uncovers how regulatory wrongfulness shapes the definitions of economic crimes, suggesting legislative improvements.
The subject of the study is the impact of regulatory wrongfulness on the construction of elements of crimes in economic criminal law. The aim of this analysis is to verify systemic intersectoral rules for constructing elements of economic crimes. Based on the doctrine of constructing the elements of a crime, the author analyzes the influence of regulatory wrongfulness on specific elements of the economic crime definition. Thus, through the analysis of criminal legislation and law enforcement practice, the influence of regulatory wrongfulness on the legislative construction of the characteristics of the object and the victim in the structure of the economic crime definition is explored. Similarly, the author examines the influence of regulatory wrongfulness on the legislative construction of the characteristics of the act within the structure of the objective side of the economic crime composition. The concluding part of the study is an analysis of the influence of regulatory wrongfulness on the subject of the economic crime. The methodological basis of the study consists of scientific research methods such as analysis, synthesis, and the formal-legal method. The scientific novelty of the research is defined by the author's approach to analyzing the influence of regulatory wrongfulness on the legislative construction of the characteristics of economic crime elements, as well as the conclusions drawn from the conducted research. The author concludes that currently, when constructing elements of economic crimes, lawmakers do not always take into account the intersectoral legal regulation of public relations protected by criminal law. As a result, intersectoral systemic rules for constructing elements of economic crimes are not adhered to. Thus, regulatory wrongfulness, on the one hand, can serve as a guideline for lawmakers in constructing elements of economic crimes, and it can also be considered by lawmakers when improving the use of blanket provisions in descriptions, particularly regarding the object, victim, act, and subject of the economic crime definition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexander M. Vasiliev (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: