PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 20, 2024Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence0 citationsOpen Access

Subjects of preventing and countering criminal offenses related to corruption: functioning problems and prospects for improving the legal status

View Full Paper
NNN.A. Nykyforenko

Key Points

  • General jurisdiction bodies handle the main burden of anti-corruption proceedings in Ukraine, whereas targeted high-level prosecution offers a stronger preventive effect.
  • Analysis of legal frameworks assesses institutional challenges across specialized anti-corruption agencies, general jurisdiction courts, and national law enforcement bodies.
  • Proposed statutory reforms emphasize institutional independence for anti-corruption units, expanded asset declaration mandates, and reward mechanisms for whistleblowers.

Abstract

The article examines the subjects of prevention and counteraction to criminal offenses related to corruption. The author establishes that these are not only specialized law enforcement and judicial institutions (the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, the High Anti-Corruption Court), but also institutions of general jurisdiction (the National Police of Ukraine, courts of general jurisdiction), as well as other entities, including government agencies, various categories of authorized persons, whistleblowers, and civil society institutions. Despite the fact that Ukraine operates a three-tier anti­corruption system (the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, the High Anti-Corruption Court), which is a countermeasure to elite corruption, the main burden of detection and prosecution for criminal offenses related to corruption, entrusted to the investigators of the National Police of Ukraine, who investigate relevant criminal proceedings, and district or inter-district courts, which conduct judicial review of these proceedings. However, quantitative indicators of criminal prosecution of persons who have committed criminal offenses related to corruption do not always provide the necessary results. Individual facts of bringing to criminal responsibility officials occupying a responsible or particularly responsible position are important, as this can have a significantly greater preventive effect on the subjects of the declaration in order to prevent them from committing corruption or corruption-related criminal offenses. Based on the results of the analysis of the problems of the functioning of the specified subjects, the prospects for improving their legal status have been determined: 1) to create a mechanism for rewarding whistleblowers not only for corruption crimes, but also for criminal offenses provided for in Art. 366-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; 2) ensure the institutional independence, separation of the head of the authorized unit (authorized person) by subordinating him/her directly to the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption; 3) expand the powers of authorized divisions (authorized persons) in the area of declaration; 4) supplement the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption” of October 14, 2014 with the main tasks of the person responsible for the implementation of the anti-corruption program.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

N.A. Nykyforenko (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e733cdb6db6435876adb4chttps://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2024.01.107
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Unconstitutionality of criminal liability for filing inaccurate information in Ukraine: сritical legal analyses2021 · 12 citations
  2. 2CRIMINALIZATION OF ACTIONS PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLES 366-2 AND 366-3 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF UKRAINE: ANALYSIS ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF COMMUNITY2022 · 4 citations
  3. 3Untitled2021 · 3 citations
  4. 4Recognition of Article 366-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as Unconstitutional: Conceptual Shortcomings of Constitutional Court Decision2020 · 7 citations
  5. 5RECOGNITION OF THE NORM ON DECLARATION OF FALSE INFORMATION UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A MANIFESTATION OF DISCREDITATION OF ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORM2020 · 5 citations