Підкуп за кримінальним законодавством України

Abstract

Обґрунтовано, що, останні зміни до кримінального законодавства України, дозволили належно уніфікувати поняття підкупу як кримінально караного діяння. Акцентується на дискусійних аспектах відображення підкупу як корупційного правопорушення у нормах Кримінального кодексу України й, зокрема, у зв’язку з непослідовністю викладу форм підкупу в окремих диспозиціях кримінально-правових норм; некоректним формулюванням назви статей щодо підкупу службової особи юридичної особи публічного права; проблемними питаннями правозастосовної практики. Bribery is the most typical and wide-spread form of corruptive behavior in Ukraine. Imposing criminal liability for bribery in national law is connected with the necessity of Ukraine’s fulfillment of assumed international and legal obligations as to the realization of corruption prevention and corruption management. The research of the bribery notion reflection in the provisions of Ukrainian criminal law testified to the fact that certain forms of bribery are provided in the dispositions of corresponding criminal and legal norms, and, mainly, as to the bribery of official, legal entity of public law – in different articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Such approach to some extent preconditions the need for corresponding of some provisions of the criminal law of Ukraine, and, consequently, the correctness of provision of dispositions of criminal and legal norms as to the bribery. Generally, in the provisions of the criminal law of Ukraine, the notion of bribery as a criminal affair is appropriately unified. However, in the dispositions of the p. 3 art. 354 CC, p. 1 art. 368 CC separate bribery forms are provided quite randomly which contradicts to the requirements of the legislative technology and partially distorts the view of its passive and active types. The practicability is grounded of the introduction of criminal and legal norms as the «direct action» which should impose a criminal liability for the demand of improper advantage, and not only with regard to accepting the proposal, promise or obtainment of improper advantage. It was proved that the verbal instruction «of the request for improper advantage connected with its demand» fixed in the dispositions of the p. 4 art. 354 CC, p. 3 art. 368 CC is illogical and therefore makes impossible the efficient practice of implementation of these provisions of criminal law of Ukraine as to the bribe. The elimination of drawbacks connected with inadequate reflection of bribe in certain provisions of Ukrainian criminal law will facilitate the improvement of the quality of criminal and legal bribery countermeasures in Ukraine.