Counteraction to Corruption Offences in Ukraine and the EU: Comparative Legal Aspect

The article focuses on counteraction to corruption offences in Ukraine and the EU. To this end, the authors conducted a consistent analysis of international legal acts in the field of combating corruption, in particular the United Nations Convention against Corruption of 10/31/2003; Council of Europe Criminal Convention for the Suppression of Corruption (ETS 173) No. ETS173 of 01/27/1999; Resolutions (97)24 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight against Corruption, etc. The study provides a systemic analysis of individual cases of experience in counteraction to corruption offences in EU countries. Experience of Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, etc. is explored. The authors proved that all EU countries provide criminal liability for committing corruption offences. In different countries, criminal laws differ in the different levels of detailing of crime, as well as in the different content of the concept of corruption offence. It is proven that corruption must always be considered as criminal offence only. Today, such unambiguity is advisable in the fight against corruption in Ukraine, where the criminalization of a number of blatantly corrupt practices, such as unjust enrichment, lasts for a long period and is ambiguously effective. The article also concludes that the most effective approach of legal support for combating corruption is one that covers criminal prosecution, disclosure of information about public authorities and private entities, their income levels, their wealth, etc., as well as the interaction of law enforcement agencies with the fiscal authorities. On the example of EU countries, we showed that monitoring of financial information of public officials under the private and public laws with the proper level of analytical support for its processing provides the necessary basis for law enforcement agencies to initiate criminal proceedings for such crimes. Special attention is also paid to expanding the scope of administrative services provided by public officials as being covered by the attributes of corruption and lacking legislative support. This will significantly increase the level of transparency of the activity of public authorities, while reducing the level of corruption manifestations. An important conclusion of the article is that the effectiveness of criminal prosecution for committing corruption offences depends on the level of legal culture and the level of legal awareness of both the public and public servants.