Suchergebnisse

The latest changes in the criminal legislation on the regulation of liability for electoral criminal offenses are considered. The shortcomings of the incentive norms provided for by Part 5 of Art. 158-3 and Part 5 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine are revealed. In particular, the following is proved inexpedient: limiting the range of criminal offenses, to the commission of which Part 5 of Art. 158-3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine can be applied, only by the actions referred to in Part 1 of the considered criminal law norm; limiting the range of subjects covered by the scope of application of Part 5 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, not only by the organizers, but also by the instigators of a criminal offense.The inappropriateness of the differentiation of the value expression of illegal benefits carried out by the legislator provided for by Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is argued, when food, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products are considered such a benefit, regardless of their cost, while other types of benefits specified in the note of the article are only provided if their value exceeds 0.06 of the tax-free minimum incomes. In addition, the arbitrariness of the value expression of illegal benefit is pointed out.The conclusion is made concerning the imperfection of the sanctions of the considered criminal law norms, confirmed by the analysis data of the trends in the application of the latter. It is noted that the indication in many of the corresponding sanctions for a single main non-alternative punishment in the form of imprisonment for a certain period leads to the fact that in the vast majority of cases the courts release the perpetrators from punishment on the basis of the provisions of Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, considering it inappropriate to impose punishment in the form of imprisonment.The ways of improving the criminal legislation to eliminate the identified shortcomings based on the results of the article are suggested. ; Розглянуто останні зміни кримінального законодавства, присвяченого регламентації відповідальності за виборчі кримінальні правопорушення. Виявлено недоліки заохочуваль-них норм, передбачених ч. 5 ст. 158-3 та ч. 5 ст. 160 Кримінального кодексу України, зокрема, пов'язані з колом кримінальних правопорушень та осіб, щодо яких вони могли б бути реалізовані. Доведено недоцільність, по-перше, обраного законодавцем диферен-ційованого підходу щодо вартісного вираження передбаченої ст. 160 Кримінального кодексу України неправомірної вигоди, коли одні предмети визнаються останньою незалежно, а інші, навпаки, – залежно від їхньої вартості; по-друге, наведення у примітці відповідної кримінально-правової заборони визначення поняття «неправомірна вигода». За результа-тами аналізу тенденцій застосування розглядуваних кримінально-правових норм зроблено висновок про недосконалість їхніх санкцій, яка призводить до «забуття» на практиці про принцип невідворотності кримінальної відповідальності. Запропоновано шляхи удоскона-лення відповідних санкцій.

Article presents comparative analysis of features and characteristics of organized criminal associations recommended for further criminalization by provisions of Palermo Convention and Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA. Certain peculiarities of the abovementioned provisions implementation in more than 50 states (Asia, America and Europe) have been outlined. We expressed and proved the hypothesis stating that criminalization of actions performed by the members of organized groups and criminal organizations by different states separately is partly explained with consideration of different international legal acts by national legislators: Palermo Convention and Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA. On the basis of analysis of key global models used to criminalize the socially dangerous actions with aim to counteract the organized crimes (collusion, participation, entrepreneurship, marking/registration) we justified the following opinion: 1)within the limits of criminal associations countering collusion and participation models are considered to be the most efficient; 2)use of entrepreneurship model allows to justify the need for establishment of responsibility for legal entities involved in criminal associations functioning or utilization of relevant criminal measures; 3)registration/marking model may be efficient for counteracting the extended terrorist organizations.

The aim of the article was to reveal the content of the controversial elements of the illegal use of humanitarian aid, provided for in Article 201-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; to clarify the validity of the introduction of this prohibition and, moreover, to discuss its impact on law enforcement. All of which in order to be able to determine the prospects for the development of criminal law in the field. Several research methods have been used in the article, such as: comparative, systemic-structural and legal-formal. Referring to the appropriate methodological basis has made it possible to delve into the issues of criminal liability for embezzlement of humanitarian aid funds in Ukraine. Based on the results of the comparative analysis, it has been noted that there are no special provisions on appropriation and embezzlement of humanitarian aid items in the legislation of certain European states. As a conclusion it has been argued that the introduction of article 201-2 in the Criminal Code, is an example of excessive criminalization because: in this case, the act, which is inherent in the social harmfulness necessary for criminalization, did not require criminalization, since criminal liability for it has already existed and is broadly typified in the law.

The investigation reveals shortcomings in the arguments of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the recognition of article 366-1 of the Criminal Code as not being in conformity with the Constitution, in terms of:(a) the court's lack of authority to criminalize socially dangerous acts; (b) lack of argumentation on the absence of social harm in the non-submission of a declaration and in the presentation of inaccurate information; (c) positive foreign experience; (d) conformity of article 366-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine with the principle of the rule of law. The article employs a set of legal research methods, including terminological, systemic-structural, formal-logical, and comparative-legal. It is stressed that:(a) the criminalization of a socially harmful act is a matter for the legislator, not the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, to decide; (b) the decision does not present or refute any argument on the element of social harmfulness relating to the non-submission of a declaration and the declaration of inaccurate information. On the basis of the investigation, it has been concluded that the decision of the Constitutional Court on the recognition of article 366-1 of the Criminal Code does not comply with the Constitution and has not been sufficiently substantiated.

The main goal of the article is to study both advantages and disadvantages of the approaches of the European Union (EU) states to criminal law prevention of land pollution. As a result of this an optimal legislative model should be developed to protect this element of the environment from criminal encroachment, which can be further used by the EU states in improving existing or creating new rules aimed at criminal law protection of land resources from pollution or the creation of new rules aimed at criminal law protection of land resources from pollution. The following research methods have been used to study criminal law provisions of the selected countries, to prove the stated hypotheses and to formulate conclusions: comparative law, system analysis, formal-logical, dialectical and modeling method. As a result of the study of various models of criminal law protection of land resources embodied in the legislation of nineteen European Union states, it has been proved that: 1) such protection should be carried out by a single universal rule on criminal liability for pollution not only of land but also of other components of the environment (water, air, forest); 2) only such land pollution shall be considered criminal, which has led to real (non-potential) damage to the environment, human health or property damage; 3) liability for land pollution should be differentiated depending on: a) weather guilty person's act was intentional or negligent; b) what the consequences of land pollution have been.

The purpose of the paper is to identify optimal legislative model of criminal law counteraction to commodity smuggling in Ukraine, taking into account experience of foreign countries, primarily the European Union. The following research methods have been used to study criminal legislation, prove hypotheses, formulate conclusions: comparative law, system analysis, formal logic and modeling methods. Taking into account the achievements of criminal law science, materials of law enforcement practice, he results of sociological surveys and based on the analysis of accompanying documents to the relevant bills, social conditionality of criminalization of smuggling of goods have been clarified. Foreign experience of criminalization of commodity smuggling in the legislation of the European Union has been investigated. Legislative initiatives in this area have been critically considered. Major attention in this aspect has been paid to the shortcomings and debatable provisions of the draft law "On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine on the Criminalization of Smuggling of Goods and Excisable Goods and Inaccurate Declaration of Goods" (Registration # 5420 of April 23, 2021). Author's proposals on the relevant improvements of criminal legislation have been put forward and substantiated.