Some issues of administrative responsibility for offenses, related to corruption
Kysil L. E. Some issues of administrative responsibility for offenses, related to corruption.
Administrative responsibility for administrative offenses, related to corruption, is defined in Articles 172-4172-9 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, and is one of the elements of the mechanism against corruption in Ukraine.
The sets of all elements of offenses related to corruption are analyzed, special attention is drawn to impossibility of realization of majority of demands of Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption” due to the fact that National Agency for Prevention of Corruption is only on the stage of development and can’t execute its functions yet. The existence of practical problems in clarifying the normative regulation of offices, obtaining of which by particular person allows to recognize them as subject of administrative offenses, related to corruption, and absence of effective monitoring system of data reliability, contained in the declarations of property, income, expenses and financial liabilities of aforementioned persons are proved.
But the biggest problem, from the author’s point of view, is the effectiveness of administrative responsibility, and not only for offenses related to corruption. Statistical data on the increase in the number of offenses related to corruption, proves that the purposes of administrative responsibility defined by the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences, are not achieved. Prescription of such administrative penalties as fines, even in the amount of 800 non-taxable incomes of citizens, disqualification to hold certain positions or to practice certain professions for 1 year, confiscation of illegal proceeds for administrative offenses, in comparison with funds traded on corruption, don’t prevent person from repeated commitment of offenses investigated.
However legislator is rather “shy” in usage of the positive experience of other countries that have managed to fight corruption. Therefore author offers to borrow experience of Netherlands, where person who is guilty in corruption offence are generally forbidden to work in governmental bodies with the loss of all social benefits provided by the public service. It’s worth paying attention to the experience of Germany, where public officials who wish to combine public service with other activities, should receive this permission from the highest court; there is a register of corrupt firms, the same as in Israel, which rules out the participation of such firms in public procurement.
Key words: administrative offenses related to corruption; administrative responsibility; effectiveness of administrative responsibility.