LEGAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGERIAL FACTORS OF CORRUPTION CRIME, WHICH IS COUNTERED BY THE STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to determine the content and interrelationship of legal and organizational and managerial factors of corruption crime, which is countered by the State Bureau of Investigation, as well as to substantiate proposals for their neutralization by legal, managerial and criminological means. The article studies the legal and organizational and managerial factors of that part of corruption crime, in respect of which the pre-trial investigation is carried out by investigators of the State Bureau of Investigation. It is substantiated that the boundaries of this segment are determined not only by the list of corruption criminal offenses in the note to Article 45 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, but also by the rules of subject and subject jurisdiction enshrined in Article 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. is not a body that is subject to jurisdiction for all corruption criminal offenses, but it performs a separate anti-corruption function in relation to high-ranking officials, judges, law enforcement officers, officials of anti-corruption institutions and military personnel defined by law. The legal factors include the inconsistency of the criminal law and anti-corruption conceptual apparatus, the complexity of the delimitation of jurisdiction, the instability of regulatory regulation, excessive administrative discretion, gaps in control procedures and the difficulty of proving intent, unlawful advantage and the connection between the benefit and the official decision. Organizational and managerial factors are the concentration of powers, formal internal control, conflict of interest, personnel dependence, secrecy of information, weak interagency interaction, orientation of reporting on quantitative indicators and tolerance of informal practices. It is proposed to develop risk-based analytics, clarify the rules for transferring criminal proceedings, strengthen the procedural independence of the investigator, combine internal control with whistleblower protection and evaluate the work of the State Bureau of Investigation in terms of the quality of evidence, compensation for damage and sustainability of court results.