Реєстраційний номер
2122U001215, Матеріали видань та локальних репозитаріїв
Категорія
Стаття
Назва роботи
КРИМІНАЛІЗАЦІЯ ДІЯНЬ, ПЕРЕДБАЧЕНИХ СТАТТЯМИ 366-2 ТА 366-3 КРИМІНАЛЬНОГО КОДЕКСУ УКРАЇНИ: АНАЛІЗ НА ПРЕДМЕТ ВІДПОВІДНОСТІ ПРИНЦИПУ СУСПІЛЬНОЇ НЕБЕЗПЕКИ
Автор
Мовчан Р. О.
Янівський В.М.
Дата публікації
01-01-2022
Постачальник інформації
Донецький національний університет імені Василя Стуса
Першоджерело
https://r.donnu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/2602
Видання
Запоріжжя: Запорізький національний університет
Опис
Стаття в електронному науковому фаховому виданні Юридичний науковий електронний журнал, № 7/2022
The article is devoted to the study of the public danger of such acts as declaring false information and failure by the subject of declaring to
submit a declaration of a person authorized to perform the functions of the state or local self-government (Articles 366-2, 366-3 of the Criminal
Code of Ukraine). Based on the results of the study, a scientifically substantiated conclusion is made that such a danger is sufficient to classify
the offenses under consideration as criminally unlawful. In particular, this is due to the fact that the declaration of false information and the failure
of the declaration subject to submit the relevant declaration destroy the role of the relevant financial control measure and create a danger in
the form of corruption in Ukraine.
There is support for the view that a declaration should be considered a type of official document. Given this, it is concluded that it is
inappropriate to introduce administrative responsibility for the corresponding violations of financial control, which should be recognized as
criminally punishable actions, because it is hardly possible to find at least some logical explanations for why this type of forgery is less dangerous
than all the others. The logic of the proposed approach is confirmed by referring to the relevant foreign experience of the post-Soviet countries,
which, like Ukraine, have either already successfully implemented their European integration aspirations, or are just striving for it.
At the same time, it is emphasized that all previous conclusions relate only to one of the principles of criminalization – the principle of sufficient
public danger, and therefore are not automatic evidence of the need for criminalization of all these manifestations, a conclusion about which can
only be made on the basis of a comprehensive study of all developed criminal law the doctrine of the principles of criminalization, in particular,
the principles of the relative prevalence of the act, the procedural feasibility of prosecution, etc.
Додано/оновлено в НРАТ
2025-01-09
