Criminal and Legal Counteraction to the Activities of Criminal Authorities: The Ukrainian Model

The problem of countering organised crime in Ukraine has always been in the centre of attention of both law enforcement officers and researchers. It became particularly relevant in connection with the creation of a new division of the National Police of Ukraine – the Department of Strategic Investigations and providing it with new tools to improve the effectiveness of bringing criminal figures to justice. As a result of amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the model of criminal and legal counteraction to the activities of criminal authorities has changed significantly. In particular, such concepts as “criminal community”, “code-bound thief”, “criminal influence”, “criminal activity”, “person who carries out criminal influence”, and “person who is in the status of a subject of increased criminal influence” have been introduced into the legislative circulation, new acts have been criminalised – establishing or spreading criminal influence, applying for the use of criminal influence, and also organisation and assistance in holding or participating in a criminal meeting (sit-down) were separated into an independent section. The purpose of the study is to investigate the essence and content of the modern model of criminal law counteraction to the activities of criminal authorities, identify its conceptual shortcomings, and formulate proposals for improvement. During the research, a complex of scientific methods was applied – systemic, formal and dogmatic (legal and technical), comparative and legal, analysis, synthesis, induction and deduction. Special literature, provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and judicial practice of their application were considered, and consultations with experts were held. Based on the findings, a holistic view of the Ukrainian model of criminal law counteraction to the activities of criminal authorities is presented, and its content is revealed. Recommendations have been developed on the interpretation and further application of Articles 255, 255-1, 255-2, 255-3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The conceptual shortcomings of the model under study are identified and ways to improve it are outlined, including: 1) rejection of the criminal community as an independent form of complicity; 2) clarification of the definition of criminal influence by specifying its features and excluding unnecessary ones; 3) legislative consolidation of the term “criminal activity”; 4) rejection of the term “code-bound thief” primarily due to the fact that it concerns a person who is in the status of a subject of increased criminal influence; 5) changing the emphasis in the definition of a criminal meeting from its subjects to the purpose of this meeting