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.

No abstract

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.

У статті аналізуються переваги та недоліки нових кримінально-правових інструментів протидії організованій злочинності, які пропонуються в Проекті Закону України «Про внесення змін до Кримінального кодексу України щодо відповідальності за злочини, вчинені злочинною спільнотою» (№ 2513 від 02.12.2019). З урахуванням досвіду інших країн (насамперед Вірменії, Грузії та Росії) розроблено прогноз щодо перспектив їх застосування, а також пропозиції щодо удосконалення. Визначено основи сучасної моделі протидії організованій злочинності. Аргументовано, що вона потребує комплексного підходу з удосконалення не лише кримінального, але й інших галузей законодавства, зокрема кримінально-процесуального, кримінально-виконавчого, адміністративного тощо.

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.