Статтю присвячено аналізу кримінального правопорушення, передбаченого статтею 201-2 Кримінального кодексу України «Незаконне використання з метою отриман­ня прибутку гуманітарної допомоги, благодійних пожертв або безоплатної допомоги». З’ясовано обґрунтованість появи цієї кримінально-правової новели та її вплив на правозастосування, визначено перспективи розвитку кримінального закону у відповідній сфері. Висвітлено неузгодженості аналізованої кримінально-правової заборони з положеннями регулятивного законодавства – законами України «Про гуманітарну допомогу» і «Про благодійну діяльність та благодійні організації». Зокрема, встановлено, що нецільове використання гуманітарної допомоги, благодійних пожертв, відмінне від розпорядження таким майном з метою отримання прибутку, не утворює складу розглядуваного кримінального правопорушення. Доведено, що в переважній більшості випадків дії, заборонені чинною редакцією ст. 201-2 КК, за її відсутності визнавались б розкраданнями і кваліфікувались б за однією з частин ст. 191 КК як привласнення, розтрата або заволодіння чужим майном шляхом зловживання службовою особою своїм службовим становищем. З’ясовано, що доповнення КК ст. 201-2 є черговим проявом невиправданої казуїстичності кримінального закону. Аргументовано положення про помилковість розміщення досліджуваної заборони серед статей КК про відповідальність за кримінальні правопорушення у сфері господарської діяльності. Показано, що на сьогодні недоліки, притаманні караності незаконного використання гуманітарної допомоги, благодійних пожертв частково усуваються шляхом звернення до ч.3 ст. 201-2 КК за такою кваліфікуючою ознакою, як вчинення дій під час воєнного стану. Обґрунтовується положення про доцільність виключення з КК досліджуваної кримінально-правової заборони як непотрібного прояву надмірної (надлишкової) криміналізації.

Статтю присвячено з’ясуванню тенденцій розвитку законодавства України про відповідальніст ь за господарські кримінальні правопорушення протягом останніх п՚яти років. Указані тенденції визначаються за результатами аналізу законодавчих новел, пов’язаних із криміналізацією контрабанди деревини, легалізацією грального бізнесу і зменшенням тиску на бізнес.Установлено, що законодавець, як і раніше, безпідставно надає перевагу спеціальним (казуїстичним) кримінально-правовим заборонам, а також гіперболізує роль репресивного впливу цих заборон як фактору, що погіршує бізнес-клімат і заважає нормальному розвитку економічних відносин.

From the moment of the open attack by the Russian Federation, the issues of criminal law response to encroachments on the foundations of Ukraine’s national security, which have not been resolved since the beginning of the war in 2014, have reemerged. Among the most urgent was the question of whether provisions of criminal law in force as of February 24, 2022 ensured the possibility of providing a proper assessment of the actions of persons who in various forms assist the aggressor state. The first decision made in order to solve this issue was the introduction of Article 111-1 “Collaborative activity” to the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Due to the belief of the People’s Deputies of Ukraine in the inadequacy of such a legislative step, another criminal law prohibition has appeared – Art. 111-2 “Assistance to the aggressor state”. The purpose of the research is in critical understanding of the debatable aspects of the criminal law novel about aiding the aggressor state, based on the results of which scientifically based recommendations should be developed in order to improve relevant provisions of the current criminal law and practice of its application. It has been proven that, despite the noble intentions of the parliamentarians, the inclusion of Art. 111-2 “Assistance to the aggressor state” has increased both the conflicting nature of the domestic criminal law and the legal uncertainty partially inherent in it, and also forces us to once again talk about excessive criminalization. Among the achievements of the legislative work related to the construction of the criminal law prohibition dedicated to aiding the aggressor state, one can only include the non-use in the current wording of Art. 111-2 of the Criminal Code of unjustifiably abstract phrases “other voluntary interaction with representatives of the aggressor state” and “any cooperation with representatives of the aggressor state”. Based on the example of criminal law assessment of such manifestations of assistance to the aggressor state, such as the transfer of material resources to the armed formations of the aggressor state and the implementation or support of the decisions and / or actions of the aggressor state, armed formations and / or the occupation administration of the aggressor state, the problematic nature of differing analyzed crime from collaborative activity, treason and justification, recognition as legitimate, denial of armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, glorification of its participants has been demonstrated. The problem, which has risen as a result of the partially inappropriate duplication of legislative material, is proposed to be solved in one of three ways to optimize the articles of the Criminal Code on liability for treason, collaborative activity and assistance to the aggressor state.

The aim of the article was to reveal the content of the controversial elements of the illegal use of humanitarian aid, provided for in Article 201-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; to clarify the validity of the introduction of this prohibition and, moreover, to discuss its impact on law enforcement. All of which in order to be able to determine the prospects for the development of criminal law in the field. Several research methods have been used in the article, such as: comparative, systemic-structural and legal-formal. Referring to the appropriate methodological basis has made it possible to delve into the issues of criminal liability for embezzlement of humanitarian aid funds in Ukraine. Based on the results of the comparative analysis, it has been noted that there are no special provisions on appropriation and embezzlement of humanitarian aid items in the legislation of certain European states. As a conclusion it has been argued that the introduction of article 201-2 in the Criminal Code, is an example of excessive criminalization because: in this case, the act, which is inherent in the social harmfulness necessary for criminalization, did not require criminalization, since criminal liability for it has already existed and is broadly typified in the law.

Purpose. Critical analysis of the criminal law provision on illegal mining of amber, identification of its shortcomings, development of proposals for their elimination. Methodology. The system of philosophical, general scientific and specific scientific methods and approaches, which have provided objective analysis of the subject under consideration, in particular, the method of systemic and structural analysis, specific sociological, statistical, comparative, formal-logical methods. Findings. Shortcomings of the criminal law provision on illegal mining, sale, acquisition, storage, transfer, shipment, transportation and processing of amber, in particular, unjustified expansion of the criminal law prohibition under consideration, unsuccessful design of the main and qualified components of the criminal offense under review, as well as unjustified sanctions. Originality. The authors have been among the first researchers in the domestic criminal law doctrine to provide a comprehensive critical understanding of the provision dedicated to the regulation of criminal liability for illegal amber mining, which has made it possible to develop scientifically based recommendations for improving domestic criminal law. Practical value. Based on the research results, specific proposals addressed to domestic parliamentarians have been developed, which can be taken into account in the process of further lawmaking in terms of updating relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is argued that the improved Art. 240-1 should only cover illegal mining of amber. The main structure of the researched criminal offense is proposed to be designed as material. It has been proven, including through references to specific law enforcement materials, that sanctions of Part1 of Art. 240-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine should provide for a fine as the only non-alternative main type of punishment, while referenced to alternative punishments in the form of a fine and imprisonment should be included in Parts 2 and 3.

The purpose of the article is to study approaches used in the Criminal Codes of certain European countries regarding: 1) location in their systems of special parts of norms on liability for encroachment on the environment; 2) comparison of these approaches with the version embodied in the project of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – the Project); 3) development of scientifically founded recommendations on this basis, which can be used both for the improvement of the relevant provisions of the Project and for the relevant prescriptions of the criminal laws of European states. When analyzing legislation of specific European countries, as well as substantiating research results, a wide range of scientific methods has been used: comparative legal, dialectical, methods of system analysis and modeling. Based on the research, it is summarized that, contrary to the Ukrainian Project, the majority of European states consolidated all criminal offenses against the environment within a single structural element of the Special part of national Criminal Codes. Borrowing experience of countries where criminal law recognizes some offenses against the use of natural resources as types of offenses against property or economy was recognized as impractical.

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to compare the elements of a criminally illegal act, currently designated as illegal fishing, game or other aquatic extraction, under the current Criminal Code of Ukraine and the draft of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine. Methodology. The methodology includes a comprehensive analysis and elaboration of provisions of the current and projected (potential) criminal law of Ukraine and other countries, scientific sources, materials of law enforcement practice, as well as the formulation of author’s conclusions and recommendations. During the research, the following methods of scientific knowledge were used: comparative-legal, logical-semantic, formal-logical, systemic-structural, modeling. Results. According to the results of the conducted research: 1) it is proposed to abandon both the word construction “occupation with... water extractive industry” used in the current Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the phrase “possession of a natural resource in its natural state” used by the developers of the project of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine; 2) it has been proven that preference should be given to generalizing names of relevant articles of the draft Criminal Code of Ukraine (such as illegal extraction of natural resources from their natural state or illegal extraction of natural resources), which should be combined with the mention of specific types of illegal actions in relation to certain natural resources in the dispositions; 3) shortcomings of the articles of the project of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine, dedicated to the destruction or damage of natural resources, violations of hunting or fishing rules, acquisition or sale of known illegally extracted natural resources, have been clarified. Originality. In the process of writing the paper, the shortcomings of the project of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine were identified in terms of describing the elements of criminal offenses against the order of use of natural resources, in particular those of them that can be considered “successors” of illegal fishing, game or other aquatic extractive activities, and ways to eliminate these shortcomings were proposed. Practical significance. The results of the research can be used in law-making activities when improving the project of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine.

No abstract