Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 69
Julio
Diciembre
2021
Recibido el 14/02/2021 Aceptado el 15/06/2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre) 2021, 492-512
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Criminal Liability for Provoking Bribery
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3969.31
Oksana Stepanenko *
Andriy Stepanenko **
Maryna Shepotko ***
Abstract
In modern conditions of development of public relations
complication of activity of law enforcement agencies is observed.
This is due to new challenges in the law enforcement system,
including the ght against high levels of the organization and the
criminal professionalism of corrupt individuals. Because of this, it
is challenging for operational units to identify specic facts of illegal
actions with the help of operational and investigative measures.
At the same time, the ght against crime by establishing high
quantitative indicators of disclosure remains one of the principles
of law enforcement in Ukraine, including sometimes deviating
from those means established by law. Therefore, the problem of provoking
bribery is relevant for scholars of the legislator and law enforcement. The
object of the study is criminal liability for provoking bribery. The research
methodology consists of such methods as the dialectical method, analytical
method, historical method, method of analysis of legal documents, articles,
and monographs, method of generalization, comparison, synthesis, and
modeling method. The authors identied the features of such liability to
clarify the problematic issues of qualication of provoking bribery, and
to distinguish the distinctive features of prosecution from other types of
crimes.
Keywords: criminal liability; provocation of bribery; public relations;
illicit gain; provoked person.
* Ph. D., Associate Professor of Department of Criminal Law of National University “Odessa Law Academy",
Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4677-9868. Email: oksanastepanenko2015@
gmail.com
** Ph. D., Associate Professor of Department of Criminal Procedure, Detective and Search Activities.
Associate Professor of Department of Criminal Procedure of National University “Odessa Law
Academy”. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8824-2212. Email: ast.university@hotmail.com
*** Ph. Candidate of Department of Criminal Law of National University “Odessa Law Academy”. ORCID
ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8815-962X. Email: sh.marynaa@gmail.com
493
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 492-512
Responsabilidad penal por provocar soborno
Resumen
En las condiciones modernas del desarrollo de las relaciones públicas se
observa la dicultad de la actividad de los organismos encargados de hacer
cumplir la ley. Esto se debe a los nuevos desafíos en el sistema de aplicación
de la ley, incluida la lucha contra los altos niveles de la organización y el
profesionalismo criminal de las personas corruptas. Al mismo tiempo,
la lucha contra la delincuencia mediante el establecimiento de altos
indicadores cuantitativos de divulgación sigue siendo uno de los principios
de la aplicación de la ley en Ucrania. Por lo tanto, el problema de provocar
el soborno es relevante para los estudiosos del legislador y las fuerzas del
orden. El objeto del estudio es analizar la responsabilidad penal por provocar
el soborno. La metodología de investigación consiste en métodos tales como
el dialéctico, analítico, histórico, análisis de documentos legales, artículos
y monografías, método de generalización, comparación, síntesis y método
de modelado. Como resultado del estudio de la responsabilidad penal por
provocar el soborno, fue posible identicar una serie de características de
dicha responsabilidad, aclarar las cuestiones problemáticas de calicación
de este delito y distinguir las características distintivas del enjuiciamiento
de otros tipos de delitos.
Palabras clave: responsabilidad penal; provocación de sobornos;
relaciones públicas; ganancia ilícita; persona provocada.
Introduction
One of the key directions of the legal policy of our state is the prevention
and counteraction of corruption. The solution to this problem depends on
how eectively and successfully the law enforcement system will work.
Given this, it is urgent to pay attention to the study of criminal liability for
provoking bribery.
In general, bribery is already a traditional concept for criminal science,
in which it was positioned either as a way to incite to commit a crime
or as a way of committing an act under the Special Part of the Criminal
Code of Ukraine (Law 2341-III, 2001), no agreement was reached on an
understanding of the nature of bribery oenses.
Thus, the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Law 2341-III, 2001) reects a legal
norm that establishes liability for provoking bribery – Article 370 of the
Criminal Code of Ukraine. In the original version of 2001, it was called
“Bribery Provocation”, but later underwent many changes. Thus, in 2011,
after the criminalization of the concept of “commercial bribery”, the article
494
Oksana Stepanenko, Andriy Stepanenko y Maryna Shepotko
Criminal Liability for Provoking Bribery
was entitled “Provocation of bribery and commercial bribery.” And it was
then that a new concept was introduced – “illegal gain”. In 2013, since
national legislation was brought in line with the standards of the Criminal
Convention on Corruption (United Nations, 1999), the legislator changed
the title of the article to “Provocation of bribery”, and even then the concept
of “bribery” was expanded. It began to apply to all types of bribery, including
bribery of an employee of an enterprise, institution, or organization. The
provocation of bribery was also attributed to corruption crimes. Therefore,
over time and the intensive legislative activity of the national legislator, the
meaning of such a concept as bribery has signicantly expanded.
Now bribery has begun to be considered not only as a unilateral criminal
act, but also as an independent criminal oense, the perpetrators of which
are both the subject and the addressee of bribery, and, at the same time,
there is corruption bribery, the specic features of which are the subject,
means, and criminal consequences of the commission.
Given the above, it is important to analyze and investigate criminal
liability for provoking bribery, pay attention to problematic issues of
regulation of this crime, summarize problematic issues in a criminal
prosecution for this crime and compare the legislation of Ukraine and
foreign countries in this area.
1. Theoretical framework
Criminal liability for provocation of bribery was investigated by the
following scientists: Aldanova (2017) Alyoshina (2007), Bantishev and
Kuzmin (2008), Batrachenko (2016), Grudzur (2010), Veretyannikov
(2013), Drozdov (2016), Dudorov (2016), Egorova (1997), Zagodirenko
(2013), Kartavtsev, Tomchuk, and Prytula (2020), Komar (2020), Tatsii
et al. (2015), Melnyk and Khavroniuk (2008), Yaremenko and Slipushko
(1998), Perelygina and Mirko (2018), Radachinsky (1999), Ryzhova (2004),
Savchenko (2007), Us (2015), Stern (2017).
Thus, Aldanova (2017) reviewed the case-law of the European Court
of Human Rights on the provocation of bribery and drew attention to
how the European Court of Human Rights interprets the provocation of
bribery. Thus, the researcher draws attention to the fact that according to
the position of the European Court of Human Rights, the existence of state
interest cannot be used as a justication for the use of evidence obtained
as a result of police provocation, whereas the use of such evidence exposes
the accused to the risk of being permanently deprived of a fair trial from
the outset; domestic law should not allow the use of evidence obtained as
a result of incitement by public agents. This position should be agreed,
because if the police provocation is justied, then such legislation does not
495
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 492-512
comply with the principle of “fair trial”. Besides, the author’s opinion that
the European Court has developed a concept of provocation which violates
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and is dierent from the use of lawful
operational methods of the preliminary investigation is noteworthy. The
paragraph states that, while the use of special methods of investigation, in
particular covert, cannot in itself infringe the right to a fair trial, the danger
of police provocation as a result of such measures implies that their use
should be limited to a clear framework.
Alyoshinа (2007) and Dudorov (2016) conducted a criminal law
investigation into the provocation of bribery, considered the positions of
various scholars, and drew attention to the international experience in
regulating this issue. Thus, Alyoshinа (2007) understands the provocation
of a crime as a person knowingly creating a situation that causes another
person to commit a crime, or complicity in such a crime to expose, blackmail,
or cause other material or non-material damage to such a person.
Bantishev and Kuzmin (2008) investigated the provocation of bribes as
a special kind of complicity in the crime. Thus, the scholar analyzed the
provisions of the Polish legislator and, by analogy with the neighboring
country, decided that the provocation of bribery is a form of complicity
in the crime. Therefore, the author proposes to consider this type of
criminal activity as a special type of incitement (in the context of the use
of the institution of complicity in crimes of giving or receiving bribes)
when addressing issues related to the qualication of actions of ocials
linked to bribery provocation. Moreover, the provisions of the institution
of complicity should be applied only in case of commission of this crime by
a group of ocials, dividing them according to role participation by types
of accomplices and perpetrators, organizers, instigators, and accomplices.
This position deserves attention, and therefore the issue of distinguishing
between incitement and complicity is examined separately in the article.
Batrachenko (2016) conducted a comparative legal analysis of criminal
liability for provoking bribery of the legislation of Ukraine and foreign
countries, which was taken as a basis for the study of international regulation
of this crime in the international arena. Thus, the author pointed out that
crimes related to illicit gain are the most dangerous among crimes in the
sphere of ocial activity. Their social threat is revealed in the fact that they
undermine the authority of the state, harm the democratic development of
society, signicantly restrict the rights and freedoms of man and citizen,
violate the principle of equality before the law, hinder the reform of the
criminal justice system, and hinder market relations in Ukraine. Examining
the provisions of the criminal law of foreign countries on the responsibility
for provoking bribery, the author notes that the concept of “provocation”
is enshrined in the criminal law of only some foreign countries and is
interpreted dierently. Provocation is dened as a public incitement to
496
Oksana Stepanenko, Andriy Stepanenko y Maryna Shepotko
Criminal Liability for Provoking Bribery
commit a crime, and as a kind of complicity; as a synonym for the concept
of “extortion” in receiving bribes; as a method of combating crime; as a
circumstance that excludes the criminality of the act, etc.
However, some approaches to the legal assessment of provocation, such
as its dierentiation into lawful and unlawful and recognition of the latter as
a circumstance that excludes the criminality of the act (US criminal law) and
attribution of provocation to the institution of complicity (Penal Code of the
Republic of Poland (1997)) or establishing responsibility for provocation
norm of the Special Part of the Criminal Code (Law of Georgia No. 2287,
1999), are appropriate and could be taken into account in domestic law.
Unlike the Criminal Code of Ukraine, where the subject of the crime (Article
370 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Law 2341-III, 2001)) is exclusively
an ocial, the subject of provocation of bribery under the criminal law of
foreign countries is the general subject of the crime. Besides, the purpose of
this crime is somewhat dierent, which according to the domestic Criminal
Code is understood as exposing the person who gave or received a bribe,
and therefore is not reduced to the articial creation of evidence of a crime
(bribery), or blackmail, or harm who gave or received a bribe. On this, the
author came to the fair conclusion that the experience of legislators of foreign
countries can be quite useful for developing optimal approaches to improve
the content of Art. 370 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In particular, this
applies to the development of theoretical provisions for determining the
object of bribery provocation and proposals for recognizing the general
subject of the crime as the subject of bribery provocation.
Grudzur (2010) considered the objective side of bribery provocation and
what it is caused by, as well as suggested further ways to study this issue in
his work. Thus, the author came to the following conclusions. In particular,
these are the conclusions that the provocation of a bribe from the objective
point of view consists in the creation of a circumstance that determines the
giving or receiving of a bribe. In turn, the creation of such a circumstance
can be done not only by action but also by inaction. The circumstance
itself is dened as a phenomenon, event, fact, feature of reality, which
determines (is the reason) the formation of the provoked person’s intent
to give or receive a bribe. Quite similar in meaning, in this context, is the
concept of “condition”, which is used in the disposition of Part 1 of Art. 370
of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and, in fact, means the same as the concept
of “circumstance”. Therefore, the use of the word “conditions” in the text of
this rule seems superuous. Provocation of a bribe is a crime with a formal
composition and is considered to be over from the moment of creation of
the circumstance, which determines the giving or receiving of a bribe. In
this case, it does not matter whether the bribery itself was committed or
received.
497
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 492-512
Veretyannikov (2013), Egorova (1997), and Radachinsky (1999)
analyzed some aspects of the expediency of criminal liability for provoking
bribery or commercial bribery. Thus, criminal liability under Art. 370 of the
Criminal Code of Ukraine is due to the need for a legal mechanism to protect
the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, as well as the separation of
legal actions of ocials, including law enforcement agencies, in the ght
against corruption from criminal acts. According to the author, and in our
opinion, this mechanism should promote the implementation of lawful
actions rather than expanding the list of criminally punishable illegal acts
for ocials. Moreover, Drozdov (2016) drew attention to topical issues of
protection against provocation (incitement) of a person to commit a crime
in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in his
work. The author concluded that the institution of provocation (incitement)
of a person to commit a crime is by nature cross-sectoral. The author also
rightly points out that among the main problems in recent years in practice
the issue of the need to prove in criminal proceedings the fact of the reality of
those legal relations, in connection with which it was proposed, demanded,
received illegal benets. As a result, there was a need to ascertain how the
fact of failure to prove such circumstances aected the existence of a corpus
delicti in the actions of the person who had obtained the unlawful benet
(in the absence of signs of provocation on the part of the applicant). Also,
given the latency of corruption crimes, it is necessary to determine the
nature of the actions of the prosecutor and other law enforcement agencies
aimed at detecting them, taking into account the decisions of the ECtHR
on the “need to investigate passively.” Research Drozdov served as a basic
study to analyze the practice of the ECtHR in this work.
Zagodirenko (2013) conducted a criminal law analysis to improve
the current legislation on crime provocation. Thus, the researcher drew
attention to the proposed bills and proposed additions to them, which will
qualitatively change the regulation of bribery provocation.
Kartavtsev, Tomchuk, Prytula carried out a criminal analysis of bribery
under the laws of Ukraine and foreign countries. As a result of the study, it
was concluded that only in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Bulgaria
(Law 26/1968, 1986) and the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan
(Law 574, 1998) provocation of bribery belongs to crimes against state power
and the interests of civil service, while in others – to crimes against justice.
Concerning the subject of this crime, in all the codes we study, it can be
any natural sane person who has reached the age of criminal responsibility,
and not just an ocial, as specied in national law. The objective signs of
provocation of bribery in the Criminal Code of foreign countries are quite
similar to each other and, in fact, provide for punishment for staging a
bribe. The authors also believe that the provocation of bribery should be
attributed to crimes against justice, linking it with the process of proving
(i.e. identifying and consolidating evidence) of receiving or giving bribes,
498
Oksana Stepanenko, Andriy Stepanenko y Maryna Shepotko
Criminal Liability for Provoking Bribery
and, therefore, the direct object of provocation of bribery should be dened
as public relations time of detection and consolidation of evidence of the
bribery. The hypothesis stated in the position of the authors is further
investigated in our article and receives further substantiation.
Komar (2020) researched the concepts and types of bribery under the
criminal law of Ukraine. Thus, the researcher analyzed the criminal law on
bribery in historical retrospect shows that it has traditionally been used by
domestic legislators as a way to incite to commit a crime, and later as a way
to commit an act under the Special Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. At
the same time, receiving a material reward by the addressee of the bribe was
not recognized as a crime, and giving him such a reward after committing
certain actions could not be considered as a bribe. Comparative-legal
analysis of bribery under the criminal law of Ukraine and some foreign
countries of the author allowed us to conclude that the concept of bribery
in the codes of foreign countries is understood more broadly and covers
both the provision and receipt of certain benets. Although this approach is
not generally accepted even in the European Union, it has been introduced
by the national legislator. This step has signicantly exacerbated the
problem of distinguishing between dierent types of bribery, as according
to national traditions, the actions of its addressee in inciting or obstructing
the acceptance of the proposal are still not recognized as a crime. As the
researcher rightly points out, the solution to this problem is possible by
scientically substantiated classication of bribery provided by the Criminal
Code of Ukraine, which will avoid attempts to unify this concept and
attempts to use the signs of corruption bribery, which are quite common in
modern Ukrainian criminal legal doctrine, in characterizing incitement or
inclination to actions that are not criminal.
Perelygina and Mirko (2018) analyzed some aspects of criminal liability
for provoking bribery in their work. The researchers decided to pay attention
to the qualitative dierences between bribery provocation and other crimes
and the peculiarities of prosecution for these crimes. The researchers
decided to pay attention to the qualitative dierences between bribery
provocation and other crimes and the peculiarities of prosecution for these
crimes. Also, researchers drew attention to the fact that there are features of
provocation of bribery in the actions of a person who, following Art. 272 of
the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, taking into account the provisions
of Art. 43 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Law 2341-III, 2001) performed
a special task to disclose the criminal activities of an organized group or
criminal organization, both through certain regulatory requirements for
such covert investigative (search) action and in connection with the tactical
features of its implementation. Indeed, in this case, a necessary criterion
for correctly determining the grounds and limits of criminal liability for
provoking bribery is to establish clear denitions for the application of the
law on criminal liability, which would be deprived of the possibility for their
499
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 492-512
double interpretation and in general contribute to the establishment at the
legislative level of the principle of legal certainty as one of the elements of
the rule of law.
Ryzhova (2004) studied the improvement of criminal law, which provides
for liability for provoking a bribe or commercial bribery or commercial
bribery and supplementing the legislation of the Russian Federation with
the relevant provisions.
Savchenko (2007) conducted a comprehensive criminal law study of the
criminal law of Ukraine and the federal law of the United States. In his work,
the author stressed that US criminal law contains many rules that can be
adequately compared with the relevant rules of Ukrainian law and appear
to be eective and ecient in combating crime, and therefore need to be
studied and implemented in the national legal system. In conclusion, the
author noted that the criminal law of Ukraine should be reformed following
the strategy of European and Euro-Atlantic integration, taking into account
the best international and foreign standards, therefore the model of
comparison of the Ukrainian and American criminal legislation oered by
the dissertation can be taken as a basis at carrying out further comparative
legal researches. Under modern conditions, without recourse to positive
foreign (including American) experience, it is impossible to develop and
improve their criminal law, implement the provisions of international
conventions, exchange legal information and scientic ideas, to build the
national legal system and bring it closer to the legal systems of developed
countries. We unequivocally agree with this position of the author.
Us (2015) examined the composition of the crime of provocation of
bribery and investigated the problematic issues of qualication of this
crime. The author concluded that the provocation of bribery is a special
kind of incitement to crime. That is why the act of the provocateur of
bribery must correspond to the signs of the act of instigator of the crime.
Besides, to provoke bribery, it is necessary to establish the use of the subject
(ocial of both public and private law) in the commission of an act of his
ocial position or ocial authority. Qualifying feature provided for in
Part 2 of Art. 370 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, requires terminological
coordination with other provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and
appropriate denition or explanation (interpretation) at the legislative or
law enforcement levels.
Stern (2017) explains in detail the issue of responsibility for provoking
a crime in Ukraine and as a result of the analysis came to the following
opinions. The author does not agree with the statement that it is impossible
to single out as a separate criminal act provocation of crime, because
provocation of crime contains a characteristic feature that distinguishes this
institution from the institution of incitement to crime – a special purpose of
the provocateur, which is to expose the victim, blackmail or other material or
500
Oksana Stepanenko, Andriy Stepanenko y Maryna Shepotko
Criminal Liability for Provoking Bribery
non-material damage to such a person. Therefore, the author believes that
provocation is a broader concept than an incitement to agree with. Another
distinctive feature of provocation is the implementation of certain active
actions in a situation where there were no sucient grounds to believe that
the crime would have been committed without provocative actions. Since
Part 4 of Art. 27 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which denes the actions
of the instigator, does not fully characterize the actions of the provocateur,
given foreign experience in solving the problem, according to the author,
with which we agree, the legislator should consider supplementing Section
VI of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine “Complicity in crime”
Article “Provocation of a crime” in the following wording: the provocation
of a crime is the deliberate creation by a person of a situation that causes
another person to commit a crime or complicity in it, to expose, blackmail
or cause other material or non-material damage to such person.
The provocateur is subject to criminal liability under the relevant part of
the article of the General Part of this Code and the article (part of the article)
of the Special Part of this Code, which provides for a crime committed by
the perpetrator. Also, the author believes that it would be appropriate to
supplement Section XVIII of the Special Part “Crimes against Justice” with
a special article, which would provide for liability for provocation of crime by
law enforcement ocials and contain the following content: Provocation of
a crime by a law enforcement ocer: an ocial of law enforcement agencies
of the situation that causes another person to commit a crime or complicity
in it, in order to bring such a person to justice; 2. The same actions, if they
caused serious consequences.
For a better understanding of the theoretical foundations and signicance
of bribery, the book “Criminal Law of Ukraine” edited by Tatsii et al. (2015),
scientic and practical commentary on the Criminal Code of Ukraine edited
by Melnyk and Khavroniuk (2008) and a new explanatory dictionary of the
Ukrainian language (Yaremenko and Slipushko, 1998).
Besides, during the study of the object of this article, the analytical
article describing several decisions of the ECtHR to provoke a crime was
analyzed (Kyiv Region Bar Council, 2017).
Also, when writing the article, the statistical information of the General
Prosecutor’s Oce of Ukraine on registered criminal oenses based on the
results of their pre-trial investigation for 2018-2020 was analyzed.
Given the above works, we can conclude that criminal liability for
provoking bribery has been studied among Ukrainian and foreign scholars,
but there is no single comprehensive study on this issue. Therefore, it is
necessary to conduct research on this topic.
501
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 492-512
2. Methodology
Using the dialectical method, the criminal liability for provoking bribery
at dierent times and in dierent conditions was analyzed. Thus, attention
was drawn to the fact that after the introduction of anti-corruption policy
at the state level in Ukraine, considerable attention is paid to the detection,
eective investigation, and timely prosecution for bribery provocation.
Moreover, the analytical method helped to highlight their main provisions.
This method was used to analyze the statistics of law enforcement and
judicial authorities on prosecution for bribery provocation, the provisions
of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, National Anti-Corruption Programs,
Supreme Court judgements. Thanks to this method, it was possible to
comprehensively study the work of many researchers and highlight the main
features of criminal liability for provoking bribery in dierent countries and
the views of domestic and foreign scholars on this issue.
Further, the historical method allowed to study the problem
comprehensively and to pay attention to how dierent historical conditions
inuenced the interpretation of the crime “bribery provocation”.
The generalization method advised to unite the provisions of foreign
laws (Bulgaria, Tajikistan, Belarus, Armenia, the Russian Federation).
This helped to study the foreign experience and summarize how those
prosecuted for provoking bribery.
What is more, the method of comparison helped to distinguish
criminal liability in Ukraine and in the world, which allowed carrying out a
comprehensive analysis of the research question.
Finally, the application of the modeling method was useful for
design how Ukraine’s policy on prosecuting bribery provocation will be
implemented in the future so that it meets the requirements of the time and
social development.
3. Results and discussion
a) International experience in regulating the issue of bribery
provocation
It’s known, that law, as a system of mandatory rules of conduct introduced
or sanctioned by the state, is the most eective regulator of public relations.
No other social norms, such as traditions, customs, norms of morality, etc.,
are able to regulate and ensure the protection of various social relations as
the rules of law do (Tkalych et al., 2020).
502
Oksana Stepanenko, Andriy Stepanenko y Maryna Shepotko
Criminal Liability for Provoking Bribery
The legislation of foreign countries, in most of them, such an act as
intentional incitement to commit a crime is not recognized as criminally
punishable. But criminal liability for provoking bribery is provided for in
the Criminal Codes of the Kyrgyz Republic (Law 19, 1997), the Republic of
Belarus (Law 420, 1999), the Republic of Bulgaria (Law 26/1968, 1968),
the Republic of Armenia (Law ZR-7, 2003), the Republic of Kazakhstan
(Law 226-V, 2014), the Republic of Tajikistan (Law 574, 1998) and the
Russian Federation (Law 63-FЗ, 1996), and, eventually, not all have the
same meaning.
It is important to consider the international experience in more detail.
1. Belarus. Article 396 of Chapter 34 “Crimes against Justice” of the
Penal Code of the Republic of Belarus (Law 420, 1999) provides
liability not for provoking bribery, but for staging a bribe, illegal
reward or commercial bribery, namely provides liability for
“transfer to an ocial, public ocial or other state organization is
not an ocial, or an employee of a sole proprietor or a legal entity
of money, securities, other property or the provision of property
services to articially create evidence of a crime or blackmail.”
2. Bulgaria. Article 307 of Chapter 8 of Section IV of the
Criminal Code of the Republic of Bulgaria (Law 26/1968, 1968)
stipulates, “A person who with premeditation creates a situation or
conditions conducive to the oering, giving or receiving of a bribe
for the purpose of causing harm to a person who gives or receives
the bribe, shall be punished for provocation to give or take bribe by
imprisonment for up to three years.”
3. Republic of Tajikistan. Chapter XIII “Crimes against State Power”
Part 30 “Crimes against State Power, the Interests of the Civil
Service” of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan (Law
574, 1998) contains Article 321 “Provocation of Bribery”, which
establishes liability for attempting to transfer to an ocial, ocial
of a foreign state or ocial of an international organization without
their consent money, securities, other property or the provision
of property services to him to create articial evidence of bribery.
In turn, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan (Law 574,
1998) links the provocation of bribery with crimes against state
power and the interests of the civil service, which also include giving
and receiving bribes. “The object of bribery provocation is public
relations of the order of payment of ocials and public relations that
arise during the detection and consolidation of evidence of bribery.”
4. Russian Federation. Chapter 31 “Crimes against Justice” of the
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Law 63-FЗ, 1996)
contains Article 304 “Provocation of a Bribe, or Commercial
503
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 492-512
Graft”, which provides for liability for “ Provocation of a bribe or
commercial graft, that is, attempts to transfer money, securities, or
other assets, or to render property-related services to a functionary
or a person fullling managerial functions in prot-making and
other organisations, for the purpose of articially manufacturing
evidence of a crime of blackmail.”
5. The Republic of Kazakhstan. Article 253 “Commercial bribery”
of Chapter 9 “Criminal oenses against the interests of service in
commercial and other organizations” of the Criminal Code of the
Republic of Kazakhstan (Law 226-V, 2014) provides for liability
for “illegal transfer of money, securities or other property to the
person, exercising management functions in commercial or other
organization, as well as illegal rendering of services of property
nature for the use by him (her) of his (her) ocial position, as well
as for general protection or connivance in the service in the interests
of person, performing the bribe”.
6. The Kyrgyz Republic. Article 224 “Commercial bribery” of Chapter
34 “Crimes against the interests of service in commercial and other
organizations” of Chapter VII “Crimes against property and economic
activity” of the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic (Law 19, 1997)
provides for liability for “ illegal transfer of money, securities, or any
other assets to a person who discharges the managerial functions
in a commercial organization, and likewise the unlawful rendering
of property-related services to him for the commission of actions
(inaction) in the interests of the giver, in connection with the ocial
position held by this person”.
7. The Republic of Armenia. The Criminal Code of the Republic of
Armenia (Law ZR-7, 2003) establishes criminal liability in Art.
350 “Entrapment for bribe or commercial bribe “, which belongs to
the Section “Crimes against Justice” (Chapter 35). By provoking a
bribe or commercial bribery, the Armenian legislator understands
an attempt to impose on them money, securities, other property
or property services. The penalty for such actions is a ne in the
amount of 300-500 minimal salaries, or imprisonment for up to 5
years, with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain posts
or practice certain activities for up to 3 years.
8. Georgia. Criminal Code of Georgia (Law of Georgia No. 2287, 1999)
in Art. 145 “Provocation of a crime” denes this concept as the
incitement of a person to commit a crime to bring him to justice.
Specically, the criminal liability for provocation of a crime in the
mentioned code is covered by ch. XXIII “Crimes against human
rights and freedoms”, and the punishment for provocation is
provided in the form of restriction of liberty for up to three years,
arrest for up to six months, or imprisonment for up to four years.
504
Oksana Stepanenko, Andriy Stepanenko y Maryna Shepotko
Criminal Liability for Provoking Bribery
9. The Kingdom of Spain. Article 18 of the Criminal Code of the
Kingdom of Spain (Organic act 10/1995, 1995) denes provocation
as inciting a crime in the face of a mass gathering or directly inciting
a person to commit a crime under the inuence of the press, radio,
or a similar means of promoting information. That is, provocation
under the Criminal Code of the Kingdom of Spain is seen as inciting
a signicant number of people. However, such incitement to commit
a crime is not connected at all to further expose the person who is
provoked (incited) to commit a crime.
10. The Republic of Lithuania. Part 1 of Art. 225 of the Criminal Code of
the Republic of Lithuania (Law VIII-1968/2000, 2000) establishes
the liability of civil servants or persons equated to them who for their
benet or the benet of others directly or through intermediaries
accepted, promised or agreed to receive bribes, demanded or
provoked bribery for lawful acts or omissions in the performance of
ocial duties. Based on this, it can be assumed that the provocation
covers the actions of civil servants and persons equated to them,
aimed at creating conditions under which a person is forced to give
a bribe. The provocation under the criminal law of the Republic of
Lithuania is not related to the purpose of exposing the provoked
person, so its content is fundamentally dierent from the content of
the provocation of bribery under domestic law.
It should be noted that most foreign legislators (for example, Australia,
the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of
Argentina, the Republic of Estonia, the State of Israel, the People’s Republic
of China, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden, Latvia,
the Republic of The Republics of Uzbekistan, the Republic of Turkey, the
Federal Republic of Germany, the Swiss Confederation, Israel, Japan) do
not distinguish the concept of “provocation” at all and do not establish
responsibility for provoking bribery.
According to statistics, in Ukraine, there are currently no convictions
in criminal proceedings under Art. 370 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine,
and there is a small number of registered oenses. For example, in 2018 –
26 cases, in 2019 – 22 cases, in 2020 – 2 cases (Statistical information of
the Prosecutor General’s Oce of Ukraine on registered criminal oenses
based on the results of their pre-trial investigation for 2018-2020, 2020).
Nevertheless, this is not a reason to decriminalize this crime.
b) General provisions on criminal liability for provocation of
bribery under the Criminal Code of Ukraine
Following Part 1 of Art. 370 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine under the
provocation of bribery means “actions of an ocial to incite a person to
505
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 492-512
oer, promise or provide an improper benet or accept an oer, promise
or receive such benet, to then expose the person who oered, promised,
improperly beneted or accepted the oer, promise whether he/she
received such a benet.”
Such actions are punishable by restriction of liberty for up to ve years
or imprisonment for a term of two to ve years with a ne of two hundred
and fty to ve hundred non-taxable minimum incomes (hereinafter –
n.t.m.i.), and for the commission of a crime by a law enforcement ocer
– from three to seven years in prison with a ne of ve hundred to seven
hundred and fty n.t.m.i.
At the same time, if analyzed in retrospect, the criminal liability for
provoking bribery has become more severe. So, according to the Criminal
Code of 1960, namely article 171 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine punishment
for such actions was provided in the form of imprisonment for a period of
up to two years.
At present, it is unclear the interpretation of incitement in this article,
because given Part 4 of Art. 27 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, it should
be understood as persuasion, bribery, threat, coercion, other inclination
to commit a criminal oense. It is unlikely that provocation of bribery is
possible by threat, bribery, and coercion.
If we analyze the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it is
worth noting that there is a very ne line between provoking bribery and
lawful actions of law enforcement agencies. Thus, the ECtHR states that it
is not a violation and is not prohibited by the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (United Nations, 1950) to
use secret agents in their activities if justied by a crime.
The ECtHR determines that the actions of a law enforcement agency
are lawful and legal if the law enforcement authority is involved in the
work when there is information that the illegal activity is already taking
place, and it wants to stop it and detain the person concerned. At the same
time, the European Court notes that all procedures must be clear and
transparent, and the investigation itself must be conducted passively. That
is, no simulation of the situation is created because it must be a passive
action.
However, at this time, from the point of view of many scholars, the
question of the need to amend Art. 370 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine,
namely in terms of determining the subject of the crime not only an ocial
but also other persons who have reached the age of criminal responsibility.
Supporting this position, it should be noted that at present, in case of
provocation of bribery by a non-ocial, liability is provided for such actions
under the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which
provides for punishment for the provoked crime.
506
Oksana Stepanenko, Andriy Stepanenko y Maryna Shepotko
Criminal Liability for Provoking Bribery
Therefore, the terms used in the text of the law on criminal liability
should have the same meaning, especially when such a concept becomes
legal, and on the other - the legislator establishes several features that
are unique to corrupt bribery, which makes it impossible to consider it
as universal concept. Unfortunately, in modern Ukrainian criminal-legal
science, these circumstances are mostly ignored. Bribery is still seen either
as a way of committing a crime or, conversely, signs of corrupt bribery are
used to describe acts of a non-corrupt nature, which may well disorient law
enforcement practice.
c) Features of criminal prosecution for provoking bribery
Prosecution for provoking bribery has its own peculiarities. Consider
them in more detail.
Firstly, the provocation of bribery is often seen as complicity in a
crime. In accordance with the position of the Main Legal Department of
the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on amendments to the Criminal Code of
Ukraine article on criminal liability for provocation, which was expressed
before the draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative
Acts of Ukraine to Ensure the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine
and the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption” (Law 198-VIII,
2015). The essence of the above position was that according to current
legislation, a person who incites another person to commit an act that is a
crime, including corruption, is an accomplice to such a crime and is liable
under the same article of the Code, which provides for a crime committed
by the perpetrator. Given the existence in the criminal legislation of Ukraine
of responsibility for incitement to crime, the specialists of the Main Legal
Department disagreed with the possible “allocation” as a separate criminal
act of provocation.
But it is dicult to agree with this position because the provocation of
a crime contains a characteristic feature that distinguishes this institution
from the institution of incitement to crime – a special purpose of the
provocateur, which is to expose the victim, blackmail him or cause other
material or non-material damage to such person. Thus, provocation is a
broader notion than incitement.
Secondly, provocation is the commission of certain active actions in a
situation when there were no sucient grounds to believe that the crime
would have been committed without provocative actions.
Thirdly, the feature is part of the crime under investigation. The
immediate object of this crime is public relations, which ensure the
sustainable operation of public authorities, local governments, their sta,
and legal entities as a public. The subject of the crime under Art. 370 of the
Criminal Code of Ukraine (Law 2341-III, 2001), there is an illegal benet.
507
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 492-512
The objective side of the provocation of bribery is its manifestation in the
act of inciting a person to oer, promise or provide an improper benet or
to accept an oer, promise, or receive such benet. Ways to provoke bribery
include advice, suggestions, requests, coercion, recommendations, threats,
etc. This corpus delicti is characterized by the presence of guilt in the form
of direct intent and purpose aimed at exposing the person who oered,
promised, illegally beneted, or accepted the oer, promise to provide or
received such benet from the subjective point of view. The subject of the
crime is special – an ocial of both public and private law, and under Part 2
of this article, the subject of the crime can only be a law enforcement ocer.
However, special attention should be paid to the qualication of actions
of persons who are not ocials and commit provocative actions aimed
at articially creating conditions for a person and/or persons to obtain
illegal benets, as well as criminal liability for obtaining illegal benets by
the provoked person. Thus, paragraph 3, item 3 of the Resolution of the
Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine “On Judicial Practice in Cases of
Bribery” of April 26, 2002, No. 5 states that in case the giving or receiving
of a bribe took place in connection with a provocation, it does not exclude
the responsibility of those who gave or received it.
Finally, some important issues that are subject to comprehensive
investigation in terms of signs of provocation of bribery in the actions of
a person who performed a special task to disclose the criminal activities of
an organized group or criminal organization, as due to certain regulatory
requirements for such covert investigative action, and in connection with
the tactical features of its implementation. It seems that in this case, an
important criterion for correctly dening the grounds and limits of criminal
liability for provoking bribery is to establish clear denitions for law
enforcement in the provisions of the law on criminal liability, which would
be deprived of opportunities for their double interpretation and in general
contribute to the establishment at the legislative level of the principle of
legal certainty as one of the elements of the rule of law.
Thus, the investigated crime has its features, which are manifested
in the composition of the crime, the peculiarities of its disclosure, and
prosecution.
Conclusions
As a result of the study, the criminal liability for provoking bribery was
analyzed, namely:
1. Bribery is considered an independent criminal oense, the
perpetrators of which are both the subject and the recipient of the
bribe.
508
Oksana Stepanenko, Andriy Stepanenko y Maryna Shepotko
Criminal Liability for Provoking Bribery
2. Provoking bribery is often seen as complicity in a crime. But we
believe that this position does not deserve attention, because the
special purpose of the provocateur is to expose the victim, blackmail
him or cause other material or non-material damage to such a
person. Therefore, provocation is a broader notion than incitement.
3. Provocation is an active action in a situation where there were
no sucient grounds to believe that the crime would have been
committed without provocative actions.
4. The crime of “provocation of bribery” has a special composition and
methods of its commission.
5. International experience conrms that foreign states regulate the
issue of prosecution for committing crimes of bribery dierently.
Thus, some states have generally decriminalized such an act, while
other post-state states are actively enforcing responsibility for the
provocation of bribery.
Regarding further scientic research, it is necessary to pay attention to
the possibility of amending the articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine
on the provocation of bribery of a judge, as well as provocation of bribery
of an individual, not just an ocial. It is also necessary to pay attention to
what served as a basis for the decriminalization of bribery provocations in
foreign countries.
Bibliographic References
ALDANOVA, Kateryna. 2017. Provoking a crime: the case law of the European
Court of Human Rights. In: Judicial-legal newspaper. Available online. In:
https://sud.ua/ru/news/blog/112137-provokatsiya-zlochinupraktika-
yevropeyskogo-sudu-z-prav-lyudini. Consultation date: 15/12/2020.
ALYOSHINA, Olha. 2007. Provocation of a crime (criminal law investigation)
Doctoral thesis. Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Aairs.
Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.
BANTISHEV, Oleksandr; KUZMIN, Serhii. 2008. Provocation of bribery as a
special type of complicity in crime. In: Fight against organized crime and
corruption (theory and practice). Vol. 19, pp. 105–112. Available online.
In: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/boz_2008_19_13. Consultation date:
15/12/2020.
BATRACHENKO, Tetiana. 2016. Comparative legal analysis of criminal liability
for provoking bribery of the legislation of Ukraine and foreign countries.
In: Legal position. No. 1(16), pp. 96-101. Available online. In: http://
509
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 492-512
www.legalposition.umsf.in.ua/archive/2016/1/15.pdf. Consultation
date: 17/12/2020.
DROZDOV, Oleksandr. 2016. Topical issues of protection against provocation
(incitement) of a person to commit a crime in the light of the case law
of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Bulletin of Criminal
Procedure. No. 2, pp. 31–44. Available online. In: http://nbuv.gov.ua/
UJRN/vkc_2016_2_6. Consultation date: 15/12/2020.
DUDOROV, Oleksandr. 2016. Criminal law aspects of bribery provocation. In:
Legal scientic electronic journal. No. 1, pp. 76–82. Available online. In:
http://www.lsej.org.ua/1_2016/23.pdf. Consultation date: 25/12/2020.
EGOROVA, Nataliia. 1997. Provocation of a bribe or commercial bribery. In:
Russian justice. No. 8, pp. 26–28. Available online. In: http://base.
garant.ru/3440122/. Consultation date: 25/12/2020.
LAW OF GEORGIA. 1999. Law of Georgia No. 2287, 22/07/1999. Criminal
Code. Available online. In: https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/
view/16426?publication=209. Consultation date: 12/11/2020.
GRUDZUR, Oleg. 2010. The objective side of bribery provocation. In: Fight
against organized crime and corruption (theory and practice). Vol.
22, pp. 258–266. Available online. In: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/
boz_2010_22_30. Consultation date: 13/12/2020.
KARTAVTSEV, Valerii; TOMCHUK, Inna; PRYTULA, Serhii. 2020. Criminal-
legal analysis of bribery under the legislation of Ukraine and foreign
countries. In: Law and society. No. 4, pp. 227-235. Available online. In:
http://www.pravoisuspilstvo.org.ua/archive/2020/4_2020/35.pdf.
Consultation date: 12/11/2020.
KOMAR, Victoria. 2020. Concepts and types of bribery under the criminal
legislation of Ukraine. In: National University “Odesa Law Academy”.
Odesa, Ukraine.
KYIV REGION BAR COUNCIL. 2017. Several ECtHR decisions on provocation
of a crime. Available online. In: https://radako.com.ua/news/dekilka-
rishen-iespl-shchodo-provokaciyi-zlochinu. Consultation date:
15/12/2020.
MELNYK, Мykola; KHAVRONIUK, Мykola. 2008. Scientic and practical
commentary on the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In: Legal opinion. Kyiv,
Ukraine.
PERELYGINA, Raia; MIRKO, Bohdan. 2018. Regarding certain aspects of
criminal liability for provoking bribery. In: Journal of Kyiv University of
510
Oksana Stepanenko, Andriy Stepanenko y Maryna Shepotko
Criminal Liability for Provoking Bribery
Law. No. 2, pp. 289-292. Available online. In: http://nbuv.gov.ua/j-pdf/
Chkup_2018_2_59.pdf. Consultation date: 19/11/2020.
RADACHINSKY, Serhii. 1999. Responsibility for provoking a bribe or
commercial bribery. Rostov-na-Donu, Ukraine.
REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA. 2003. Law ZR-7/2003, of May 18, Criminal
Code. Available online. In: http://www.parliament.am/legislation.
php?sel=show&ID=1349&lang=eng. Consultation date: 06/01/2021.
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA. 1968. Law 26/1968, of May 2, Criminal Code.
State Gazette, 2 of May 1968, no. 26. Available online. In: https://www.
legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/39/
Bulgaria/show. Consultation date: 06/01/2021.
REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN. 2014. Law 226-V/2014, of July 3, Criminal
Code. Available online. In: https://www.legislationline.org/documents/
section/criminal-codes/country/21/Kazakhstan/show. Consultation
date: 06/01/2021.
REPUBLIC OF TAJIKISTAN. 1998. Law 574/1998 of November 13, Criminal
Code. Available online. In: https://www.legislationline.org/download/
id/8915/le/Tajikistan_CC_1998_am2020_en.pdf. Consultation date:
15/12/2020.
RUSSIAN FEDERATION. 1996. Law 63-FZ/1996 of June 13, Criminal Code:.
Available online. In: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ru/
ru080en.pdf. Consultation date: 15/12/2020.
RYZHOVA, Olha. 2004. Improvement of criminal legislation providing for
liability for provoking a bribe or commercial bribery. In: Russian
investigator. No. 8, pp. 18–22.
SAVCHENKO, Andrii. 2007. Criminal law of Ukraine and federal criminal law
of the United States of America: a comprehensive comparative legal
study. In: Publishing House KTN. Kyiv, Ukraine.
STERN, Andrey. 2017. On the responsibility for provoking a crime in Ukraine.
In: LEAGUE. Blogs. Available online. In: https://blog.liga.net/user/
ashtern/article/28824. Consultation date: 12/11/2020.
TATSII, Vasyl; BORISOV, Valodymyr; TYUTYUGINA Valodymyr. 2015.
Criminal law of Ukraine. Pravo. Kharkiv, Ukraine.
THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN. 1995. Organic act 10/1995 of November 23, on
the Criminal Code. Ocial State Gazette, 24 of November 1995, no.
281. Available online. In: https://www.legislationline.org/documents/
511
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 492-512
section/criminal-codes/country/2/Spain/show. Consultation date:
12/11/2020.
THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC. 1997. Law 19/1997 of September 21, Criminal Code.
Available online. In: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/kg/
kg013en.pdf. Consultation date: 02/01/2021.
THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS. 1999. Law 420/1999 of July 9, Penal Code.
Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta, 35 of September 1999, no. 24, pp.
2-243. Available online. In: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.
detail?p_lang=en&p_isn=54631. Consultation date: 02/01/2021.
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA. 2000. Law VIII-1968/2000 of September
2, Criminal Code. Available online. In: https://www.legislationline.
org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/17/Lithuania/show.
Consultation date: 12/11/2020.
THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND. 1997. Law 1997 of June 6, Penal Code.
Available online. In: https://www.legislationline.org/documents/
section/criminal-codes/country/10/Poland/show. Consultation date:
12/11/2020.
TKALYCH, Maxym; SAFONCHYK, Oksana; TOLMACHEVSKA, Yuliia. 2020.
Private Law and human rights: New realities. In: DIXI. No. 2. pp. 1-12.
LAW UKRAINE. 2001. Law 2341-III/2001 of May 5, Criminal Code of
Ukraine. Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 5 of May 2001.
Available online. In: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2341-14/
conv#n2649. Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
LAW OF UKRAINE. 2015. Law 198-VIII/2015 of 12 February, on Amendments
to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning Ensuring the Activities
of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the National
Agency for the Prevention of Corruption. Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada
of Ukraine12 of February 2015. Available online. In: https://zakon.
rada.gov.ua/laws/show/198-19. Consultation date: 12/11/2020.
UKRAINE. 2020. Statistical information of the Prosecutor General’s Oce of
Ukraine on registered criminal oenses based on the results of their pre-
trial investigation for 2018-2020. Available online. In: https://www.
gp.gov.ua/ua/1stat. Consultation date: 12/11/2020.
UKRAINE. Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, 26 april of 2002. On
judicial practice in cases of bribery: Resolution 5. Available online. In:
http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0005700-02. Consultation
date: 12/11/2020.
512
Oksana Stepanenko, Andriy Stepanenko y Maryna Shepotko
Criminal Liability for Provoking Bribery
UNITED NATIONS. 1950. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. Available online. In: https://www.echr.coe.int/
documents/convention_eng.pdf. Consultation date: 12/11/2020.
UNITED NATIONS. 1999. Anti-Corruption Criminal Convention (ETS 173).
Available online. In: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-
list/-/conventions/treaty/173. Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
US, Olha. 2015. Provocation of bribery: analysis of the crime and qualication
issues. Scientic Bulletin of the International Humanities University.
Series: Jurisprudence. Vol 16, No. 2, pp. 66-70. Available online. In:
http://dspace.nlu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/11463/1/Us_66-70.
pdf. Consultation date: 12/12/2020.
VERETYANNIKOV, Volodymyr. 2013. Some aspects of the expediency of
criminal liability for provoking bribery or commercial bribery. In:
Bulletin of Luhansk State University of Internal Aairs named after E.O.
Didorenko. Vol. 1, pp. 95–102. Available online. In: http://nbuv.gov.ua/
UJRN/Vlduvs_2013_1_12. Consultation date: 10/01/2020.
YAREMENKO, Vayl; SLIPUSHKO, Oksana. 1998. New explanatory dictionary
of the Ukrainian language. In: Aconite. Kyiv, Ukraine.
ZAGODIRENKO, Peter. 2013. Crime provocation: criminal law analysis
and improvement of current legislation. In: Scientic Bulletin of the
International Humanities University. Series: Jurisprudence. Vol. 6–1,
No. 2, pp. 157–159. Available online. In: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/
Nvmgu_jur_2013_6-1%282%29__40. Consultation date: 12/11/2020.
del con te ni do del mis mo con for me a las in di ca cio nes para los co la-
bo ra do res.
8. Bi blio gra fía y fuen tes: de ben ser su mi nis tra das con cla ri dad. El eva-
lua dor to ma rá en cuen ta su per ti nen cia, ac tua li dad y cohe ren cia
con el tema de sa rro lla do.
La eva lua ción de cada uno de esos cri te rios se hará en una es ca la
que va des de ex ce len te has ta de fi cien te. El ár bi tro con clui rá con una Eva-
lua ción de acuer do al ins tru men to: pu bli ca ble, pu bli ca ble con li ge ras
mo di fi ca cio nes, pu bli ca ble con sus tan cia les mo di fi ca cio nes y no pu bli-
ca ble. Los ár bi tros de be rán ex pli car cuá les son las mo di fi ca cio nes su ge-
ri das de una ma ne ra ex plí ci ta y ra zo na da cuan do este fue ra el caso. La re-
vis ta no está obli ga da a ex pli car a los co la bo ra do res las ra zo nes del re-
cha zo de sus ma nus cri tos, ni a su mi nis trar co pias de los ar bi tra jes dado
el ca rác ter con fi den cial que ellos po seen.
154
Normas para los autores
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
857
