For a certain category of persons, the legislation establishes the obligation to monitor the implementation of anti-corruption restrictions by other persons. And for failure to take appropriate measures, such persons face administrative liability.
Such responsibilities have their own characteristics. Under what conditions are the actions of a person not considered inaction to prevent corruption? We will consider these questions later in the article.
Who are the requirements for?
In general, this article applies to managers or persons specifically authorized to take measures to combat corruption. That is, in order for a person to be held liable, an appropriate obligation must be imposed to take measures to combat corruption and to notify the relevant authorities of the violations identified. Therefore, we advise you to pay attention to whether such a person is really obliged to monitor compliance with the anti-corruption law and take measures.
It should also be noted that in addition to officials and officials, defined in the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption", this article also applies to officials in the field of sports. In particular, these are:
- officials and officials of sports organizations;
- officials and officials of the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Ukraine;
- officials of sports federations, the National Olympic Committee of Ukraine, the Sports Committee of Ukraine;
- officials in the field of sports: the owner, shareholder, manager or employee of a legal entity that organizes and promotes sports competitions, as well as persons authorized to hold an official sports competition;
- leaders and employees of the international sports organization, other competent sports organizations that recognize the competition.
How to determine if the requirements apply?
- You should make sure that the person is really an official or official. It is implied that such a person is indeed obliged to monitor the observance by employees of the restrictions established by law and to take measures to stop corruption and corruption-related offenses.
- The person is specially authorized to carry out such measures. For example, by order of the head of the institution, the relevant person is authorized to supervise the compliance of other employees with the requirements of anti-corruption legislation and is obliged to report relevant violations.
What actions are an offense?
In this offense, the objective side is manifested precisely in the form of inaction - failure to take measures to combat corruption.
It should be noted here that the law on administrative liability does not specify a specific list of measures to be taken by a person. At the same time, such obligations are contained in anti-corruption legislation and many of them. Therefore, when prosecuting, the protocol on an administrative offense must contain a reference to an article of the law that defines specific obligations to combat corruption that have not been fulfilled.
Pay attention! Liability under this article arises only in case of inaction to combat corruption offenses *.
* Corruption offense - an act that contains signs of corruption and for which the law establishes criminal, disciplinary and / or civil liability. Please note that administrative liability arises only for offenses related to corruption, ie those that do not contain signs of corruption. Therefore, in case a person commits one of the offenses defined in Chapter 13-A of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the head of such a person cannot be prosecuted under Art. 172-9 КУпАП.
- The person must pay for failure to take measures in case of detection of a corruption offense a fine in the amount of UAH 2,125 to UAH 4,250 (Part 1 of Article 172-9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses).
- In case of repeated commission of such an offense within a year after the application of administrative sanctions - a fine from UAH 4,250 to UAH 6,800 (Part 2 of Article 172-9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses).
Pay attention! To qualify an act under Part 2 of this article is a mandatory element preliminary application of the penalty. That is, if the case was closed due to the expiration of time, Part 1 of this article shall apply.
According to the analysis of judicial practice, as of today, protocols under this article are practically not drawn up. Most likely, this is due to the difficulty of proving the inaction of a person to prevent corruption. At the same time, the activity of the bodies that draw up protocols on corruption offenses shows that you need to be prepared and know what to pay attention to in case of drawing up a protocol.