Тематичний напрям 2.
Розвиток державного
управління та державної служби: міжнародний досвід
УДК 351: 342.5
Бисага Катерина Володимирівна
студент-магістр Університету Екзетер, Великобританія
Comparative analysis of regulation of
the problem of misappropriation of public funds by officials in Ukraine and the
United Kingdom
This article is focused on
the problem of misappropriation of public funds in Ukraine and the United
Kingdom and compares the law of two countries.
This work has found out the common and different in legislation on the regulation of misappropriation of public funds by officials and possible penalties for this offence in Ukraine and the
UK.
Порівняльний аналіз правового
регулювання проблеми привласнення державних коштів посадовими особами в Україні
та Великобританії
Дана стаття розглядає проблему незаконного привласнення
державних коштів в Україні
і Великобританії та порівнює їх законодавство. Ця стаття наводить приклади спільного та
відмінного в законодавстві України
та Великобританії щодо регулювання
питання незаконного привласнення
державних коштів посадовими особами
та встановлені покарання за це правопорушення.
Сравнительный анализ правового
регулирования проблемы присвоения государственных средств должностными лицами в
Украине и Великобритании
Данная статья рассматривает проблему незаконного присвоения государственных средств
в Украине и
Великобритании, а также сравнивает их законодательство. Эта статья приводит примеры общего и отличного в законодательстве Украины
и Великобритании по регулированию
вопроса о незаконном присвоении государственных
средств должностными лицами
и установленными наказаниями
за это правонарушение.
Statement of the
problem. The relevance of this article is is caused first of all by the fact
that after the revolution that had happened in Ukraine during 2013-2014, many
‘dark’ or shadow facts have surfaced, which show how the previous government
misappropriated budget funds. The problem of misappropriation of public funds
by politicians (members of the government and deputies) was always present in
Ukraine because legal norms that regulate issues of corruption, money
laundering and misappropriation are very weak. The other situation is in the
UK, where the government does not ignore the problem of misappropriation of
public funds by officials and try to provide a fitting rebuff to this offence.[1]
In Ukraine, this
problem began to develop with the growth and proliferation after elections in
2010 when Victor Yanukovych became the President of Ukraine. Viktor Yanukovych
came to power by having behind him two influential oligarchs in Ukraine: Rinat
Akhmetov and Dmytro Firtash. However, the ‘friendship’ with oligarchs was
short-lived. At the beginning of his presidency, he began to actively usurp and
control state assets and make them available to people who were close to him,
for example his eldest son Oleksander. He was an unknown dentist up to the
presidency of his father. Over the past four years he became an oligarch. He
and his company served nearly half of state contracts. Subsequently, his
fortune is estimated at slightly more than $ 500 million. [2] This is only one small example of how
the ex-president and his ‘family’ illegally used the power that they had in
order to misappropriate public funds.
The importance
of this research is predetermined primarily by the circumstances that occurred
in Ukraine in the last ten years: corruption in public authorities; money laundering
by politicians; the raiding of enterprises by oligarchs that have a strong bond
with officials; norms of the law that were unfavourable for small and medium
businesses. Also, it is connected with the fact that Ukraine is a young
independent country and many legal norms are based on the legislation of the
USSR.
Review of the
literature. This article includes the information from legislation, books,
monographs, journal and newspaper articles. In the practical aspect of the
issue, it has been analysed in various areas of law. In the sphere of criminal
law in Ukraine the problem of misappropriation of public funds was studied by
Vasyl Tatsiy,[3] Volodymyr
Stashys,[4] and Marco
Bazhanov.[5] Their research
is focused on their own experience. By analysing all the information that they
get, each of them developed recommendations, which are closely similar. The
main one is that misappropriation of public funds by officials, in Ukraine
become ‘more popular’, so one of the most effective mechanisms to counter this
fact may be an increase of penalties that person may undergo.
For instance, in
the sphere of administrative law this issue was investigated by Sergiy Pyetkov.
[6] His research is based on the study of the
nature of the work of public authorities, rights and duties of officials in
Ukraine. The research of Semen Stecenko[7] shows that the
state apparatus in Ukraine is weak and it needs to be reformed. The study of
Yuri Bytyak[8] shows that there
new legal acts should be created to regulate the activities of officials and
thereby eliminate the rules of the USSR that still exist in Ukrainian
legislation.
In the UK in the
area of criminal law the research of Simon Parsonsshows that any official
misconduct threatens the interests of both citizens and state interests, especially
when it concerns public funds.[9] The research of Andrew Ashworth and Jeremy
Horder;[10] Jonathan
Herring[11] and Peter
Binning[12] indicates that
officials should bear equal responsibility if they commit a crime.
Additionally, bribery and corruption that exist in the UK encourages officials
to commit malfeasance. Sentences that exist should be more strict.
In the sphere of
administrative law this issue has been studied by Paul Craig, by professors
A.W. Bradley and K.D. Ewing.[13] Their researches show that administrative
public policy in the UK is on the high level. The government in the UK has a
duty of care and statutory duty, so, if someone will breach these duties,
he/she will be liable and in some cases it could be life imprisonment.
No previous
comparative analysis of misappropriation of public funds by officials in the UK
and Ukraine has been undertaken.
The aim of the
article. The aim of the article is to examine the problem of regulation of
misappropriation of public funds by officials in Ukraine and the UK.
The objectives of the article are as follows: to compare Ukrainian and the UK
legal rules that regulate the issue of misappropriation of public funds by
officials and its qualification; and, to examine legal liability of top
officials in Ukraine and the UK in the case of misappropriation of public
funds.
The main
material. The act of misappropriation of public funds is an offence that is
committed by officials and usually entails criminal liability. Legislation of
each country looks differently to this type of crime. According to the UK and
Ukrainian legislation, there is no direct definition of misappropriation of
public funds. In both countries the crime of misappropriation of public funds
by officials could be qualified under several offences.
In obedience to
the UK and Ukrainian legislation misappropriation of public funds by officials
could be qualified as three different crimes. In Ukraine this offence could
fall under three crimes: misappropriation, embezzlement of property or
obtaining it through the abuse of the official position; an inappropriate use
of budget funds, expenditure budget or loans from the budget without
established budget allocations or exceeding them; an abuse of power or
position.[14] In the UK
qualification of misappropriation of public funds is different. Only one
qualification is similar to Ukrainian crime of abuse of power or position and
it is a misconduct in public office (malfeasance in office).[15] Two other
qualifications are the crime of fraud by abuse of position[16] and theft.[17] Next paragraphs provide an analysis of
these offences.
Article 191 of
the Criminal Code of Ukraine contains provisions for the offence of
misappropriation, embezzlement of property (including money) or obtaining it
through the abuse of the official position. This article envisages that from
the objective side this offence could be committed in three ways:
misappropriation of another's property that has been entrusted to a person or
was in its jurisdiction; misappropriation of such property; misappropriation,
embezzlement, or obtaining another's property through the abuse of office.[18]
Under this
article there is a prosecution of Serhiy Kurchenko, who avoids investigation
and declared wanted by the public Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine. He was
involved in laundering and misappropriation of public funds. He is not a public
official, but he had close links with ex-government of Ukraine.[19] His
participation in the scheme for misappropriation of public funds will be
described in the next chapter. Besides, the following officials are suspected
of having committed the offence under this article: Victor Pshonka (ex-General
Attorney), Mykola Prysiazhnyuk (ex-Minister of Agrarian Policy), Vitaliy
Zaharchenko (ex-Minister of Internal Affairs), Sergiy Arbuzov (ex-First
Vice-Prime Minister), Eduard Stavitskiy (ex-Minister of Energy and Mines).[20]
Article 364 of
the Criminal Code of Ukraine sets limits for the crime of an abuse of power or
position.[21] Abuse of
authority or malfeasance recognized as a crime by the presence of three special
features in their entirety. Firstly, the use of the official authority or
official position contrary to the interests of the service. Secondly, the
offence was committed for mercenary motives or other personal benefit or for
the benefit of third parties. Thirdly, the crime is causing substantial
damages, by such actions, to legally protected rights and interests of
individual citizens, or state and public interests, or interests of legal
entities. The absence of one of these features indicates the absence of a
crime. The subject of the abuse of power or position can only be an official.[22]
At the moment,
several ex-public officials are charged under this article. In particular:
Viktor Yanukovych (ex-President), Mykola Azarov (ex-Prime minister), Victor
Pshonka (ex-General Attorney), Oleksandr Klymenko (ex-Minister of Income and
Charges), Dmytro Tabachnyk (ex-Minister of Education and Science), Roman
Bogachev (ex-Deputy Minister of Health).[23] At the moment, they are hiding from the
investigation.
The next offence
under which the official could be liable if he/she commits a crime of
misappropriation of public funds is mentioned in Article 210. Article 210 of
the Criminal Code of Ukraine contains provisions for inappropriate use of
budget funds, expenditure budget or loans from the budget without established
budget allocations or exceeding them. The subject of offence is special. It is
an official with special functions, because he/she has an access to public
funds.[24]
Ukraine and the
UK are two different legal systems. Therefore, in comparison with Ukrainian
law, English law does not give a broad description of the elements of the
offence, subject, objective or subjective side.
In the UK the
crime of misconduct in public office (malfeasance in office) is an offence that
involves: negligent to perform a duty; abuse of trust and clear intent to
commit inappropriate acts which would injure public interest.[25] Moreover, there
is recommendation that if the misconduct in public office could be qualified as
another statutory offence, it should be qualified as such and the misconduct in
public office in such case would be an aggravating factor.[26] Furthermore, the misappropriation of
public funds by officials could be qualified as a tort case as misfeasance in
public office in order when a person ‘wilfully neglects to perform his duty’.[27]
Another offence
which could cover misappropriation of public funds is covered by section 4 of
the Fraud Act 2006,[28] which contains
provisions regarding fraud by abuse of position. This offence is covered
actions that committed against the financial interests of others and cause
damage, abusing the position in order to get benefits for themselves. Here, a
person could be liable even if his/her conduct was an omission rather than an
act.
Furthermore, in
accordance with the section 1 of the Theft Act 1968,[29] misappropriation of public funds by
officials could be qualified as a theft. Here the definition of the theft is
next: ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of
it..... It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain,
or is made for the thief’s own benefit.’[30] Previously, misappropriation of public
funds could be classified as embezzlement, in accordance with section 17 of the
Larceny Act 1916.[31] However, it was
replaced and now all these actions have come under the category of theft.[32]
It is possible
to argue that the absence of the legal definition in the UK and Ukrainian
legislation poses challenges with the qualifications of this crime. Therefore,
it is difficult fully appreciated the wrongful acts of an official in relation
to public funds. This is due to the fact that bearers of evidence-based
information (content or traces of forgery) in such crimes are documents. These
kinds of traces in documents are much more difficult to detect, because
officials try to mask them carefully.[33]
Criminal
liability of public officials occupies a special niche in the law. First of
all, this is due to their official and political power. Secondly, it is due to
the procedure on bringing them to the trial.
At first, let's
deal with Ukrainian legislation. Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine
contains provisions for the offence of misappropriation, embezzlement of
property (including money) or obtaining it through the abuse of the official
position. In accordance with this article the minimum punishment for the
official could be: restraint of liberty for up to five years. The maximum
punishment could be imprisonment for a term from seven to twelve years with
deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain
activities for a term up to three years and with confiscation of property.[34] An interesting
fact is that unlike the following two articles, this, does not include any
penal sanctions as a form of punishment for officials. Besides, this article in
compare with two other articles has more strict norms relatively the maximum
limits for penalties.
Article 210 of
the Criminal Code of Ukraine contains provisions for inappropriate use of
budget funds, expenditure budget or loans from the budget without established
budget allocations or exceeding them.[35] According to this article, the minimum
punishment for this offence could be: the fine from one hundred to three
hundred of untaxed minimum of income of citizens (1.700-5.100UAH or
81.61-244.83GBP (according to the official exchange rate set by the National
Bank of Ukraine as of 14.10.2014)[36]). The maximum
punishment includes: imprisonment for a term from three to six years, with
deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain
activities for a term up to three years.[37]
The last one is
Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which sets limits for the crime of
an abuse of power or position. Pursuant to this article the minimum punishment
could be: detention for up to six months. The maximum punishment includes:
imprisonment for a term from three to six years with disqualification to hold
certain posts or practice certain activities for up to three years with a fine
from five hundred to one thousand untaxed minimum incomes of citizens
(8.500-17.000UAH or 408.06-816.13GBP (according to the official exchange rate
set by the National Bank of Ukraine as of 14.10.2014)[38]) and with special confiscation.[39]
According to the
UK case law and Acts, the crime of misappropriation of public funds by
officials could be qualified as next criminal offences: misconduct in public
office (malfeasance in office), fraud by abuse of position, theft. For the
offence of misconduct in public office, the official could get a maximum
punishment of life imprisonment.[40] It is totally
different from the punishment in Ukraine, because there is no life imprisonment
for such types of crimes and a maximum punishment could be an imprisonment for
a term of twelve years.[41] The minimum
punishment for this offence is not mentioned and decided by the court during
the proceedings. Besides, misappropriation of public funds could be qualified
as a tort offence of misfeasance in public office and cause an action in the
civil court and public official would have civil liability.[42]
For the crime of
fraud by abuse of position the minimum punishment is based on the case by case
basis. To do this, the court takes into account all the facts of the case and
takes into account inflicted harm. The larger the amount of loss the greater
would be the punishment. On this issue, Ukrainian and British courts follow the
identical tactic. The maximum punishment for the fraud by abuse of position is
ten years of imprisonment.[43]
In accordance
with the Theft Act 1968, a person who is responsible for the theft could get
punishment for imprisonment for up to seven years.[44] Again, the court would take into
account all facts of the case and aggravating circumstances if they are
present.
As it can be
seen, in the UK law, there is no such broad qualification of offences and
therefore strict limits on the appropriate punishment for a particular offence.
The main factor is that in the UK there is the dominant of case law, therefore
the main role is played by the court and the judges who interpret the offence.
All public
officials in the course of official duties should act only on the basis and
within the limits and in the manner provided by law. These requirements apply
to any and all officials, regardless of whether they are members of the
legislative, executive or judicial branches of government, perform their duties
within the state apparatus or local authorities, legal entities of public or
private law. Due to positions that public officials held, there is a special
procedure for them to be criminally liable.[45]
The criminal
liability of the Member of Parliament in Ukraine is not an easy issue. This is
due to the fact, that according to Article 80 of the Constitution of Ukraine[46] Members of
Parliament in Ukraine have immunity and only Parliament has the authority to
remove it. In order to remove the parliamentary immunity, the Prosecutor
General of Ukraine must give a special order to the Parliament. Firstly, this
procedure can last up to 25 days and such fact gives an opportunity to a Member
of Parliament to escape. This is what happened with the procedure of lifting
the parliamentary immunity of the deputy Tsarev. A long consideration of the
special order from the Prosecutor General of Ukraine gave him the opportunity
to escape. Only then the Parliament of Ukraine withdraws parliamentary immunity
of Mr. Tsarev[47] and gave the
permission to arrest him.[48] Secondly, in
case if deputies did not give their consent the deputy remains untouchable and
there is no other way how to deprive the deputy immunity.[49]
In the UK the
situation with the immunity of the deputy is opposite to Ukrainian. Here, the
MP has immunity and protected from any civil action that have a connection with
slander or libel until he/she is in the House of parliament. This type of
immunity called parliamentary privilege. However, a member of British
parliament is not protected from criminal prosecution. It is connected with the
fact that British constitutionalism treats all citizens as those who are equal
before the law regardless of their position.[50]
The issue of
criminal responsibility of the President in Ukraine, has its own nuances. The
President, as deputies in Ukraine, has special immunity, so there is a certain
order to bring him or her to the trial. The immunity of inviolability
disappears when the President is deprived his/her powers. According to the
Constitution of Ukraine, there are four ways of how the President could lose
his authority.[51] Concerning
criminal prosecution, there are only two options: resignation or impeachment.[52]
An interesting
fact is that government officials in Ukraine, Prime Minister and Ministers,
unlike the deputies and the President do not have any immunity. They are
subject to direct criminal responsibility. The beginning of the proceedings of
criminal liability leads to termination of authority or to the removal of the
accused from office.[53] Such conditions
are identical with those that exist in the UK. Here, the Prime Minister and
Ministers are directly liable for any criminal offences that they commit.
Public officials
are individuals who bear increased responsibility for their actions. The most
common offences among them are: the abuse of power, embezzlement of budget,
misappropriation of public funds. Committing of economic crimes by the abuse of
office has a tendency to increase on the background of social and economic
reforms and economic crisis. Therefore, expands the list of forms and types of
these crimes that have a fairly high degree of similarity, which creates some
problems with their qualifications.
Conclusion.
Misappropriation of public funds is an offence, which is usually committed by
public officials. The legal regulation of misappropriation of public funds by
officials and types of qualification of this act as a crime is quite similar in
Ukraine and the UK. It is interesting that none of these countries have the
legal definition of misappropriation of public funds. This offence is described
in general, as a part of other crimes such as embezzlement, abuse of position
or theft.
The UK
legislation is stricter than Ukrainian legislation and it provides tougher
responsibility for the commission of such offence. This is due to many factors,
one of the main is that the legal foundations that were laid down in
legislation in the Soviet Union are still dominant in the legal systems of the
former Soviet Union countries, including Ukraine. They contradict not only to
the legal norms of the civilized world, but also to logic of social and
economic development of a normal democratic society.
On the one hand,
the development of negative trends regarding the misappropriation of public
funds is due to the low level of responsibility of officials and corruption in
various levels. On the other hand, to some extent it caused by loopholes in the
legislation which allows officials during the crime of misappropriation of
budget funds use illegal mechanisms.
References:
1.
Constitution
of Ukraine (28.06.1996) № 254к/96-ВР
2.
Criminal
Code Of Ukraine [2001], Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 29.06.2001,
№2341-II
3.
R
v Bembridge (1783) 3 Doug KB 32
4.
Three
Rivers D.C. v Bank of England (no 3) [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1220
5.
R
v Sookoo (2002) TLR 10/4/02
6.
Fraud
Act 2006 (c.35)
7.
Larceny
Act 1916 (c.50)
8.
Theft
Act 1968 (c.60)
9.
Resolution
of Supreme Council of Ukraine On granting consent of criminal prosecution of
deputy of Ukraine O. Tsarev, (3.06.2014) № 1305-VII
10.
Resolution
of Supreme Council of Ukraine On sanction the detention and selection in
relation to Ukraine's deputy O. Tsarev preventive measure of detention,
(3.06.2014) № 1306-VII
11.
Sentencing
Guidelines Council, ‘Sentencing for Fraud – Statutory offences’ (October 2009)
<http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_sentencing_for_fraud_statutory_offences.pdf>
accessed 5 September 2014
12.
The
Crown Prosecution Service, Misconduct in Public Office: Legal Guidance,
SN/PC/04909
13.
Transparency
International UK, ‘Corruption in the UK. Overview and policy recomendations’
(June 2011) ISBN 978-0-9566194-4-0
14.
Ministry
of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Persons who are fleeing from authorities
<http://mvs.gov.ua/mvs/control/investigation/search/wantedPerson>
15.
Andrew
Ashworth & Jeremy Horder, Principles of Criminal Law (7th edn, OUP 2013)
16.
Bazhanov
M. And others, Criminal Law of Ukraine (Kiev-Kharkiv, Yurinkom inter 2001)
17.
Bradley
A.W. and Ewing K.D., Constitutional and Administrative Law (15th edn, Longman
2010)
18.
Bytyak
Y., and others, Administrative Law of
Ukraine, (Kiev, Yurinkom inter 2007)
19.
Dicey
A.V., An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (Liberty Fund
Inc, 8th Revised edition edition 1982)
20.
Edward
Griew, The Theft Acts 1968 and 1978 (5th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 1986)
21.
Jonathan
Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (5th edn, OUP 2012)
22.
Melnyk
M., Havronyuk M., Scientific and Practical Commentary of the Criminal Code of
Ukraine (9th edn, Kiev, Yurydychna dumka 2012)
23.
Paul
Craig, Administrative Law (6th edn, Sweet&Maxwell 2008)
24.
Stashys
V. and others, Criminal Code of Ukraine:Scientific and practical comment (Kyiv,
In Jure 2003)
25.
Stecenko
S., Administrative Law of Ukraine (Kyiv, Atika 2007)
26.
Tatsiy
V. and others, Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Scientific and practical
comment Volume 2 (Kharkiv, Pravo 2012)
27.
Telipko
V.E., Constitutional and constitutional-procedural law of Ukraine (Kiev, Center
for educational literature 2009)
28.
Volobuev
A.F., Criminalistics (Kharkiv, HNUVS 2011)
29.
Maxim
Logvinov, ‘Heritage of Yanukovych’ (03.03.2014) Kompaniya №8 (789)
30.
Peter
Binning, ‘When dishonesty is not enough’ (2004) 154 NLJ 1042
31.
Petro
Andrushko, ‘Public official as a special person as an offence’ (2011) YVU
№25-26
32.
Pyetkov
S.V., ‘Administrative and legal regulation of the activities of public
authorities in Ukraine’ (2009) 4 YZH 60-64
33.
Simon
Parsons, ‘Misconduct in a public office – should it stil be prosecuted?’ (2012)
JCL 9
34.
Anna
Babinets, ‘Corporation of Kurchenko: self calculation’ (28 March 2014)
<http://gazeta.dt.ua/energy_market/korporaciya-kurchenka-samorozrahunki-_.html>
accessed 7 September 2014
35.
National
Bank of Ukraine website, ‘Exchange Rates as of 14.10.2014’
<http://www.bank.gov.ua/control/uk/curmetal/currency/search?formType=searchFormDate&time_step=daily&date=14.10.2014&execute=%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8>
accessed 14 October 2014
[1] Transparency International UK,
‘Corruption in the UK. Overview and policy recomendations’ (June 2011) ISBN
978-0-9566194-4-0
[3] Tatsiy V. and others, Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Scientific and practical comment Volume 2 (Kharkiv, Pravo 2012) p.301
[4] Stashys V. and others, Criminal Code of Ukraine:Scientific and practical comment (Kyiv, In Jure 2003) p.203
[6] Pyetkov S.V., ‘Administrative
and legal regulation of the activities of public authorities in Ukraine’ (2009) 4 YZH
60-64
[13] Bradley
A.W. and Ewing K.D., Constitutional and
Administrative Law (15th edn, Longman 2010) p.605
[14] Criminal Code Of Ukraine [2001], Bulletin
of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 29.06.2001, №2341-II, Article 191
[18] Melnyk
M., Havronyuk M.,
Scientific and Practical Commentary of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (9th edn, Kiev,
Yurydychna dumka 2012) p.490-491
[19] Anna Babinets, ‘Corporation
of Kurchenko: self calculation’ (28 March 2014)
<http://gazeta.dt.ua/energy_market/korporaciya-kurchenka-samorozrahunki-_.html>
accessed 7 September 2014
[20] Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Persons who are fleeing from authorities <http://mvs.gov.ua/mvs/control/investigation/search/wantedPerson>
[24] Criminal Code Of Ukraine, op.cit.,
Article 210
[26] R v Sookoo (2002) TLR 10/4/02
[30] ibid
[31] c.50
[35]
Criminal Code Of Ukraine, op.cit., Article 210
[36]
National National Bank of Ukraine website, ‘Exchange Rates as of 14.10.2014’ <http://www.bank.gov.ua/control/uk/curmetal/currency/search?formType=searchFormDate&time_step=daily&date=14.10.2014&execute=%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8>
accessed 14 October 2014
[37]
Criminal Code Of Ukraine, op.cit., Article 210
[38]
National Bank of Ukraine website, ‘Exchange
Rates as of 04.07.2014’, op.cit.
[40] The Crown Prosecution Service, Misconduct
in Public Office: Legal Guidance, op.cit.
[41] Criminal Code Of Ukraine, op.cit.,
Section 5 Article 191
[42] The Crown Prosecution Service, Misconduct
in Public Office: Legal Guidance, op.cit.
[43] Sentencing Guidelines Council, ‘Sentencing for Fraud – Statutory
offences’ (October 2009)
<http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_sentencing_for_fraud_statutory_offences.pdf>
accessed 5 September 2014
[44] Theft Act 1968, op.cit., Section 7
[47] Resolution of Supreme Council of Ukraine On granting
consent of criminal prosecution
of deputy of Ukraine O. Tsarev, (3.06.2014) № 1305-VII
[48]
Resolution of Supreme Council of
Ukraine On sanction the detention and selection in relation to Ukraine's deputy O. Tsarev
preventive measure of detention, (3.06.2014) № 1306-VII
[50] Dicey A.V., op.cit.,
p.180-183
[51] Constitution of Ukraine, op.cit., Article
108
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар