MODERN APPROACHES TO PROBLEMS OF ANTI-CORRUPTION PUBLIC AUTHORITIES REFORM IN UKRAINE

Abstract

Problems of prevention and fight against corruption are important priorities in the state policy of Ukraine. This phenomenon, like corruption, impedes the reform of modern Ukrainian society, worsens the socio-economic situation of the state, affects negatively all spheres of the life of a national society. One of the priority directions and strategies in the state anti-corruption policy is the creation and development of innovative anti-corruption institutions. One of the important foundations for the formation of such innovative institutions is their independence, professionalism, systemicity, legitimacy, legality, etc. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor, the State Investigation Bureau, the National Agency for the Detection, Investigation and Asset Recovery of Corruption and Other Crimes, and the Highest Anticorruption Court were established during 2015-2018. At the same time, the effectiveness of anti-corruption policy is not yet. According to experts, the new anti-corruption authorities have a selective approach to the identification of suspects and political interdependence, a certain dependence on the influence of representatives of financial-industrial groups and political-ruling elites and, accordingly, the possibility of their use to persecute political opponents. Among other shortcomings of the fight against corruption in Ukraine, foreign experts point out the lack of professionalism, inexperience and lack of independence in the decision-making of the leaders and ordinary staff of NABU and SAP. Serious doubts raise the justification for replacing the criterion of professionalism with the criterion of "new faces" in the formation of the state of NABU and other anti-corruption bodies, their excessive activity in the media, to hide the lack of real results, public scandals and corporate wars between the "old" (primarily the Prosecutor General's Office) and "new "Anti-corruption institutions, which leads to a conflict of jurisdiction and worsens the performance of activities. The problem of streamlining and optimizing the subjects of prevention and counteraction to corruption in order to implement the effective and effective state anti-corruption policy, reducing the manifestations of corruption in Ukraine, is being activated today. In our opinion, rationalization and optimization of anti-corruption bodies of state power should be carried out according to the following algorithm: formation of a problem field - in particular, raising the level of anti-corruption culture, forming preventive mechanisms for the prevention of corruption; carrying out reengineering of anti-corruption bodies of state power; reforming anti-corruption bodies of state power. Equally important is the problem of the formation of a professional corps of anti-corruption bodies of state power on the one hand, and the impartial and transparent formation of the leadership of anti-corruption bodies, regardless of the policy of the state - on the other hand. The analysis provides the basis for determining the following clusters of problems of the formation and development of anti-corruption institutions of state power. First, there is no single concept for the formation and development of anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine. Secondly, the lack of specially trained specialists, who would be knowledgeable not only in law issues but also in the formation and development of public policy, were able to conduct financial audits, collate and analyze data. That is, there was an urgent need to form a new generation of specialists of anti-corruption bodies of state power. Thirdly, there is no system for auditing the effectiveness and effectiveness of the anti-corruption institutions itself. Thus, the state spends a lot of money and resources on the creation and development of anti-corruption institutions than the funds and resources provided by such bodies of state power. Fourthly, there are no real mechanisms for punishing corruption offenses. Fifthly, there is no institution of voluntary confiscation of funds provided that it is impossible to explain the origin of the stakes. This would allow offenders to avoid or mitigate criminal liability. Sixth, the Highest Anticorruption Court does not work so far, dampening all the efforts of other anti-corruption institutions.