Building an effective anti-corruption system is one of the key priorities of the modern Ukrainian state and a prerequisite for its sustainable democratic development and successful European integration. The establishment of specialized anti-corruption institutions, such as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPО), and the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), was an important step in this direction. However, institutionalization is only the first stage; ensuring their effective and coordinated work, in particular through a clear regulatory definition of competence, remains an urgent scientific and practical task.
The article highlights the problem of insufficient clarity and conflicts in the legislative delineation of subject and subjective jurisdiction between the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), the police (NPU) and other pre-trial investigation bodies in Ukraine. The author analyzes the difficulties that arise in practice due to ambiguity of the criteria for determining the jurisdiction of corruption and corruption-related criminal offenses, potential duplication of functions and the risks of jurisdictional disputes, which negatively affect the efficiency and effectiveness of investigations.
The article substantiates the thesis that the existing shortcomings in the legal regulation of jurisdiction create significant obstacles to the effective implementation of the tasks of criminal proceedings in grand corruption cases. It is argued that the vagueness of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and special legislation on the delimitation of powers of anti-corruption bodies leads to delays in procedural terms, inefficient use of resources and can be used to evade responsibility by manipulating the determination of the appropriate investigative body.
The author emphasizes the need for a systematic review and improvement of the legislative provisions governing the jurisdiction of anti-corruption cases through a detailed analysis of the current rules and practice of their application. Based on the identified gaps and contradictions, and also taking into account the comparative legal analysis of approaches to the delimitation of jurisdiction in this area in other countries, the author formulates specific proposals for clarifying the criteria of jurisdiction and optimizing the interaction between law enforcement agencies in order to strengthen the overall capacity of the State to fight corruption.
1. Konstytutsiia Ukrainy [Constitution of Ukraine]: vid 28.06.1996 No. 254k/96-VR: stanom na 1 sich. 2020 r. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254к/96-вр#Text] (Accessed: 06.05.2025). [In Ukrainian].
2. Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy [Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine]: Kodeks Ukrainy vid 13.04.2012 No. 4651-VI: stanom na 26 hrud. 2024 r. Retrieved from: [https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651- 17#Text] (Accessed: 06.05.2025). [In Ukrainian].
3. Pidslidnist: shcho rozsliduie NABU ta yaki problemy z vyznachennyam yii kompetentsii? [Pidslidnist: What is NABU investigating and what problems are there with determining its competence?]. MILLER LAW FIRM. Retrieved from: https://millerlawfirm.ua/pidslidnist-shho-rozsliduye-nabu-ta-yaki-proble... (Accessed: 06.05.2025). [In Ukrainian].
4. Voitiuk, R. V. (2019). Detektyv Natsionalnoho antykoruptsiinoho biuro Ukrainy yak subiekt kryminalnykh protsesualnykh pravovidnosynu [Detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine as subjects of procedural relations in criminal cases]: dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk: 12.00.09. Natsionalna akademiia vnutrishnikh sprav. Kyiv, 289 p. [In Ukrainian].
5. Yanovych, Yu. P. (2015). Dosudove rozsliduvannia koruptsiinykh zlochyniv: osoblyvosti kryminalnoi protsesualnoi formy [Preliminary investigation in corruption cases: peculiarities of procedural form in criminal cases]. Profilaktyka koruptsiinykh pravoporushen: nauk.-prakt. konf. (Kharkiv, 7 kvit. 2015 r.): zb. tez dop. Kharkiv: KhNU im. V. N. Karazina. Р. 341–347. [In Ukrainian].
6. Sushchenko, Volodymyr. Pidslidnist: problemy rozpodilu ta efektyvnosti [Investigation: problems of distribution and effectiveness]. Just Talk. Retrieved from: https://justtalk.com.ua/post/pidslidnist-problemi-rozpodiluta-efektivnosti] (Accessed: 07.05.2025). [In Ukrainian].
7. Kodeks Ukrainy pro administratyvni pravoporushennia [Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses] (statti 1–212-24): Kodeks Ukrainy vid 07.12.1984 No. 8073-X: stanom na 17 kvit. 2025 r. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/80731-10#Text] (Accessed: 07.05.2025). [In Ukrainian].
8. Postanova kolehii suddiv Tretioi sudovoi palaty Kasatsiinoho kryminalnoho sudu Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy [Decision of the panel of judges of the Third Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of Ukraine] vid 30 veresnia 2020 roku u spravi No. 563/1118/16-k. Retrieved from: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/ Review/91998609 (Accessed: 07.05.2025). [In Ukrainian].
9. Voitsekhovskyi, S., Kantsir, V. (2025). Vplyv porushennia pravyl pidslidnosti na vyznannia dokaziv nedopustymymy [The impact of procedural violations on the admissibility of evidence]. Aktualni pytannia u suchasnii nautsi. No. 4(34). Р. 595–607. [In Ukrainian].
10. Postanova kolehii suddiv Pershoi sudovoi palaty Kasatsiinoho kryminalnoho sudu Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy [Decision of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of Ukraine] vid 28 liutoho 2023 roku u spravi No. 761/34746/17. Retrieved from: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/109395449 (Accessed: 07.05.2025). [In Ukrainian].
11. Smoliak, I. A. (2024). Mizhnarodnyi dosvid rehuliuvannia pidslidnosti orhaniv dosudovoho rozsliduvannia [International experience in regulating the independence of investigative bodies]. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho Natsionalnoho Universytetu. Seriia: pravo. Vyp. 81 (3). Р. 163–167. [In Ukrainian].