Scientific Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

In 2011, the Ukrainian parliament criminalized illicit enrichment. However, having lasted until 2019, Art. 368-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine has not become a tool for the criminal and legal anticorruption barrier. Moreover, having been declaredas unconstitutional article, this situation has resultedin dismissal of high-ranking officials provoking a significant public response and even greater contempt for the law enforcement system. Given this, the purpose of the article is to investigate the legislative process and establish the reasons for the adoption of a deliberately ineffective rule on illicit enrichment. To achieve such goals, a methodology has been used, the tools of which, taking into account the principles of dialectical unity of theory and practice, objectivity, provability, allowed to cognize the legislative structure of Art. 368-2 of the Criminal Code and assess its perfection. In order to study this issue, general scientific and special legal methods have been used. The theoretical basis of the work has been formed of articles, monographs, thesis of domestic and foreign scientists, as well as legal acts of national and international law. The scientific novelty deals with the research indicating impossibility of the Apparatus of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to ensure quality of the results of legislative work at the proper level. Its so-called “institutions for prevention” turned out to be unable to prevent an implementation of deliberately unconstitutional norms. This allows us to conclude that the process of implementation of international recommendations in the Ukrainian parliament has become negligent and unsystematic, it does not take into account the institutional building integrity and ignors the scientific opinion and conclusions of experts. Therefore, in order to correct anti-corruption policy it is necessary to assess legal instruments (especially criminal law) and determine their adequacy in terms of their effectiveness for corruption counteraction, as well as to improve the “preventive tools” of parliamentary legislation