THE OBJECTIVE ASPECT OF ILLEGAL PRIVATIZATION OF STATE AND MUNICIPAL PROPERTY: AN ANALYSIS OF METHODS AND FORMS OF OFFENSE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33244/2617-4154-4(21)-2025-132-140Keywords:
crime, criminal liability, illegal privatization, state property, municipal property, objective side of the crime, blanket norm, forgery of privatization documents, corruption risks, criminal legal qualificationAbstract
The article conducts a comprehensive scientific study of the objective side of the composition of the criminal offense, provided for in Art. 233 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in the context of modern transformations of property relations and digitalization of privatization processes. The relevance of the topic is due to the need to protect the material basis of the state and territorial communities from latent and intellectualized encroachments that adapt to the latest regulatory conditions.
The authors emphasize the blanket nature of the analyzed norm, which requires a systematic analysis of regulatory legislation, primarily the Law of Ukraine "On Privatization of State and Communal Property". The work reveals in detail the legal regime of state and communal property as objects of crime, highlights their significance and public nature. Special attention is paid to the distinction between violations of the privatization procedure in the state sphere and the sphere of local self-government, where abuses are often associated with the authorities going beyond their powers.
Within the framework of the study of the objective side of illegal privatization, a classification and substantive analysis of four legally defined methods of committing a crime were carried out: privatization in a manner not provided for by law; use of forged privatization documents; privatization of property that is not subject to alienation; privatization by an unauthorized person.
Of particular scientific interest is the analysis of the latest methods of manipulation in digital trading systems. The conclusions emphasize the need for a clear distinction between procedural errors and criminally punishable acts, where the defining criterion is the intentional removal of property outside the competitive environment. Directions for improving legislation to prevent abuse in the field of electronic trading are proposed.
