Кримінальна відповідальність нотаріусів та державних реєстраторів за неправомірні дії у сфері державної реєстрації
Criminal Liability of Notaries and State Registrars for Unlawful Actions in the Field of State Registration

Summary/Abstract: The relevance of the topic is due to global challenges of digitalization and raider threats that affect the economic security of the state. The article is devoted to the problems of criminallaw qualification of unauthorized actions involving information in state registers, liability for which is provided in Art. 362 of the Criminal Code, examined through the lens of judicial practice reflected in the decisions of the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. The aim is a comprehensive analysis of collisions for formulating recommendations. The dogmatic, comparative-legal, and empirical methods were used. The scientific novelty lies in the original analysis of unlawful actions of notaries and registrars as participants in raider schemes. In the context of the growing cyber threats in Ukraine, the analysis of cases revealed that the norm is often applied to officials for entering false data, which creates confusion between cybercrimes and official abuses. The conducted analysis reveals inconsistencies in the interpretation of the subject, object, subjective and objective elements of the offense, caused by the excessive universality of the provision, which combines combating cybercrime with the regulation of official misconduct. The study, while maintaining a purely academic character, is not aimed at criticizing the legality of court decisions or the competence of judges, but focuses on the doctrinal analysis of the norm in the context of its practical application. In our view, this makes it possible to assess the effectiveness of judicial oversight, reveal the shortcomings of current regulation, and substantiate proposals for its improvement - in particular, separating offenses against automated systems from abuse of authority, strengthening disciplinary liability, and introducing technical mechanisms of prevention, such as enhanced access auditing. The issues considered emphasize the importance of further analyzing the effectiveness of Art. 362 of the Criminal Code in its current version, its role in maintaining the rule of law, and ensuring the protection of the rights of professional actors from unjustified criminal prosecution. The analysis takes into account international experience, for example, Indonesia, where liability is limited to proven intent. As a result, the necessity of differentiating norms has been proven. Prospects are related to the integration of international experience for improving regulation.

• Details
• Contents