Object of Criminal Offences Related to Raiding

The article is devoted to the study of the object of criminal offenses provided for by Articles 205-1, 206, 206-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which are positioned by the authors as special criminal prohibitions introduced to counter raiding. Doctrinal views and problems of legislative formulation of the object of criminal offenses related to raiding are analysed. Based on the analysis of judicial statistics for the last eight years, it was established that the effectiveness of the specified criminal law norms depends on the perfection of their content. Attention is drawn to the significant shortcomings of the current editions of the specified norms and the ways of their improvement are suggested. Authors’ interpretation of the object of the criminal offense is expressed. The authors criticize the usage of the term «integral property complex» as obsolete as well as excessive detailing of this concept by indicating individual objects as a part of an integral property complex in the text of Art. 206 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In order to improve the current criminal legislation, changes to the wording of the dispositions of individual «anti-raider» prohibitions are proposed. In particular, the disposition of Art. 206 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the part indicating the object of a criminal offense is proposed to be worded as follows: «… or seizure of an entire property complex or its part …». The opinion is expressed that instead of the term «enterprise, institution, organization» in the disposition of Art. 206-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine the term «business entity» should be used, which will make the relevant criminal law more clear and concise. Taking into account the above, it is proposed to outline the disposition of Art. 206-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the part of the object of the criminal offense in the following wording: «Illegal acquisition of the property of a business entity or a dividend, share, divvy of its participant …». With reference to examples from judicial practice separate cases of erroneous qualification of acts related to forgery of documents submitted for state registration of business entities according to Art. 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine are given.