WAR ON CRIME: FROM PASSIVE BEHAVIOUR OF AN UNDERCOVER AGENT TO ACTIVE FORMS OF COVERT INFLUENCE ON ACCOMPLICES OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES

Oleksandr KONDRATIUK
Ph.D. (Law), Associate Professor, Ukraine
ORCID iD: orcid.org/0000-0001-6102-2690
kyzja777@i.ua

Ihor FEDCHAK
Ph.D. (Law), Associate Professor, Ukraine
ORCID iD: orcid.org/0000-0002-4539-5988
fia_lv@i.ua

Sviatoslav SENYK
Ph.D. (Law), Ukraine
ORCID iD: orcid.org/0000-0002-4187-9715
svsenyk@gmail.com

Oleh LEPEKHA
Ph.D. (Law) (Territorial administration State Bureau of Investigation), Ukraine
ORCID iD: orcid.org/0000-0003-1308-3469
olm3000@gmail.com

Bohdan MARETS
Ph.D. (Law) (National Police of Ukraine in Lviv region), Ukraine
ORCID iD: orcid.org/0000-0003-3111-9744
bgdnmarec@gmail.com

UDC 343.3

DOI :10.31733/2786-491X-2021-2-150-172

Keywords: entrapment, incitement, undercover agent, lawful behaviour, passive waiting

Abstract. The research is dedicated to the operative work of law enforcement agencies in terms of the use of undercover agents for conducting operative-search operations in the criminal environment for searching for the criminal activity of previously unknown persons (unknown accomplices). A comprehensive analysis of the main provisions of the Ukrainian legislation and fundamental international acts that regulate the use of undercover activities in Ukraine was conducted chronologically. It has been established that the European standards defining the limits of legal behaviour of undercover agents in the criminal environment are mainly based on the provisions of fundamental international acts on the protection of human rights and freedoms adopted in the 1948−1980s; the Ukrainian legislation regarding the issue under research began to be formed in 1990s; only since 2006, the Ukrainian justice system began to actively recognise the European judicial practice when passing verdicts in the field under study. It has been emphasised that the effectiveness of legal regulation of the use of undercover activities by law enforcement agencies depends on the ability to combine and direct positive factors accompanying the legal norm and block those that hinder it. The disparity of legal acts that fragmentarily regulate legal foundations of undercover activities negatively affects the efficiency of using the obtained results for combating crime. It is suggested to solve this issue through the unification of the provisions of the legal acts in order to achieve uniformity in the use of undercover methods by law enforcement agencies for combating crime according to the European legal standards. Taking into account a high crime rate in modern Ukraine, it is quite challenging to comply with or implement the latter in order to avoid incitement or entrapment to the extent of the regulation of lawful behaviour of undercover agents in the criminal environment, since solely passive behaviour of undercover agents not only fails to contribute to detecting criminal activities and documenting criminal intents of accomplices but rather exposes the undercover agents to the criminal world, which poses a threat to the life and health of both undercover agents and their relatives. In order to improve the effectiveness of crime-fighting activities in Ukraine, this research justifies the legal regulation of the general principles of permissible lawful behaviour of undercover agents as regards empowering them to use active forms of denunciating the criminal activities of people in the criminal environment.

References

  1. About intelligence: Law of Ukraine type 17.09.2020, 912-IX, https://www.rada.gov.ua. (in Ukrainian).
  2. About operative-search activity: Law of Ukraine, February 18, 1992, 2135 – XII. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, 1992, 22, 303, https://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show. (in Ukrainian). About the National Police: Law of 02.07.2015, 580-VIII. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady, 2015, 40-41, 379. https://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show. (in Ukrainian).
  3. About the order of compensation of the damage caused to the citizen by illegal actions of the bodies carrying out operatively-search activity, bodies of pre-judicial investigation, prosecutor’s office and court. Law of Ukraine type 01.12.1994, 266/94 VR, http://www.rada.gov.ua. (in Ukrainian).
  4. About the prosecutor’s office: Law of Ukraine, October 14, 2014. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady, 2015, 23, 12, https: // www.rada.gov.ua. (in Ukrainian).
  5. Anishchak, O. (2013). Control procurement, as a provocation, violates rights. Law and Business. (in Ukrainian).
  6. Babanly, R., & Tarasenko, O. (2020). Criteria for indirect provocation to commit a crime: development of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the case “Akbay and Others in Germany”. Judicial and legal newspaper, https://bit.ly/3lYsDvV. (in Ukrainian).
  7. Bahryi, M. (2017). Procedural aspects of covert obtaining of information: domestic and foreign experience. Kharkiv: Pravo, 271-272. (in Ukrainian).
  8. Bannikova in Russia: ECHR, November 4, 2010, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  9. Blazhyvska, N. (2020). To all to interpretation. Ukrainian lawyer, 3, https://pravo.ua/articles/usim-do-tlumachennja/. (in Ukrainian).
  10. Burba, V., & Suvorov, O. (2019). Features of introduction of persons in the international organized criminal groups, https://academy.ssu.gov.ua/ua/page/page_1581342281.html. (in Ukrainian).
  11. Bykov in Russia: ECHR, March 10, 2009, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int. 
  12. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. UN General Assembly Resolution, December 17, 1979, 34/169, https://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show. (in Ukrainian).
  13. Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. UN General Assembly Resolution 55/25, November 15, 2000. Official Visnik of Ukraine, 14, 2006, 1056 art., art. 20. (in Ukrainian).
  14. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Ratified by Law no. 475/97-VR from 17.07.97, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/ laws/show/995_004. (in Ukrainian).
  15. Criminal Code of Ukraine: Law, April 5, 2001, 2341-14, http: zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2341-14. (in Ukrainian).
  16. Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: Zakon from 13.04.2012, 4651-VI, http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show. (in Ukrainian).
  17. Frankiv, V. (2020). How to distinguish provocation of crime from lawful activity and when you can use this argument for defense, https://zib.com.ua/ua/142394.yak_vidrizniti_provokaciyu_zlochinu_vid_pravomirnoi_ diyalnos.html. (in Ukrainian).
  18. Friedl in Austria: ECHR, January 31, 1995, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  19. Hesner, R., & Khertsoh, U. (1990). Behind the facade of law: the methods of the new secret police. Moscow law lit., 69-91. (in Russian).
  20. Hudyma, D. (2019). The legislation of Ukraine does not enshrine the concept of precedent, but this does not mean that it de facto does not exist, https://court.gov.ua/press/news/659343/. (in Ukrainian).
  21. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Ratified by the Decree of the Presidium of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian RSR, 2148-VIII (2148-08), 19.10.73, https://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show. (in Ukrainian).
  22. Khan in The United Kingdom: ECHR, May 12, 2000, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  23. Klass et al. in Federal Republic of Germany: EHRR, September 6, 1978, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  24. Klymchuk, V. (2018). Legal status of individuals introduced into the criminal environment by operational units of Ukraine and investigators, and ensuring their safety in the process of criminal proceedings. Science and law enforcement, 1(39), 329-333. (in Ukrainian).
  25. Kondratiev, Yu., & Dzhuzha, O. (2005). On counterintelligence activities: Law of Ukraine, December 26, 2002. Operational and investigative activities. Regulatory regulation. Kyiv, KNT. (in Ukrainian).
  26. Kosta, Zh.-P. (2009). Partly the dissenting opinion of the judge in the case Bykov in Russia, 4378/02, March 10, 2009, https://library.khpg.org/files/docs/1594878335.pdf. (in Ukrainian).
  27. Leimer, K. (1981). Special opinion on the case R. v. Rothman, 1 SCR 640, http://library.khpg.org/files/docs/1594878335.pdf.
  28. Mantuliak, Yu. (2005). Execution of a special task to prevent or detect criminal activity of an organized group or criminal organization as a circumstance that excludes the criminality of the act. Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 86-87. (in Ukrainian).
  29. Miliniene in Lithuania: ECHR, July 1, 2008, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  30. Miliutin, A. (2019). Problems of operative purchases of drugs by bodies. Current issues of the state and law of internal affairs and the use of their results in criminal proceedings in the light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, https://www.minjust.gov.ua/0/2406. (in Ukrainian).
  31. Modinos in Cyprus: ECHR, March 23, 1993, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  32. Murray in The United Kingdom: ECHR, October 28, 1994 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  33. Niemietz in Germany: ECHR, December 16, 1992, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  34. Nosko & Nefedov in Russia: ECHR, October 30, 2014, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int. On measures to counteract illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and precursors and their abuse: Law of Ukraine, February 15, 1995, https://www.rada.gov.ua. (in Ukrainian).
  35. On the implementation of decisions and application of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: Law of Ukraine, February 23, 2006, 3477-IV, http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show. (in Ukrainian).
  36. On the organizational and legal framework for combating organized crime: Law of Ukraine, June 30, 1993, 3341 – XII. Collection of normative acts of Ukraine on law and order. Kyiv, 1993. (in Ukrainian).
  37. Popov, S. (2018). Carrying out of operative purchase by divisions of criminal police. Scientific journal of Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs. (in Ukrainian).
  38. Ramanauskas in Lithuania: ECHR, February 5, 2008, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  39. Sepil in Turkey: ECHR, November 12, 2013, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  40. Shnaider, H. (1994). Criminology. Moscow. Progress-univers. (in Russian).
  41. Shpylmann, D. (2009). Partly the dissenting opinion of the judge in the case, 4378/02, March 10, 2009, http://library.khpg.org/files/docs/1594878335.pdf. (in Russian).
  42. Solotkyi, S. (2018). Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: place and role in the legal system of Ukraine. Ukrainian Journal of Constitutional Law, https://www.constjournal.com/2018-1/rishennya-yevropejskogo-sudu-z-prav-lyudyny-mistse-i-rol-u-pravovij-systemi-ukrayiny. (in Ukrainian).
  43. Subbot, A. (2013). Ensuring the safety of persons rooted in a criminal environment. Science library, https://www.univer.km.ua/statti/23. (in Ukrainian).
  44. Tchokhonelidze in Georgia: ECHR, June 28, 2018, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  45. The Constitution of Ukraine, https://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show. (in Ukrainian).
  46. The Naples Political Declaration and the Global Plan of Action against Organized
  47. Transnational Crime. Resolution 49/159 of the UN General Assembly view, 1994, httрs://zakоn2.гаdа.gov.uа. (in Ukrainian).
  48. The struggle for the position of boss and FBI agent among the mafia: what Cosa
  49. Nostra did in the United States (2019), https://24tv.ua/ru/borba_za_mesto_bossa_i_agent_fbr_sredi_mafii_chem_zanimalas_banda_cosa_nostra_n1147553.
  50. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN General Assembly, December 10, 1948, https://www.un.org.ua/ua/publikatsii-ta-zvity/global-un-publications/3722-zahalna-deklaratsiia-prav-liudyny. (in Ukrainian).
  51. Vanyan in Russia: ECHR, December 15, 2005, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  52. Veselov And Others in Russia: ECHR, October 2, 2012, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  53. Volokhy in Ukraine: ECHR, February 2, 2006, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  54. X & Y in The Netherlands: ECHR, March 26, 1985, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  55. X in United Kingdom: ECHR, November 5, 1981, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
Views: 306