Review

On October 17, 2019, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Law of Ukraine «On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine» On Prevention of Corruption «Concerning Whistleblowers of Corruption», which proposed amendments to the CPC of Ukraine. With the entry into force of the law on January 1, 2020, following Section II «Final Provisions», 11 amendments were made to the CPC of Ukraine, including those related to the beginning of the pre-trial investigation. However, this law creates some problems in this area.

The purpose of the article is to outline the problems of implementation of the Law of Ukraine «On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine» On Prevention of Corruption «Concerning Detectors of Corruption» in the criminal procedure legislation and to suggest ways to solve them.

The study states that the need to adopt amendments to the legislation of Ukraine on the protection of whistleblowers’ rights is caused by the need to strengthen existing mechanisms to prevent corruption. At the same time, this problem remained unresolved for a long time, which was repeatedly noted by both foreign and Ukrainian experts. The author stressed that the problem of protecting whistleblowers is broader than the problem of protecting only the whistleblowers of corruption. At the same time, the Law of Ukraine «On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine» On Prevention of Corruption «Concerning Whistleblowers of Corruption» focuses on the latter, leaving unresolved the problem of protecting detectives of other crimes. At the same time, the analysis of the changes made to the CPC of Ukraine gives grounds to state some shortcomings in the norms of the Law of Ukraine «On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine» On Prevention of Corruption «regarding whistleblowers.» In particular, in Part 3 of Art. 60 of the CPC of Ukraine amended the «whistleblower applicant», who is endowed with broader rights than other applicants – to receive information on the status of the pre-trial investigation. However, it is not clear what exactly is meant by «pre-trial investigation», as such a definition is not provided by law. The author also draws attention to the new requirement for the investigator to inform the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption in the event of information from whistleblowers about corruption, which became the reason for the opening of criminal proceedings. It is substantiated that such a requirement should be imposed on the prosecutor – the head of the procedure. Attention is drawn to the problems of the procedural status of such an applicant and his acquisition of the status of a witness in criminal proceedings. Another issue raised by the author is the problem of creating regular channels for communicating information by whistleblowers, namely the lack of a specific list of bodies that are obliged to create these channels.

Noting the need for a mechanism in Ukraine to protect whistleblowers (and not only whistleblowers), the author emphasizes that such a mechanism should be implemented through appropriate legal procedures, and especially in criminal procedure law, which will also fulfill the tasks of criminal proceedings defined in Art. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Key words: Whistleblower, corruption, regular channels, applicant, NACP.