Corruption risks in the activities of a judge and ways to eliminate them

The article defines the legal principles of the formation of anti-corruption policy in the activities of the judicial system of Ukraine. To fulfill the objectives of the study, an attempt was made to determine the main corruption risks in the activities of a judge, to clarify the methods of activity (inaction) of a judge that lead to the occurrence of corruption risks, and to identify algorithms for the judge’s activity in order to exclude or at least minimize the occurrence of negative legal consequences in the form of liability for committing a corruption offense or an act related to corruption. It was established that the assessment of corruption risks in courts is carried out in order to establish the probability of committing corruption and corruption-related offenses by judges, to establish the causes, conditions and consequences of the possible commission of such offenses, as well as to analyze the effectiveness of existing control measures aimed at preventing the realization of corruption risks. An analysis of restrictions on the activities of a judge, which in accordance with the legislation are qualified as corruption offenses or acts related to corruption, in particular: the use of official powers or one’s position; receiving gifts; part-time work and combining with other types of activity; violation of restrictions (prohibitions) on engaging in other paid or entrepreneurial activities; violation of prohibitions on being a member of the board, other executive or control bodies, supervisory board of an enterprise or organization aimed at making a profit; violation of financial control requirements, failure to comply with the deadlines for filling out the declaration and making changes to it. An algorithm for the judge’s activities in the event of receiving a proposal for an unlawful benefit or gift has been determined. Criteria for assessing the presence or absence of a real or potential conflict of interest of a judge have been established, in the presence of which his actions should be qualified as a corruption offense. Algorithms of a judge’s activities to eliminate or at least minimize the occurrence of negative legal consequences in the form of liability for committing a corruption offense or an act related to corruption are identified.