Liability of customers and bidders for violations of the law: overcoming the corruption component in the field of public procurement

The article presents a comprehensive legal analysis of the liability of contracting authorities and procurement participants for violations of public procurement legislation, with a particular focus on mechanisms for overcoming the corruption component in procurement activities. The legal nature of liability in this context is defined as one of the key tools for ensuring fair competition and counteracting abuses during procurement procedures. The author classifies the main types of legal liability – economic, administrative, and criminal – highlighting the specific features of their application depending on the nature of the offence and the subject involved. The article emphasizes violations that demonstrate signs of corrupt practices, such as anti-competitive collusion between participants, falsification of documentation, imposition of discriminatory requirements, manipulation of bid evaluations, and abuse of power by contracting authorities. Typical schemes of abuse by both bidders and contracting entities are analyzed, along with the associated legal consequences. Special attention is given to institutional response mechanisms, particularly the activities of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU), the State Audit Service, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NAZK), and the judiciary. Problematic aspects of sanction implementation are identified, including inconsistency in enforcement, challenges in proving intent, formalism in monitoring procedures, and overlapping control functions among regulatory bodies. The article also examines relevant case law – including AMCU decisions on anti-competitive concerted practices, audit reports of the State Audit Service, and judicial proceedings challenging unlawful actions of contracting authorities and declaring contracts invalid. Key challenges in the implementation of liability mechanisms are outlined, such as weak inter-agency coordination, insufficient preventive work, and limited effectiveness of oversight. Additionally, the article provides an overview of European best practices, including transparency initiatives, integrity programs, and leniency policies that encourage voluntary disclosure of violations. Based on this analysis, the author offers recommendations for improving legal regulation and enhancing the institutional capacity of oversight bodies. In conclusion, the article substantiates the need to reform prevention approaches by expanding the use of digital tools (Prozorro, BI analytics, DOZORRO), increasing the professionalization of procurement officers, improving risk management systems, and introducing ethical codes for market participants. The study proposes ways to increase transparency, legal certainty, and foster an honest and competitive procurement environment in Ukraine.