Civil Liability for Corruption Offenses: Confiscation or Compensation?

In the course of Ukraine’s European integration, especially under martial law, the legal aspects of the state’s anti-corruption policy have become significantly more acute, and the problem of bringing perpetrators of corruption offenses to both public (criminal or administrative) and private (civil and property) liability has become more urgent. The problem of modernizing the set of penalties for corruption offenses has become particularly acute, especially in terms of sanctions imposed upon the occurrence of civil liability, primarily property liability, which is the main purpose of the article. Based on the results of the study of civil liability for corruption, the authors have found that the use of confiscation or special confiscation in civil and criminal cases may violate human rights and be unconstitutional. Instead, the authors recommend the introduction of compensation (damages) as an alternative civil penalty, which, in addition to its punitive function, will perform restorative and preventive functions. It is proven that pleading guilty and cooperating with the investigation, including testimony against all participants in a corruption offense, should be mandatory conditions for compensation, and in addition to a fine, the accused must return all illegally obtained funds.