This thesis represents a comprehensive and systematic research of administrative and legal principles of activity of specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption in Ukraine. Forms and methods of activities of specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption in Ukraine have been characterized. Specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption in Ukraine conduct constitutive, law-making, law-enforcement, and interpretative activities. In this respect, it is law-enforcement function that is the most important for all specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption and as for National Agency of Corruption Prevention interpretative activity is also of great importance. Methods of activities of specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption such as persuasion, encouragement, and coercion have been defined. It has been stated that in most cases of activity of special anti-corruption agencies it is worth speaking about combination of two methods – persuasion and coercion, and their complex use. Precisely these methods can be realized in preventative work of such agencies. The modern state and problems of legal regulation of activities of specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption in Ukraine have been determined and the ways for its improvement have been offered. In particular, topical issues of activities of specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption contain problems in distribution of powers of specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption; work formality or ineffective work, orientation of specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption at quantity but not at quality that leads to lack of change of corruption situation in view of the results of conducted activities; improper fulfillment of main objectives and inadequate exercise of powers of specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption, weak interdepartmental interaction or its absence, lack of coordination of activities among specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption, weak public relations, and low trust level of citizens in activities of specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption. It has been suggested to create a new institutional model of specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption in Ukraine that would include only two institutions, in particular, National Agency of Corruption Prevention – to ensure formation and realization of anti-corruption policy and implementation of strategy of fight against corruption phenomena, implementation of instruments of corruption prevention and administration of control over virtuous behavior of officials (rules concerning conflict of interests, property declaration, etc.), and National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine – to detect and investigate corruption crimes. All other public authorities that today have powers in the fight against corruption should be divested of such authorities. It has been determined that efficiency in fulfillment of assigned functions and objectives of the state, transparency of activities and public trust level should become the main criteria for estimation of activities of specially authorized agencies relating to fight against corruption in Ukraine. Foreign experience of activities of public authorities with respect to fight against corruption in such countries as Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, and Singapore has been analyzed and suggestions regarding implementation of regulations suitable for realities in Ukraine into domestic legislation have been developed, in particular: to establish a single authority entitled to fight against corruption (experience of Singapore), to improve anti-corruption laws (experience of Sweden), to improve the implemented mechanisms of prevention and fight against corruption (experience of New Zealand), to create anti-corruption strategy (experience of Finland), to organize actively fight against corrupt practices with the involvement of the public (experience of Denmark, Singapore, and New Zealand), and to use system-wide approach to forming up a frame of national anti-corruption efforts and identification of corruption risks (experience of New Zealand).
