Sira A. Administrative liability for offenses related to corruption in the field of land relations.

Administrative liability for offenses related to corruption in the field of land relations is considered as part of a separate institution of administrative liability and proposed a conceptual hierarchical model that justifies the interdependence of its individual levels: from broader to narrower: offense - corruption offense - administrative offense - administrative offense related to corruption - an administrative offense related to corruption in the field of land relations. An administrative offense related to corruption in the field of land relations is defined as guilty, illegal behavior of the subject, which encroaches on the established order of management in the field of land relations, and for which the administrative legislation provides for liability. It is argued that administrative liability for corruption-related offenses is correlated with other types of legal liability: due to common features with criminal liability on the example of consideration of the offense, where the main criterion for delimitation is the amount of undeclared income tied to the subsistence level able-bodied persons; with disciplinary liability, which should take place both in cases of bringing a person to administrative responsibility and in cases of closing the case of an administrative offense related to corruption in the field of land relations on non-rehabilitative grounds (Article 38 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses). The main differences between administrative liability for offenses related to corruption in the field of land relations and criminal liability for the relevant type of offense have been identified. It is proved that the formation of ways to improve the legal regulation of administrative liability for offenses related to corruption in the field of land relations should take into account three components: the need to eliminate shortcomings and gaps in existing anti-corruption legislation; improving the effectiveness of cooperation between the authorities in the field of preventing and combating corruption and, in fact, minimizing lengthy bureaucratic procedures in the field of land relations and corruption risks in general.