The dissertation is the first comprehensive study in Ukraine that comprehensively addresses the issue of criminal liability of local government officials who perform notarial acts. Criminal offences in the field of official and professional activities are a multidimensional issue, the socially dangerous consequences of unlawful acts are reflected in various spheres of life, and therefore require a segmental study. The peculiarity of local self-government bodies as subjects of power is that each of these subjects, taking into account the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, is independent, autonomous and not subordinated to any other body. Under the legal regime of martial law, local self-government bodies are vested with additional powers to coordinate activities aimed at the realisation of the legitimate rights and interests of citizens. In rural settlements, notarial acts provided for in Article 37 of the Law of Ukraine «On Notaries» are performed by authorised officials of local self-government bodies. Local government officials are obliged to assist citizens, enterprises, institutions and organisations in exercising their rights and protecting their legitimate interests, explain their rights and obligations, and warn them of the consequences of notarial acts so that legal ignorance cannot be used to their detriment.
The above, as well as a number of other aspects of the notary's activities in Ukraine, demonstrate the relevance and timeliness of theoretical elaboration of the issues of criminal liability of local government officials who perform notarial acts.
The structure of the work consists of three sections and is due to the need for a scientific analysis of the historical and legal development of criminal liability of persons who have performed notarial acts; provision of a criminal law description of crimes committed by local government officials who perform notarial acts in modern Ukraine; and detailed coverage of the issues related to criminal law measures applicable to these officials.
The first section of the work provides a systematic analysis of the historical experience of regulating criminal liability of persons who performed notarial acts, and also reveals the state of scientific development of criminal law protection of notarial activities in the criminal law doctrine.
A historical overview of activities with signs of notarial activity is made, starting from the times of Russia. It is noted that the notary bodies in the territory of modern Ukraine in the times of Kyivan Rus owe their formation primarily to economic processes – expansion of trade activities and increase in trade turnover. The oral form of a transaction no longer met the needs of the time. So-called dyaks and pidyachi were able to fill the need for written documents. At the same time, the proto-registration actions of the orderly dyaks can hardly be called notarial, and it is noted that the separation of this type of activity was associated with a clearly expressed desire of the state to take control of both the performance of these actions and the storage of these documents.
A number of key points have been highlighted with regard to the institution of the court's subordinates. On the one hand, the institute of subordinates functioned as a non-state entity, although there were constant attempts to bring it under state control. Therefore, possible illegal activities did not damage the authority of the state, as, for example, in the case of «extortion» by judges or other government officials. In addition, the system of payment for local prothonotary services was essentially organised on the principle of «feeding». This system was initiated by the Rus' Pravda and was further developed in the Muscovy. Under the system of social relations of that time, there was no criminal basis for an official crime, since even the «harm» caused by the governor to the people under his control could only be the basis for a private lawsuit. If the price of the service of a maidan was too high, the client could turn to another maidan or even to another association of maidans on a market basis. Thus, bribery of a contractor seems unlikely and meaningless, except in certain situations. And these situations are related to the preparation of forged documents, which did occur from time to time, as reflected in the materials of law enforcement practice of that time.
Key words: abuse of office, local self-government official, criminal liability, notarial acts, special subject of a criminal offence, subjects authorised to perform notarial acts.
