Abstract: The subject of this article is the theoretical problems in determining the notion of “corruption”, associated with identification of diplasty (combination) of such social phenomena as law and morality. The currently existing in legal literature conceptual approaches towards the term “corruption” to an extent endure the oversimplified understanding of this question, which often emerges from the insight that such phenomenon is based on the corruption[WU1]  legal violation, but sidestepping the presence of other corruption phenomena that are not illegitimate, in its essence carry a corruption character. Among them, a significant place is held by the amoral actions (ethical trespass). In particular, it translates into the fact that moral norms unlike the legal are always legitimate, because it is the main condition of their formation and impact. If one or another behavioral norm is not supported by the majority of society or a separate social group, it becomes “vain”.  Special attention is given to the legal concept that suggests relying upon the presumption of their illegitimacy, rather than presumption of amorality of manifestations of corruption. A conclusion is made that the misuse of public status for personal purposes represents a corruption legal violation. The scientific novelty of this research consists in articulation of the theoretical problems on improving the anticorruption legislation.



 [WU1]

Abstract: The research object covers social relations arising in the process of exercise of powers by executive authorities. The research subject is the range of legal norms defining the discretionary powers of the officials. The authors analyze the discretionary authorities in the process of executive decision-making as a possible corruption element of such decisions. Special attention is paid to the authors’ position on the essence of this legal category. The authors state that discretionary powers become a factor, provoking the improper behavior (including the cases of bribery) of an official, when its limits are not clearly defined, or the criteria of its application are absent. The research methodology comprises general scientific methods (dialectics, analysis synthesis), and special methods (technical, system-structural, and comparative-legal). They allow carrying out a comprehensive and complex analysis of the research subject, formulate theoretical generalizations, offer practical recommendations, and formulate the conclusions. The dialectical approach was largely applied for the analysis of the contradictory character of a managerial discretion. The authors conclude that the exercise of executive function, like any other governmental function, is not possible without a certain space for a free discretion (administrative discretion); the existence of discretionary powers presupposes the freedom of discretion of an official within the legal framework; in the authors’ opinion, discretionary powers should be considered as a specific form of law enforcement activity. It shouldn’t be the matter of a radical elimination of law enforcement discretion, but the matter of development and legal consolidation of the criteria of a proper exercise of such powers.