Knowingly false report of a criminal offense: criminal legal struggle and analysis of modern foreign experience

The article is devoted to a comprehensive comparative legal study of knowingly false report of a criminal offense under Art. 383 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the states of the Romano-Germanic (continental) legal family (France, Germany and a number of other European states), the Anglo-American legal family (USA, Australia), as well as in the legislation of the former republics of the USSR, in order to create optimal guidelines for improving Ukrainian legislation. The emphasis is on the analysis of the legislative structures of the composition of a knowingly false report of a crime, determining its object, objective and subjective signs, as well as the specifics of the subject in different jurisdictions. It has been demonstrated that in the legislation of the states of the continental legal tradition, criminal liability for knowingly false reporting of a crime is regulated quite successfully. In the vast majority of criminal codes of European countries, this act is recognized as a “false accusation” or “false suspicion” (Germany, Austria, Norway, Finland). The signs of knowingly false reporting of a crime are most successfully regulated in the French Criminal Code. The act in this norm is formulated as an accusation made in any way and directed against a specific person, in an act capable of causing judicial, administrative or disciplinary sanctions, if the accuser knows that the accusation is completely or partially false. The undoubted advantage of this rule is the presence of an exhaustive list of addressees of a false accusation - this is a judicial, administrative or judicial police officer, or a body authorized to act on its basis or to transfer it to a competent authority, or to the hierarchical superiors or employer of the person against whom the denunciation was made. The German Criminal Code has a similar argumentation regarding the list of addressees of a false accusation. Unlike the norms of the Criminal Codes of most European countries, the Norwegian Criminal Code includes the objective side of a false accusation not only the reporting of false information about the fact of committing a crime, but also the falsification or destruction of evidence indicating the innocence of a specific person. The United States of America does not have a federal criminal code. Each state has its own codified criminal legislation, which differs from each other. At the same time, the Model Criminal Code was adopted in the USA, which is a model regulatory legal act for criminal legislation for all states, and which significantly affects the construction of the systems of the Special Part of the Criminal Codes of this federal state. The Model Criminal Code of the USA contains several articles that provide for liability for knowingly false reporting of a crime. The analysis of the legislation of the former republics of the USSR shows that it is significantly inferior to European and American legislation in terms of a detailed and extensive description of the features of the composition of a knowingly false reporting of a crime in legal norms. It has been established that for Ukraine the most effective is the combination of a clear regulatory construction of the composition of a knowingly false reporting of a criminal offense, consistent with international acts, while ensuring the real effectiveness of the prohibition. Based on the studied foreign experience, a conclusion was formulated on the criminalization of self- disclosure and the establishment of increased liability for knowingly false reporting of a criminal offense against government officials.