Grounds for imposing administrative economic sanctions in the securities market
The article presents the results of the analysis of the legislative provisions and legal doctrine on the understanding of the grounds
for imposing sanctions and the concept of offense. According to the results of the study, it is determined that the legal grounds for
imposing administrative economic sanctions (AES) in the securities market (SM) are the circumstances specified in regulations, the
existence of which makes imposing sanctions possible (the very fact of the offense) and makes the mechanism of their imposing subject
to the implementation (the presence or absence of certain conditions). It is substantiated that the conditions for the SM are the circumstances
on which the ability of the AES implementation, as well as the choice of the type or size of the AES depends. It is argued that
“non-compliance / improper compliance with the law, rules” should be covered by the single term “non-compliance”, as one either fully
complies with the rules or does not comply with the rules. It is specified that when defining an offense in the SM, it is correct to use
the term “business entity”. The most significant characteristics of an offense at the SM are described. Thus, the concept of action can
be understood as an act (or omission) of a business entity violating the procedure established by law for carrying out economic activities.
The harm of the offense to the public is expressed in the encroachment on public economic order, including the rights and legitimate
interests of the participants in the SM or the public interest of the state. Such a characteristic as the contravention of the legal rules
in regard of the offense in the SM is made more specific taking into account that the rules to which the act contravenes can be provided
only by regulations and cannot be determined by the provisions of economic agreements, local acts of local government bodies, documents
of business entities etc. In the use of the AES, the guilt is in fact presumed (presumption of the offender’s guilt).
As a result, the concept of an offense in the SM is formulated as an act (action or omission), harmful to the public, of the business
entity contravening the legal rules which determine the rules of the SM, in violation of which the AES imposing is provided.
It is suggested to classify offences on the SM for the commission of which the AES are imposed, depending on the object of the
offense as related to the issue and circulation of securities, to the professional activities in the SM, to the disclosure of information in
the stock market, to the performance of functions of the National Securities and Stock Market Commission, to the compliance with the
legislation on joint stock companies.
Vinnyk O.M. (2004). Hospodars’ke pravo : kurs lektsij. - Ataka, 2004. Ss 317 [in Ukrainian].
Scherbyna V.S. (2013). Hospodars’ke pravo : pidruchnyk. Kyïv : Yurinkom Inter, 2013. s. 320[in Ukrainian].
Podtserkovnyj O.P. (2005) Khoziajstvennoe pravo Ukrayny. Kharkiv : OOO «Odyssej», 2005. s. 240-241 [in Ukrainian].
Zaiarnyj O.A. (2011) Vidpovidal’nist’ v orhanizatsijno-hospodars’kykh vidnosynakh: Avtoref. dys. ... kand. iuryd. nauk : 12.00.04. Kyivs’kyj natsional’nyj un-t im. T. Shevchenka. Kyiv, 2011. 18 s [in Ukrainian].
Vytruk N.V. (2009) Obschaia teoryia iurydycheskoj otvetstvennosty: uchebnyk – 2 – e yzd., yspr. y dop. Moskva: Norma, 2009. s. 306 [in Ukrainian].
Tat’kova Z. F. (2010) Pidstavy, vydy ta formy hospodars’ko-pravovoi vidpovidal’nosti : dys. ... kand. iuryd. nauk : 12.00.04. NAN Ukrainy, In-t ekon.-prav. doslidzh. Donets’k, 2010. s.78, s.103 [in Ukrainian].
Krylova Z.H. Otvetstvennost’ po dohovoru postavky. Moskva: Yuryd. lyt-ra, 1987. s. 12 [in Russia].
Vinnyk O.M. (2008) Hospodars’ke pravo: Navchal’nyj posibnyk. – 2-e vyd., zmin. ta dop. Kyiv: Vseukrains’ka asotsiatsiia vydavtsiv «Pravova iednist’», 2008. s. 388 [in Ukrainian].
Doroshenko L.N. (2013) Pravovye osnovanyia prynudytel’noy̆ lykvydatsyy khoziay̆stvennykh obschestv : monohrafyia. Donets’k : Svit knyhy, 2013. s. 228 [in Ukrainian].
Luk’ianets’ D. M. (2006) Administratyvno-deliktni vidnosyny v Ukraini: teoriia ta praktyka pravovoho rehuliuvannia : monohrafiia. Sumy : Universytets’ka knyha, 2006. 367 s [in Ukrainian].
Scherbyna V.S. 1993 Poperedzhennia hospodars’kykh pravoporushen’. Kyiv: Lybid’, 1993. s. 10 [in Ukrainian].
Sukhonos V. V., Zaval’na Zh. V., Staryns’kyy̆ M. V. (2004) Pravove rehuliuvannia tsinnykh paperiv v Ukraïni : Navch. posib. Sumy : Univ. kn., 2004. S. 243–244, 257 [in Ukrainian].
Kolohojda O. V. (2016) Teoretychni problemy pravovoho rehuliuvannia hospodars’kykh vidnosyn na fondovomu rynku Ukrainy: dys. ... d-ra iuryd. nauk : 12.00.04. Kyiv. nats. un-t im. Tarasa Shevchenka. Kyiv, 2016. s. 393 [in Ukrainian].
Postanova Donets’koho apeliatsijnoho administratyvnoho sud vid 15.03.2013r. Sprava № 2a/1270/10271/2012. URL: http://reyestr. court.gov.ua /Review/ 29959615 (data zvernennia: 10.09.2020) [in Ukrainian].
Znamenskyj H.L. (1996) Khoziajstvennoe zakonodatel’stvo Ukrayny . Kyiv. : Nauk. dumka, 1996. s.53 [in Ukrainian].