The essence and features of corruption as an object of administrative and legal influence

Abstract

The article states that the formation of an understanding of the essence of corruption begins at the turn of the New Age, when the progressive thought of contemporary philosophers outlined the essence of legal behaviour, which was no longer influenced by religious dogmas.
 It has been emphasised that corruption is a phenomenon specific to each country and each society, regardless of their political, economic or any other model of functioning. At the same time, the definitions contained in the reference literature differ depending on the cultural, legal, socio-economic or other peculiarities specific to a particular period of publication of a particular dictionary (reference book).
 It has been noted that the presence of illegal corrupt interests among public officials of one or another level is a key source of abuse of their official powers with the aim of obtaining undue benefits or concealing the fact of receiving such benefits in the past.
 Attention is focused on the fact that the mechanism of administrative and legal regulation is provided by a complex of administrative and legal means. In a broad sense, legal means are those that allow to achieve the goal of legal regulation chosen by legislation. Thus, corruption as an object of administrative influence is an illegal act, for each case of which an appropriate reaction of the state (in the form of law enforcement and anti-corruption bodies) must be applied, which consists in the legal administrative or criminal prosecution of a person.
 It has been emphasized that the essence of corruption as an object of administrative and legal influence is revealed in the system of characteristic features, in particular, corruption covers a significant range of subjects whose consciousness and behaviour it influences; the level of influence of corruption on individual members of society directly depends not so much on the level of public condemnation of it in society, but on the effectiveness of anti-corruption activities of law enforcement agencies and on the strength of “anti-corruption barriers” artificially erected by the state; the ability of corruption to instantly adapt to the current political regime; universality for every country in the world; dependence on the quality of current administrative and legal legislation of states.