THE ISSUES OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S STATUS IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problems of the whistleblower’s participation as a participant in criminal proceedings. The current situation of the criminal procedural legislation regulating the status of the whistleblower is analyzed, problematic issues of the normative regulation of his participation are identified. The status of a whistleblower provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine differs from the definition of the Law of Ukraine «On Prevention of Corruption». On the side, there are no restrictions on the sphere from which the whistleblower can become aware of the facts of corruption. On the other hand, the CCP does not take into account certain types of offenses to which the Law extends the action of the institution of the whistleblower. In the current conditions of legal regulation, the whistleblower at the initial stage of criminal proceedings is a kind of applicant. Information about the whistleblower is not entered into the Register, but according to the logic of the law the status of the whistleblower must go through all the criminal proceedings until the verdict of the court or its appeal. The whistleblower has general rights characteristic of the applicant, for example, to receive a document confirming the application’s acceptance and registration, receive an extract from the Register of Pre-trial Investigations. He has also special rights - the right to notify the authorized body about the start of the pre-trial investigation, the right to information about the progress of the pre-trial investigation, the right to remuneration. At the same time, it is not clear how the right to information about the state of the pre-trial investigation is consistent with the need to maintain the secrecy of the pre-trial investigation. The procedure does not provide for any obligations of the whistleblower. It is substantiated that the peculiarities of the procedural participation of the whistleblower in criminal proceedings are not properly regulated, in particular, the evidence is not provided by the whistleblower, and there are no criteria for determining the remuneration. Key words: criminal proceedings, pre-trial investigation, whistleblower, applicant, confidential cooperation, witness.