Abstract
<jats:p>Building an effective anti-corruption system is one of the key priorities of the modern Ukrainian state and a prerequisite for its sustainable democratic development and successful European integration. The establishment of specialized anti-corruption institutions, such as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPО), and the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), was an important step in this direction. However, institutionalization is only the first stage; ensuring their effective and coordinated work, in particular through a clear regulatory definition of competence, remains an urgent scientific and practical task. The article highlights the problem of insufficient clarity and conflicts in the legislative delineation of subject and subjective jurisdiction between the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), the police (NPU) and other pre-trial investigation bodies in Ukraine. The author analyzes the difficulties that arise in practice due to ambiguity of the criteria for determining the jurisdiction of corruption and corruption-related criminal offenses, potential duplication of functions and the risks of jurisdictional disputes, which negatively affect the efficiency and effectiveness of investigations. The article substantiates the thesis that the existing shortcomings in the legal regulation of jurisdiction create significant obstacles to the effective implementation of the tasks of criminal proceedings in grand corruption cases. It is argued that the vagueness of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and special legislation on the delimitation of powers of anti-corruption bodies leads to delays in procedural terms, inefficient use of resources and can be used to evade responsibility by manipulating the determination of the appropriate investigative body. The author emphasizes the need for a systematic review and improvement of the legislative provisions governing the jurisdiction of anti-corruption cases through a detailed analysis of the current rules and practice of their application. Based on the identified gaps and contradictions, and also taking into account the comparative legal analysis of approaches to the delimitation of jurisdiction in this area in other countries, the author formulates specific proposals for clarifying the criteria of jurisdiction and optimizing the interaction between law enforcement agencies in order to strengthen the overall capacity of the State to fight corruption. Keywords: corruption, jurisdiction, anti-corruption bodies, anti-corruption legislation, conflict of laws, admissibility of evidence.</jats:p>