Abstract
The limits and severity of criminal liability for anticompetitive crimes in the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) have significant differences, despite the fact that the EAEU combines a common (single) economic space, the Model Law "On Competition" has been adopted, a single administrative responsibility for anti-competitive offenses committed in cross-border markets. These differences are manifested, first of all, in the fact that in different EAEU member states the issues of criminalization of anticompetitive socially dangerous behavior have been resolved differently, and for similar anticompetitive crimes, punishments significantly differing in nature and gravity have been established. The unsolved problem in the conditions of free movement of goods, finances and labor resources in the EAEU, according to the author, not only contradicts the principles of justice and equality of citizens before the law, which are enshrined in the criminal codes of all EAEU member states, but also hinders the successful economic development of the EAEU. In particular, significant differences in antitrust criminal policy can stimulate the “flow” of monopolistic criminal activity into the least rigid national jurisdictions within the EAEU. To solve the corresponding problem, the author proposes to supplement the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union with provisions on the implementation of an agreed EAEU policy in order to harmonize administrative and criminal liability for violations of the antitrust laws of EAEU member states.