Abstract
The presented scientific article highlights the problematic issues arising in law enforcement practice due to the imperfect content of the disposition of Article 417 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which provides liability for provocation of bribe taking. The author draws attention to the objective side of the considered act and the role of the concept of "attempt" used in the disposition of the considered norm. The relevance of the chosen topic is confirmed by the results of statistical data analyzed in the course of this study. The author conducted a comparative legal analysis with the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation and studied the points of view of Kazakhstani and foreign researchers on this issue, in order to substantiate the author's position that under the provocation of bribery should be understood not only actions covered by the attempt to transfer the object of bribe, but also actions that include the transfer of the object of bribe. This inference is also based on the fact that, despite the identical wording used in the articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (that criminal liability is incurred for attempted provocation), the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicate that a person is not subject to criminal liability for bribery, if there was a provocation consisting in the transfer of the object of the bribe, i.e. it is the transfer itself, not the attempt. In conclusion, the author proposes amendments to the Kazakh legislation in order to improve it, namely to the criminal-legal norm provided in Article 417 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, in order to exclude the facts of unjustified prosecution of persons for bribery.