DIGITAL GOVERNANCE IN URBAN PLANNING AS A TOOL FOR DECRIMINALIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

Abstract

Abstract. The article examines digital governance in urban planning as a potential instrument for the decriminalization of construction activities. The author argues that the introduction of electronic services such as the e-construction platform does not necessarily reduce offenses or enhance transparency if the regulatory framework itself is fragmented, contradictory, or legally unstable. Particular attention is paid to the phenomenon of digital latency-hidden forms of inaction that are not recorded in the systems but carry criminological significance. The paper reviews the regulatory architecture in land use and urban planning, identifying sources of legal uncertainty that prevent accountability or facilitate the obstruction of decisions. The concept of regulatory simulation is introduced, describing how digital systems may outwardly exhibit transparency while only recording procedural actions without legal outcomes. Although the e-construction platform is administered by a highly trusted institution (DIAM), it operates in an environment of normative reversals and limited interagency integration. A comparative analysis of digital services in Singapore, Estonia, the Netherlands, and Georgia reveals that key factors in their effectiveness include full registry integration, stability of law enforcement, mandatory audit trails, and automatic anomaly detection. The article offers recommendations for criminal and administrative legislation, including the introduction of the concept of "digital official misconduct," the establishment of permit irreversibility, and the algorithmization of criminological prevention. Conclusion: digitalization should be seen not merely as formal automation but as a tool for ensuring legal certainty and a new architecture of trust.

Keywords: digital governance; e-construction; legal certainty; digital latency; DIAM; urban development; decriminalization; regulatory simulation; institutional accountability; criminological prevention; administrative inaction.