High-profile corruption cases in Russia since 2005. Dossier

On December 31, Adamov was extradited to the Russian Federation, where he was accused of fraud and abuse of power. According to the investigation, in 1998-1999, the minister and his accomplices took possession of 62% of the shares of the Russian-American joint venture for uranium trading GNSS and contributed to the illegal write-off of $113 million in debt of this joint venture to Techsnabexport OJSC.

On February 19, 2008, the Zamoskvoretsky Court of Moscow sentenced Adamov to 5.5 years in prison; in April of the same year, when considering a cassation appeal, the term was replaced with a suspended sentence. Now Adamov holds the position of scientific director of the Research and Design Institute of Energy Engineering named after. N. A. Dollezhala (Moscow).

The case of Alexey Kuznetsov

On June 24, 2010, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation issued a resolution to bring in the former Minister of Finance of the Moscow Region, Alexey Kuznetsov, as accused of fraud committed by an organized group on a particularly large scale, and the legalization of property obtained illegally. According to the investigation, as a result of the actions of the criminal group, which included Kuznetsov, the government of the Moscow region and regional housing and communal services enterprises suffered damage amounting to over 10 billion rubles.

On July 5, 2013, Kuznetsov was detained at the request of Russian law enforcement agencies in the resort of St. Tropez on the Cote d'Azur in France. In December 2014, the Basmanny Court of Moscow sentenced the former Deputy Minister of Finance of the Moscow Region Valery Nosov to 14 years in prison and a fine of 1 million rubles in the same criminal case (on November 9, 2015, the Khamovnichesky Court of Moscow will consider a new criminal case against him); the former general director of the Moscow Regional Trust Nes-Finance Elena Kuznetsova - to 10 and 7 years in prison, respectively.

In 2014, the French Lyon Court of Appeal granted the request of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office to extradite Kuznetsov to Russia. In accordance with French legislation, the final decision on the issue of extradition of the ex-Minister of Finance of the Moscow Region will be made by the state executive authorities.

Specifics of causation and determination

Corruption is a consequence of both the general processes of determination and causation of crime and specific ones noted in previous chapters. The latter are predominantly associated with government or other service.

Three aspects of the issue are significant: 1) characteristics of the work environment; 2) characteristics of employees; 3) conditions and processes of their interaction, the state of social control in the service sector.

1. If we talk about the service environment, or conditions of service, then first of all you should pay attention to three circumstances that are most often involved in the production of corruption.

Firstly, failure to comply with the rule on the amount of remuneration for employees that would allow them and their families to live with dignity. Sometimes the payment is so meager that it is implied that the employee will switch to “feeding clients.” At the same time, in Russia during the reform period, delays in paying salaries to many civil servants were the rule rather than the exception. This created a situation of extreme need in families, and under the influence of the latter, some employees developed the motivation to commit a corruption crime.

The situation became aggravated in the context of sharp contrasts in the remuneration of employees of even one organization, not due to compelling reasons.

Secondly, the type of management matters. In the first, so-called situational management, various types of tasks are solved to a large extent at the discretion of individual employees. Legal regulation is carried out only in the most general manner. There is room for personal discretion and arbitrariness here. In the end, a significant number of citizens, tired of the numerous, not precisely predetermined demands of employees, are ready to buy them off. Sometimes the very presentation of ambiguous and changing demands is assessed as extortion of a bribe and provokes it.

In the second, normative, management, we are primarily talking about the application in certain types of situations of detailed legal norms regulating them, and not just about taking into account the norms that introduce certain restrictions. In this case, there is also bribery, but bribes are given proactively so that the official violates the established rules. The second situation looks less likely to provoke corruption.

In the literature, proposals are made to combat corruption, sometimes according to the principle: “no person - no crime.” And accordingly, the question is raised about reducing the state apparatus, about eliminating the legal regulation of many relations and state control over many areas of activity. But the point is not this, but the characteristics of employees, the amount of their content, the order of their activities, and control over them. For example, a sharp, unjustified reduction in licensing of a certain activity can lead to no less serious consequences than corruption in its implementation. But a way out can be found in regulating in detail the time frame for making a decision, what documents must be submitted, what are the samples of these documents, and under what exhaustively listed conditions a refusal of licensing is possible.

Thirdly, the socio-psychological situation is significant. For example, the recognition of corruption among civil servants as a normal phenomenon, like tipping among doormen, is an important factor in the formation of criminal motivation.

2. As for the characteristics of the employees themselves who commit corruption crimes, the hierarchy of their values ​​and, in particular, their willingness to sacrifice the law and moral standards, professional honor, are significant here. Characterological traits such as greed and envy also have an impact. Moral instability affects initiative bribery.

The social environment of the individual is of great importance:

a) the presence in it of persons with a high level of material well-being, and even more so achieved through corruption and other criminal activities;

b) a materially secure environment in the conditions of personal development and a sharp decrease in this security in the future. For example, when a young man starts a family and begins to live on his salary. His habits towards a different standard of living in certain conditions may provoke the choice of a criminal option for solving the problem;

c) characteristics of the human reference environment. If he is focused on the living standards of Hollywood stars, but receives a modest salary as an employee, then this creates a problematic situation for him. The so-called effect of Ellochka the Ogress, who tried to compete in clothes with the daughter of a foreign millionaire, can be called criminogenic, capable under certain conditions of leading to bribery and extortion;

d) the presence of expensive habits and interests: excessive drinking, gambling, etc. The following circumstance also deserves attention: a thoughtful choice of an educational institution, a future profession, taking into account the receipt of large gifts and offerings that are not based on the law. Among some medical students there was even a term “getting to the body.”

3. As for social control, it should be primarily proactive. Lack of control over the income and expenses of employees, over the performance of their official duties, failure to respond to facts of corruption, or a weak response not based on the law in many cases are conditions that facilitate the commission of corruption crimes. And for some of the perpetrators, these are components of a causal complex that gave rise to criminal motivation of the following type: “others took and are taking bribes, were not exposed, did not need anything - why don’t I try.” It is often these bribe-takers who are exposed, because the former, as a rule, act on an organized, well-thought-out basis.

Behind the prevalence of corruption crime are major miscalculations in the management of the affairs of the state and society, weak economic and organizational foundations for the functioning of public and other services, the spread of the psychology of permissiveness and the admissibility of using any means of ensuring personal well-being, legal nihilism and legal cynicism.

The spread of this psychology and behavior based on it in the highest echelons of government is extremely criminogenic. In connection with the above, one cannot help but recall the line of Bulat Okudzhava: “Oh, if only the skies were clear, and everything else will follow.” This is often contrasted with another judgment: “The people have the government they deserve.” But it seems that such a thesis is more flamboyant than fair. The situation in the public service pyramid is very much determined by its top.

The unprecedented spread of corruption in Russia during the reform period was influenced by two main and interrelated circumstances. Firstly, as already noted, in the conditions of a landslide transition to a market, people were left to their own devices, and officials began to use any means to ensure their material well-being and a “worthy” place in the future. The ruble, or rather the dollar, became the measure of everything. Secondly, corruption became in 1991–1993 (less expressed later) one of the main means of restructuring society. Chapters 7–8 provided evidence that power was purchased from the nomenklatura and exchanged for property. State authorities of the constituent entities of the Federation bribed local federal bodies, additionally financing, for example, courts and other federal bodies, heads of state bodies - selectively their employees, allowing their participation in commercial structures or turning a blind eye to this, providing them with privileges and benefits not provided for by law . They themselves allowed it, provided it, but they themselves could have canceled it.

The official, thus, begins to serve not the state, but his immediate superior, and becomes an obedient member of the “team” of this leader.

The formation of new economic relations and a new layer of owners as the social support of reforms was carried out at an accelerated pace with the conscious assumption of the legalization of criminal and other shadow capital. As a result, the state of affairs has become such that, according to former assistant to the President of the Russian Federation A. Livshits, strengthening the fight against corruption can “lead to a loss of balance in the economy,” and therefore he is “against sudden movements in matters of combating corruption.”

Anti-corruption legislation did not change significantly, and new forms were not taken into account.

Corruption, along with economic crime, became an increasingly powerful means of redistributing property and capital, including criminal capital.

Thus, on the one hand, an increasingly broad and impressive layer of citizens was created who were interested in preserving relations based on corruption, on the other hand, an increasingly large part of citizens experienced the harmful consequences of corruption.

The discontent of the population was muffled by occasional loud revelations from the media of certain individuals, groups and constant criticism of the courts, law enforcement agencies, and intelligence services. These revelations, as a rule, had no legal consequences, and the criticism further undermined the public's trust in law enforcement agencies and increased their reluctance to cooperate with them.

The effectiveness of the fight against corruption was declining. The number of people convicted of bribery (Articles 173–174 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR) has decreased several times over 10 years. In 1986, 3,454 people were convicted, in 1990 - 649, in 1993 - 843, in 1994 - 1,114, in 1995 - 1,072. 1,137 people were convicted of other official crimes in 1994, in 1995 - 1,072.

In all of Russia in 1995, 397 people were sentenced to imprisonment for bribery, in 1994 - 380. Only about one third of convicted bribe takers were sentenced to imprisonment. Every fourth convict was granted a deferment of execution.

These data in themselves did not yet indicate liberal judicial practice, because, judging by the materials of criminal cases, random low-rank bribe takers were convicted, and not persons who were corrupt using sophisticated forms, on a systematic or constant basis, with respectable patrons.

In 1995, only 1,364 persons were identified who received a bribe (Article 173 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR), and only 255 persons who did this under qualifying circumstances, or held a responsible official position, or extorted a bribe, or received a bribe on a large scale.

In the determinative complex of corruption crime, the role of the lack of vigorous legislative and law enforcement activity is significant. In 1993–1995, federal laws against corruption and organized crime were repeatedly adopted, but never came into force.

Firstly, the fight against corruption was loudly reduced only to the punitive side, but in reality this resulted in some intensification of identifying and punishing only those individuals who took bribes without complicity with high-ranking officials, large entrepreneurs, organized criminal groups with extensive corrupt connections ( at their expense in 1993–1995 the number of convicted bribe-takers increased slightly). At the same time, which is especially unacceptable, law enforcement agencies were guided by many actors (including the media) towards “drastic measures” that were not always based on the law. Ignoring the law and restricting the rights of citizens not based on it compromises the fight against corruption. This result is also calculated as desired by a certain circle of people.

Secondly, there was strong opposition to the adoption of new anti-corruption legislation that took into account market realities and foreign experience, including providing for liability for new forms of corrupt behavior.

Thirdly, no effective measures were taken to reconstruct economic, managerial, and other relations on a legal basis. There are entire areas of legal activity that cannot be successfully carried out in practice without corrupt connections.

Corruption in public authorities developed in conditions of official extremely low salaries for employees, irregular payments, an unclear legal basis for providing additional benefits to employees, the actual participation of government agencies and their employees in private business activities not arising from the tasks and legal status of the relevant government body.

The case of “underground” casinos

February 11, 2011 in the Moscow region. Ivan Nazarov, the owner of a network of illegal casinos that operated in 15 cities near Moscow, was detained. According to investigators, high-ranking employees of the prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs were involved in the business, which brought in from $5 million to $100 million a month.

As a result of the investigation, Moscow Region Prosecutor Alexander Mokhov lost his position. His first deputy, Alexander Ignatenko, the main defendant in the case, fled abroad. On January 1, 2012, he was arrested in Poland and extradited to the Russian Federation, where he was in the Lefortovo detention center, and on July 1, 2013, he was released on his own recognizance. The investigation into the case continues.

In January 2014, the Basmanny Court declared illegal the arrest of former employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Farit Temirgaliev and Mikhail Kulikov, who were accused of receiving bribes worth $225 thousand in a casino protection case.

The Rosagroleasing case

In 2011-2013, the Ministry of Internal Affairs opened three criminal cases of theft of budget funds at OJSC Rosagroleasing, which occurred in 2007-2009. Former Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the Russian Federation Aleksey Bazhanov, general director of Mezhregiontorg LLC Sergey Burdovsky, general director of Lipetskagrotekhservice LLC Igor Konyakhin, former managers of Masloproduct-Bio CJSC Roman Malov and Sergey Dudenkov were arrested.

The investigation estimated the total damage from their criminal activities at 39 billion rubles. Former head of the Ministry of Agriculture department Oleg Donskikh has been put on the wanted list for the theft of 600 million rubles. Former head of the Ministry of Agriculture Elena Skrynnik (headed Rosagroleasing in 2001-2009) was interrogated as a witness and subsequently left Russia. In October 2015, it became known that in the spring of 2013, the Office of the Federal Prosecutor (UFP) of Switzerland initiated criminal proceedings against Skrynnik and a number of other persons on suspicion of money laundering; In this context, the FPO seized bank accounts belonging to the former Minister of Agriculture. On October 28, 2015, Russian media reported the seizure of Skrynnik’s Swiss accounts in the amount of 60 million francs (about $61 million).

On October 29, Secretary of the General Council of the United Russia political party Sergei Neverov said that Skrynnik was expelled from the party for actions discrediting this political organization, as well as “for losing contact with the party.” On November 2, the head of the Russian Presidential Administration, Sergei Ivanov, said that the Swiss prosecutor’s office has no complaints against Elena Skrynnik, and all “significant claims” relate to her former deputy. Skrynnik herself, speaking on the Russian News Service, stated that the information about the seizure of her accounts in Switzerland is not true, emphasizing that she “doesn’t even have that kind of money.”

The Oboronservis case

On October 25, 2012, the Investigative Committee opened a number of criminal cases on facts of fraud in transactions with land, real estate and shares owned by OJSC Oboronservis, a commercial organization controlled by the Ministry of Defense. The main defendant was the head of the department of property relations of the ministry, Evgenia Vasilyeva. Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov was questioned in the case as a witness; in November 2012, Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed him.

On May 8, 2015, the Presnensky Court of Moscow found Vasilyeva guilty of creating a criminal group to commit fraud on an especially large scale using her official position, abuse of power and money laundering, sentencing her to 5 years in prison to serve in a general regime colony. Other members of the criminal group - Maxim Zakutailo, Larisa Egorina, Yuriy Grekhnev, Irina Borisova, Dinara Bilyalova - received sentences ranging from 3 years and 10 months to 4 years in prison.

The amount of damage in the Oboronservis case amounted to over 646 million rubles. The court satisfied the claims of the injured organizations for a total amount of over 216 million rubles (later Vasilyeva and her father paid this money). On August 25, 2015, the court granted Vasilyeva’s defense request for her parole, and on the same day she was released.

Memo on liability for corruption offenses

CORRUPTION CRIMES

The material was prepared using legal acts

as of August 12, 2021

Concept of corruption crimes

In the modern world, corruption affects the society and economy of all countries, regardless of their level of economic development. The significance and necessity of eradicating the causes and conditions that give rise to it is beyond doubt. Since corruption is one of the main threats to the state and public security of the Russian Federation, it is an obstacle to the sustainable development of the country and the implementation of strategic national priorities, the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and national anti-corruption plans are currently being implemented, an atmosphere of unacceptability of this phenomenon is being formed in society, and the level of responsibility for corruption crimes, law enforcement practice in this area is being improved (clause 43, Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 31, 2015 N 683 “On the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation”).

In the context of globalization, issues related to the prevention and eradication of corruption are regulated by both national and international law: the United Nations Convention against Corruption (adopted by Resolution of the UN General Assembly on October 31, 2003); Convention adopted on the basis of Article K.3 (2) "c" of the Treaty on European Union, on the fight against corruption involving employees of the European Communities or employees of Member States of the European Union (adopted by the Council of the European Union on 05.26.1997, Russia does not participate ); Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (adopted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on November 21, 1997); Convention on Criminal Liability for Corruption (adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on January 27, 1999), etc. According to the approach to the definition of the concept of “corruption”, reflecting the position of the international community, it is an act for which civil, disciplinary, administrative or criminal liability. That is, we are talking about such a term as a corruption offense. In the national law of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the Federal Law of December 25, 2008 N 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption” (hereinafter referred to as the Anti-Corruption Law), corruption is: a) abuse of official position, giving a bribe, receiving a bribe, abuse of power, commercial bribery or other illegal use by an individual of his official position contrary to the legitimate interests of society and the state in order to obtain benefits in the form of money, valuables, other property or services of a property nature, other property rights for himself or for third parties, or the illegal provision of such benefits to the specified person by others individuals; b) commission of the specified acts on behalf of or in the interests of a legal entity (clause 1 of article 1). Accordingly, the concept of corruption is given by listing culpably committed socially dangerous acts provided for in Art. Art. 285, 286, 201, 290, 291, 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, prohibited by the Russian Federation under threat of punishment - corruption crimes. At the same time, in the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation there is no normatively established concept of “corruption crime”.

The elements of crimes listed in the Anti-Corruption Law combine the following characteristics: intentional form of guilt; special subject - an individual who uses his official position contrary to the legitimate interests of society and the state; connection of the act with the official position of the subject; selfish motive: selfish interest - the desire of an official, by committing unlawful actions, to obtain for himself or other persons a benefit of a property nature or other personal interest - the desire of an official to obtain a benefit of a non-property nature, due to such motives as careerism, nepotism, the desire to embellish the actual situation, to obtain perform a mutual favor, enlist support in resolving any issue, hide one’s incompetence, etc. (Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 16, 2009 N 19 “On judicial practice in cases of abuse of official powers and abuse of official powers”). The subject of a corruption crime can also be a person interested in the implementation of certain actions (inaction) by a special subject.

Thus, a corruption crime is a socially dangerous, illegal, guilty and punishable intentional act of an official or a person interested in the implementation of certain actions (inaction) by an official, committed based on selfish motives, aimed at obtaining benefits, property, services of a property nature, property rights or illegal provision of certain advantages both for themselves and for third parties.

Classification of corruption crimes

In connection with the actualization of the problem of corruption, its wide spread in all spheres of life of Russian society, we can talk about a consistent change in the characteristics of corruption crimes. Accordingly, there is an objective need for their classification. Directive of the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia N 487/11, Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia N 1 dated July 12, 2019 “On the implementation of lists of articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation used in the formation of statistical reporting” contains a list of corruption crimes (according to the terminology used in this document, “crimes corruption-oriented"), as well as criteria for classifying crimes as corruption. According to List No. 23, corruption-related crimes include illegal acts that have all of the following characteristics:

1) the presence of appropriate subjects of a criminal offense, which include the officials specified in the notes to Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, persons performing management functions in a commercial or other organization, acting on behalf of a legal entity, as well as in a non-profit organization that is not a government body, local government body, state or municipal institution, specified in the notes to Art. 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

2) connection of the act with the official position of the subject, deviation from his direct rights and obligations;

3) the subject must have a selfish motive (the act is related to his obtaining property rights and benefits for himself or for third parties);

4) committing a crime only with direct intent. An exception are crimes that, although they do not meet the specified requirements, are related to corruption in accordance with international legal acts and national legislation ratified by the Russian Federation, as well as those related to the preparation of conditions for receiving an official, civil servant and municipal employee, as well as a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, benefits in the form of money, valuables, other property or services of a property nature, other property rights, or the illegal provision of such benefits.

Corruption-related crimes are divided into two classification groups: 1) crimes related to the list of corruption-related crimes without additional conditions; 2) crimes related to the list of corruption-related crimes, subject to certain conditions.

Corruption-related crimes without additional conditions include crimes regulated by Art. Art. 141.1, 184, paragraph “b”, part 3, art. 188, art. Art. 200.5, 201.1, 204, 204.1, 204.2, paragraph “a”, part 2, art. 226.1, clause “b”, part 2, art. 229.1, art. Art. 289, 290, 291, 291.1, 291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

To classify crimes as corruption-related, subject to certain qualification conditions, the statistical card must contain the following marks:

1) on the corruption nature of the main element of the crime: Art. Art. 174, 174.1, 175, part 3 of Art. 210, art. 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

2) on the corruption nature of the main element of the crime in accordance with international acts: Art. Art. 294, 295, 296, 302, 307, 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

3) about committing a crime with a mercenary motive: clauses “a” and “b”, part 2 of Art. 141, part 2 art. 142, art. Art. 170, 200.4, 200.6, 201, 202, part 2 and 2.1 art. 258.1, art. Art. 285, 285.1, 285.2, 285.3, 285.4, part 1, and paragraph “c” of part 3 of Art. 286, art. 292, part 3 art. 299, part 2 and 4 art. 303, art. 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

4) about the commission of a crime by an official, a civil servant and a municipal employee, as well as a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization: Part 4 of Art. 188, paragraph “c”, part 3, art. 226, part 3 art. 226.1, part 2 art. 228.2, clause “c”, part 2, art. 229, parts 3 and 4 art. 229.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

5) about the commission of a crime by an official, a civil servant and a municipal employee, as well as a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, and with a mercenary motive: parts 3 and 4 of Art. 183, paragraph “b”, part 4, art. 228.1, clause “b”, part 2, art. 228.4, part 3 art. 256, part 2 art. 258, part 3 and 3.1 art. 258.1, paragraph “c”, part 2 and part 3 of Art. 260, parts 1 and 3 art. 303, Art. Art. 322.1, 322.2, 322.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

6) about the commission of a crime by an official, a civil servant and a municipal employee, as well as a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, and with a mercenary motive: clause “b”, part 3 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (this composition is classified as crimes, the inclusion of which in the list depends on the time (date) of the commission of the crime. And it applies to crimes committed earlier than 01/01/2013. In cases where it is not possible to determine the time of the commission of the crime, the date of discovery of the crime is taken into account );

7) about the commission of a crime by an official, a civil servant and a municipal employee, as well as a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, using his official position: Part 3, , , and 7 of Art. 159, parts 3 and 4 art. 159.1, parts 3 and 4 art. 159.2, parts 3 and 4 art. 159.3, art. 159.4, parts 3 and 4 art. 159.5, parts 3 and 4 art. 159.6, parts 3 and 4 art. 160, parts 3 and 4 art. 229 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

about the commission of a crime by an official, civil servant and municipal employee, as well as a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, using his official position and with a mercenary motive: Part 5 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

A separate category of crimes is identified that can contribute to the commission of corruption-related crimes related to the list, if there is information in the statistical card about the commission of a crime related to the preparation, including imaginary, conditions for obtaining by an official, civil servant and municipal employee, as well as by a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, benefits in the form of money, valuables, other property or illegal provision of such benefits: Art. Art. Art. Art. 169, 178, 179 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

If we refer to the list established in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 07/09/2013 N 24 “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and other corruption crimes” (hereinafter - Resolution of the Plenum N 24), corruption crimes include Art. Art. 290, 291, 291.1, 159, 160, 204, 292, 304 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. crimes related to bribery and commercial bribery.

In general, the emerging trend in developing a list of corruption crimes corresponds to the principle of formal certainty of the law; a uniform approach to the application of relevant criminal law norms will contribute to the correct classification of criminal acts of a corruption nature.

Peculiarities of qualification of corruption crimes

In accordance with the principle of fairness enshrined in Art. 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, punishment and other measures of a criminal legal nature applied to a person who has committed a crime must correspond to the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator. Qualification of a crime is the establishment and legal confirmation of the compliance of the committed act with the elements of a crime provided for by a specific criminal law norm. Correct, that is, corresponding to the principles of criminal law and criminal law, classification of a crime ensures the accurate and complete application of a set of norms of criminal and criminal procedural laws. Depending on the classification of the crime, criminal legal issues are resolved about punishment, release from criminal liability and punishment, parole, calculation of terms of criminal record, amnesty (Idrisov N.T. Rules for the qualification of crimes: concept, types, problem of legal regulation: Author's abstract dissertation...candidate of legal sciences. Samara, 2009. P. 3). Paragraph 36 of the Plenum Resolution No. 24 emphasizes the need to take into account, when assessing the degree of public danger of the crime, the content of motives and goals, the significance of the duties that were violated by the person who committed a corruption crime using his official position, the duration of criminal actions (inaction), the nature and severity of the damage harm, other factual circumstances and information about the identity of the perpetrator.

Among corruption crimes, the most common and dangerous is bribery. It is difficult in practice to distinguish between such crimes as bribery and fraud, although there is a significant difference in their objective and subjective aspects. Let's give an example. "IN. found guilty of having, as an official, personally received a bribe in the form of money for actions (inaction) in favor of the bribe giver, if such actions (inaction) are within the official powers of the official or he, by virtue of his official position, can facilitate such actions (inaction) ), in a large size; Convicted under paragraph “g” of Part 4 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by the Federal Law of December 8, 2003) using Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for 4 years of imprisonment in a high-security correctional colony without a fine. During the investigation, V. claimed that he attempted to seize X.’s money through fraud. V. worked at the tax office as deputy head of the field inspection department. Since V. had a difficult financial situation due to unpaid loans, he decided to take possession of X.’s money, creating in the latter the opinion that it was necessary to transfer the money to him in order to prevent consequences that were undesirable for X. To do this, V. named fictitious amounts of additional accrual of funds and the corresponding amount to be transferred to him, although in fact he himself could not and did not want to reduce the amount of additional accrual based on the results of the tax audit. 04/05/2011 V. wrote a letter of resignation, handed it over to the head of the department and left work; 04/05/2011 V. met with Kh., from whom he received money, after which he was detained.” Based on this, the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation came to the conclusion that “under such circumstances, V.’s actions cannot be regarded as receiving a bribe, they should be regarded as an attempt to steal someone else’s property by deception, committed using his official position and on a large scale.” size, and, thus, V.’s actions are subject to re-qualification from paragraph “g” of Part 4 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation at Part 3 of Art. 30 and part 3 of Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by the Federal Law of 03/07/2011)” (Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 09/28/2011 N 11-O11-85). It seems that in this case, the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was guided in distinguishing the elements of bribery and fraud by the fact that in this case the bribe was received for actions of an official that could not have been committed by him under any circumstances. Accordingly, there was deception as a way of committing theft or acquiring the right to someone else’s property - the deliberate communication of knowingly false information that does not correspond to reality (clause 2 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 30, 2017 N 48 “On judicial practice in cases of fraud, misappropriation and waste").

What criteria should be used to distinguish between bribery and fraud? In accordance with paragraph 24 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 24, the receipt by an official or a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization of values ​​for performing actions (inactions) that are within his powers or that he could have committed using his official position should be qualified as receiving a bribe or commercial bribery, regardless of the intention to perform the specified actions (inaction). In the event that the specified person received valuables for committing actions (inaction), which in reality he cannot carry out due to lack of official authority and the inability to use his official position, such actions, if there is intent to acquire valuables, should be qualified as fraud committed by a person with using his official position. The actions of a person who allegedly received valuables for transfer to an official or person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, as a bribe or the subject of commercial bribery, but who obviously did not intend to fulfill his promise and turned these valuables to his advantage, should be qualified as fraud. The owner of the valuables transferred to him in these cases is liable for attempted bribery or commercial bribery.

Such a qualifying sign of receiving a bribe as extortion of a bribe (clause “b”, part 5, article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) deserves special attention. The problem of qualification is the criminal legal assessment of this act, as well as its difference from extortion as an independent crime against property (Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In accordance with paragraph 18 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 24, extortion of a bribe should be understood as an official’s demand to give a bribe, accompanied by a threat to commit actions (inaction) that may harm the legitimate interests of a person, as well as the deliberate creation of conditions under which a person is forced to transfer the specified items in order to prevent harmful consequences for their legally protected interests. In practice, such actions by an official were often incorrectly assessed as fraud. The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explained that in order to qualify the offense under paragraph “b” of Part 5 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it does not matter whether the official had a real opportunity to carry out the specified threat, if the person who gave the bribe had reason to fear that this threat would be carried out (for example, an investigator, knowing that the criminal case is subject to termination due to the absence of elements in the act crime, threatens the accused to send the case with an indictment to the prosecutor, and, having received a bribe, terminates the case on the grounds provided for by law).

If there is a situation in which an official initially demands that money or other valuables be transferred to him, and then, to reinforce his demands, he proceeds to threats of using weapons, physical violence, and so on, then the actions of the subject begin as extortion of a bribe and are transformed into extortion as an independent property crime. His actions, accordingly, should be qualified according to Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. If, in the process of extorting a bribe, an official committed actions (inaction) that resulted in a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, the act, if there are grounds for it, must be additionally qualified under Art. Art. 285, 286 or 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (clause 18 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 24).

Federal Law of 04.05.2011 N 97-FZ “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses in Connection with Improving Public Administration in the Field of Anti-Corruption” (hereinafter referred to as Law N 97) introduced a new norm in the Russian Federation, providing for liability for mediation in bribery. In accordance with the provisions of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, mediation in bribery is the direct transfer of a bribe on behalf of the bribe-giver or bribe-taker, or other assistance to the bribe-giver and (or) bribe-taker in reaching or implementing an agreement between them on receiving and giving a bribe in a significant amount. As noted in the scientific literature, there is competition between criminal law provisions provided for in Art. Art. 291 and 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, due to the presence of similar signs. Criminal liability for mediation in bribery occurs when the size of the bribe is significant. In this case, the indication of the name of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is accompanied by a reference to Part 2 of Art. 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Cherepanova E.V. Legal problems of qualification of corruption crimes // Journal of Russian Law. 2021. N 9. P. 106). Before the adoption of Law No. 97, the actions of an intermediary in bribery were qualified under Part 5 of Art. 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 290 or Art. 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. We should agree with the opinion of G.L. Minakov, who notes that the qualification of mediation in bribery as complicity in giving or receiving a bribe actually means the application of the criminal law by analogy, since the actions of the intermediary do not correspond to any of the types of complicity (Minakov G.L. Problems of qualification of mediation in bribery // Rule of Law . 2013. N 1. P. 76), and the introduction of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, accordingly, justified.

Thus, problematic issues related to the qualification of corruption crimes are diverse and are caused mainly, firstly, by uncertainty, inconsistency of legal norms, as well as the recognition in the criminal law of new acts as socially dangerous and declaring them criminally punishable (criminalization); secondly, by the many reasons and conditions for their occurrence. The correct qualification of a corruption crime has great socio-legal, criminological and moral significance.

Responsibility for committing corruption crimes

Along with the problems of the legal qualification of corruption crimes, no less relevant is the issue of assigning a proportionate punishment to the perpetrator. The Russian Federation has established criminal liability for committing corruption crimes and, accordingly, provides for the following types of punishment: fine, deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities, compulsory labor, correctional labor, forced labor, restriction of freedom, imprisonment for a certain period.

The differentiation of criminal liability provided for by law is of great importance. Differentiation of criminal liability is carried out using such legal means as the establishment of various sanctions, the construction of special qualified or privileged elements of crime, etc. (Rarog A.I. Criminal law of Russia. General and Special parts: Textbook for bachelors. M.: Prospekt, 2021. P. 49). When assigning punishment, the nature and degree of social danger of the crime and the personality of the perpetrator are taken into account, including circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment, as well as the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and on the living conditions of his family (Part 3 of Article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Let us consider the main problems of law enforcement practice of bringing to justice for committing corruption crimes. The most common of them, as noted earlier, is bribery. Courts do not always correctly establish liability for receiving a bribe for the commission by an official of actions (inactions) within his official powers in favor of the bribe giver or persons represented by him and for the commission of actions (inactions) not included in his official powers - illegal actions. Let's give an example. “The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Tyumen Regional Court amended the verdict of the trial court due to the erroneous classification of the actions of convicted K. The court gave her actions an incorrect legal assessment, erroneously qualifying the act as receiving a bribe for illegal actions. Since the bribe was received by K. for performing actions that she was obliged to perform in accordance with the official powers assigned to her, K.’s actions were reclassified as an official receiving a bribe for actions in favor of the bribe giver, if such actions are within the official powers of the official ( Part 1 of Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In connection with the reclassification of K.’s actions to the law of a less serious crime, she was sentenced in accordance with the requirements of Art. Art. 6, , of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, information about the identity of the convicted person, mitigating circumstances: in the form of imprisonment for a period of two years with deprivation of the right to engage in teaching activities in state and municipal educational institutions for a period of one year and six months; in accordance with Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a sentence of imprisonment is considered suspended with a probationary period of one year and six months” (Cassation ruling of the Tyumen Regional Court dated 04/28/2011 N 22-1089/2011).

The differentiation criteria are given in paragraph 3, Resolution of the Plenum No. 24: actions (inaction) of an official included in the official powers should be understood as such actions (inaction) that he has the right and (or) is obliged to perform within the limits of his official competence; illegal actions (inactions) for which an official received a bribe should be understood as actions (inactions) that: were committed by an official using official powers, but in the absence of the grounds or conditions provided for by law for their implementation; relate to the powers of another official; committed by an official alone, but could only be carried out collectively or in agreement with another official or body; consist of failure to perform official duties; no one has the right to commit under any circumstances. At the same time, the acceptance by an official of money, property services, etc. does not form part of receiving a bribe. for committing actions (inaction), although related to the performance of his professional duties, but not related to the powers of a government representative, organizational, administrative or administrative functions (clause 7 of Plenum Resolution No. 24).

In practice, there are cases of unjustified criminal prosecution for taking a bribe through extortion, which is also a problem. Indicative is the verdict of the Tyumen Regional Court dated September 22, 2005, according to which “N. was found guilty of extorting a bribe. N., holding the position of detective of the Department for Combating Economic Crimes of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Leninsky Autonomous District of Tyumen, accepted a statement from T. regarding S. regarding the fact of her appropriation of funds by fraud, but did not register it. He decided to receive a reward from S. for illegal actions, namely, for leaving T.’s application without registration and consideration on the merits. He demanded a bribe from S., promising not to carry out an investigation into his application to bring her to criminal responsibility. At the same time, S. did not express any threats to commit actions that could cause damage to the legitimate interests of the bribe-giver, as required by law. Deciding whether to initiate a criminal case was not part of his official powers. As for organizing an inspection based on the materials available to him, this was part of N.’s duties, which he did not fulfill in the interests of the bribe-giver.” The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation came to the conclusion that “under such circumstances, N.’s conviction on the grounds of extorting a bribe should be excluded from the sentence, and his actions should be qualified as an official receiving a bribe for illegal actions (inaction), reclassify him actions under Part 2 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which, using Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, sentence him to two years and six months of imprisonment" (Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 12, 2005 N 89-o05-51). Accordingly, in order to bring an official to criminal liability for extorting a bribe, his actions must contain a requirement to give a bribe, which must necessarily be associated with a threat to commit actions (inaction) that may harm the legitimate interests of the person. If the official does not make such threats, there is no element of extortion of a bribe. Also, there is no extortion if the official informs the citizen that he will take actions in relation to him, stipulated by the requirements of the law or other regulatory legal acts.

Giving a bribe to an official as a separate corruption crime can also entail a fairly severe punishment: sanction of Art. 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Part 5) provides for a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term of up to fifteen years. Note to Art. 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for three special grounds for releasing the bribe-giver from criminal liability: 1) if he actively contributed to the disclosure and (or) investigation of the crime; 2) he was subject to extortion of a bribe by an official; 3) after committing a crime, the bribe-giver voluntarily informed the body that has the right to initiate a criminal case about giving a bribe. Release is mandatory. A similar provision also applies to the intermediary in bribery: in accordance with the note to Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a person who has committed a crime under this article is exempt from criminal liability if he actively contributed to the detection and (or) suppression of the crime and voluntarily reported the crime to the body that has the right to initiate a criminal case. In general, these rules on the release from liability of bribe givers and intermediaries in bribery are encouraging and stimulating in nature, encouraging these individuals to identify bribe takers and to engage in positive post-criminal behavior, expressed in active repentance.

Thus, in law enforcement practice there are a number of problems associated with bringing perpetrators to criminal liability for corruption crimes. It seems that imposing a more lenient punishment due to an error can lead to ineffectiveness in the fight against corruption, to failure to achieve such goals of punishment as restoring social justice, correcting the convicted person and preventing the commission of new crimes; and the onset of more stringent legal consequences than the legislator has established for the commission of a specific type of crime, in turn, will lead to a violation of the principle of justice, according to which the punishment must correspond to the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator. Therefore, a thorough analysis of all the circumstances of each criminal case and an individual approach to sentencing are necessary.

The GLONASS case

In April 2012, the former head of Roscosmos, Vladimir Popovkin, reported that facts of money laundering allocated for the development of the GLONASS system had been identified at Russian Space Systems OJSC. In July of the same year, the Ministry of Internal Affairs opened a case against “unidentified persons” in the management of the company and structures close to it for the misuse of 565 million rubles. In November 2012, the Ministry of Internal Affairs announced the theft of 6.5 billion rubles during the development of GLONASS. GLONASS General Designer Yuri Urlichich lost his post.

In 2013, new facts of fraud were revealed - 387.5 million rubles, transferred to fictitious subcontractors (former head Igor Grushelevsky was named among the suspects), and 107 million rubles, stolen during the construction of GLONASS facilities. In the second case, the amount of damage later increased to 250 million rubles; in April 2015, the case was brought to court.

The accused are former deputy general director of FSUE TsNIIMash George Kovkov, head of the capital construction department of the same organization Alexander Chernov, ex-general director of department No. 5 at Spetsstroy Alexander Belov, owner Dmitry Belitsky and general director of SpetsMonolit LLC Roman Martynenko.

The case of “Resorts of the North Caucasus”

In the spring of 2013, the Ministry of Internal Affairs conducted an inspection of the management organization of North Caucasus Resorts OJSC. As a result, facts of abuse by management and misuse of funds in the amount of about 275.3 million rubles were revealed.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs opened a criminal case under Part 4 of Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Fraud”) in relation to the company’s managers. In addition, a criminal case was opened against the general director of the company, Akhmed Bilalov, under Art. 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Abuse of Power”) - he was suspected of illegally paying for foreign business trips in the amount of more than 3 million rubles.

Akhmed Bilalov's brother Magomed was accused in absentia of abuse of 1 billion rubles worth of Sberbank of the Russian Federation funds allocated for Olympic venues. Both brothers fled abroad.

The case of theft during the preparation of the APEC summit

In January 2013, the Ministry of Internal Affairs opened a criminal case under Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Fraud committed on an especially large scale”) regarding the theft of funds during the construction of one of the facilities for the APEC 2012 summit in Vladivostok. In April of the same year, Roman Panov, former deputy head of the Ministry of Regional Development, was arrested as part of the investigation into the case.

On June 15, 2015, the Zamoskvoretsky Court of Moscow found him guilty of theft and sentenced him to 6.5 years in prison.

In addition to Panov, the former head of the Far Eastern Directorate of the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia Oleg Bukalov (sentenced to 5 years and 5 months), the director of LLC GC Control Roman Barbashov (4.5 years) and entrepreneur Alexey Kudryavtsev (2 years and 8 months).

Criminological and psychological study of the personality of a corrupt official in Russia

Bibliographic description:

Gertsik, E. D. Criminological and psychological study of the personality of a corrupt official in Russia / E. D. Gertsik. — Text: immediate // Legal sciences: problems and prospects: materials of the V International. scientific conf. (Kazan, October 2021). - Kazan: Buk, 2016. - pp. 112-116. — URL: https://moluch.ru/conf/law/archive/223/11052/ (access date: 12/21/2021).


As long as crime exists, the problem of the identity of the criminal will remain relevant. Constant, continuous study of the criminal’s personality is necessary in order to systematically identify and evaluate his inherent character traits (properties), interests, and aspirations, which make it possible to build an effective system of individual criminological prevention measures. This article is devoted to the consideration of the personality properties of subjects of corruption crime.

Key words: corrupt official, bribe taker, bribe giver, identity of the criminal

The personality of a criminal is a kind of information base for crime prevention. Data obtained about a person and his behavior make it possible to choose methods and means of prevention that are most adequate to the characteristics of this particular type of personality. Knowing the identity of the criminal is an important and necessary prerequisite for scientifically based, successful prevention, first of all, of individual criminal behavior [1].

It is impossible to talk about the personality of the criminal, in particular about the personality of the subject of a corruption crime, without defining the concept of personality. It is known that personality is the subject of study in a variety of sciences. “Personality is not only a subject of psychology, but also a subject of philosophical, socio-historical knowledge; finally, at a certain level of analysis, personality appears from the side of natural, biological characteristics as a subject of anthropology, somatology and human genetics.”

The relevance of the topic entitled is caused by the great scientific and practical significance of studying the personality of the offender, since without determining the specific characteristics of persons with antisocial behavior, as well as the mechanisms of its formation, it is hardly possible to effectively prevent and suppress illegal acts, organize the fight against both certain types of offenses and crime generally. Psychologists, sociologists and criminologists from different legal schools give approximately the same definitions to the concept of “personality” - this is the social face of a person, that is, who he has become in the process of social development [2]. From this definition of personality it follows that the personality of a criminal must be understood as the social face of a person who has committed an unlawful act (crime).

When studying the personality of a criminal, criminologists set as their goal the disclosure of patterns of criminal behavior and the determination of crime. This is where an important task for criminology arises: to study the factors that, at the individual level, form attitudes towards illegal behavior or contribute to their implementation. Traditionally, corruption is considered to be criminal activity in government bodies, expressed in the use by officials of their power and official position for the purpose of personal enrichment [3. With. 54].

However, in Russia, corruption, due to its nature and scale, is not just a separate, local phenomenon in the field of politics and public administration, it is a system of relations that permeates all structures of our state and society. One of the most common and dangerous forms of corruption is bribery. Its distinctive feature is that it is committed by a special subject: an official [4]. The concept of officials is explained in approx. 1 to st. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. They are recognized as persons who permanently, temporarily or by special authority carry out the functions of a government representative or perform organizational, administrative, economic functions in state bodies, local governments, state and municipal institutions, as well as in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation [5].

The characteristics of persons who have committed corruption crimes include two relatively independent and significantly different criminological portraits: 1) persons authorized to perform government functions who illegally received advantages in state or municipal service contrary to its interests; 2) persons who provided such benefits to the latter.

In other words, the former are bribe-takers, the latter are bribe-givers. The criterion for such differentiation is the criminal law sign of the presence of a special public status [6. With. 392].

The structure of the criminological portrait of Russian corrupt officials and the degree of corruption is as follows: representatives of the executive branch, employees of ministries, committees and their divisions on the territory of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation - 41.1%, law enforcement officers - 26.5%, employees of regulatory authorities - 8.9 %, employees of tax and customs services - 3.2%, deputies - 0.8%, other categories - 19.6% [7. With. 202].

It does not follow from the above statistical analysis that employees of executive authorities are most susceptible to corruption, since the number of corresponding groups of persons with public status varies significantly. It is also necessary to take into account that the special criminal procedural status of deputies, judges and prosecutors prevents the effective identification and prosecution of corrupt officials from among them.

Criminal statistics also show that among those convicted of bribery, 13% were previously convicted of them: for bribery - 4%, for other mercenary crimes - 6%, for other crimes - 6%. Of the total number of people convicted of bribery, 54% were convicted of qualified types of giving, receiving a bribe and mediation in bribery. Special recidivism is characteristic mainly of the so-called imaginary intermediaries (their share of the number of re-convicts for bribery was 56%). A survey of 135 people convicted of corruption crimes showed that 72% of them were aware of the criminal wrongfulness of their act, 96% expected to avoid punishment, 83% considered the punishment imposed on them to be severe and only 2% believed that they had received a fair punishment (15% found it difficult to answer) [7. With. 203].

If we characterize the socio-demographic characteristics of corrupt officials, then, as the latest study shows, the average age of a bribe-taker was 33 years (as of 2008), i.e., there was a “rejuvenation” in comparison with the data in 1994–1996. - 37 years. There is also a tendency to increase the level of feminization of corrupt officials (28% are women).

The age of the subject of the crime is mostly over 50 years old (in 40% of cases), in 30% - from 40 to 50 years old, and in 30% of cases - from 35 to 40 years old. Accomplices of corrupt officials are younger: only 25% of them were 50 years of age or older at the time of criminal prosecution, 50% were between 40 and 50 years old, and 25% were between 30 and 35 years old [8. With. 3].

The higher average age of the subject of a corruption crime compared to crime in general is due to the fact that the ability to make certain decisions for which people will pay illegal remuneration is acquired by a person only after occupying a high position. Appointment to a high position, as a rule, is preceded by education and career growth, which requires a long work history. Achieving a high position is possible only if you have solid life experience, connections, education, and reputation, including educational ones. The subjects of corruption crimes have a higher level of education than their accomplices.

The subjects of corruption crimes also differ in their official position. In the criminal cases studied, the subjects of this category of crimes were mainly recognized as senior management officials. This can be explained by the fact that it is precisely such entities that have official and official powers that allow them to commit corruption crimes. Mid-level officials in the civil service can sometimes be independent subjects of corruption crimes, but in most cases they act as accomplices [8. With. 4].

An important characteristic of the personality of a criminal who commits corruption crimes is the level of education. The higher educational level of subjects of corruption crimes, compared to other criminals, can be explained by the fact that more than 86% of them have higher education, and this fact is natural, since the apparatus of government and management is staffed with qualified specialists [3. With. 55].

According to recent studies, the majority of bribe takers (74%) had higher, incomplete higher or secondary specialized education. Among the bribers with such education, 38% of those convicted were. It should be noted that among intermediaries, 58% of those convicted of this crime had higher education [7. With. 204]. Corruption, as noted by leading criminologists, should be considered today as a specific and stable sector of the criminal market - the turnover of what is directly prohibited by law, or the turnover in violation of certain, special norms and rules.

Today we can confidently state that corruption is becoming more and more closely linked with organized crime and is acquiring the features of highly organized criminal groups and communities. And accordingly, the range of persons involved in organized, group and individual corruption activities is very wide and diverse.

Most acts of corruption are committed by groups of individuals. Sometimes corruption ties between them are established even before the commission of crimes through the use of their official or official position by the subjects. They represent relationships established and maintained by an official in order for him to perform official, official actions in favor of specific individuals at the necessary moment, which is contrary to the interests of the service.

The personality of a corrupt official is usually studied in two aspects: firstly, as an object of social connections and influences and, secondly, as a subject capable of active, purposeful, transformative activities.

The psychological characteristics of the personality of a corrupt official, in particular, should be understood as a relatively stable set of individual qualities that determine typical forms of response and adaptive mechanisms of behavior, a person’s system of ideas about himself, interpersonal relationships and the nature of social interaction.

When studying the personality of a corrupt official, information about the motivation of his behavior is of particular value. Based on this, it would be a mistake, for example, to think that corrupt officials commit crimes solely for selfish reasons. A fairly large part of them are people who commit such actions for reasons of careerism or lust for power. These people constantly need to gain authority among others, to be visible all the time. Self-interest, understood in the sense of personal enrichment, if it exists here, acts as only an additional motive.

What properties underlie a corruptogenic personality? The concept of O. V. Vannovskaya covers a relatively wide range of personal formations and includes the main five structural elements:

− level of meanings and values ​​(life goals, aspirations, interests and value orientations);

− cognitive-moral level (individual self-awareness, personal rules of conduct, legal awareness, understanding of responsibility and duty);

− emotional level (satisfaction with life, profession, personal status, self-attitude);

− regulatory level (degree of control, decision-making mechanisms);

− behavioral level (leading type of response) [9. With. 323].

How does each level manifest itself in a corrupt person?

1. The level of meanings and values, including orientations and life ideals, form the substantive side of the personality’s orientation and express the internal basis of its relationship to reality. Obviously, a corruptogenic personality is characterized by a predominance of material rather than spiritual values ​​of the individual, which predetermines his choice in a situation of conflict of interests between personal and socially significant guidelines in favor of personal interests. Thus, for a person with a high propensity for corruption, the measure of happiness and goodness will be luxury, and the leading value will be the category “To Have”, and not the category “To Be”.
2. The cognitive-moral level covers attitudes of moral behavior, namely: individual, moral, social and legal attitudes. If individual attitudes predominate in the structure of the determinants of moral behavior, then the indicators of anti-corruption stability will be higher, since these attitudes are internalized, inherent in the moral self-awareness of the individual, and have become individual norms of behavior. If moral determinants predominate - lower, if social - even lower, and the lowest indicators of anti-corruption stability will be in the case of predominance of legal determinants, since the main regulator of moral behavior in this case is the principles of retributive justice external to the person (the system of reward and punishment).
3. At the emotional level, there are several indicators that are significant for determining the tendency to corruption: satisfaction with life, profession, personal status and self-attitude. The life satisfaction scale can be divided into high, medium and low levels. High scores on the life satisfaction scale should correlate with high anti-corruption resistance and vice versa.
4. At the regulatory level, to determine the propensity for corruption, the indicator of the degree of control turns out to be significant: a person’s tendency to see the source of control over his life either mainly in the external environment or in himself. In this regard, there are two types of locus of control: internal and external. A person with an external locus of control tends to attribute responsibility for everything to external factors: other people, fate, chance, the environment. A person with an internal locus of control takes responsibility for the events of his life. Most likely, a person prone to corruption will have an external locus of control, while a person with high anti-corruption resistance will have an internal locus of control.
5. At the behavioral level. There are two main types of response: impulsive and reflexive. The impulsive type is characterized by a spontaneous emotional reaction to external stimuli. With a reflexive type of response, a person’s actions are mediated by a logical analysis of the situation. It is obvious that a person with a leading impulsive type of reaction will be more prone to corrupt behavior than a person with a leading reflexive type of reaction.

The considered psychological signs allow us to present a psychological portrait of a corrupt personality. It is characterized by: understanding life through the acquisition of material goods, the desire for luxury as an indicator of happiness, unconscious motivation and an undifferentiated structure of moral behavior, a low level of life satisfaction, a negative self-attitude and inadequate self-esteem, an external locus of control, an impulsive type of response. Each of these characteristics increases the propensity for corruption, which can be described as an integral indicator.

Identifying and studying the motives of criminal behavior and developing a typology of the personality of a corrupt official are important not only for the investigation of corruption crimes, but also for solving the problems of preventing corruption crimes [9. With. 323].

According to Yu. M. Antonyan, V. N. Kudryavtsev, V. E. Eminov, it is advisable to identify the following general personality types of corrupt officials:

1. The self-interested type unites individuals who purposefully strive to satisfy their, first of all, material needs, increase and preserve personal well-being.
2. Prestigious type - characterized by the desire to satisfy one’s ambitions as much as possible. To do this, neglecting moral and normative prohibitions, including through criminal activity, the criminal constantly maintains his personal and social image. A corrupt official constantly strives to create new connections, acquaintances, and join elite groups.
3. Game type - expresses the individual’s active desire for the very process of realizing power. The feeling of real danger when balancing on the brink of law-abiding and criminal, permitted and forbidden gives him acute psychological satisfaction. To do this, he strives to create maximum comfortable conditions and opportunities for himself, breaking the law [10. With. eleven].

Undoubtedly, the identification of any types of criminals is conditional. At the same time, the above typology shows the degree of development of the criminogenic personality traits of a corrupt official of a certain type, their persistence or the possibility of change in a positive direction, which, in turn, represents irreplaceable information for the targeted and effective prevention of corrupt behavior, in particular in the process of personnel policy.

The personality of a corrupt official differs significantly from the personality of other criminals. For the most part, these are family people, good workers, with higher education. These are people with an established psyche and worldview. Also, a significant part of corrupt officials, as paradoxical as it may sound, are people with high material income. There is no reason to blame most of them for an unpatriotic attitude towards their country. In other words, we can safely say that the study of the personality of a corrupt official lies, rather, in the field of social and legal psychology, rather than within the framework of the usual general approaches to the personality of a criminal.

Literature:

1. Godunov I.V. Fundamentals of anti-corruption: textbook - M. [Electron. resource]: Published on the website of the information resource: “Scholarship”. Access mode: WorldWideWeb. URL: https://studopedia.org/1–94494.html (accessed June 25, 2016)
2. Dolgova A.I. The criminal and his criminological study. Published on the website of the information resource: “Konspekt.ru”. Access mode: WorldWideWeb. URL: https://www.konspekt.biz/index.php?text=39530 (accessed June 26, 2016).
3. Abramovskaya O. R., Mayorov A. V. Criminological features of the personality of a corruption offender // Journal Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2012 No. 37 (291). P. 54., P. 55.
4. Antipyev A. G., Antipyev K. A. Corruption in modern Russian society: the state and the fight against it: Published on the website of the information resource: “Bulletin of the Perm University of Legal Science”. Access mode: WorldWideWeb. URL: https://www.jurvestnik.psu.ru/index.php/ru/vypusk-1192013/22–2010–12–01–13–31–58/-1–19–2013/372-antipev-antipev -korrupcziya-v-sovremennom-rossijskom-obshhestve-sostoyanie-i-borba-s-nej (accessed June 26, 2016)
5. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as of July 6, 2016.
6. Kudryavtsev V. N., Eminov V. E. Criminology: textbook - 5th edition - M., 2013. - P. 392.
7. Antonyan Yu. M., Eminov V. E. Personality of the criminal - M., 2015 - P. 202, P. 203., P. 204.
8. Bezrodnaya N.V. Features of the personality of a corrupt official // Journal Bulletin of the East Siberian Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2010 No. 2 (53). S. 3., S. 4.
9. Vannovskaya O. V. Personal determinants of corrupt behavior // Journal of News of the Russian State Pedagogical University. A. I. Herzen. 2009 No. 102. P. 323., P. 324.
10. Antonyan Yu. M., Kudryavtsev V. N., Eminov V. E. Personality of the criminal. - St. Petersburg, - 2004. P. 11.

Key terms
(automatically generated)
: identity of the criminal, locus of control, crime, personality, moral behavior, high position, higher education, corruption, person, identity of the corrupt official, Russian Federation, official position.

The case of theft at the Vostochny cosmodrome

On October 30, 2014, the former head of the company involved in the construction of the Vostochny cosmodrome, Yuri Khrizman, was charged with embezzlement of 1.8 billion rubles under Part 4 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Misappropriation or embezzlement committed by an organized group or on an especially large scale”).

On October 31 of the same year, Khrizman was taken into custody. The case of theft was initiated by the Investigative Committee based on the materials of the audit of the Accounts Chamber. On June 10, 2015, the Investigative Committee also brought charges of embezzlement against the Chairman of the Legislative Duma of the Khabarovsk Territory, Viktor Chudov.

According to the investigation, in 2006-2009, Khrizman, his son Mikhail (in custody), and Viktor Chudov, acting as part of an organized group, stole about 106 million rubles that belonged to Dalspetsstroy. In total, about 20 criminal cases were initiated in connection with the situation at the construction of Vostochny.

History of the development of criminal liability for corruption crimes

Lawyer Antonov A.P.

Corruption as a phenomenon has been known for a long time. The idea that one’s official position can be used for selfish purposes or to obtain other benefits has occurred to representatives of the state since ancient times. Thus, it is known that the problem of corruption was known in Egypt and Judea.

One of the most ancient collections of moral injunctions, the Old Testament, points out the problem of bribery: “I know how numerous are your crimes and how grave are your sins: you oppress the right, you take bribes, and you drive out the beggar who seeks justice from the gate.” The Old Testament contains an ethical and legal injunction that directly prohibits bribery: “Do not accept gifts; for gifts make those who see blind and pervert the work of the righteous.”

Corruption was a subject of thought for ancient Greek philosophers. However, they understood this phenomenon somewhat more broadly. The concept of “Catalyt” included not so much the abuse by civil servants of their powers for their own benefit, but rather the very inefficiency, decline, and, ultimately, death of the management system. To avoid this, the state needs to be, or at least appear to care about the welfare of the people. The concept of corruption itself originated in Ancient Rome, but adopted the ancient Greek approach. It meant decay and was opposed to the healthy growth and development of the state.

Of course, social relations are developing, but it can be noted that corruption as a phenomenon has remained virtually unchanged and is still condemned from the moral perspective as corrupting society and undermining the authority of the state. However, methods to combat corruption vary.

The most ancient method, which can be found in the works of Aristotle and Plato, is social influence. In the conditions of relatively small city-policies and the elective nature of the vast majority of positions, the abuses of each individual employee and his injustice relatively quickly became public knowledge, and this person was no longer re-elected to his position and was condemned. In relation to judges, there was a different way of fighting. In Athens, major disputes were considered by a jury - the discateria (helieia), and the number of judges was very significant and sometimes reached 800 people. In such conditions, bribing all or at least half of the judges was not only impractical, but also practically impossible.

In Russian history, the approach to the essence of corruption and the ways to combat it were different. This was due, first of all, to a different understanding of the source of state power. It was believed that the power of the sovereign (prince, king, tsar, feudal lord) was of a divine nature, and this person had the right to dispose of his powers at his own discretion. By default, the actions of such individuals were considered to be a manifestation of the will of God, and therefore their condemnation was blasphemy.

The first normative description of a bribe is contained in Russian Pravda. It should be noted that in Ancient Rus', civil servants did not receive salaries. It was assumed that they should be supported by the local population by paying “pokon virnogo” - the maintenance of an employee in cash and in kind, and “myta” - a fee for considering a case, similar to a state duty. At the same time, voluntary offerings to an official - “honors” were not condemned, but, on the contrary, were considered a sign of respect for the prince’s official.

However, the church, guided by the provisions of the Old Testament, condemned bribery and classified it as a serious sin along with drunkenness. Thus, Metropolitan Kirill in XIII made attempts to influence the prince to eradicate this phenomenon contrary to the Christian faith.

In legal sources, condemnation of bribery appears only in the 14th century. Thus, the Dvina charter contains an order that an official who makes an unjust decision or any person who catches a “tatya” (criminal) red-handed and takes a bribe from him commits a crime themselves and must pay a fine of 4 rubles.

The Belozersk charter also contains an indication of the prohibition of bribery, but does not contain specific punishments for such persons.

For the first time, specific elements of official crimes were defined in the Code of Laws of Ivan IV. Thus, a clerk (court official) who incorrectly kept a record of the court for personal gain had to pay half of the amount of the claim to the treasury and was subject to imprisonment, and the boyar, who was obliged by his position to supervise the clerk, paid the second half.

Peter I also made attempts to combat bribery. He not only introduced salaries for all civil servants, making extortions from the population illegal, but also introduced corporal punishment for officials who abused their powers. However, this measure was not enough, and in 1714 severe liability was introduced not only for receiving a bribe, but also for complicity and failure to report it. The implementation of these instructions was not unconditional and universal, therefore, according to contemporaries, embezzlement and other abuses reached unprecedented proportions.

During the reign of Catherine I, there was a return to the previously existing system of feeding, since the treasury did not have the funds to maintain the expanding bureaucracy. Punishments for bribes remained, but in the absence of salaries for lower ranks, the implementation of liability measures was impossible. This was taken into account by Catherine II, who returned salaries for all civil servants and reduced penalties for bribery and other abuses so that the punishment was not so severe, but inevitable.

Paul I and Alexander I made attempts to combat the phenomenon of corruption, but their methods were not effective enough: corporal punishment was introduced for government officials who committed abuses.

The Code on Criminal and Correctional Punishments, created during the reign of Nicholas I, contained a chapter “On bribery and extortion”, dedicated to official crimes and containing 13 articles. However, the elements of such crimes were formulated casuistically, which made their use not entirely effective.

This deficiency was learned and overcome already during the reign of Alexander II, who issued a decree concerning malfeasance “On finding the causes and presenting means to eradicate this ulcer.” It provided detailed comments and explanations to the articles on bribes and the penalties provided for these crimes.

In 1866, a new edition of the “Code on Criminal and Correctional Punishments” was published, where under the reign of Nicholas II, the above-mentioned Code replaced the Criminal Code of 1903, where, compared to previous legislative acts, it was much better developed in relation to the fight against corruption, for example, a definition of the concepts of “extortion” and “bribery” was introduced.

The problem became particularly acute after the October Revolution. Problems arose, first of all, due to the fact that the new legislative system had not yet fully developed, and neither who was considered an official nor the scope of their powers had been defined. In this regard, V.I. In 1918, Lenin issued two instructions: to tighten punishment for corruption crimes, and to take control of the situation with abuses in Astrakhan, which caused outrage among the people. The idea was to find the perpetrators and shoot them, so that others would remember this for a long time.

In the early 1920s, the number of corruption crimes decreased. But this happened not because of the improvement of legislation, but because of the introduction of “War Communism”, in which monetary relations partially ceased, money lost its commodity function, and a number of goods and services became free. Taking bribes under such conditions was simply pointless.

Further improvement of legislation took place along the path of a more detailed elaboration of the rules on official crimes. Thus, in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1923, the definition of an official was given for the first time. An Anti-Bribery Commission was also created, which existed until 1923, taking measures not only of a legal, but also of an audit and organizational nature. Based on the results of her work, a list of persons who committed official crimes was created. It was brought to the attention of law enforcement agencies, and information about a specific person could be provided to government agencies upon their request. This is how the first prototype of a database of people with a criminal record was created.

10/07/1922 The Council of Labor and Defense issued an act establishing economic measures to combat bribery. The person who assisted in solving the crime was paid a reward in the amount of 10% of the value of the property confiscated from the official.

The next step in systematizing legislation devoted to the fight against corruption was taken in 1960 with the publication of the new Criminal Code of the RSFSR. Chapter 7 was devoted to crimes in office, which included 6 articles with dispositions that were formulated in a universal way and could be applied to any civil servant.

However, it is necessary to note the state’s dual approach to corruption as a phenomenon. On the one hand, an active struggle was waged against it by taking measures of a legal and economic nature. On the other hand, from an official point of view, corruption did not exist as a phenomenon in the workers' state. It was believed that the cases of bribery were isolated and unsystematic, and the officials themselves. those who committed abuse were declared enemies of the state. It is noteworthy that even the term corruption itself was not used and was replaced by “bribery” and “connivance.”

The first high-profile corruption scandal occurred in the late 1970s and was called the “fishing affair.” It was discovered that there was an underground network involved in smuggling black caviar into Western countries in exchange for currency. These actions were carried out with the knowledge and connivance of officials of the USSR Ministry of Fisheries, who were bribed. As a result, the deputy minister was sentenced to death.

The death penalty for corruption crimes was abolished only after the collapse of the USSR with the publication on July 24, 1991 of the Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR “On the implementation of the Fundamentals of Criminal Legislation of the USSR and Republics” (taking a bribe under aggravating circumstances) and the RSFSR Law of December 5, 1991 (all other cases of corruption crimes.

Currently, corruption as a phenomenon has not yet been eradicated, despite all the efforts being made. Thus, at the end of 2021, the number of corruption-related crimes increased by 2.9% (30,495). In 2021, the amount of material damage caused as a result of corruption crimes amounted to 39.6 billion rubles. The main share of cases was bribery - 60.6%; fraud committed using official position - 25.5%; misappropriation or embezzlement using official position - 13.1%, official forgery - 7.7%, etc.

Thus, we can conclude that corruption has been recognized since ancient times as immoral and then as illegal behavior. However, the measures taken to combat corruption were not always effective, since they did not take into account the specific economic situation of civil servants. Legislation in this area proceeded primarily along the path of clarifying dispositions, the emergence of the concept of officials, and defining their powers. Also, in order to combat corruption, sanctions against those responsible were often tightened. However, these actions were not successful, since the mechanism for identifying and investigating such crimes was not sufficiently developed. Currently, corruption crimes are among the most latent.

Still have questions for your lawyer? Ask them right now here, or call us by phone in Moscow +7 (499) 288-34-32 or in Samara +7 (846) 212-99-71 (24 hours a day), or come to our office for a consultation (by pre-registration)!

The case of Alexander Khoroshavin

On March 4, 2015, the governor of the Sakhalin region, Alexander Khoroshavin, and several employees of the regional administration, including the governor’s adviser Andrei Ikramov, were detained on suspicion of receiving a bribe on an especially large scale. On March 4, 2015, the Basmanny Court of Moscow authorized the arrest of Khoroshavin and Ikramov, and their detention was subsequently extended several times (last time until November 27, 2015).

On March 13, Khoroshavin was charged with accepting a bribe in the amount of $5.6 million when concluding contracts for the construction of the 4th power unit of the Yuzhno-Sakhalinskaya CHPP-1 in 2011. On March 25, 2015, by decree of Russian President Vladimir Putin, he was dismissed with the wording “due to loss of trust.”

On April 22, 2015, another criminal case was opened against the former head of Sakhalin - for receiving a bribe in the amount of at least 15 million rubles for actions related to the allocation of subsidies to support agricultural producers (the charge was filed on June 9). Criminal cases against Alexander Khoroshavin have been combined into one proceeding.

Concept and criminological characteristics

Corruption crime is understood as a set of crimes of a corruption nature.

Corruption is a social phenomenon characterized by bribery - corruption of government and other employees and, on this basis, their selfish use for personal or narrow group, corporate interests of official official powers, associated authority and opportunities.

It is sometimes defined as “a social phenomenon consisting in the selfish use by an official of public authorities and management of his official position for personal enrichment.” But in this case, corruption could include theft committed through abuse of official position, misappropriation or embezzlement of property entrusted to the service. However, one should not confuse a thief and a bribe-taker. In addition, in corruption, not only the official position itself is used, but also the authority, opportunities, and connections based on it.

The mechanism of corruption is:

a) a bilateral transaction in which a person in government or other service illegally “sells” his official powers or services, based on the authority of the position and related opportunities, to individuals and legal entities, groups (including organized criminal groups) , and the “buyer” gets the opportunity to use a state or other structure for his own purposes: for enrichment, legislative registration of privileges, evasion of statutory responsibility, social control, etc.;

b) extortion of bribes or additional remuneration from employees;

c) proactive, active bribery of employees, often with a simultaneous strong mental impact on them. The latter is typical for organized crime.

In the United States, every organized crime group had at least one corrupt position. Corrupt people bribe and intimidate officials.

In Russia, of the identified organized groups, 65 organized groups had corruption ties in 1991, 635 in 1992, 801 in 1993, 1037 in 1994, 857 in 1995.

In connection with receiving remuneration that is not based on the law, the employee performs actions pleasing to the bribe-giver. At the same time, he accepts a bribe either for actions that he should have performed in his service, or for illegal actions.

Offenses related to corruption include:

a) corruption offenses committed in the form of provision and acceptance of material and other benefits and advantages; b) offenses that create conditions for corruption and ensure it (use of official powers contrary to the interests of the service, abuse of power, etc.). These offenses are diverse and are of a criminal, administrative, civil and disciplinary nature.

This is why the expression “fighting corruption and crime” is sometimes used. It reflects the fact that not all corruption is criminal and punishable, although this is not entirely correct. It would be more accurate to imagine the relationship of these phenomena in the form of partially overlapping circles.

The range of corruption crimes does not coincide with official crime, because, for example, it does not include negligence. It does not quite coincide with crime in service.

Corruption crime therefore includes different criminal legal classes of acts. It consists of many crimes against state power, public and other services. This is primarily bribery (Articles 173–174 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, 290–291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as well as related abuse of official powers (Article 170 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), abuse of official powers (Article 171 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation RSFSR, Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), illegal participation in business activities (Article 289 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); official forgery (Article 175 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, Article 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), bringing a knowingly innocent person to criminal liability (Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), illegal exemption from criminal liability (Article 300 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), crimes against the interests of the service in commercial and other organizations (Articles 201–204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and a number of other crimes, including in the field of computer information: unlawful access to computer information by a person using his official position (Part 2 of Article 272 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), etc. The range of these acts is established by studying criminal cases, materials on bribery, commercial bribery, illegal participation in business activities, and the analysis of the latter is carried out starting with statistical data.

Corruption in government bodies is especially dangerous. In cases of bribery of the corresponding employee, he begins to serve not the state or another entity for which he is officially in the service (public, commercial organization), but the one who pays him more or additionally.

The phenomenon of the use of state machinery by organized crime is associated primarily with corruption. It is one of the ways to transform state powers into private property. Hegel wrote:

“That share of state power which the individual has acquired for himself is lost to the power of the universal.” Moreover, relying on the acquired part of the power, the corresponding individuals and criminal groups are attacking the state, the institutions of civil society, and its values.

During the years of perestroika and reforms in Russia (especially in 1990–1995), there was an increasingly intense criminalization of the state apparatus and the use of its capabilities for illegal purposes. At the same time, along with traditional forms of bribery of officials, new ones were used: payment for foreign trips, preferential loans, provision of various services, provision of a highly paid position after dismissal from the government apparatus, inclusion of commercial structures or co-founders in the boards, provision of part-time work, etc. P.

Only functionaries of the shadow economy directed, according to estimates, about 7 billion dollars to corrupt officials. Organized crime spent up to half of criminal proceeds for the same purposes. In the 70s and early 80s, she spent about a third of her criminal income on this. Gangsters Charlie Luciano and Al Capone spent the same amount in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s. In the second half of the 20th century, as V. M. Gevorgyan and B. S. Nikiforov wrote, the corrupt part of the US bureaucratic and police apparatus annually received “about 14 billion dollars in pure form, that is, not subject to any taxes.”

In turn, corrupt officials are required to remove from under social control individuals and legal entities acting in violation of established rules and committing crimes; active lobbying of the interests of entrepreneurs and business structures is required, despite the fact that these interests contradict the interests of the state and society.

The danger of corruption is obvious; its scale in Russia during the reform period has become unprecedented: both in terms of the number of employees selling their powers, and in the number of people bribing them, and in terms of the prevalence of corruption in all branches of government, all its echelons. This is evidenced by criminological studies, and employees of all law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies are unanimous in this assessment. This is also recognized by the leaders of the highest government bodies.

The following results of work to identify and suppress corruption carried out by

The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia after the President of Russia issued the Decree of April 4, 1992 “On the fight against corruption in the public service system”:

• the number of criminal cases brought to court against corrupt individuals increased: in 1995 it was twice as high as in 1992;
• among such cases, more than two thirds were cases of employees of government bodies;
• among cases of corrupt persons, the share of cases against law enforcement officers increased: in 1992 it was 19%, in 1993 - 24.6%, in 1994 - 30%, in 1995 - 29.6%. These were mainly employees of internal affairs bodies, although in 1994 and 1995 more than one case against employees of the prosecutor's office began to be sent to the courts, and cases of corruption crimes by FSB employees also appeared;
• in 1995, compared to 1992, the number of criminal cases against deputies doubled (14 compared to 7);
• For the first time in 1995, two criminal cases against corrupt judges were sent to court.

At the same time, the latency of corruption is enormous. And this is largely due to the fact that it often manifests itself as a bilateral “confidential deal”, in which neither party is interested in exposing it.

Alexander Reimer case

On March 31, 2015, the Presnensky Court of Moscow authorized the arrest of the former head of the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN), Alexander Reimer, on charges of fraud. According to investigators, the former official was involved in the theft of 2.7 billion rubles by inflating purchase prices when purchasing electronic bracelets for the department to control prisoners.

General Director Nikolai Martynov, former deputy head of the Federal Penitentiary Service Nikolai Krivolapov, and director of the Center for Information Support and Communications of the Federal Penitentiary Service Viktor Oderenov are also involved in this case.

All of them are accused of fraud on an especially large scale; each faces up to 10 years in prison with a fine of up to 1 million rubles. On September 24, 2015, Reimer was charged with abuse of power; his arrest has been extended until January 31, 2021.

The case of Vyacheslav Gaizer

On September 18, 2015, a criminal case was opened against the head of the Komi Republic Vyacheslav Gaizer, his deputy Alexey Chernov and 17 other people under Art. 210 (“Creation of an organized criminal community or participation in it”) and Art. 159 (“Fraud”) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. According to the investigation, Gaiser and Chernov led a criminal community that committed a number of serious crimes in 2006-2015 aimed at seizing state property.

The attackers gained control over 23 of the most profitable enterprises with state participation, after which state assets were transferred to offshore companies. As a result, the republic suffered damage amounting to about 1.1 billion rubles. On September 20, Gaizer and his deputy were charged with organizing a criminal community and fraud; on September 25, another case was opened against the defendants under Part 4 of Art. 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Legalization/laundering of funds or other property acquired as a result of a crime, on an especially large scale, by an organized group”).

On September 30, 2015, by decree of President Vladimir Putin, Vyacheslav Gaizer was removed from the post of head of the Komi Republic “due to loss of trust.”

Formation of the concept of “corruption crimes” from the point of view of law and criminal statistics

Such concepts as “corruption crimes”, “corruption offences”, “corruption-related crimes” have already been strengthened in scientific circulation. At the same time, it is impossible to identify the concepts of “corruption crimes” and “corruption-related crimes”. The former reflect the essence of corruption, and the latter are closely related to it.

Author: Bugaevskaya N.V.

Such concepts as “corruption crimes”, “corruption offences”, “corruption-related crimes” have already been strengthened in scientific circulation [3, p. 4; 6, p. 9]. Comments to the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption” (hereinafter referred to as the Federal Law “On Combating Corruption”) contain relatively different lists of corruption crimes, being united in only one thing - an indication of Art. 285, 291, 290, 201, 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as undoubtedly corruption crimes.

List No. 23 appeared at the end of 2010 in the Directive of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation No. 450/85, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation No. 3 of December 28, 2010. “On the implementation of the Lists of Articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation used in the formation of statistical reporting” (hereinafter List No. 23) [7] played the role of eliminating a technical problem - the lack of effective recording of corruption-related crimes. Although it is still impossible to equate the concepts of “corruption crimes” and “corruption-related crimes”. The former reflect the essence of corruption, and the latter are closely related to it. However, it is precisely according to the above-mentioned document, which has significant differences with the Federal Law “On Combating Corruption,” that statistics on these crimes are maintained.

Thus, according to the authors of this list, crimes of a corruption nature include illegal acts only if there are the following, first of all, subjective characteristics: proper subjects (note to Art. 201, 285); connection of the act with the official position of the subject, deviation from his direct rights and obligations; the subject must have a selfish motive (the act is related to his obtaining property rights and benefits for himself or for third parties); committing a crime only with direct intent.

Thus, subjective signs of corruption are essentially the determining factors for clarifying the signs and composition of a corruption crime.

At the same time, it is noted that the exceptions are crimes that, although they do not meet the specified requirements, are classified as corruption in accordance with international legal acts and national legislation ratified by the Russian Federation, as well as those related to the preparation of conditions for an official, civil servant and employee to receive local government bodies, as well as a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, benefits in the form of money, valuables, other property or services of a property nature, other property rights or the illegal representation of such benefits.

These are, for example, such crimes as legalization (laundering) of funds or other property acquired by criminal means (Articles 174, 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), acquisition or sale of property known to be obtained by criminal means (Article 175 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), prevention, restriction or elimination of competition (Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), etc.

An analysis of the signs of corruption-related crimes indicated in List No. 23 allows us to agree that the subjects of these crimes, indeed, should include officials, as well as persons performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization. Regarding the latter, the question arises: why, as specified in List No. 23, will they be subjects of corruption crimes only when they act in the interests of a legal entity?

Taking into account note 2 to Art. 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, criminal prosecution against persons performing managerial functions in commercial organizations (with the exception of state or municipal enterprises) is carried out at the request of these organizations if the harm was caused to them and only to them. But here we are talking about causing damage, and not about extracting benefits in someone else's interests. In addition, the crimes of abuse of power (Article 201), commercial bribery (Parts 3-4 of Article 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) clearly set out the purpose of a person’s behavior - obtaining benefits and advantages for oneself or other persons (not at all in favor of legal entities) or causing harm to others.