1. Receipt by an official, a foreign official or an official of a public international organization personally or through an intermediary of a bribe in the form of money, securities, other property or in the form of illegal provision of services of a property nature, the provision of other property rights for committing actions (inaction) in for the benefit of the bribe-giver or the persons represented by him, if such actions (inaction) are included in the official powers of the official or if, by virtue of his official position, he can contribute to such actions (inaction), as well as for general patronage or connivance in the service - is punishable by a fine of up to one million rubles, or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to two years, or in the amount of ten to fifty times the amount of the bribe with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years, or correctional labor for a period of one up to two years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years, or forced labor for up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years, or imprisonment for up to three years. three years with or without a fine of ten to twenty times the amount of the bribe.
2. Receiving a bribe in a significant amount by an official, a foreign official or an official of a public international organization is punishable by a fine in the amount of thirty to sixty times the amount of the bribe with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years or imprisonment for a term up to six years with a fine of thirty times the amount of the bribe.
3. Receiving a bribe by an official, a foreign official or an official of a public international organization for illegal actions (inaction) - is punishable by a fine in the amount of forty to seventy times the amount of the bribe with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or deprivation freedom for a term of three to seven years with a fine of forty times the amount of the bribe.
4. The acts provided for in parts one to three of this article, committed by a person holding a public office of the Russian Federation or a public office of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as the head of a local government body, are punishable by a fine in the amount of sixty to eighty times the amount of the bribe with deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions. positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for a term of five to ten years with a fine of fifty times the amount of the bribe.
5. Acts provided for in parts one, three, four of this article, if they are committed: a) by a group of persons by prior conspiracy or by an organized group; b) with extortion of a bribe; c) on a large scale - is punishable by a fine in the amount of seventy to ninety times the amount of the bribe or imprisonment for a term of seven to twelve years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years and with a fine in the amount of sixty times the amount of the bribe .
6. Acts provided for in parts one, three, four and paragraphs “a” and “b” of part five of this article, committed on an especially large scale, are punishable by a fine in the amount of eighty to one hundred times the amount of the bribe with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or imprisonment for a term of eight to fifteen years with a fine of seventy times the amount of the bribe.
Notes. 1. In this article, Articles 291 and 291.1 of this Code, a significant amount of a bribe is recognized as an amount of money, the cost of securities, other property, services of a property nature, other property rights exceeding twenty-five thousand rubles, a large amount of a bribe - exceeding one hundred fifty thousand rubles, especially large bribes - exceeding one million rubles.
2. In this article, articles 291 and 291.1 of this Code, a foreign official means any appointed or elected person holding any position in the legislative, executive, administrative or judicial body of a foreign state, and any person performing any public function for a foreign state, including for a public agency or public enterprise; An official of a public international organization means an international civil servant or any person who is authorized by such an organization to act on its behalf.
Memo on liability for corruption offenses
CORRUPTION CRIMES
The material was prepared using legal acts
as of August 12, 2022
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. 2016. 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, 2016. 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.
Answers to the most frequently asked questions about corruption
April 12, 2021
Answers to the most frequently asked questions about corruption
What actions can be called “corruption”?
Part 1 of Art. 1 of the Federal Law “On Combating Corruption” dated December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ, it is established that 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, etc. property rights for oneself or for third parties, or the illegal provision of such benefits to the specified person by other individuals;
b) committing the acts specified in subparagraph “a” of this paragraph on behalf of or in the interests of a legal entity.
What is “anti-corruption”?
Anti-corruption is the activity of federal government bodies, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local government bodies, civil society institutions, organizations and individuals within the limits of their powers:
a) to prevent corruption, including identifying and subsequently eliminating the causes of corruption (prevention of corruption);
b) to identify, prevent, suppress, disclose and investigate corruption offenses (fight against corruption);
c) to minimize and (or) eliminate the consequences of corruption offenses.
Which government bodies are empowered to combat corruption?
Identification, suppression, prevention of corruption offenses (crimes) and bringing those responsible for their commission to justice within the limits of their competence is carried out by the prosecutor's office, state security, internal affairs, and customs service.
What can be the subject of a bribe?
The subject of a bribe or commercial bribery, along with money, securities and other property, can be benefits or services of a property nature, provided free of charge, but subject to payment (provision of tourist vouchers, apartment renovation, construction of a summer house, etc.). Benefits of a property nature should be understood, in particular, as an understatement of the value of transferred property, privatized objects, a reduction in rental payments, and interest rates for using bank loans. (Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/10/2000 No. 6 (as amended on 02/06/2007) “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and commercial bribery.”)
What actions can be considered extortion of a bribe?
Extortion means the demand of an official or a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization to give a bribe or transfer illegal remuneration in the form of money, securities, or other property in commercial bribery under the threat of committing actions that may cause damage to the legitimate interests of a citizen or harm the latter in such conditions under which he is forced to give a bribe or commit commercial bribery in order to prevent harmful consequences for his legally protected interests. (Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/10/2000 No. 6 (as amended on 02/06/2007) “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and commercial bribery.”)
Can a bribery intermediary be prosecuted?
Yes maybe. Criminal liability of an intermediary in bribery, depending on the specific circumstances of the case and his role in giving or receiving a bribe, occurs only in cases provided for in Article 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
What is the level of responsibility of the person who reports the fact of corruption if this fact is not proven?
A person who knowingly provides false information that discredits the honor and dignity of another person or undermines his reputation may be prosecuted under Article 129 “ Slander” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In what cases can a bribe-giver be exempt from criminal liability?
A person who gives a bribe is exempt from criminal liability if there was extortion of a bribe by an official or if the person voluntarily informed the body that has the right to initiate a criminal case about giving a bribe. (Note to Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
Are funds and other valuables that were the subject of a bribe returned to the bribe-giver?
Seized money and other valuables that are the subject of a bribe or commercial bribery and recognized as material evidence are subject to conversion to state revenue on the basis of paragraph 4 of part three of Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation as acquired by criminal means.
Exemption of a bribe-giver or a person who committed commercial bribery from criminal liability based on voluntary reporting of a crime does not mean the absence of corpus delicti in the actions of these persons. Therefore, they cannot be recognized as victims and have no right to claim the return of valuables transferred to them in the form of a bribe or the subject of commercial bribery.
Money and other valuables cannot be converted into state income in cases where demands have been made against a person to give a bribe or to illegally transfer money, securities, or other property in the form of commercial bribery, if before the transfer of these valuables the person voluntarily declared this body that has the right to initiate a criminal case, and the transfer of money, securities, and other property took place under their control with the aim of arresting red-handed the person who made such demands. In these cases, money and other valuables that were the subject of a bribe or commercial bribery must be returned to their owner.
If, in order to prevent harmful consequences, a person was forced to transfer money or other valuables to the extortionist, then they must be returned to their owner. (Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/10/2000 No. 6 (as amended on 02/06/2007) “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and commercial bribery.”)
Conditional for a bribe
If you think that a suspended sentence in a criminal case for giving or receiving a bribe in Russian judicial practice is something exceptional, then you are mistaken!
Under Articles 290 and 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, courts quite often impose punishment that is not related to isolation from society, including suspended imprisonment. Russian courts have already handed down quite a few suspended sentences, even in cases of multimillion-dollar bribes.
When assigning punishment for a bribe, courts pay attention to the factual side of the case and, not least, the amount of the bribe received (transferred), as well as the number of episodes of criminal activity.
For taking a bribe (Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), officials, law enforcement officers, doctors and teachers most often end up in the dock.
For giving a bribe (Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) ordinary citizens are most often convicted and, as practice shows, recently the most popular punishment under this article is a fine. And even for the grave parts of this article (parts 3 and 4), which provide for a very severe sanction (up to 8 and up to years of imprisonment, respectively), the courts prefer not to send defendants to a colony.
This is explained, among other things, by the fact that exposed bribe-takers will no longer be able to engage in this kind of business and the presence of these persons at large no longer poses a great social danger.
This is important: in accordance with the note to Art. 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a citizen who gave a bribe is exempt from criminal liability if he actively contributed to the detection and investigation of a crime, or a bribe was extorted against him, and also if, after giving a bribe, he voluntarily reported this to law enforcement agencies
Perhaps the only “bribe” offense for which a suspended sentence is almost never applied is part 6 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – receiving a bribe on an especially large scale.
As for receiving or giving a small bribe (in the amount of up to 10,000 rubles), this crime falls into the category of acts of minor gravity and punishment in the form of imprisonment under Article 291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is imposed in extremely rare cases.
All categories of convicts have a chance of receiving a suspended sentence for bribery, but they are slightly higher for women and especially for those who have minor children.
There is also a very high probability of receiving a “condition” from those defendants who have entered into a deal on pre-trial cooperation.
This is important: most often, for receiving a bribe “as part of the burden” of a suspended sentence, an additional punishment is imposed in the form of a ban on holding certain positions and engaging in certain activities, for example, teaching.
Sometimes courts of first instance assign real sentences to bribe takers and bribe givers, which are then changed to a suspended sentence in the appellate court. This suggests that you should not lose hope and it always makes sense to try to appeal the verdict in a higher court.
If there is force majeure, then it is possible. The Ministry of Justice proposed not to punish for “forced” corruption
The agency wants to decriminalize cases where the violation occurs due to “force majeure circumstances.” Experts are waiting for examples
Photo: Alexander Alpatkin/TASS
Updated at 11:06
The Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation proposes not to consider a corruption crime committed “due to force majeure circumstances” as an offense. The notification was published on the portal of draft legal acts.
The Ministry of Labor of Russia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor General's Office and the Investigative Committee also participate in the development of relevant amendments. According to the Vedomosti newspaper, the Ministry of Justice will provide examples of such “forced” circumstances after public discussion of the notification.
In specialized literature, “force majeure circumstances” are understood as military actions, man-made disasters and epidemics (extraordinary events that significantly impact people’s lives).
How can they influence, for example, bribes? Deputy Chairman of the bureau “Your Legal Attorney” Vladislav Kapkanov discusses this :
— To be honest, I can’t even guess. We know from civil and criminal law that “force beyond our control” are catastrophes, natural disasters, or something like that. Under these conditions, how can one commit corrupt acts and obtain exemption from criminal liability? I think this question should be addressed to the Russian Ministry of Justice. My imagination doesn’t work that way.
- If a person is listed as an accomplice. Can you assume that this is possible?
— This will not be a force majeure circumstance. Unfortunately, this has been a fairly common practice lately. People are being prosecuted for crimes committed three years ago. People say that, let’s say, so-and-so took part in the crime with me.
Corruption is considered abuse of official position, giving and receiving bribes, abuse of power, commercial bribery contrary to the legitimate interests of society and the state in order to obtain benefits.
According to the current law, special commissions for compliance with requirements for official conduct can evaluate corruption offenses.
Proposals regarding “forced” corruption are rather technical in nature. There is a national anti-corruption plan approved by the president, according to which the government, represented by the Ministry of Justice, was obliged to submit some amendments by February 1, explains lawyer Andrei Grokhotov . He defended in court the ex-governor of the Kirov region Nikita Belykh, who was found guilty of accepting bribes of almost 250 thousand euros and sentenced to eight years in a maximum security colony.
— In my opinion, these amendments are aimed at eliminating the gaps that exist in the legislation. As far as I understand, we are not talking about any fundamental changes in the Criminal Code related to bribery or other corruption offenses.
— Have you encountered situations where it was possible to apply this aspect with irresistible force?
— In my practice there were no such cases. I would like to note that the system of prohibitions and restrictions applies not only to offenses provided for in the Criminal Code. If for some reason a person cannot provide information on income on time or could not eliminate a conflict of interest due to some extraordinary conditions, then the question of whether there is guilt and whether it is possible to apply any sanctions is considered.
The amendments of the Ministry of Justice may become an opportunity for officials to avoid responsibility even in situations where there are no force majeure circumstances, says Ilya Shumanov, deputy director of Transparency International Russia:
Ilya Shumanov, Deputy Director of Transparency International - Russia “We have similar examples in the field of the public procurement system, when the law introduced a rule on the possibility of purchasing from a single supplier, that is, without competitive procedures in situations related to emergencies. Authorities, taking advantage of these extraordinary events, began to purchase, but they purchased based on their understanding of emergency situations. This is simultaneously superimposed on another trend, which concerns the secrecy of decision-making on holding public officials accountable. Currently, every government agency has ethics commissions. They, in fact, consider whether the official committed this or that corruption violation. The minutes of these commissions are not published; decisions are made behind the scenes. The authorities may make a decision based on their own understanding of these force majeure circumstances.”
The Ministry of Justice explained what it meant by “force majeure circumstances.” The department is developing the corresponding amendments to the legislation together with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor General's Office and the Investigative Committee.
The Ministry of Justice explained that we are talking, for example, about remote and small or closed settlements where relatives of officials work in the areas that these officials supervise. It is not always possible to avoid conflicts of interest of this kind. Also, for example, we are talking about situations when former family members of a civil servant do not agree to submit information about the income and expenses of their common children for the declaration.
Vadim Vinogradov, head of the department of constitutional and international law at the All-Russian State University of Justice, comments.
Vadim Vinogradov, Head of the Department of Constitutional and International Law at the All-Russian State University of Justice “As I understand, we are talking, among other things, about the obligation of not only officials, but also their spouses and minor children to declare property and not have property in foreign banks - accounts. It is clear that sometimes law enforcement practice can show that spouses do not always agree with this, or a completely simple situation can occur when children or spouses of officials receive an inheritance, this inheritance is in foreign banks. Due to additional circumstances, it is not always possible to get rid of this property immediately. In my opinion, what is important here is that this problem apparently exists. But, on the other hand, it will be difficult to compile a complete list of such circumstances and all cases. And it is important not to overdo it, so that there is no additional opportunity to evade responsibility.”
Another example given by the Ministry of Justice is a long-term serious illness, which can become an obstacle to compliance with anti-corruption prohibitions, restrictions, requirements and responsibilities. The conflict of interest commission will determine the “objectivity” of force majeure circumstances.
The draft of the new law itself will be published later, “taking into account the proposals received as a result of its public discussion,” the Ministry of Justice assured.
Last year, corruption crimes in Russia increased by almost 10% compared to 2022, the Prosecutor General’s Office previously stated.
However, examples of corruption and force majeure are described in classical literature. Thus, in Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita,” a crisp wad of money itself crawled into the briefcase of one of the characters.
Add BFM.ru to your news sources?
Commentary to Art. 291.2 of the Criminal Code
1. The article establishes criminal liability for so-called petty bribery (in the amount of up to 10 thousand rubles). Both the giver and the recipient of a bribe bear responsibility under this provision; Mediation in such bribery due to its size is not punishable (see commentary to Article 291.1 of the Criminal Code).
2. When qualifying, the direction of intent of the perpetrators should be taken into account: if the bribe was planned to be transferred and received in an amount exceeding 10 thousand rubles, but the bribe actually accepted amounted to an amount less than 10 thousand rubles, the act must nevertheless be qualified as a completed crime under Art. 290 - 291 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of July 9, 2013 No. 24 “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and other corruption crimes”).
3. For the note to the article, see the commentary to Art. 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The Prosecutor General spoke in favor of changing the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to criminal cases of corruption
On December 9, Prosecutor General Igor Krasnov held a coordination meeting dedicated to the results of the work of law enforcement agencies to combat corruption, including as part of the implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Plan for 2018–2020.
According to Igor Krasnov, the implementation of the National Plan’s instructions generally had a positive impact on the results of the work: “The myth about the inaccessibility of justice for high-ranking officials at the federal and regional levels involved in corruption has been destroyed. Bringing them to criminal liability is no longer uncommon.”
The Prosecutor General also noted signs of improvement in the quality of investigative work, which was reflected in a reduction in the number of criminal cases returned by prosecutors for additional investigation, as well as by the courts to remove obstacles to their consideration. At the same time, Igor Krasnov noted that a number of problems remain unresolved.
In particular, he drew attention to the fact that the practice of late detection of corruption crimes persists, which makes it difficult to establish all the circumstances, leads to the loss of evidence and the termination of criminal cases on exonerating grounds. Thus, favorable conditions are created for the laundering of criminal proceeds. Also, according to him, the opportunities to detect, seize and return to the treasury the illegally acquired property of corrupt officials, including assets transferred abroad, are not fully used. The bailiff service is unable to achieve an acceptable level of execution of court decisions, while the collection rate for them remains low, and the collection of fines for sentences for corruption crimes does not exceed 2%.
Igor Krasnov emphasized the need for legislative changes. In particular, he supported the proposal to work on the issue of giving investigators the authority to urgently seize the property of corrupt officials, not only subject to confiscation, but also to ensure the execution of the sentence in terms of a civil claim, collection of a fine and other property penalties. At the same time, he spoke about the need to also provide for the possibility of seizing property that “although was not obtained as a result of criminal activity, but was alienated to third parties for the purpose of concealing it and evading compensation for damage.”
The Prosecutor General also recalled the bill prepared by the department, which provides for the establishment of its organized forms and the receipt of such a bribe associated with extortion as additional qualifying signs of petty bribery.
Igor Krasnov named the existing practice of imposing a judicial fine for corruption crimes as one of the problems that requires legislative regulation: “Release of corrupt officials who have committed crimes of minor and medium gravity from punishment with the imposition of a judicial fine does not entail a criminal record for them, does not form a recidivism, which in further enables such persons to apply for positions in the state and municipal service.”
In his opinion, it is necessary to analyze the situation and work out the issue of introducing amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure to limit the use of court fines for corrupt officials. In addition, Igor Krasnov drew attention to the fact that cases are being sent to court with a petition for the application of a judicial fine in the absence of the necessary evidence, with an underestimated qualification of the act and other violations.
Commenting on “AG” the Prosecutor General’s proposal to vest investigative bodies with new powers when investigating a lawyer’s corruption crimes, junior partner of the Law Office “ZKS” Victoria Buklova noted that, based on the current provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, adversarialism and transparency in the seizure of property are not fully implemented. The effectiveness of individual actions of the investigator during the proceedings is achieved largely by surprise. The norm of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the seizure of property was the subject of research by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, as a result of which it was amended in 2015.
“Based on the content of the priority areas identified by the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and the clarifications of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 1 of January 9, 2022, that confiscation from acquaintances and relatives of corrupt officials is consistent with the Constitution, most likely in the near future a number of norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation will be added or changed. However, the list of additional opportunities for investigators proposed by the Prosecutor General is excessively broad and will most likely lead to an increase in the number of unfounded decisions and actions, with reference only to Art. 38 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, i.e. to the independence and own discretion of the investigator,” she noted.
According to the lawyer, in this case, the number of citizens who, in fact, have nothing to do with the criminal case and the income of the accused, and who do not hold government positions, but who, due to the circumstances and the decision made by the investigator, will have to prove for a very long time, will most likely increase. that their seized property was acquired legally, and in essence - to prove that their own income or family income corresponds to the value of the seized property. “The accused for a certain period will actually be deprived of the opportunity to make a transaction with legally acquired property, since the alienation of such property will most likely be a priori regarded as its concealment in order to evade compensation for damage. At the same time, the need for alienation may actually have a completely different purpose,” the expert added.
In any case, Victoria Buklova concluded, when expanding the powers of preliminary investigation bodies, it is necessary to simultaneously talk about comprehensive responsibility for arbitrariness and abuse, otherwise an increase in the number of situations in which the rights of citizens will be violated is inevitable. “At the same time, responsibility should not be nominal. Otherwise, it is impossible to increase the efficiency, competence and authority of law enforcement agencies,” she emphasized.
In turn, lawyer of SanctaLex JSC Pavel Geiko called this proposal of the Prosecutor General worthy of attention and requiring elaboration. “If we compare the powers of the investigator in terms of seizing property with the powers to use such a measure of procedural coercion as detaining a suspect, then an obvious question arises: if the investigator is entrusted with making decisions about detaining a person, i.e. limit him in one of his most important rights - to be free, then why can only the court make decisions on limiting property rights? – the expert asked, adding that the Code of Criminal Procedure now authorizes investigators to seize property for other purposes.
The lawyer emphasized that when preparing such amendments, it is important to provide in the law a requirement for mandatory subsequent verification by the court of the investigative action taken. “Of course, the number of abuses will increase, since one can quite reasonably assume that the number of seizures of property will increase significantly, but whether the changes in the law themselves will be the cause of abuses cannot be said. If the courts properly control investigators in this regard, then abuses are unlikely to be widespread. At the same time, vesting the investigator with such powers will definitely be beneficial for achieving such a goal of criminal proceedings as protecting the rights and legitimate interests of individuals and organizations that have suffered from crimes,” he concluded.
Regarding the limitation of the use of a judicial fine, Pavel Geiko noted that this proposal is somewhat discriminatory in relation to corrupt officials in comparison with other criminals. “I consider it inappropriate to include such an approach in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. We already have several norms on the basis of which we can distinguish such a class as entrepreneurs, to whom a more humane approach is provided than to other categories of persons. With this approach, we will soon have to adopt our own Criminal Procedure Code for each class or category of criminals. In my opinion, this problem can be solved by amending the legislation regulating the occupation of certain positions and introducing restrictions for persons who were previously brought to criminal liability, the proceedings against whom were terminated or completed on non-rehabilitative grounds,” he explained .
Conditional sentence for receiving a bribe on an especially large scale and for fraud
At every turn, selective civil servants and merchants, office workers and housewives use specialization as a measure of the quality of certain goods and services. To buy a good pair of shoes, go to a specialized shoe store, and buy fresh vegetables at farmers' markets.
Personal freedom and long-term living conditions obviously require an equally responsible approach. Therefore, prudent officials entrust their fate exclusively to a lawyer with a positive practice of protecting clients in the framework of investigations of official and official crimes.
Lawyer Samir Aliyev specializes in defense of official and official crimes, which include abuse or excess of official powers, negligence, receiving or transferring a bribe.
Among the latest victories is the successful defense of a client on four counts in a criminal case initiated under Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Taking a bribe.”
In 2015, the Kuntsevsky Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee opened a criminal case against the deputy director of the school for financial and economic issues of the Western Administrative District of Moscow for two crimes under paragraph “c” of Part 5 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as crimes provided for in Part. 2 and 6 tbsp. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The deputy director of the school was accused of receiving bribes from bonuses awarded to school employees, as well as in connection with the fictitious employment of her ex-husband in one of the controlled institutions of the education system.
The lawyer's client denied her guilt in the acts accused of her.
The lawyer developed a successful line of defense; during the trial, about 60 witnesses were questioned, and 15 volumes of the criminal case were carefully examined. The lawyer also carried out a legal investigation, during which significant circumstances were identified that had a key impact on the course of the trial.
The prosecution insisted on the need to sentence the accused in the form of 12 years in prison, a fine, and also to satisfy the civil claim.
On March 16, 2022, the Kuntsevsky District Court of Moscow handed down a guilty verdict with the reclassification of certain offenses (three offenses under Part 3 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and imposed a sentence of 6 years of suspended sentence with probation for a period of 5 years. The court not only applied a suspended sentence, but also imposed a punishment below the lower limit under Part 6 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The court rejected the prosecutor's civil claim. Any penalties or restrictions on the prohibition of activities against the lawyer’s client were also not applied.
The Kuntsevo district prosecutor appealed the said verdict, but on June 27, 2022, the Moscow City Court upheld the verdict.
Thus, the painstaking work, professionalism and experience of the lawyer in defending against official and official crimes allowed his client to remain free without restrictions in the implementation of professional activities and further material costs.
As is tradition, the court decision is attached for those curious.
Trust the professionals, take care of yourself and your loved ones!
