Extortion: detailed commentary on Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The corpus delicti of “extortion” (Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

The current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation recognizes as extortion such actions of a criminal when he demands from another person to transfer to him property, or the right to this property, or to perform some other actions of a property nature (for example, to forgive a debt or pay an obligation for it), threatening in case of non-fulfillment cause significant harm to the victim or his loved ones (harm to life, health, property or honor and dignity).
The object of extortion is complex, since here criminal actions are aimed, firstly, at property relations in the ownership, use and disposal of material goods and the exercise of rights to them, and secondly, at the life and health of the victim and his relatives (if a threat is received physical violence). At the same time, the peculiarity of extortion is the fact that it is not a form of theft.

Unlike theft, robbery, robbery or fraud, the crime of “extortion” does not cover the actual infliction of property damage to the victim (i.e. disposal of property from legal possession), which is a key feature of theft. Here the moments of extortion itself and the actual taking of someone else's property are separated.

Whereas all types of theft are considered completed when the criminal has received someone else's property or acquired the legal ability to dispose of it.

The objective side of extortion includes two main actions:

1) Presentation of a demand to transfer to the extortionist someone else’s property, rights to it, or to perform other actions of a property nature in favor of the criminal. Demand means that the criminal does not ask, does not offer, but in a strict form, categorically orders his victim to transfer property to him, etc.

A demand should be distinguished from a request, when the person from whom the request is made has the discretion to decide whether to comply with the request or not. When a demand is made, it implies mandatory fulfillment. The requirement can be expressed in any form - orally in a personal conversation or by telephone, or in writing on paper or electronic media (for example, via the Internet).

The verbal content of the requirement does not matter; there are many variations here - from polite phrases to rude expressions. The demand can be expressed in direct text or indirect hints (for example: “I should thank you,” “I wish I had the same apartment,” etc.). In any case, the demand must include the transfer of property or other property rights to the extortionist or other persons specified by him.

2) Expressing a threat to use violence against the victim, or to destroy or damage his property, or to make public information of a disgraceful nature about the victim himself or his relatives, or other information that could significantly harm their interests.

A threat means that the criminal forces the victim to hand over property to him, threatening him with harm. The law provides for the expression of threats in the following forms:

- threat of physical harm, i.e. intent to beat, mutilate or even kill the victim of extortion or people close to him (this includes relatives and any other people who are important to the victim). The classification of a crime does not depend on what exactly the offender threatened to commit,

- threat to damage or destroy property belonging to either the victim or people close to him (for example, commit arson),

— blackmail is a special form of threat, the essence of which is to intimidate the victim with the possibility of disseminating information discrediting the honor and dignity of the victim or people close to him, or publishing other information that can cause enormous harm to the rights and legitimate interests of the victim or his relatives.

The most common methods of blackmail are threats to disseminate some facts about the personal life of a public person or publish documents representing trade secrets, which can lead to significant losses for a business. The information with which the extortionist blackmails can be either true (for example, facts about a person’s treatment for alcohol or drug addiction, a criminal record, etc.) or deliberately false. In the latter case, the dissemination of such information will be qualified as a separate crime in the form of libel (Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Regardless of whether the information is true or not, the objective side of extortion is considered perfect only if the victim really realized the real possibility of the criminal to carry out his threat. For example, the criminal showed photographs, documents and other evidence of information compromising the victim that he had.

Thus, victims of the criminal actions of an extortionist can be:

The moment of committing extortion is considered to be the first presentation of a demand to transfer property or the right to it under threat of harm. Such a crime is called truncated, since the fact of achieving a criminal result and completing the threat does not matter here. Even if the property was not transferred to the extortionist and he did not carry out his threat, he will be fully responsible for the completed crime. Therefore, there cannot be a stage of attempted extortion. Selecting a victim of extortion, collecting information to blackmail her - this will qualify as preparation for extortion.

On the objective side, extortion must be distinguished from robbery, because here, too, a threat to the life or health of the victim is used in order to seize his property. However, during robbery, the criminal commits a real attack on the victim and theft of someone else's property occurs at the same time. In the case of extortion, the facts of presenting a demand to transfer property and the actual taking of it do not coincide and, as a rule, are significantly extended over time.

The subject of the crime of “extortion” is any sane individual who has reached the age of 14 years. Such a low age of criminal responsibility indicates the special social danger of this crime.

The subjective side of extortion is expressed in the presence of the criminal’s direct intent to seize someone else’s property or otherwise enrich themselves at someone else’s expense, while threatening to cause harm to the victim. When establishing direct intent to extort, it is necessary to prove that the criminal was aware that:

- the property he demands does not belong to him and he has no legal rights to own and dispose of it, - the transfer of property is not voluntary, - the use of violence, causing property damage or blackmail is considered by the criminal not as a goal, but only as a means of achieving the desired property capture.

An integral element of the subjective side of extortion is the presence of a selfish goal on the part of the criminal, i.e. the deliberate intention to acquire the desired property and dispose of it at one’s discretion to obtain benefits. Therefore, in cases where the criminal planned only to temporarily use someone else’s property and then return it to the owner, or was sincerely confident that he had a legal right to the required property, there will be no extortion elements. It will be arbitrariness or another type of crime.

These include:

1) Extortion committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy. This aggravating circumstance is applied in cases where two or more persons participated in the crime, who agreed in advance about joint criminal actions.

2) Extortion with the use of violence. Here, not only the property interests of the victim, but his life and health are under real threat. The courts interpret the use of violence as: beatings, tying up, torture, torment, causing mild and moderate harm to health.

3) Extortion on a large scale. In this case, the value of the property that the extortionist demanded to be transferred is assessed. Extortion of property worth more than 250 thousand rubles is recognized as large-scale extortion.

4) Extortion committed by an organized group. Such a crime is characterized by a special subject composition - a group of persons (two or more), which has a sign of stability, where people have united in advance for the purpose of engaging in criminal activity.

5) Extortion on an especially large scale. This rule applies if the value of the property for which the criminal’s claims were made exceeds 1 million rubles.

6) Extortion involving the infliction of grievous harm to the victim’s health. In the case where, during extortion, grievous harm to health was caused, due to which the citizen died, the act is qualified under a set of articles - extortion and causing death by negligence (Part 4 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

The defense lawyer's speech about the acquittal of the defendant under Art. 163, 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

SPEECH OF THE DEFENDER

in criminal proceedings

on charges of P.G.L.

Your Honor, the subject of consideration in this case is the presence or absence in the actions of the defendant P.G.L. corpus delicti.

What did the defendant do? To briefly describe his actions, he took back the cell phone that was stolen from him and tried to compensate himself for the losses he suffered as a result of the theft of his phone, as well as to help compensate for the losses incurred by victim A.

The prosecutor's office proposes to classify the actions of my client as arbitrariness and extortion.

I do not agree with the proposed qualification, just as I do not agree with the fact that the actions of my client are generally subject to qualification under any of the articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

I'll start with self-government.

The state prosecutor believes that the victim A. suffered significant harm, namely in the amount of the cost of the phone, i.e. 2,600 rubles, which he paid when buying a phone from the victim F. What confirms the fact that A. paid this money? Testimony of the victim himself. Partly by the testimony of witness P., who confirmed that the phone was indeed purchased under the circumstances described by A. Nothing more.

The testimony of victim A., regarding the purchase of the phone for the amount he named, is refuted by the testimony of victim F. She says that such a phone was not sold in her store at all. At the same time, according to the state prosecutor, the testimony of the victims is consistent with each other. If they agree, then what can be called a contradiction? Whose testimony is more correct, who spoke more truthfully? I believe that in this case the victim F.

You could say that in this case my opinion is based on an assumption. This is true. But a conviction, unlike my opinion, cannot be based on assumptions. And the question of the amount that victim A. paid or did not pay is extremely important. Without establishing the exact amount, one cannot conclude that the actions of my client caused significant harm to the victim A.. It is impossible to seriously consider the opinion of the prosecutor's office that the actions of my client undermined the authority of all employees of all law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation. But significant harm in general, in general, without specification, does not happen.

As for the material demands of victim A., they should be presented not to the defendant, but to the seller who sold such a problematic phone, and even without documents.

Regarding the fact that a person who is called to the police is already initially afraid and his actions in the police, even if seemingly voluntary, are carried out under the pressure of fear because he ended up in the police, then this position finds full response and understanding in my lawyer heart.

Absolutely agree. Unfortunately, all judicial practice follows the opposite path. How many times have I tried to explain that people gave evidence to the police, being frightened by the mere fact of being in the police, and signed their statements without reading, out of fear, just as many times the courts did not recognize these arguments, explaining that there was nothing scary in the police, and in order for a person to be afraid, the police had to have some kind of influence on him. Alas, in this case, I believe that the victim’s coming to the police, in itself, does not mean that he gave up the phone against his will. And they did not specifically frighten him, as the victim himself points out.

And in general, how can we talk about challenging the legality of P.G.L’s actions if he takes away a phone that (and this is not disputed by anyone) belongs to him, since it was given to him by his wife, who has documents for this phone. Moreover, he takes it from A., who does not have any documents for the phone, he does not even have a receipt. What law or regulation prohibits a citizen from taking property stolen from him from a person who cannot present any documents to the right to own this property? Now, if my cell phone is taken away on the street, can’t I immediately take it back? Should I first go write a statement telling the robber to wait for me and not go anywhere? Some may say that this is a different situation, but how is it different, is that time has passed since the phone went missing? How much time must pass for the situation to become different? It is precisely the right of property of citizens, including P.G.L. must be protected by law, as written in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Thus, in the actions of P.G.L. in relation to the victim A. there is no corpus delicti under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, not to mention Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Now about extortion.

Of course, the threat of writing a statement, or, as the victim herself says, the threat that P.G.L. himself will personally initiate a criminal case, is a threat of disseminating information that disgraces the victim. Agree. But only with one caveat. Only if the initiation of a criminal case against P.G.L. is also recognized as the dissemination of information disgracing him. Otherwise, discrimination results. If P.G.L. writes a statement, or somehow initiates a criminal case himself, then he disgraces the victim. And if they excite him against him, then there is no shame. This is, to say the least, unfair.

Now let's see what is the dissemination of information that disgraces the victim? Article 129 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is libel. That is, P.G.L. must have known that the information he was disseminating obviously did not correspond to reality. No one has proven that the information was deliberately false. Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation presupposes the dissemination of truthful information as a threat. But the problem is that contacting bodies authorized to verify citizens’ statements is not disseminating information. These are legal actions. Now, if it turns out that the statement is deliberately false, then please prosecute for deliberately false denunciation. Let me emphasize once again: contacting the authorities authorized to verify applications cannot be considered dissemination of any disgraceful information.

In addition, I believe that the victim, even without a legal education, simply from life experience appropriate to her age, obtained from books and television programs, knew that even if P.G.L. in some special way and opened a criminal case against her, then the case would have been considered not by himself, but by the court. I believe that, despite the prevailing opinion in society, the victim should have known that our Russian court would never convict an innocent person. Thus, I do not see what exactly she could be afraid of if it was a question of opening a criminal case against her. P.G.L. is not charged with any threats to take away all the goods.

In order to reasonably convict a defendant for extortion, it is necessary to establish, among other things, what the objective side of the crime was, i.e. what actions did P.G.L. commit, what threats did he make. From the examined memorandum of telephone conversations, I did not see anything that could be regarded as a threat. Moreover, the questions are “when will you bring me the money?” I wouldn’t even call it demands, but extortion is a demand for the transfer of someone else’s property or money. Today, begging is not criminally punishable.

The case file also contains a receipt from the victim, in which she writes that she is voluntarily returning the items. Once again, I want to say, if a person is not physically forced, if he is not threatened with violence, imprisonment and similar punishments, then why should he write such receipts without being guilty of anything? Why not give up right away? I believe that the victim never gave a convincing explanation for the appearance of this receipt.

The fact of the sale of the stolen phone in F.’s store is confirmed by the testimony of the victim A. and witness P. The question may arise - why does the lawyer refer to contradictory, or, as the state prosecutor said, consistent testimony of the victims, then casting doubt on one of them, and referring to others, then vice versa? The answer is simple. Because the investigation did not bother to eliminate the contradictions in them, and irremovable doubts, including the veracity of the testimony, are interpreted in favor of the accused, in this case, my client. But how to justify a guilty verdict with such testimony is a question.

Perhaps the court will decide to reclassify the actions of P.G.L. in relation to F. from extortion to arbitrariness. And in this case, I cannot agree with such a qualification. Let me explain why. Arbitrariness is taking action. What actions did P.G.L. perform? He asked: “well, when?” These are not actions. Did he use his official position, which would give these seemingly innocent questions a more terrible, threatening meaning? No and no again. First of all, because he is not accused of this, and other reasons, in connection with this, are no longer important.

If the defendant could have brought a case against F., but did not do this for money, then why was he not prosecuted for taking a bribe? If the defendant could not initiate a criminal case, but said that he could, but would not do it for money, then he should have been charged with fraud, which was not done.

Thus, in the actions of P.G.L. in relation to the victim F., not only is there no corpus delicti under Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but also Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

To summarize what has been said, I ask you, Your Honor, to pronounce a fair and reasonable acquittal against my client. And I ask that he be acquitted due to the lack of corpus delicti in his actions.

Judicial practice in cases of extortion

An analysis of the current practice of the courts’ application of criminal law rules on extortion helps to more specifically understand the features of this crime and understand how to properly conduct the prosecution or defense in court in order to defend one’s position.
Questions often arise about how to distinguish extortion from robbery or robbery. The courts take the position that when committing robbery or robbery, violence is used as the main means of seizing and retaining someone else's property, and when extorting, the threat of violence comes to the fore. In addition, during robbery and assault, violent acts are committed simultaneously with the seizure of the victim’s property, and during extortion, the criminal’s intent is aimed at obtaining property in the future. But in practice, qualification difficulties still arise.

For example, citizen M. went into the apartment of a friend of citizen P. to talk and began to demand that he give up his refrigerator and washing machine. He refused, then M. beat P., eventually obtaining a forced consent to give up the things. M. took out the equipment and sold it. The court sentenced M. under the article of extortion, citing the selfish motives of the criminal. However, it is clear that in this case violence was used as a means of obtaining property, and it was seized immediately after the commission of violence. Therefore, in this case, the article on robbery with the use of violence should be applied (clause “d”, part 2 of article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Questions also arise when distinguishing extortion from arbitrariness (Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Let us take the following situation as an example: the minor son of citizen A. caused an accident and caused damage to the car of citizen B. As a result, citizen B. began to demand money from A. under the threat of physical harm and damage to property. The court qualified such actions as extortion, taking into account that A. and B. had not previously known each other, there could be no debts between them.

However, the appeal court changed the verdict, indicating that this was arbitrariness, because the demands were to pay money to offset the property damage caused by B’s son. Therefore, the culprit was sure that he was demanding his own money; he had no intention of appropriating someone else’s property.

Otherwise, the extortionist cannot be held criminally liable. The courts check whether the victim really perceived the extortionist’s threat as completely feasible and whether he was mistaken. Since only a real threat can achieve the effect of mental violence, under the influence of which the will of the victim breaks and he submits to the demands of the extortionist.

In practice, there are examples when empty, unfounded demands were recognized as criminal extortion. Thus, citizen Sh., the ex-husband of citizen L., repeatedly demanded money from her. A criminal case was opened under the article of extortion. However, it was not proven in court that when demanding money, Sh. threatened to use violence, which is understood as a threat to beat, rape, restrict freedom, or cause harm to health in other ways. No evidence of such threats was presented by citizen Sh.; the case was dismissed for lack of corpus delicti.

When determining the degree of reality of the threat put forward by the extortionist, the courts take into account the age of the victim and the criminal, the number of extortionists, confirmation of the threat by certain actions (pushing, grabbing clothes, demonstrating weapons or compromising photographs in front of the victim that threaten to be published, etc.). Facts of violent acts previously used against the victim or other persons known to him (for example, beatings, arson, robberies) are important. Thus, two students A. and B. were convicted of extorting money from junior schoolchildren; the act was classified as committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy.

Using physical intimidation, they demanded that three schoolchildren bring them 5 thousand rubles every month. Confirming their threats, they showed the knife in front of the children and scared them with it. The court took into account the young age of the victims, their explanations about the fear of A. and V., which was confirmed by missing lessons when they came to school, and stealing money in the required amount from their parents.

Extortion under the threat of disclosing disgraceful information about the victim is very common. In such cases, the courts check in each individual case whether the information was really of a defamatory nature and how much its dissemination could harm the interests of the victim. In this case, the attitude of the victim to such information and the consequences of its publication is assessed, since different people can perceive the same information in completely opposite ways.

For example, the court sentenced citizen P. to punishment for extortion, who demanded money from minor A., ​​threatening otherwise to tell everyone knowingly false information about A.’s non-traditional sexual orientation. The court took into account A.’s subjective assessment of such information about himself as disgraceful, and also took into account that, due to his minor age, the victim could not objectively evaluate the extortionist’s statements and treated the threat as real.

CASSATION DETERMINATION

The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, consisting of:

examined in a court hearing on September 30, 2008 a criminal case based on cassation appeals from the convicted Golovin M.V., Geraskin S.A. and Chesnokov V.V. and lawyers Shirenkov G.F., Nedzelsky F.

G. and Chuguashvili G.E. on the verdict of the Moscow Regional Court of July 1, 2008, by which GOLOVIN M V was convicted under Art. 210 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 9 years in prison without a fine, under Art. 163 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the episode with the victim G. Yu.) to 8 years in prison without a fine, under Art. 163 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with victim K to 8 years in prison without a fine, according to Art. 163 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with victim Z for 8 years imprisonment without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with the victim Kh. N.) to 8 years in prison without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for for the episode with victim N to 8 years in prison without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with victim K, to 7 years in prison without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph “ a" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with victim Z to 7 years of imprisonment without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph "a" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with victim S to 8 years of imprisonment without a fine, under Article 161 Part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with C) to 6 years in prison without a fine, under Article 163, Part 3, paragraph.

“a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the episode with victim D to 9 years in prison without a fine, under Art. 163, part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the episode with victim P to 9 years in prison without a fine, under Art. 163 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the episode with victim B to 8 years in prison without a fine, under Art. 163 part.

3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with victim E to 9 years of imprisonment without a fine, according to Article 161 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with victim E to 7 years of imprisonment without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the episode with the victim K Yu.) to 8 years in prison without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the episode with the victim T to 9 years of imprisonment without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with the victim M, to 8 years of imprisonment without a fine, and for the totality of crimes committed, on the basis of Article 69, part. 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to 16 years in prison in a maximum security penal colony.

GERASKIN S A was convicted under Art. 210 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 5 years in prison without a fine, under Art. 163 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the episode with the victim G. Yu.) to 7 years in prison without a fine, under Art. 163 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with the victim K to 7 years in prison without a fine, under Art. 163 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with the victim Z for 7 years imprisonment without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the episode with victim X 3) to 7 years in prison without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the episode with victim N to 7 years in prison without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the episode with victim K, to 7 years in prison without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph “a” » of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with the victim T) to 8 years of imprisonment without a fine, under Article 163 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with the victim M to 7 years of imprisonment without a fine, and for the totality of crimes committed crimes, on the basis of Article 69 Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to 11 years of imprisonment in a maximum security correctional colony.

CHESNOKOV V. Convicted under Art. 210 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 5 years in prison without a fine, under Art. 163 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with victim P to 8 years in prison without a fine, for Art. 163 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode with victim B for 7 years imprisonment without a fine, under Article 163, part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the episode with the victim E to 8 years in prison without a fine, under Article 161, part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the episode with the victim E) to 6 years of imprisonment without a fine and for the totality of the crimes committed, on the basis of Article 69 Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to 9 years of imprisonment in a maximum security correctional colony.

In the case, civil claims by victims K., T B S E P S, D and Z were resolved; for victims N and Z (in terms of material damage), the right to satisfy the claim in civil proceedings was recognized.

The court also resolved the issue of reimbursement of procedural costs.

Having heard the report of judge Ivanov G.P., who presented the materials of the criminal case, the arguments of cassation complaints and objections, the speeches of the convicted Golovin M.V., who asked to cancel the verdict and send the case for a new trial, the victim B and the prosecutor Trisheva A.A., who asked for the verdict leave unchanged, judicial panel 4

installed:

By a court verdict, Golovin was found guilty of creating a criminal community, leading this community, and committing extortion and robbery as part of an organized group.

Geraskin and Chesnokov were found guilty of participating in a criminal community, as well as committing extortion as part of an organized group, and Chesnokov was also found guilty of robbery.

At the court hearing, Golovin, Geraskin and Chesnokov partially pleaded guilty.

In cassation appeals: the convicted Golovin claims that he did not create a criminal community; they committed crimes only in response to violations of traffic rules by the victims. In eight of the 15 episodes of extortion, his guilt has not been proven; he incriminated himself not only during the preliminary investigation, but also in court. He believes that victim K could not identify him by voice two years later.

He also believes that all his actions were subject to qualification under Art. 163 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy. When imposing the punishment, it was necessary to take into account the fact that he had a dependent child and compensation to one of the victims for the damage caused, and asks that the sentence be overturned and the case sent for a new trial; lawyer G. F. Shirenkov, in defense of the interests of the convicted Golovin, asks that the sentence be overturned and the case sent for a new trial, arguing that the court unreasonably found Golovin guilty of creating a criminal community, while violating the requirements of Art. 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, indicating in the verdict a greater number of qualification criteria than the preliminary investigation authorities established.

The group that included the convicts did not have a structured structure, which is necessary for it to be recognized as a criminal community.

The lawyer also believes that Golovin’s guilt in the episodes with victims K, S, P, D, G, ZH, X and N has not been proven; for the remaining episodes, Golovin’s actions should receive a different legal assessment, since these crimes were committed by an unorganized group, but by a group of persons by prior conspiracy; the convicted Geraskin claims that he was not a member of any criminal community, the crimes were committed spontaneously after provocative actions of the victims. During the preliminary investigation, he incriminated himself under pressure from police officers, believes that he is guilty only of committing crimes by a group of people by prior conspiracy, and due to the incorrect classification of his actions, he asks to cancel the sentence, and also to take into account that he is dependent there is a child and he is characterized positively; lawyer Chuguashvili G.E., in defense of the interests of the convicted Geraskin, asks to change the sentence, to reclassify Geraskin’s actions from paragraph “a” of Part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on paragraph “a”, part 2 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, citing the fact that Geraskin and Golovin acted as a group of persons by prior conspiracy. The lawyer also asks to cancel the sentence under Art. 210 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, believing that Geraskin was unreasonably convicted of participation in a criminal community; the convicted Chesnokov claims that he was not a member of the criminal community, he knew Golovin for only 8 days, he did not participate in extortion, he only served as an intermediary between the victims and the organizer, the victim E accused him of committing robbery and asks to cancel the sentence; lawyer Nedzelsky F.G., in defense of the interests of the convicted Chesnokov, asks to change the sentence, to exclude the conviction under Art. 210 part 2 and 161 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Chesnokov’s actions in the episodes of extortion dated March 19, 23 and 27, 2007 are reclassified from paragraph

“a” part 3 art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on paragraph “a”, part 2 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, arguing that Chesnokov’s guilt in participating in a criminal community has not been proven, and in relation to victim E, the intent was initially aimed at committing extortion, therefore additional qualification of the act as robbery is not required.

In addition, according to the lawyer, the court unreasonably recognized Chesnokov’s testimony, which he gave during the preliminary investigation, as admissible evidence, without being warned that his testimony could be used as evidence in the event of a subsequent refusal of it.

At the same time, the court did not take into account Chesnokov’s confession regarding the episode with the victim P.

The lawyer asks to take her into account and reduce the punishment. 6 In their objections to the cassation appeals, state prosecutor S.S. Savinov and victim K ask for the verdict to be left unchanged.

Having checked the case materials and discussed the arguments of the cassation complaints and objections, the judicial panel believes that the verdict is subject to partial cancellation with the termination of the case, and modification on the following grounds.

The arguments of the cassation complaints about Golovin’s non-involvement in extorting money from victims K, S, D, G, ZH, Kh and N are unfounded.

Thus, Golovin’s statements that he did not commit extortion against the victim G are refuted by the latter’s testimony, from which it follows that Golovin and Geraskin, whom he identified during the preliminary investigation, staged a traffic accident, and then began to threaten him and demand the transfer of money for the alleged damage caused by damage to their motorcycle.

The court rightfully recognized the testimony of victim G as reliable, since immediately after unfounded demands were presented to him for the transfer of money, he filed a statement with the police.

Victim Zh testified at the court hearing that there was no collision with the motorcycle driven by Golovin, but Golovin and Geraskin, whom he identified during the preliminary investigation, began to demand money from him, while Golovin threatened to shoot him.

At the court hearing on this episode, Golovin himself did not deny that before presenting material demands to Zh, he and Geraskin agreed that as a pretext they would refer to old damage on the motorcycle.

Golovin’s assertions that he did not commit extortion against X and N are refuted by the testimony of the victims, who during the preliminary investigation identified Golovin as a participant in the extortion. 7 Moreover, from the testimony of the victims it follows that Golovin introduced himself to them by the name A, that is, the same as in the previous episodes with victims G and K.

At the court hearing, Golovin himself did not initially deny his involvement in extorting money from X; he changed his testimony only after Geraskin began to claim that he committed this crime with another person.

However, the above testimony of victim X is refuted by the testimony of both Geraskin and Golovin himself.

At the court hearing, Geraskin also initially claimed that extortion against N was committed by him and Golovin, then he changed his testimony and began to claim that there was another person with them.

However, the above testimony of victim N is refuted by the testimony of both Geraskin and Golovin himself.

In this regard, the arguments of the cassation appeals that the testimony at the preliminary investigation, in which he pleaded guilty, was given by him under pressure from police officers, should be considered unfounded.

Golovin’s claims that he did not commit extortion against S and D are refuted by the testimony of the victims, who explained in court that it was Golovin who demanded money from them for the damage allegedly caused by them as a result of a traffic accident that they did not commit.

From the testimony of S it also follows that Golovin, in addition to extorting money from him, used violence against him and took rubles from him.

From the appendices to the lease agreements for a vehicle without a crew, it is also clear that during the period when extortion was committed against S and D by simulating a traffic accident using a BMW car with a license plate, this car was in Golovin’s use. 8 Golovin’s reference in the complaint to the fact that during the preliminary investigation the victims were identified not by personality, but by photograph, although he had already been detained, cannot be a basis for doubting the correctness of the court’s conclusions about Golovin’s guilt.

The reliability of the testimony of both victims is evidenced by the fact that they were forcibly placed in the extortionists’ car and communicated with them for a long time, and, therefore, remembered them well, which C and D confirmed in court.

In addition, from the case materials it is clear that during the identification of Golovin from a photograph by victims S and D, respectively, and Golovin himself was kept in custody in (vol. 6 case file 45, volume 5 case file 119, volume 10 pp. 32-33).

As for the arguments of the cassation appeals about the lack of proof of Golovanov’s guilt in the episode with the victim P, they are not subject to consideration, since the prosecutor dropped the charges in this part and the court terminated the criminal prosecution against Golovanov (vol. 17 pp. 62-63).

Golovin’s guilt in committing extortion against victims K, ZP, B, E, K, T and M is also confirmed by the totality of evidence presented in the verdict and is not disputed in the cassation appeals of the convict and his lawyer.

The arguments of the cassation complaints that Chesnokov did not take part in the commission of extortion against P, B and E, and that the victim E incriminated him in committing the robbery, are untenable.

As follows from Chesnokov’s testimony, which he gave during the preliminary investigation as a defendant, Golovin invited him to take part in committing “auto frame-ups” in order to extort money from car drivers, and he agreed to this.

His role was to collect money from victims and hand it over. He took rubles from the relatives of victim P, of which Golovin gave him rubles. 9 He initially indicated these same circumstances in his statement, which is indicated in the verdict as one of the evidence of Chesnokov’s guilt in extortion.

At the court hearing, Golovin confirmed that their actions against P were illegal, since old damage to their car was used to obtain money from the victim.

Regarding the episode with victim B, Chesnokov, in his own handwritten statement, also indicated that he, together with Golovin, participated in an imitation of a traffic accident.

The court rightfully recognized Chesnokov’s testimony during the preliminary investigation as an accused as admissible evidence, since, contrary to the lawyer’s statements in the complaint, Chesnokov was explained to him when the charge was brought that if he refused the testimony, it could be used as evidence (vol. 12 l. d. 98).

E’s guilt in extorting money from victim E and in robbery is confirmed by the victim’s testimony in court that Golovin and Chesnokov not only demanded money from him, but also searched his pockets and took rubles from him.

At the same time, E explained that during the preliminary investigation he gave incomplete testimony about the circumstances of the incident, since he felt bad after the beating, and claimed that Chesnokov took part in his search, which ended with the seizure of money from him (vol. 15 pp. 254) .

In this regard, it is impossible to agree with Chesnokov’s statements in the complaint that E slandered him at the court hearing.

In addition, the circumstances of the case indicate that the actions of Golovin and Chesnokov to seize money in the amount of rubles E were coordinated and aimed at their theft.

The arguments of the lawyer’s cassation appeal that all of Chesnokov’s actions were covered by extortion cannot be accepted, since Golovin and Chesnokov stole money from E in addition to uttering threats to use violence against him and a family member if their demands for the transfer of rubles were not met.

The arguments of the lawyer's cassation appeal that the court in this episode unreasonably referred to Chesnokov's testimony, which he gave as a suspect and during an inspection at the crime scene, cannot be considered substantiated.

As follows from the above interrogation protocols, Chesnokov was explained the procedural rights provided for in Art. 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the interrogation was carried out in the presence of a lawyer and no comments were received from him regarding the incomplete explanation of the rights of the suspect.

In addition, Chesnokov testified about committing an “auto-frame-up” against E during interrogation as an accused, before which, as stated above, it was explained to him that if he refused the testimony, it could be used as evidence.

The extortion against E, moreover, was the third in which Chesnokov took part, which refutes his claims that he did not know about Golovin simulating traffic accidents.

The arguments of Geraskin’s cassation appeal that the victims violated traffic rules are also unfounded.

From the testimony of the victims, it is clear that they did not allow collisions with vehicles driven by Golovin and Geraskin.

These testimonies of the victims were rightly recognized by the court as reliable, since, as correctly stated in the verdict, Golovin and Geraskin, when asked by the victims to call the road patrol officers, refused and began to threaten them and demand money.

Thus, the arguments of the cassation complaints about the lack of proof of the guilt of Golovin, Geraskin and Chesnokov in committing extortion, and Golovin and Chesnokov also in robbery should be considered unfounded. 11 The actions of Golovin, Geraskin and Chesnokov were correctly qualified by the court under Art. 163 part 3 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as extortion committed by an organized group.

The fact that Golovin created an organized group to commit several crimes and led it is evidenced by its stability.

Thus, crimes by this group were committed for a long time - from August 2006 to May 2007. The group was technically equipped, the forms and methods of its criminal activity were consistent, the commission of crimes was planned, methods of conspiracy were used, the group had a leader - Golovin, who distributed roles among other group members.

The members of the group were Geraskin and Chesnokov, as well as other persons, the case against whom was separated into separate proceedings.

At the same time, Geraskin took part in committing more than half of all extortions established by the court, which indicates that he was aware of his activities as part of an organized group.

Chesnokov, as the court correctly pointed out in the verdict, joined the group organized by Golovin later, but also actively participated in its criminal activities, as evidenced by his committing extortion against three victims in a short period of time. Chesnokov's further participation in the criminal activities of the organized group was interrupted by his detention and arrest.

The verdict contains Chesnokov’s testimony that Golovin initiated him into the plans and schemes of the group’s criminal activities.

Under such circumstances, it is impossible to agree with the arguments of the cassation complaints about the need to reclassify the actions of Golovin, Geraskin and Chesnokov from paragraph “a” of Part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation at paragraph “a”, part.

2 tbsp. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for liability for the commission of extortion by a group of persons by prior conspiracy.

At the same time, the court’s conclusions that the organized group created and led by Golovin constituted a criminal community (criminal organization) are unfounded. 12 Within the meaning of Part 4 of Art. 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a criminal community is understood as a structurally formed criminal group, which, in addition to the characteristics inherent in an organized group, provided for in Part 3 of Art. 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is characterized by cohesion and was created to commit several serious and especially serious crimes, or an association of organizers, leaders or other representatives of organized groups created for the same purposes.

Cohesion can be evidenced by the fact that the leaders (organizers) and participants of this community (organization) have a common intention to commit grave and especially grave crimes, as well as their awareness of the common goals of the functioning of such a criminal community and their belonging to it. This form of organized crime is characterized by a combination in various combinations of such features as the presence of organizational and management structures, a common material and financial base formed, inter alia, from contributions from criminal and other activities, hierarchy, discipline, and the rules of relationship and behavior established by them members of the criminal community, etc. Cohesion can also be characterized by a special structure of the community (for example, a leader, a council of leaders, performers of individual tasks), the presence of a leadership team, and the distribution of functions among its participants.

The cohesion of the community is evidenced by the planning of criminal activities for a long period, bribery and other corrupt actions aimed at neutralizing representatives of law enforcement and other government agencies.

However, the court in the case did not establish such circumstances that could indicate the unity of the convicts and did not provide them in the verdict.

Thus, the court’s conclusions that the organized group was divided into structural divisions are in the nature of assumptions.

The reference in the verdict to the planning of crimes, the division of roles, the use of conspiracy methods, the constancy of forms and methods of criminal activity are also inherent in an organized criminal group. 13 Thus, the signs that are indicated in the verdict actually confirm the court’s conclusions only that Golovin created an organized criminal group, which committed extortion of other people’s property.

Therefore, the verdict in terms of convicting Golovin under Art. 210 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and Geraskin and Chesnokov in terms of their conviction under Art. 210h. 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is subject to repeal and the case to be terminated due to the absence of corpus delicti in the act.

It is also impossible to agree with the court’s conclusions about the proof of Golovin’s guilt in committing extortion against the victim K.

As follows from the verdict, the court, as evidence of Golovin’s guilt in committing this crime, referred to the protocol of additional interrogation of victim K during the preliminary investigation and the protocol of his identification of Golovin by person.

At the same time, K’s testimony that he identified Golovin by his voice contradicts the identification protocol, since it shows that K identified him not by his voice, but only by his thin build, oval face and hair color (vol. 4 p. d. 196).

However, as the court found, K did not see Golovin, since his car was stopped by other persons, the case against whom was separated into separate proceedings, Golovin, as stated in the verdict, called K several times and demanded money from him, uttering threats.

Taking into account the results of the identification, the court should have taken a critical view of K’s testimony that he identified Golovin by voice.

From the case materials it is also clear that K identified I and G as the persons who committed extortion, and during the main interrogation as the victim, K explained that he was called by the driver who faked a traffic accident, and therefore not Golovin (vol. 4 p. pp. 189-192). 14 Testimony about Golovin’s involvement in extortion was given to K only after he identified I and G.

At the same time, as stated above, Golovin K was not identified by voice, and I and G, who stopped Golovin, were not interrogated by the preliminary investigation authorities and the court, and the victim K was also not interrogated in court.

Under such circumstances, the verdict regarding Golovin’s conviction for extortion against victim K cannot be recognized as legal and justified and is subject to cancellation with the termination of the case.

The punishment for Golovin and Geraskin was imposed taking into account all the circumstances influencing the punishment, including those referred to in the cassation appeals.

As for Chesnokov, when sentencing this convict, the court did not take into account his confession for extorting money from the victim P, although he referred to it in the verdict as evidence of the guilt of Chesnokov and Golovin.

From the case materials it is clear that Chesnokov was detained on March 28, 2007 for extortion against the victim E, and he wrote a statement about extortion against P on April 1, 2007 (vol. 12, case file 70).

By this time, law enforcement agencies did not yet know who committed this crime, since Golovin had not yet been detained and identified by the victim.

Therefore, as the lawyer reasonably raises the question in his cassation appeal, Chesnokov’s statement dated April 1, 2007 must be regarded as a confession and, therefore, as a mitigating circumstance.

For the remaining facts of extortion and robbery, the punishment assigned to Chesnokov was commensurate with the crime committed and the information about his personality, so there are no grounds for mitigating it.

Guided by Art. Art. 377, 378, 388 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, judicial panel 15

What to do if you are extorting money or other property

None of us are immune from encounters with criminals, so if a situation arises where you are threatened and demanded to hand over money or other valuable property, you must first of all soberly assess all the circumstances of the case.
It is necessary to build a strategy for dealing with the extortionist in order to delay the transfer of money as much as possible and at the same time collect as much evidence of the crime as possible. Do not under any circumstances try to deal with the criminal on your own - the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has Article 330 “arbitrariness”, which provides for criminal liability for committing unauthorized actions contrary to the procedure established by law, if significant harm was caused as a result. Therefore, if you use physical force or other methods of self-defense in response to the extortionist’s threats, there is a danger of ending up in jail yourself. Evidence is what you need to worry about first, because... Of course, neither the investigation nor the court will believe unfounded accusations.

The crime of “extortion” covers, firstly, the presentation of a demand to transfer property, and secondly, the reinforcement of this demand with a threat. Therefore, evidence will be needed on these two points. If requirements are communicated by telephone, it is necessary to record the conversation (many modern devices have such functions).

It is advisable that the conversation include the last names, first names and patronymics of the participants in the conversation, as well as the date and time of the conversation. Requirements sent via the Internet are very easily captured by taking screenshots of the page. The most difficult thing is when demands are made during a personal conversation - it is recommended to stock up on a voice recorder and, if possible, record the conversation.

Next, you need to prove that the criminal made a threat. If they threaten to disseminate some information, discuss that before transferring money you need to make sure that the criminal has this information. Try to record what the criminal presents to you.

Agree with the extortionist about the place and time of transfer of property and be sure to contact the local police department or the prosecutor's office (a sample application is given below). Describe the situation in detail and discuss your safety measures with the employee. They will help you catch the extortionist red-handed at the place where the money is being transferred.

Recently, cases of extortion by law enforcement officers and government employees have become more frequent. In this case, you can quickly stop criminal actions by sending a complaint to higher management, or better yet, to a supervisory institution (for example, against police officers - to the head of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the corresponding region or to the main department in Moscow). All official websites of state and municipal authorities have sections for complaints and requests from citizens, where you can quickly send a message about extortion.

The tendency to organize extortion of money through specially arranged accidents on highways continues. The pattern of such crimes is typical: in an inexpensive car (usually various VAZ models are used), the attackers get as close as possible to the victim’s car and expose themselves to a collision. Then, playing on the victim’s nervousness, they offer to leave and give a receipt stating that they owe a certain amount of money for repairs. If the victim agrees, he's hooked.

Extortion of money begins under the threat that they will file a statement with the police and accuse you of fleeing the scene of an accident (punishment - deprivation of rights or arrest for up to 15 days, plus full recovery of property damage, since you are automatically found guilty). Therefore, in such a situation, you should never give your contact information, money and documents to strangers. If you get into an accident, call the traffic police, insurance agents and calmly wait for them in your car, without being fooled by the provocations of the other party.

Another classic scheme for extorting money is making phone calls under the guise of law enforcement officers. They introduce themselves as an investigator or police investigator, report that a son or daughter has been detained on suspicion of committing a crime and there are offers to hush up the case for a certain amount of money. They threaten that if there is no money, the case will be started immediately. They try to ensure that the victim does not have time to come to his senses and immediately come for the money.

Therefore, if you receive such a call, it is better to hang up and not communicate. If you still have concerns that this misfortune happened to your child, ask him to give him the phone to talk. As a rule, in this case, the criminal hangs up or comes up with an excuse why he cannot fulfill your request.

If a blackmailer pesters you with threats, you also need to contact the police with a statement of extortion. First you need to collect as much evidence of blackmail as possible, because... Police officers often refuse to accept unfounded statements. To ensure that they definitely accept the application, send it by registered mail with notification. Then the police will be required to register and review it, and you will have proof of service of the application in the form of a notice.

Very often children become victims of extortion - they are more susceptible to threats and are not always able to soberly assess the situation. A child intimidated by an extortionist may be afraid to contact his parents or the police for protection from a crime and comply with demands for the transfer of money.

If you notice that a child begins to ask for pocket money more than usual, has become withdrawn, does not want to go to school, or, God forbid, steals money from home, this is a clear sign that he has become a victim of an extortionist. Don't scold him, but talk to him in a good way, explain that the criminal must be punished. On behalf of the minor victim, his legal representative (parent, adoptive parent, guardian or trustee) files a statement with the police.

On lowering the standards of proof in criminal cases of giving and receiving bribes

Over the years of practice in resolving criminal cases in cases of receiving and giving bribes, certain fairly strict standards of proof have been developed for this category of cases.

First of all, this concerns recording the fact of receipt (transfer) of funds to an official and the subsequent detention of the bribe giver or bribe taker red-handed. In the vast majority of cases, such recording was carried out during operational-search activities using audio and video recording tools, using pre-individualized banknotes (fixed numbers, applying special marks with dyes, etc.).

In essence, the event of transferring (receiving) a bribe occurs under the full control of law enforcement agencies.

Also, quite strict requirements were imposed on compliance with the procedure for operational-search activities, violation of which could subsequently lead to the recognition of this evidence as inadmissible.

At some point in practice, a rule was developed that the presence of these materials is a mandatory basis for initiating a criminal case and subsequently bringing the perpetrators to justice.

Such high requirements for recording a crime event lead to great difficulties in identifying and proving crimes. In fact, it becomes mandatory to pre-apply to law enforcement agencies one of the participants in receiving a bribe or another person who is well aware of the upcoming event, which will make it possible to organize operational search activities in advance.

There are often cases when an operational-search activity was “disrupted” due to incorrect actions of a “controlled” person during the operational investigation and (or) if the person who was supposed to be convicted of committing a crime, at the last moment, suspecting that what was happening was being recorded, refused to receive (transfer) bribes.

Despite this, such high standards of proof in this category of criminal cases are seen as necessary and justified.

However, in recent years, convictions have increasingly been handed down in cases where the only evidence that establishes the fact of receipt (transfer) of funds, the amount of a bribe, is the testimony of one person, for example, about an official extorting a bribe from him.

This trend raises serious concerns and, moreover, in my humble opinion, does not comply with the requirements of the law.

Thus, Article 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation establishes that the verification of evidence is carried out by comparing it with other evidence available in a criminal case, as well as identifying their sources, obtaining other evidence that confirms or refutes the evidence being verified.

Also, part 1 of Art. 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation requires that each evidence is subject to assessment from the point of view of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all collected evidence in the aggregate - sufficiency to resolve a criminal case.

In addition, according to Part 4 of Art. 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, a conviction cannot be based on assumptions and is decided only on the condition that during the trial the defendant’s guilt in committing a crime is confirmed by the totality of evidence examined by the court.

At the same time, the subject of the bribe (money, property, size, cost, etc.) is a mandatory circumstance of proof, since it directly affects qualifications.

If these requirements are not met, there is ample opportunity for abuse. Based on testimony that this or that official demanded a bribe in the amount of 160 thousand or 1.1 million rubles (your choice), you can hold a person accountable for committing a serious or especially serious crime.

At the same time, I am not a supporter of elevating the results of the operational investigation into an “absolute”, turning them into the “queen of evidence” for this category of criminal cases, but in the event of their absence, a real body of evidence must be present in the criminal case, which would allow us to draw a conclusion about the presence of a crime event and the size of the bribe.

A possible list of such a body of evidence is given in the article by P.S. Yani. (“Legality”, 2022, No. 9) “Sufficiency of evidence in cases of bribery”:

a) direct testimony of witnesses to the official’s acceptance of values, intermediaries or persons whom the official persuaded to participate in his crime, to perform an intermediary function, from whom he was required to perform actions (inaction) in the service (when the official used the authority and other opportunities of the position held to exert influence on other officials in order for them to commit specified actions (inaction) in the service) from whom they extorted (such persons are sometimes recognized as victims in the case) or demanded a bribe, in a conversation with whom they agreed to accept it. Moreover, the list of evidence should also include those from which it follows that the indicated witnesses had no reason to slander the accused;

b) materials of interception of telephone and other conversations, “transformed” during the investigation and judicial review into evidence that meets the statutory criteria of relevance, admissibility and reliability (Part 1 of Article 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), containing, like the above-mentioned testimony, the corresponding evidentiary information;

c) evidence of the presence of the accused (including in the accounts of persons under his control) of funds that, in the opinion of the prosecution, became the subject of a bribe, evidence indicating such expenses made that exceed the income received by him and can be regarded as made from the received bribes;

d) evidence of illegal actions (inaction) of an official committed by him (or which the person plans to commit) for a bribe in favor of the bribers or persons represented by them; the fact of committing (or intending to commit) illegal actions (inaction) in the service or general patronage or connivance helps to establish the connection between the official’s acceptance of values ​​and the acts of official behavior committed by him in connection with this.

Where to go and how to file a complaint about extortion

If you receive demands from an extortionist, you should not panic, but contact law enforcement agencies as soon as possible.
Extortion is a criminal offense, so a criminal complaint must be filed. The Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for any special requirements for the format and content of the application. A written form of application is encouraged, which describes in detail all the facts indicating a crime has been committed, and includes a request to initiate a criminal case.

When accepting a statement, a police officer is obliged to warn about criminal liability for knowingly false denunciation under Article 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Sample statement regarding extortion to the police

Responsibility for blackmail

The legislation, depending on the severity of the crime committed, provides for various penalties. Let us explain the details in the table below.

If the crime included extortion of a bribe by an official, then, in addition to criminal liability, this person is deprived of the right to hold positions in the civil service in the future.