The Federation Council at the RANEPA site discussed the prospects for the development of legislation in the field of anti-corruption

On Tuesday, the Federation Council talked about the prospects for the development of legislation in the field of combating corruption. The reason for the discussion was the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Convention against Corruption. After Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe and the denunciation of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, the UN document remains for Russians one of the basic ones in terms of international standards in this area. However, the event participants did not hide the fact that Russia is ready to set standards itself in the fight against corruption – for example, in the format of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Participants in the discussion, which took place on October 31 at the RANEPA site, unanimously agreed that the system of anti-corruption legislation formed in Russia is relevant, dynamic and meets international requirements. But when developing new legislative acts and predicting their expected effectiveness, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of the development of the state itself within the framework of a specific historical, including international context, Senator Vyacheslav Nagovitsyn explained to the audience. He noted that national anti-corruption legislation is focused primarily on regulating issues of information disclosure, preventing conflicts of interest, as well as in the field of anti-corruption examination procedures.

In general, Russian legislation and the practice of its application comply with anti-corruption standards, this has been repeatedly confirmed at various sites, confirmed Vitaly Blinsky, assistant of the Presidential Anti-Corruption Administration. But new challenges are emerging, he added. These include, for example, attempts to use anti-corruption policies as an instrument of influence – to interfere in the internal affairs of the state. “Anti-corruption issues have recently been used for the purpose of unfair competition in international markets, implemented by a number of states in the form of adopting anti-corruption laws that have extraterritorial application and have a serious impact on international economic activity,” the official emphasized. As an example, he cited the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Among the promising areas for improving the national anti-corruption policy, Mr. Blinsky named the development of a system of standards based on data on their effectiveness, correction of procurement activities and the introduction of information technologies that are aimed at preventing corruption.

Deputy Head of the Department for Supervision of the Execution of Anti-Corruption Legislation of the Prosecutor General’s Office Aslan Yusufov recalled that Russia took an active part in the preparation of the UN Convention, so it is not surprising that this particular instrument, which gives priority to the prevention of corruption, largely meets our interests. The European Convention on Criminal Liability for Corruption does not provide for such an abundance of preventive norms, the prosecutor noted. “Unfriendly states suffer from the fact that they implement preventive standards the worst,” he stated with satisfaction.

According to Deputy Director of the Department of International Law and Cooperation of the Ministry of Justice Dmitry Babekin, work is also in full swing on the ratification of the agreement on cooperation between CIS member states in combating corruption, signed in October last year. But the introduction to the State Duma of amendments prepared as part of Russia’s participation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials has been postponed indefinitely.

From the point of view of law enforcement, however, not all processes go smoothly. Advisor to the Constitutional Court (CC) Maxim Arzamastsev told legislators that the Constitutional Court receives a large number of complaints about the application of Articles 168 and 169 of the Civil Code in cases of recovery of remuneration received from corrupt officials. It got to the point, he complained, that the Supreme Court in one of these cases refused to recognize the bribe as a void transaction and to recover the money for the state. Perhaps, Mr. Arzamastsev reasoned, the issue of using the potential of Art. in this case should be discussed. 235 of the Civil Code, which provides for the confiscation of property acquired with income unconfirmed by officials. In addition, the Constitutional Court adviser is confused by the lack of procedural status of third parties in cases where a bribe is transferred to them: as a rule, they appear as witnesses in criminal proceedings. But since we are talking about limiting their rights in connection with the confiscation of funds, then perhaps some procedural rights should be provided for, the lawyer emphasized. Finally, the absence of a mechanism for legal response to non-payment of fines that are multiples of a bribe also seems wrong to him: if the decision on a fine is not executed, then the person becomes convicted for life, although, from the point of view of the Constitutional Court, no one can be subjected to endless persecution. In the case where a fine is applied as the main punishment, there is a mechanism for replacing it with another punishment that works quite well, but there is no alternative to a fine as an additional sanction, lamented Maxim Arzamastsev. It got to the point that one of the applicants, in the hope of avoiding paying a fine, tried to resort to the bankruptcy mechanism, the Constitutional Court adviser said – however, they explained to him that it doesn’t work that way.

Anastasia Kornya