As some encyclopedic dictionaries testify, corruption comes from the Latin word "corrumpere" - to corrupt, i.e. to corrupt. This is a term that usually denotes the use by an official of his powers and rights entrusted to him for personal gain, contrary to law and moral principles. Most often, the term is used in relation to the bureaucracy and the political elite.

It should be noted that among both Ukrainian legal scholars and practitioners there is no clear definition of the concept of corruption. The phrase "abuse" state power"is somewhat misleading, as it reduces the field of activity of the phenomenon under consideration and obscures the true danger emanating from it. In fact, state power is a system for managing society, and the social danger from corruption is the damage done to society.

Therefore, corruption is the misuse of the management of public power for personal gain, for the benefit of third parties or groups. Corruption as a threat to national security: methodology, problems and ways to solve them. Khabibulin A.G. Journal of Russian Law, 2007.

From this definition it is clear that corruption:

• - is always associated with public service, state power, due to this direct dependence, it inevitably has a greater or lesser impact on the nature and content of power, its reputation in society. This allows us to argue that corruption acquires, in addition to criminal, a political character;
• - corruption goes beyond bribery;
• - it includes nepotism (Nepotism, lat., filling positions preferably by relatives in violation of the general and fair order) and numerous forms of misappropriation of public funds for personal, group or corporate use;
• - Corruption, as an abuse of power, can be carried out to obtain benefits not only for personal, but also corporate, clan interests. This is not always directly related to the appropriation of material values, since corporate interest sometimes pursues political goals: the creation of political conditions that provide the possibility of "legal", "legal" seizure, misappropriation of material and financial resources in the future.

In most cases, corruption causes direct economic damage to the individual, society and the state.

In addition, it must be taken into account that corruption abuses management, public power for personal gain, in the interests of third parties or groups. It is necessary to constantly take into account the anti-social nature of corrupt activities.

If we translate this into a practical area, then we can state that corruption is based on an illegal bilateral transaction (corruption always involves two parties: the one who bribes, and the one who, being bribed, acts contrary to his official duty), as a result in which a person in the public service illegally “sells” to individuals and legal entities his official powers or services based on the authority of the position, power and related opportunities, and the “buyer” gets the opportunity to use the state structure for his own purposes: to enrich, legislative registration of privileges, avoidance of statutory responsibility, public control, etc.

In other words, the transformation of a civil servant's workplace into a commercial product is the essence of corruption, which poses a real threat to the normal, legitimate functioning of the system of state power and administration.

Corruption must be distinguished in a narrow and broad sense. Corruption in the narrow sense is a phenomenon when officials deliberately neglect their duties or act contrary to these duties for the sake of a certain material reward.

Along with corruption in the narrow sense, there are bribery and independent bureaucratic entrepreneurship. Bribery differs from corruption in that an official is bribed not for the sake of violating his duties, but for the sake of fulfilling them.

Bribery is generated by the vagueness of the duties of an official, the deficit (often artificially created) of the administrative and financial capabilities of the state. The bribing party in this case acts as a "passive" one.

Bureaucratic entrepreneurship is characterized by the fact that there is formally no bribe. The customer of the service violation here is the executor himself, deriving income (entrepreneurial or rental income) from the monopoly on making or agreeing on a certain decision.

On the basis of a conditional criterion, corruption can be divided into petty (grassroots, everyday or, to be more precise, domestic corruption, with the help of which citizens solve their daily problems: payments to traffic cops, paperwork for summer cottages, bribes in courts, medical institutions, military registration and enlistment offices, etc.) and large-scale (top, elite, business corruption, i.e. the one with the help of which major business problems are solved).

Between them, despite the significant difference in levels, there is an organic relationship and interdependence, conditionality and commonality of a centralized, paternalistic, organizational or socio-psychological nature.

The first, grassroots, acting at the level of the daily needs of entrepreneurs and other citizens, has become almost the norm and permeates the most diverse strata of society. The bulk of corruption cases are connected with revelations at this level.

The attractiveness of grassroots corruption is that, with minimal risk for both parties, it has a specific value not only for the recipient (or extortionist) of the bribe, but also for the bribe giver.

A bribe helps to solve constantly arising domestic problems; it also serves as a small price to pay for the constant possibility of minor violations of laws and regulations, for example, for speeding, driving while intoxicated, etc.

Grassroots corruption in Russia occurs almost everywhere where an ordinary citizen is faced with the need to turn to the state, or, conversely, the state considers it appropriate to disturb the citizen. Only the main areas are listed below.

Large-scale grassroots corruption is extremely dangerous because, firstly, it creates a favorable psychological background for the existence of other forms of corruption and, secondly, it breeds vertical corruption.

The latter is the source material for the formation of organized corruption structures and communities.

Housing and communal services, as sociological surveys of the Russian population show, is perceived by them as the most corrupt. It would seem that the emergence of a housing market should lead to a decrease in corruption in this area.

However, its rootedness here is extremely strong. This is a prime example of how measures alone to eliminate the economic conditions of corruption may not be enough to combat it.

Law enforcement, and above all the police, are in second place. Recently, among those prosecuted for corruption, one quarter are employees law enforcement. As already mentioned, the most significant contribution to this high result is made by the traffic police.

In addition to roads, citizens often engage in corrupt relations with law enforcement agencies in the issuance of driver's licenses, permits to possess firearms, and in other similar cases.

Taxes and customs fees- an excellent "nutrient medium" for grassroots corruption. Polls of long-suffering Russian "shuttle traders" showed that among them there are practically no those who at least once did not give a bribe to a customs officer.

Conscription last years faces constant challenges. In this regard, it will be interesting to know that, according to preliminary estimates, more than half of the young people exempted from conscription in the army did so with the help of bribes.

In addition to the above, we would like to mention a number of situations in which there is a high probability of coming into contact with corruption:

• collection of fines and other payments from the population by various departments;
• Issuance of work permits various types activities;
• · permit for construction and allotment of land plots;
• · control by public services (firefighters, sanitary and epidemiological station, etc.), from which small businesses in Russia suffer.

Corruption exists in all countries regardless of their level of economic development

Corruption should be distinguished from lobbying. When lobbying, an official also uses his power to increase the chances of reappointment or to move up the ranks in exchange for acting in the interests of a particular group. The difference is that lobbying satisfies three conditions:

l The process of influencing an official is competitive and follows rules that are known to all participants.

b There are no secret or side payments.

b Clients and agents are independent of each other in the sense that neither group receives a share of the profits earned by the other group.

The most dangerous forms of corruption are classified as criminal offences. These primarily include embezzlement (theft) and bribes.

Waste consists in the expenditure of resources entrusted to an official for a personal purpose. It differs from ordinary theft in that initially a person receives the right to dispose of resources legally: from the boss, client, etc.

A bribe is a type of corruption in which the actions of an official consist in providing some services to an individual or legal entity in exchange for the latter providing a certain benefit to the former.

In most cases, if the bribe is not the result of extortion, the main beneficiary of the transaction is the bribe giver. Vote buying is also a criminal offense (although some consider it not a form of corruption, but a form of unscrupulous election campaign).

AT Russian legislation there is no definition of corruption.

Nevertheless, this phenomenon has become the norm in politics, economics and public life Russia.

Corruption no longer threatens these areas, but is an integral part of them. Every Russian pays a corruption tax hidden in the price of food and essential goods, travel in transport, utilities, construction of housing and roads, medical and educational services.

According to opinion polls conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) in March 2008, 55 percent of Russians believe that it is impossible to eradicate corruption in our country, 34 percent say that it is real, 11 percent of respondents found it difficult to answer.

Civil service and personnel policy

Foreign practice and Russian experience in the fight against corruption

The first explanation of corruption in the history of European philosophy was given by Plato. He believed that greed is one of the most important social vices, which is completely unacceptable not only for rulers, but also for warriors...

Constitutional powers of state authorities of subjects Russian Federation in the anti-corruption system

Society is a dynamic system in which new types of social relations constantly appear and old ones are modified. In this regard, new types of crimes are emerging ...

Corrupt crime as a threat to national security

To date, the topic of corruption in the conditions of modern market relations and building rule of law is undoubtedly relevant. And this is not surprising, because the scale of this phenomenon is quite large ...

Corruption and methods of combating it

"The roots of this phenomenon [of corruption] lie in the fact that a significant part of the population simply spit on the observance of laws." (D.A. Medvedev, President of the Russian Federation) The author will allow himself to disagree with the opinion of the head of state ...

Corruption as a socio-economic phenomenon

Having considered the concept of corruption, we will study the vision of the causes of this phenomenon, which can be found in the research environment. There are, for example, theories of economic nature...

The main directions of the fight against corruption in the public service system of the Russian Federation

Corruption is a consequence of both general processes of determination and causation of crime, and specific ones. The latter are mainly associated with state and other services, as well as with the development of an organized ...

Basic principles of anti-corruption

The study of domestic corruption made it possible to identify not only its main causes, common to countries with economies in transition, but also some specific, purely Russian causes...

Legal and organizational forms and methods of combating corruption in the civil service

Causes and conditions of corruption

Corruption, its scope, specifics and dynamics are the result of the country's general political, social and economic problems. The relationship between corruption and the problems that generate it is two-way. On the one hand, these problems exacerbate corruption...

Countering corruption in Kyrgyzstan

Corruption (from lat.corrumpere - “to corrupt”) is a term that usually denotes the use by an official of his powers of authority entrusted to him for personal gain, contrary to law and moral principles ...

Countering corruption in public authorities

Social policy of the state in the field of employment of unemployed youth

Unemployment is an urgent socio-economic and political problem that negatively affects almost all spheres of the country's public life. From this follows the need to study the essence of the concept of "unemployment" ...

The study of available sources shows that the process of formation of the modern concept of corruption covers several millennia in the history of civilization. Mention of this phenomenon is found in writings on the art of public administration, religious and legal literature of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Judea, India and China - in all centers of ancient Eastern civilizations.

One of the first references to the corruption of officials can be found in the archives of Ancient Babylon (the second half of the 24th century BC - the Sumerian king Urukagin), and later (19th century BC) in the famous Laws of the Babylonian king Hammurabi:

Ҥ 5. If the judge examined the case, issued a decision and prepared a document with a seal, and then changed his decision, then this judge should be convicted of changing the decision that he ruled, and he must pay the amount of claim that was available in this case in twelvefold size; moreover, in the assembly he must be driven from his judge's chair, and he must not return and sit with the judges in court.

§ 6. If a person has stolen the property of a god or a palace, then this person must be killed; and also the one who took the stolen goods from his hands must be killed.”

If in the first case, the interpretation may raise doubts about the possibility of attributing the described form of judicial arbitrariness to corruption, then in the second case, we are certainly talking about corruption crimes - official embezzlement (in the interpretation of modern criminal law) and "laundering" of property acquired as a result of corruption. crimes.

The same assessment of the degree of public danger of these corruption crimes seems to be completely justified. And the joint placement in the text of the law of the relevant norms indicates the same nature of these crimes (in any case, in the perception of the ancient legislator).

It can be said that in the period of early statehood there was no proper term "corruption" or any equivalent. The concept of corruption was only "maturing" in this period.

A qualitative leap occurred much later.

Corruption[lat. corruptio] means bribery; bribery and venality of public and politicians, government officials and officials.

In Roman law, corruption was interpreted in the most general way, as to damage, break, destroy, bribe, and meant illegal actions in judicial practice. This concept comes from a combination of the Latin words "correi" - several participants in one of the parties of an obligation regarding a single subject and "rumpere" - to break, damage, cancel. As a result, an independent term was formed, "sorumpere", which involved the participation in the activities of several (at least two) persons, the purpose of which was to spoil or damage the normal course of the judicial process or the process of managing the affairs of the company.

AT greatest monument ancient rome in Laws 12 tables the term " compere" is already commonly used in meanings to change testimony in court for money and to bribe a judge.

Thus, it can be said with some degree of certainty that the formation of the modern concept of corruption coincides with the period of the emergence and development of Roman law.

Also, one of the first who tried to explain corruption was the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who believed that “covetousness is one of the most important social vices, which is completely unacceptable not only for rulers, but also for warriors. This vice feeds on property, so as long as those who have power and strength are deprived of property, and those who produce material goods do not have strength and power, the state flourishes. Otherwise, it will degenerate."

There are various definitions of corruption in scientific, educational and public-journalistic literature. Dictionary Russian language characterizes corruption as bribery with bribes, corruption of officials, politicians.

In the textbook for universities " Criminal law Russia" states: "In the broad sense of the word, corruption is a social phenomenon that has struck the public apparatus of government, expressed in the decomposition of power, the deliberate use by state and municipal employees, other persons authorized to carry out state functions, his official position, status and authority of his position for mercenary purposes for personal enrichment or in group interests.

In a UN background paper on international wrestling with corruption, the latter is defined as "the abuse of public power for personal gain". This concept includes bribery (giving a reward to seduce a person from a position of duty), nepotism (substitution under the patronage of profitable or profitable positions by relatives or "one's own people") and misappropriation public funds for private use.

The working definition of the Council of Europe's interdisciplinary team on corruption is much broader. Corruption is bribery and any other behavior of persons who are entrusted with the performance of certain duties in the public or private sector and which leads to a violation of the duties assigned to them by status of a public official, private employee, independent agent, or other kind of relationship and is intended to obtain any illegal benefits for themselves and others.

In the Big Law Dictionary, corruption is understood as “a socially dangerous phenomenon in the sphere of politics or public administration, expressed in the deliberate use by government officials of their official status to illegally obtain property and non-property benefits and advantages in any form, as well as bribery of these persons.”

A more or less detailed concept of corruption first appeared in the legal acts of the Russian Federation in the Federal Law of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption” and it looks like this: corruption- this is abuse of official position, giving a bribe, receiving a bribe, abuse of authority, 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 themselves or for third parties, or illegal provision of such benefits to the specified person by other individuals; as well as the commission of these acts on behalf of or in the interests of a legal entity.

As a result, under the term "corruption" in society, in the scientific world and in the practical sphere, there is no unambiguous understanding of this phenomenon. At the same time, corruption is presented as a phenomenon consisting in the decomposition of power, where state, municipal employees and other persons authorized to perform state functions use their official position, status and authority of their position for selfish purposes for personal enrichment or in group interests.

There are many forms (manifestations) of corruption: bribery;

favoritism; criminal lobbying and nepotism (patronage based on personal connections); illegal distribution, redistribution or appropriation of public resources for private purposes; carrying out privatization by organizing illegal competitions, auctions, the actual seizure of blocks of shares that are in federal ownership; any use or manipulation of proprietary information for personal or group interests;

illegal application of the system of preferences in relation to various industrial, financial, trade and other corporate groups; extortion, etc.

Accordingly, various classifications of corruption and corrupt activities are given. All approaches to the classification of corruption are extremely diverse, as well as the lack of a clear definition of criteria, which does not fully contribute to the analysis of corruption and its manifestations in modern practice.

More substantive is the classification of corruption, which is based on strictly defined criteria (grounds), including:

1) areas of manifestation of corruption;

2) the status of subjects of corruption;

3) the level of corruption;

4) the degree of public danger of the corruption phenomenon;

5) the degree of manifestation.

Corruption, concept and types

§ 1. The phenomenon of corruption (historical digression)

Corruption has been known since ancient times. Mention of this phenomenon is found in writings on the art of public administration, religious and legal literature of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Judea, India and China - in all centers of ancient Eastern civilizations. In the "Instruction of the King of Heracleopolis to his son Merikar" (Egypt, XXII century BC) it is indicated: "Elevate your nobles so that they act according to your laws. He who is rich in his house is impartial, he is the lord of things and does not need ".

Much attention is paid to social appearances in the oldest section of the Bible - the Old Testament: "I know how numerous your crimes are and how serious your sins are: you oppress the right, take bribes, but drive the poor who seek justice from the gate (Am., 5:12) ".

In the ancient Indian treatise on the art of government "Arthashastra" (4th century BC), it is emphasized that the most important task facing the king is the fight against embezzlement. The treatise lists 40 ways of stealing government property and draws a sad conclusion that it is easier to guess the path of birds in the sky than the tricks of cunning officials. "Just as it is impossible to recognize whether the fish swimming in it drink water, it is impossible to determine whether the officials assigned to the cases appropriate the property." Surveillance becomes the main means of combating embezzlement. The scammer received a share of the property confiscated from a person convicted of an official crime.

Bribery is mentioned in Russian chronicles of the 13th century. The first legislative restriction of corrupt activities in Russia was carried out in the reign of Ivan III. His grandson Ivan IV (the Terrible) first introduced the death penalty as a punishment for excessive bribery.

Under Peter I, corruption and the tsar's fierce struggle against it gained wide scope in Russia. Characteristic is the episode when, after many years of investigation, the Siberian governor Gagarin was convicted of corruption and hanged. Literally three years later, Chief Fiscal Nesterov, the one who exposed Gagarin, was quartered for bribery.

Throughout the reign of the Romanov dynasty, corruption was a considerable source of income for both petty civil servants and dignitaries. For example, the Elizabethan chancellor Bestuzhev-Ryumin received for his service Russian Empire 7 thousand rubles a year, and for services to the British crown (as an "agent of influence") - 12 thousand rubles.

In the Russian Empire, corruption was closely intertwined with favoritism. Numerous episodes of corrupt activities of the favorite of Peter I, Prince Alexander Menshikov, are known, for which the latter was repeatedly punished by the tsar.

Of the last pre-revolutionary episodes, in addition to G. Rasputin, it makes sense to mention the ballerina Kshesinskaya and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, who, together for huge bribes, helped manufacturers receive military orders during the First World War.

The change in the state structure and form of government in October 1917 did not eliminate corruption as a phenomenon and the need to combat it. The Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR "On Bribery" dated May 8, 1918 provided for criminal liability for bribery (imprisonment for a period of at least 5 years, combined with forced labor for the same period). In the future, liability for bribery was established by the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922, 1926, 1960. These laws regulated liability for taking a bribe, giving a bribe, mediation in bribery and provocation of a bribe.

The history of the struggle of the Soviet government against corruption is characterized by a number of specific features. First, corruption, both as a concept and as a phenomenon, was not recognized in official regulatory documents and practice. Instead of this definition, the terms "bribery", "abuse of official position", "connivance", etc. were used.

Secondly, the causes of this phenomenon were associated with the conditions inherent in bourgeois society. For example, in a closed letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU "On intensifying the fight against bribery and theft of people's property" dated March 29, 1962, it was said that bribery is "a social phenomenon generated by the conditions of an exploiting society." The October Revolution eliminated the root causes of bribery, and "the Soviet administrative and managerial apparatus is an apparatus of a new type." Shortcomings in the work of party, trade union and state bodies, primarily in the field of education of workers, were listed as reasons for manifestations of corruption.

The note of the Department of Administrative Bodies of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the CPC under the Central Committee of the CPSU on strengthening the fight against bribery in 1975-1980, dated May 21, 1981, indicates that in 1980 more than 6 thousand cases of bribery were detected, which is 50% more than in 1975. It tells about the emergence of organized groups (for example, more than 100 people in the USSR Ministry of Fisheries, headed by a deputy minister). It is said about the facts of condemnation of ministers and deputy ministers in the republics, about other union ministries, about bribery and merging with criminal elements of employees of control bodies, about bribery and bribery in the prosecutor's office and courts.

The main components of crimes are listed: sale of scarce products; allocation of equipment and materials; adjustment and reduction of planned targets; appointment to positions of responsibility; hiding scams. Serious omissions in personnel work are indicated as reasons; red tape and red tape when considering the legitimate requests of citizens; poor handling of complaints and letters from citizens; gross violations of state, planning and financial discipline; liberalism in relation to bribe-takers (including - and in sentences of courts); bad work with public opinion. It is reported about the punishment of leading party workers (level - city committees and district committees) for connivance with bribery. It is proposed to adopt a resolution of the Central Committee.

Thirdly, the hypocrisy of the authorities, which contributed to the acceleration of corruption, was manifested in the fact that the highest Soviet party dignitaries were practically inviolable. Rare exceptions include the cases of Tarada and Medunov from the top regional leadership in Krasnodar, the case of Shchelokov. When Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade Sushkov was convicted of bribery and abuse, the KGB and the General Prosecutor's Office of the Union reported to the Central Committee about the side results of the investigation: Minister Patolichev systematically received expensive items made of gold and precious metals, rare gold coins as gifts from representatives of foreign firms. The matter was hushed up.

Fourthly, only representatives of this apparatus fought against corruption among the state apparatus. This led to two consequences: those who fought were organically unable to change the root causes that give rise to corruption, since they dated back to the most important conditions for the existence of the system; the fight against corrupt officials often developed into a fight against competitors in the markets for corrupt services.

Throughout the post-war period, during and after perestroika, the growth of corruption took place against the background of the weakening of the state machine. It was accompanied by the following processes: a decrease in centralized control, then the collapse of ideological bonds, economic stagnation, and then a drop in the level of economic development, and, finally, the collapse of the USSR and the emergence of a new country - Russia, which at first could only nominally be considered a state. Gradually, the centrally organized corruption of the state was replaced by a "federal" structure of many corrupt systems.

Thus, the current state of corruption in Russia is largely due to long-standing trends and a transitional stage, which in other countries in a similar situation was accompanied by an increase in corruption. Among the most important factors that determine the growth of corruption and have historical roots, in addition to dysfunctions of the state machine and some historical and cultural traditions, it should be noted:

a rapid transition to an economic system that is not supported by the necessary legal framework and legal culture;

the absence in Soviet times of normal legal system and relevant cultural traditions;

disintegration of the party system of control

Corruption is an international problem. It is characteristic of all countries, regardless of the political structure and level of political development, and differs only in scale.

In 1994, Switzerland, which prided itself on the incorruptibility of its civil servants, was shocked by a huge scandal involving an official from the canton of Zurich - the auditor of restaurants and bars. He was charged with bribes worth almost $2 million. Immediately after this, an investigation was launched against 5 bribe-taking auditors from the Swiss government, who patronized individual firms in organizing government supplies. Then two more scandals erupted.

Numerous cases of corruption in Italy, affecting the highest political circles, led to the fact that more than 700 businessmen and politicians were brought to justice as a result of investigations that began in 1992 in Milan.

In September 1996, a special conference on the fight against corruption was held in Berlin. According to the materials presented there in many major cities The German prosecutor's offices are busy investigating thousands of cases of corruption: more than 1,000 in Frankfurt am Main, about 600 in Munich, about 400 in Hamburg, and about 200 in Berlin. In 1995, almost three thousand cases of bribery were officially registered. In 1994, almost 1,500 people faced trial, and in 1995, more than 2,000 people, and experts consider these figures to be just the tip of the iceberg. Corruption involves foreign refugee screening agencies, new car registration offices, and many other institutions. So, for cash, you can illegally "buy" the right to open a restaurant or a casino, driver's licenses, licenses to tow illegally parked cars. The construction industry is the most heavily corrupted.

In one of its bulletins, the international public organization "Transparency International" (hereinafter TI), whose goal is to resist corruption at the international and national levels and in business, stated: "It (corruption) has become a leading phenomenon in many leading industrial states, wealth and whose stable political traditions make it possible, however, to hide the extent of the enormous damage caused by corruption to social and humanitarian spheres. A 1995 study by national TI affiliates found that “corruption in the public sector takes the same forms and affects the same areas, whether it occurs in developed or developing country" .

§ 2. The concept of corruption

Corruption acts as a complex social phenomenon that originated in ancient times and continues to exist today in almost all countries of the world.

Corruption [lat. corruptio] means bribery; corruption and venality of public and political figures, government officials and officials.

to corrupt [lat. corrumpere] - to bribe someone with money or other material goods.

The definition of "corrumpere" in Roman law was interpreted in the most general way as to damage, break, destroy, bribe and meant illegal actions in judicial practice. This concept comes from a combination of the Latin words "correi" - several participants in one of the parties of an obligation regarding a single subject and "rumpere" - to break, damage, cancel. As a result, an independent term was formed, which assumed the participation in the activities of several (at least two) persons, the purpose of which was to spoil or damage the normal course of the judicial process or the process of managing the affairs of the company.

Roman jurists divided law into private and public. Public law expressed the interests of the state, and private - the interests of a private person. Private and public are divided according to the ways of regulating legal relations. In some areas, state power prescribes to citizens, in the name of the general state order, behavior that is obligatory for them for a certain moment and under certain conditions. This includes all branches of public law: state, criminal, financial, etc. In the field of private law or civil law, state power refrains from direct and authoritative regulation of relations. Here it provides the opportunity to regulate a variety of independent units that act as subjects of law. Such subjects are separate individuals ( individuals) and various artificial formations (associations or institutions) or so-called legal entities. All these subjects of law are assumed to be carriers of their own will and initiative, and it is they who are given the opportunity to regulate mutual relations with each other. The state does not define these relations forcibly, but only takes the position of an organ guarding what will be determined by others.

There are various definitions of corruption in scientific, educational and public-journalistic literature. The explanatory dictionary of the Russian language characterizes corruption as bribery with bribes, corruption of officials, politicians.

The textbook for universities "Criminal Law of Russia" states that "In the broad sense of the word, corruption is a social phenomenon that has affected the public administration apparatus, expressed in the decomposition of power, the deliberate use by state and municipal employees, other persons authorized to perform state functions, of their official position, status and authority of the position held for mercenary purposes for personal enrichment or in group interests.

The United Nations reference document on the international fight against corruption defines corruption as "the abuse of public power for personal gain".

This concept includes bribery (giving a reward to seduce a person from a position of duty), nepotism (substituting under the protection of lucrative or profitable positions by relatives or "one's own people") and misappropriation of public funds for private use.

The working definition of the Council of Europe's interdisciplinary team on corruption is much broader. Corruption is bribery and any other behavior of persons who are entrusted with the performance of certain duties in the public or private sector and which leads to a violation of the duties assigned to them by status of a public official, private employee, independent agent, or other kind of relationship and is intended to obtain any illegal benefits for themselves and others.

The report, prepared by the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy and the Indem Regional Public Foundation, states that “corruption (in the narrow sense of the word) is understood as a situation where an official makes an illegal decision (sometimes a decision morally unacceptable to public opinion), from which some other party benefits (for example, a firm that, thanks to this decision, provides itself with a state order contrary to the established procedure), and the official himself receives illegal remuneration from this party Characteristic signs of this situation: a decision is made that violates the law or unwritten social norms parties act by mutual agreement; both parties receive illegal benefits and advantages, both try to hide their actions.

The variety of points of view on the definition of corruption testifies to the complexity of this phenomenon and requires a deeper and more comprehensive study of it. In this voluminous work, it would be expedient to focus on the following two aspects. Firstly, deepening the theoretical level of knowledge of corruption, namely, the formation of its categorical apparatus, the study of the causes and factors contributing to its development, the impact on the economic, social and political life of society, etc. Secondly, a clear legal definition of corruption and the formation system of practical measures to combat this phenomenon.

Theoretically, the emergence and existence of corruption becomes possible from the moment of separation of management functions in social and economic activities. It is in this case that an official (manager) has the opportunity to manage resources and make decisions not in the interests of society, the state, the company, but based on his personal selfish motives. Historically, this refers to the time of the formation of the first class societies and state formations in the most ancient centers of human civilization: Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China in the III-II millennium BC.

Based on this, corruption, in our opinion, in its most general form as a socio-economic category expresses the relationship that develops between officials and individual members of society regarding the use of the opportunities of their position in order to obtain personal gain to the detriment of the interests of a third party (society, state , firms).

The subjects of corrupt relations are, on the one hand, officials, and, on the other hand, representatives of the legal and illegal private sector.

Almost all public and economic relations established and protected by law can be the object of corruption.

In the interests of fighting corruption, a clearer legal definition of this phenomenon is needed. Unfortunately, there is no definition of corruption in the current current Russian legislation. This is explained by the fact that, despite ten years of work, the law "On Combating Corruption" in our country has not yet been adopted.

The problem of the need to fight corruption became obvious already in the early 1990s. By this time, several projects aimed at combating corruption had been prepared and submitted to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Prior to the adoption of the law on the fight against corruption, the President of the Russian Federation issued Decree "On the fight against corruption in the public service system" No. 361 of April 4, 1992. This Decree noted the consequences generated by this negative phenomenon and determined a number of measures aimed at combating corruption. The decree was a step in the right direction, but it solved little and was poorly implemented. The concept of corruption was not given in this Decree.

On June 20, 1993, the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation adopted the Law of the Russian Federation "On Combating Corruption". However, this Law was not signed by the President of the Russian Federation and did not enter into force. After the dissolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation, the lower house of the new parliament - the State Duma - continued to work on improving the draft Law. The federal law "On Combating Corruption" in the new edition was twice adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation and in December 1995 was approved by the Upper Chamber - the Council of Federations of the Russian Federation. However, at the end of December of the same year, it was rejected by the President of the Russian Federation.

November 1997 The State Duma adopted in the third reading the Federal Law "On Combating Corruption". However, due to a number of legal and technical shortcomings, this normative act did not go through the rest of the stages of lawmaking.

The chronology of work on the preparation of the Law "On Combating Corruption" allows us to see that in Russia in modern conditions a paradoxical situation has developed. On the one hand, the corruption of the state apparatus and a number of non-state structures has become widespread known fact has become widespread and causes enormous damage to society. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that the adoption of this law and the formation of a system to combat corruption in general in Russia is frankly restrained.

Currently, work continues on the preparation of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Combating Corruption". Article 2 of the draft Federal Law "On Combating Corruption" defines corruption as "acceptance of material and other benefits and advantages not provided for by law by persons authorized to perform state functions, or persons equated to them, by using their status and opportunities associated with it ( venality), as well as bribery of these persons by illegally providing them with physical and legal entities these benefits and benefits.

This definition will be used throughout this tutorial.

§ 3. Types of corruption

Depending on the field of activity, the following types of corruption should be distinguished:

Corruption in the sphere of public administration.

parliamentary corruption.

Corruption in enterprises.

Corruption in the sphere of public administration takes place because there is an opportunity for a civil servant (official) to manage state resources and make decisions not in the interests of the state and society, but based on their personal selfish motives.

Depending on the hierarchical position of civil servants, corruption can be divided into top and bottom.

The first covers politicians, higher and middle officials and is associated with the adoption of decisions that have a high price (formulations of laws, government orders, changes in ownership, etc.). The second is common on the middle and lower levels and is associated with constant, routine interaction between officials and citizens (fines, registrations, etc.).

Often, both parties interested in a corrupt transaction belong to the same state organization. For example, when an official gives a bribe to his boss for covering up the corrupt actions of the bribe-giver, this is also corruption, which is usually called "vertical". It usually acts as a bridge between top and bottom corruption. This is especially dangerous, since it indicates the transition of corruption from the stage of disparate acts to the stage of taking root organized forms.

Most experts who study corruption include the purchase of votes during elections as well.

According to the Constitution, the voter has a resource called "authority". He delegates these powers to elected persons through a specific type of decision - voting. The voter must make this decision based on considerations of transferring his powers to someone who, in his opinion, can represent his interests, which is a socially recognized norm. In the case of buying votes, the voter and the candidate enter into a deal, as a result of which the voter, violating the mentioned norm, receives money or other benefits, the candidate, violating the electoral legislation, hopes to acquire a power resource. It is clear that this is not the only type of corrupt practices in politics.

Finally, let's mention corruption in non-governmental organizations, the existence of which is recognized by experts. An employee of an organization (commercial or public) can also dispose of resources that do not belong to him: he also has the possibility of illegal enrichment through actions that violate the interests of the organization, in favor of the second party, which receives its benefits from this. An obvious example from Russian life is loans received for bribes from commercial banks for projects whose purpose is to withdraw money and disappear. Thus, the UFSNP in St. Petersburg in the course of work on criminal cases under Art. 1622 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, it was established that the Varash company, which received 200 million rubles from various commercial structures as an advance payment for goods, and Extroservice LLP, which received a loan from the Baltic Bank in the amount of 300 million rubles, converted these funds , transported them abroad under a false contract and ceased their activities. The director of the company "Varash" was killed.

§ 4. Socio-economic and political consequences generated by corruption

Corruption has a corrupting effect on all spheres of society: economy, social sphere, politics. The negative consequences generated by this phenomenon not only impede the progressive, progressive development of society, but also pose a serious threat to the interests of the country's national security.

In the economic sphere, corruption contributes to the emergence and development of a number of negative phenomena and processes:

Violates the mechanism of market competition, since the winner is not the one who is competitive, but the one who was able to get advantages for bribes. This contributes to the emergence of monopolistic tendencies in the economy, reducing the efficiency of its functioning and discrediting the ideas of free competition.

It entails an inefficient distribution of state budget funds, especially in the distribution of government orders and the allocation of loans, thereby hindering the effective implementation of government programs.

It leads to an unfair distribution of income, enriching the subjects of corrupt relations at the expense of other members of society.

Contributes to higher prices for goods and services due to the so-called corrupt "overhead" as a result of which the consumer suffers.

It is a means of providing favorable conditions for the formation and development of organized crime and the shadow economy. This leads to lower tax revenues in the state budget, the outflow of capital abroad and hinders the ability of the state to effectively perform its economic, political and social functions.

In the social sphere, the negative consequences of corruption are as follows:

Corruption implies a significant difference between declared and real values ​​and forms a "double standard" of morality and behavior among members of society. This leads to the fact that money becomes the measure of everything in society, the significance of a person is determined by the size of his personal fortune, regardless of the methods of obtaining it, there is a devaluation and destruction of civilized social regulators of people's behavior: moral norms, religious rights, public opinion, etc.

Corruption contributes to the unfair redistribution of life's blessings in favor of narrow oligarchic groups, which results in a sharp increase in property inequality among the population, the impoverishment of a significant part of society and an increase in social tension in the country.

Corruption discredits law as the main instrument for regulating the life of the state and society. In the public mind, an idea is being formed about the defenselessness of citizens both in the face of power and in the face of crime.

In the political sphere, the negative consequences of corruption are manifested in the following:

Corruption contributes to the shift of policy goals from national to ensuring the rule of oligarchic clans and groups.

Corrupt entities hiding their capital abroad are turning into a "fifth column" and contributing to the betrayal of the country's national security interests.

Corruption undermines the prestige of the country in the international arena, contributes to its political and economic isolation.

Corruption reduces society's trust in government, causes disappointment in the values ​​of democracy and can contribute to the transition to another, more rigid form of government - dictatorship.

§ 5. Economic losses from corruption

One of the most important problems that contribute to the knowledge of corruption, its coverage and overcoming, is to determine the extent of the damage caused to society by this negative phenomenon.

To assess the losses from corruption, let's turn to the report prepared by the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and the Indem Foundation, which summarizes a number of examples where such damage has been identified.

First, it has been calculated that in Italy, following Operation Clean Hands against corruption, public spending on road construction has been reduced by 20%.

Secondly, scientists at Harvard University have calculated that reducing a country's corruption from the level of Mexico to the level of Singapore produces an effect equivalent to a 20% increase in tax collection.

If this estimate is applied to the amount of tax revenue collected in Russia in 1997 (according to the government, 65% of the planned budget), then 20% will be 49 trillion (non-denominated) rubles. This is more than all last year's budget expenditures for science, education, health care and culture and art combined.

Thirdly, let's mention the case of one British official of the Ministry of Defense, who was sentenced to 4 years for bribes, the minimum value of which was 2.25 million dollars. Experts from the British branch of TI found that the damage caused by the actions of the official, for which he received bribes, amounted to 200 million dollars, i.e. almost a hundred times greater than the total amount of bribes. It is easy to see from many domestic examples that this ratio between the amount of bribes and the damage caused by corrupt decisions can be even more significant.

Fourth, attention should be paid to the world's most widespread source of top-level corruption - government orders and purchases. According to estimates, losses from corruption in this area often exceed 30% of all budget expenditures under these items. (If we use this ratio, then anti-corruption measures are able to save us from losses in the military sphere alone in the amount of almost 8 trillion non-denominated rubles.)

According to Udo Miller, head of the Hesse State Audit Office, bribes in this area often amount to up to 20% of the amount of transactions; however, the bribes are not paid in cash, but are transferred to the appropriate persons through shell companies or take the form of inflated bills for work performed. According to experts, the cost of about 40% of all buildings erected by order of federal, land and municipal authorities is overpriced. According to the Chief Prosecutor of Frankfurt am Main, corruption in construction inflicts damage to the state in the amount of 10 billion marks annually, in particular by overestimating the real market cost of work by 30%.

Dieter Frisch, former CEO on Development at the European Commission, noted that when losses increase in a country due to economically weak corrupt projects, these losses do not come down to an excess of 10-20% of the cost of bribes, but include, as a rule, the entire cost of unproductive and unnecessary projects.

To the above examples, we can add the estimates of our law enforcement agencies, according to which criminal structures in certain industries - oil, gas, rare metals - spend up to 50% of their profits (real, not declared) on bribing various officials. If we use the above ratio between the size of bribes and losses from corruption, then it is easy to establish the order of the corresponding amounts, which will be calculated in billions of dollars.

Now let's turn to grassroots corruption. According to some estimates, total amount bribes paid by small entrepreneurs is equivalent to 3% of GDP. According to experts of the Russian public organization "Technologies - XXI Century", small entrepreneurs spend at least $500 million a month on bribes to officials throughout the country! In a year, this turns into a sum of 6 billion dollars. (It should be added that the above calculations do not include payments from small entrepreneurs to "roofs".) Preliminary analysis shows that 10% of all income in small and medium-sized businesses is spent on corrupt transactions. At the same time, at the initial stage (registration of enterprises, etc.), the costs are significantly higher. "Entering business" requires permission from about 50 officials. These losses are passed directly on to ordinary buyers and small business customers, since the money spent on bribes is built into the price of goods and services.

Add to this the poorly studied and practically uncontrolled corruption within enterprises and non-governmental organizations (an example is the provision of loans by commercial banks for bribes), which also reduces the efficiency of the economy.

Thus, the total losses from corruption in our country can be from 10 to 20 billion dollars a year. These data are not presented here to surprise or scare anyone. It is important to see differently how profitable investments in serious meaningful activities to systematically limit corruption can be.

§ 6. General characteristics of malfeasance

Corrupt practices

Legalization of funds or other property acquired illegally

Abuse of power

Illegal participation in business activities

The effectiveness of the fight against corruption manifestations largely depends on the interaction of all branches of government, their joint responsibility for the process of improving society. The fight against corruption should be carried out using a wide range of legal, economic and other measures. One of the components of an effective fight against corruption is the existence of an appropriate legislative framework, adequate to the degree of its danger and capable of responding to all types of corruption offenses.

Corrupt practices. During the Soviet period Russian history regulated responsibility for receiving a bribe, giving a bribe, mediation in bribery and provocation of a bribe. According to the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (1996), the concept of "bribery" covers two crimes: taking a bribe (Article 290 of the Criminal Code) and giving a bribe (Article 291 of the Criminal Code). There is no special article in the Code on liability for mediation in bribery. The provocation of a bribe (Article 304 of the Criminal Code) is classified as a crime against justice.

Receiving a bribe is defined as the receipt by an official (official) personally or through an intermediary of a bribe in the form of money, securities, other property or property benefits for actions (inaction) in favor of the bribe giver or persons represented by him, if such actions (inaction) are included in official the powers of an official or, by virtue of his official position, he can contribute to such actions (inaction), as well as for general patronage or connivance in the service (part 1 of article 290 of the Criminal Code). This crime is punishable by a fine in the amount of 700 to 1000 minimum wages or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of seven months to one year, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years. Responsibility increases (part 2 of article 290) when an official receives a bribe for illegal actions (inaction). Acceptance of a bribe by a person holding a public position of the Russian Federation or a public position of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as the head of a local government body (part 3 of article 290) is recognized as a qualified type. The law considers the commission of this act to be especially qualified types of taking a bribe (part 4 of article 290):

a) by a group of persons by prior agreement or by an organized group;

b) repeatedly;

c) with extortion of a bribe;

d) on a large scale.

In this regard, the acts provided for in Part 1 of Art. 290 are considered crimes of medium gravity, in parts 2 and 3 of Art. 290 - serious, and in part 4 of Art. 290 - especially grave crimes. Just like other crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local governments, taking a bribe is an encroachment on the normal activities of the public administration apparatus. However, taking into account the nature of the crime, some specific features of its immediate object can be noted.

The new law clearly emphasizes the property nature of the subject of the bribe. The receipt by an official of various types of services of an intangible nature is not recognized as bribery. In appropriate cases, these actions can be considered as abuse of power.

Property values ​​(services) can be transferred (provided) both to the official - the recipient of the bribe, and to family members or other persons close to the bribe taker, and can also be directly transferred to the bank to the account of the bribe recipient. In practice, there were cases when a briber opened a bearer account in a bank and handed a savings (deposit) certificate to an official as a bribe.

The official position of a person determines not only his legal capabilities related to the range of rights and obligations in his position, but also the actual opportunities arising from the authority of his position in a state body, local government, state or municipal institution, the Armed Forces, other troops and military formations, as well as from official relations of an official. Using them, an official can, for a reward, influence, in one way or another contribute to the commission (non-commission) of an action beneficial for the bribe giver by another official, who may not know anything about this reward. Such persons may also be consultants, referents, secretaries, assistants to responsible officials, heads of offices, inspectors, etc. officials who themselves do not make final decisions on issues of interest to bribe givers, but the essence of the decision taken by another official largely depends on the actions they perform in the service, prepared documents and other information.

The use by an official in this case of only family ties, friendly or family relations in order to achieve the result desired by the person who transferred the remuneration to him, is not considered as the use of official position, i.e. excludes the elements of taking a bribe.

Bribery is also recognized as illegal receipt by an official of material values ​​and benefits of a property nature for general protection or connivance to a person transferring these values ​​or providing a property service, or to persons represented by him, and is punishable by imprisonment for a term of five to ten years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years. This kind of bribery is typical when receiving systematic rewards (offerings) from employees subordinate or controlled by an official, since the official constantly resolves issues that affect their interests, and the latter are interested in the favorable attitude of the bribe taker towards them.

Receiving a bribe for patronage or connivance is typical for the corrupt apparatus of state and municipal bodies, various power structures, in particular in cases where representatives of organized crime, as it were, take on the maintenance of officials, reasonably expecting that, if necessary, they will act in the interests of bribe-givers. Receiving a bribe is considered a crime from the moment the official (official) accepts at least part of the bribe. Sometimes an official, using his official position, commits an act for a bribe, which in itself is a crime. For example, an official issues a fake document for a bribe, illegally exempts from criminal liability, passes a deliberately unjust sentence or decision, falsifies evidence, aids in theft, smuggling, violates the rules of vacation drugs etc. In this case, liability arises not only for taking a bribe, but also for these illegal, criminal actions (inaction) themselves.

Thus, a bribe can have the character of a bribe, when the very fact of transferring a reward or an agreement on it determines the corresponding behavior (action or inaction) of an official, but it can also be an illegal financial gratitude - a reward for what has already been done, although there is no prior agreement on this reward. was and its recipient performed an official action (inaction), not counting on subsequent remuneration.

At the same time, the law allows the giving of "ordinary gifts, the value of which does not exceed five minimum wages established by law" to civil servants and employees of municipalities. Accepting such a gift does not entail any responsibility and does not even deserve moral condemnation. An "ordinary gift" that does not entail any responsibility both for the official who accepted it and for the person who presented the gift differs from a bribe not only in a relatively small amount. Regardless of the size of this "ordinary gift", it should, in our opinion, be regarded as a bribe in the following cases:

if there has been extortion of this reward;

if the reward was in the nature of a bribe;

if the remuneration was transferred to an official for illegal actions (inaction).

Now let's consider how the current legislation interprets the especially qualifying signs of taking a bribe.

Receiving a bribe by prior agreement or by an organized group. A bribe should be considered as received by prior agreement by a group of persons, if two or more officials participated in the commission of the crime, in advance, i.e. prior to the start of the crime, agreeing to do so. The conspiracy of criminals includes that they will receive illegal remuneration (services) for certain actions (inaction) in the interests of the briber or the legal or natural persons represented by him using his official position or for general patronage or connivance in the service. The crime is considered completed from the moment the bribe is accepted by at least one of these persons.

The repeated receipt of a bribe involves the commission of acts under Art. 290 of the Criminal Code, two or more times, regardless of whether the official was convicted of a previous crime or not.

Taking a bribe by extorting it was interpreted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR in a decision of March 30, 1990 as "demanding a bribe by an official under the threat of actions that may harm the legitimate interests of the bribe giver, or deliberately placing the latter in such conditions under which he is forced to pay a bribe in order to prevent harmful consequences for his law-protected interests.

A large amount of bribe taking is calculated in monetary terms. The value of the subject of a bribe is determined on the basis of prices for goods, rates or tariffs for services, the exchange rate (if the bribe was given in foreign currency) that existed at the time of the commission of the crime, and in their absence - on the basis of an expert opinion. According to the note to Art. 290 of the Criminal Code, a large amount of a bribe is recognized as the amount of money, the value of securities, other property or benefits of a property nature, exceeding 300 minimum wages.

These types of crimes are punishable by imprisonment for a term of seven to twelve years, with or without confiscation of property.

Giving a bribe (Article 291 of the Criminal Code) consists in the illegal delivery, transfer of material values ​​or the provision of property benefits to an official personally or through an intermediary for the commission of actions (inaction) included in the official powers of an official, in favor of the bribe giver or persons represented by him, or for facilitating by an official, by virtue of his position, the commission of actions (inaction) by another official, or for general patronage or connivance in the service of a bribe giver or persons represented by him (part 1 of article 291 of the Criminal Code - punishable by a fine in the amount of 200 to 500 times the minimum wage labor or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of two to five months, or by corrective labor for a term of one to two years, or by arrest for a term of three to six months, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to three years), as well as for illegal actions (inaction) of an official in the service (part 2 of article 291 of the Criminal Code - orders shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of 700 to 1000 times the minimum wage or in the amount of the wage or other income of the convicted person for a period of seven months to one year, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to eight years). Giving a bribe is inextricably linked to receiving it. Receiving a bribe cannot take place if there was no bribe. Accordingly, the completed crime of giving a bribe cannot take place if the material values ​​or benefits of a property nature that were the subject of the bribe were not accepted by the official. Therefore, offering material values ​​or property benefits to an official, leaving valuables in the table or in the clothes of an official, mailing them in a letter or parcel, and even transferring them to relatives of an official or an intermediary in bribery on the part of an official, if this is not followed by acceptance by the latter bribes, it is necessary to qualify not as a completed crime, but as an attempt to give a bribe.

Thus, giving a bribe is a kind of necessary complicity in receiving a bribe, unlike other cases of complicity in this crime against the interests of the public service, singled out as an independent crime.

By giving a bribe, the subject can persuade an official to commit a knowingly illegal action (inaction) in his service, which in itself is a crime. In these cases, he must bear responsibility not only for giving a bribe, but also for complicity (instigation) in the crime of an official.

Individuals, persons performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, and officials can act as a bribe giver, which does not matter for the qualification of giving a bribe. An official or a person exercising managerial functions in a commercial or other organization who has proposed to an employee subordinate to him in the service to achieve the desired action or inaction by giving a bribe shall be liable as a bribe giver, and an employee who has agreed to perform the stipulated actions in exchange for a bribe and who has given the bribe must bear responsibility as an accomplice in giving a bribe.

The motives for giving a bribe and the goals that the bribe-giver achieves with the help of a bribe may be different. These are mercenary motives, and motives of a personal nature, the desire to circumvent the law, to get rid of responsibility, the desire to thank an official for his decision, which satisfies the interests of the bribe giver, etc. However, a bribe is always given for official actions (inaction) of an official in the interests of the briber himself or the persons he represents. These may be the interests of family members of the bribe giver, other relatives or close persons, as well as the interests of commercial and non-profit organizations, state or municipal bodies or institutions that are managed or authorized by the bribe giver.

There are two independent grounds for the release of a bribe-giver from criminal liability:

if a bribe has been extorted against him by an official;

if, after giving a bribe, he voluntarily reported the incident to the body that has the right to initiate a criminal case.

If any of these circumstances are identified, the authorities preliminary investigation, the prosecutor or the court are obliged to release the bribe-giver from criminal liability.

The release of bribe-givers from criminal liability on the grounds of soliciting a bribe or voluntarily reporting a bribe 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, which are subject to conversion into state revenue.

Legalization of funds or other property acquired illegally. The current legislation establishes liability for financial transactions and other transactions with money or other property acquired knowingly illegally, as well as the use of these funds or other property for entrepreneurial or other economic activities, i.e. for the legalization (laundering) of funds or other property acquired illegally. Forms of liability are defined in Art. 174 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - in the form of a fine in the amount of 500 to 700 minimum wages or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of five to seven months, or imprisonment for up to four years with a fine in the amount of up to 100 minimum wages wages or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to one month or without it.

Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is new. Consider the provisions of this article and its controversial issues. The criminalization of the act envisaged by it occurred as a result of lengthy, still unfinished discussions, during which the positive and negative consequences of the introduction of an appropriate criminal law ban were weighed, as well as under the influence of foreign legislation operating in other socio-economic conditions.

The purpose of the ban is to protect the economic system of the country and, above all, monetary circulation from the receipt of large volumes of uncontrolled funds or other property, as well as to prevent criminal activities aimed at making profit and carried out by organized criminal groups or criminals who are not part of them.

Socio-behaviorally, the crime consists in the fact that proceeds from drug trafficking and other crimes, funds hidden from taxes, receive legal status with the help of other persons (who did not participate in their acquisition) and can be freely used at the discretion of the person who received them. The corpus delicti under this article is complex. It involves the commission of a previous act by one person, i.e. knowingly acquiring property by illegal means, then committing by another person the main act, which includes either the conduct by the subject of this crime of financial transactions and other transactions with property that is the subject of the previous act, or the use of this property for entrepreneurial or other economic activities.

The objective side of the crime. This crime is considered completed at the moment of conducting a transaction recognized as financial or other transaction that leads to a result desired by the participants (transfer of money, purchase of convertible currency, etc.), or at the moment of concluding a transaction, which is determined by civil law, depending on the nature deals. The acquisition of property knowingly illegally is the taking of property or obtaining actual rights to it without the necessary legal grounds.

The knowledge of illegal acquisition means that the person acted with direct intent regarding the acquisition, certainly knowing that the way in which he acquires money or other property is illegal.

The concept of financial transactions acquires legal meaning in the context of financial activities, covering, in particular, settlement, deposit and other operations.

Other transactions in accordance with civil law are all actions of citizens and legal entities aimed at establishing, changing or terminating civil rights and obligations.

Other economic activities in the context of this article should be considered activities that do not have profit as the main goal, but require the expenditure of funds or the use of other property to achieve other goals, such as health protection, legal assistance, etc.

The expediency of distinguishing between entrepreneurial and other economic activities lies in the fact that some types of activities, requiring significant costs and involving remuneration and various benefits, are still not recognized as entrepreneurial. The use of these funds means the performance of any types of transactions or other active actions, including the processing of other property, for the purpose of carrying out entrepreneurial or other economic activities, i.e. conclusion of sale and purchase agreements, crediting, payment for works or services performed. It is disputable to refer to this activity the placement of funds on a deposit for the purpose of making a profit.

The subjective side of this crime is the direct intent and purpose of legalization. The subject of the crime is aware of the social danger of his actions, knowing of the illegal origin of funds or property, and wishes to make a financial transaction or other transaction with them.

Abuse of official powers (Article 285 of the Criminal Code) is one of the crimes of medium gravity, however, if there are qualifying circumstances provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of Art. 285 of the Criminal Code, it becomes a serious crime.

The law defines abuse of official powers as the use by an official of his official powers contrary to the interests of the service, if this act is committed out of mercenary or other personal interest and entailed a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the legally protected interests of society or the state and is punishable by a fine of 200 to 500 times the minimum wage or in the amount of the wage or other income of the convicted person for a period of two to five months, or by compulsory work for a term of one hundred and eighty to two hundred and forty hours, or by corrective labor for a term of one to two years, or arrest for a term of three to six months, or imprisonment for a term of up to three years.

Consider the objective and subjective aspects of this crime.

The objective side of the abuse of power includes three mandatory features:

use by an official of his official powers contrary to the interests of the service;

the onset of consequences in the form of a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or legally protected interests of society or the state;

causal relationship between an act and a consequence.

A mandatory element of the objective side of the abuse of power is a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or state or public interests protected by law. Only under the condition of the occurrence of this consequence will the abuse of power or official position be a complete crime. Since a material violation is largely an evaluative concept, it must be motivated in the documents of the investigation and the court. It is essential that the subject of abuse of official powers can only be an official.

From the subjective side, abuse of power is a crime committed with direct or indirect intent. The guilty official is aware of the social danger of the act.

An obligatory sign of the subjective side of official abuse is the motive defined in the law as selfish or other personal interest.

The law defines official forgery as the introduction by an official, as well as a civil servant or an employee of a local self-government body who is not an official, into official documents of knowingly false information, as well as the introduction of corrections into these documents that distort their actual content, if these acts are committed out of mercenary or other personal interest. It is in this way that the subject commits an encroachment on the normal activity of the public administration apparatus, which is the object of this crime.

Information contained in automated information systems, is not an official document. Distortion (modification) of computer information entails liability under Art. 272 of the Criminal Code. A document received from an automated information system acquires legal force after it is signed by an official in the manner prescribed by the legislation of the Russian Federation (Article 5 of the Federal Law "On Information, Informatization and Information Protection").

The objective side of the official forgery can be performed by one of two actions indicated directly in the text of the law:

entering deliberately false information into official documents;

making corrections to these documents that distort their actual content.

Thus, forgery can be material - making various changes to a valid document, and intellectual - drawing up a document that is false in content, but authentic in form. The composition of the forgery is formal and the crime is recognized as completed from the moment the specified actions were committed, regardless of whether this act entailed any consequences, whether this forged document was used.

Entering deliberately false information into official documents is the recording of information that does not correspond to reality in an original document, which at the same time retains all the signs and details of the real one. This act can also represent the production of a completely fake document both in form and content. This type of forgery also includes marking the document with a different number that does not correspond to the actual date of preparation or issue of the document, forging the signature of another official, etc.

Making corrections to an official document that distort its actual content can be done by erasing, adding, and in other ways. Erasure consists in the destruction of previous entries or details in a genuine document in various ways, with the possible replacement of them with false ones.

A prerequisite for recognizing the deed as an official forgery is the commission of appropriate actions in relation to official documents by an official or employee in connection with the performance of their official duties (within or in excess of official competence). If the subject, in principle, being an official or employee, forges an unofficial document or does not use the possibilities that he has by virtue of his official position when forging, there is no composition of official forgery. In appropriate cases, these actions can be qualified under Art. 327 of the Criminal Code as a forgery of a certificate or other official document granting rights or relieving duties, committed by a private person as a crime against the management order.

The subjective side of the official forgery is characterized by direct intent. The guilty person knows for certain that he is introducing false information into official documents, and just as consciously performs other actions that make up the essence of forgery. At the same time, he must be guided by selfish or other personal motives. The presence of any other motive in the commission of actions provided for in Art. 292 of the Criminal Code, excludes liability for official forgery. The purpose of falsification by an official or an employee of official documents is not stipulated by the law. However, in cases where forgery is committed with the aim of subsequently using false documents to commit another grave or especially grave crime, the deed must be qualified in the aggregate as official forgery and preparation for a grave or especially grave crime.

The use by an official or an employee of deliberately made fictitious documents when committing the theft of another's property by fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement must be qualified in aggregate as theft and official forgery.

In the same way, the totality of crimes qualifies the actions of an official or employee who uses an official document forged by him to commit or conceal any other crime. Forgery does not require independent qualification only when it is a constructive sign of another crime (for example, smuggling).

If an official forgery is committed in order to assist another person in committing a crime, the perpetrator is held liable under Art. 292 of the Criminal Code and for complicity in the commission of another crime. So, if an official, state or municipal employee commits forgery and issues a false document, realizing that this document will be used to commit theft of someone else's property, the perpetrator will be responsible for both forgery and complicity in theft.

The law considers forgery to be a minor crime. This crime is punishable by a fine in the amount of 100 to 200 times the minimum wage, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period of one to two months, or by compulsory labor for a term of 180 to 240 hours, or by corrective labor for a term of one to two years, or by arrest for a term of one to two years, or by arrest for a term of three to six months, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to two years.

Illegal participation in entrepreneurial activity (Article 289 of the Criminal Code) is a typical corruption crime of officials.

A civil servant is obliged to transfer to trust management under the guarantee of the state for the duration of the civil service the shares (blocks of shares) in his ownership in authorized capital commercial organizations in the manner prescribed by federal law. The prohibition to engage in entrepreneurial activity is distributed in accordance with Art. 60 of the Federal Law "On general principles organizations of local self-government in the Russian Federation" and on municipal employees.

Article 289 of the Criminal Code provides for criminal liability for violation of this prohibition, i.e. for the creation by an official of an organization carrying out entrepreneurial activities, or for participation in the management of such an organization personally or through a trusted person, contrary to the prohibition established by law, if these acts are related to the provision of benefits and advantages to such an organization or protection in another form. Thus, the procedure and principles of carrying out state and municipal service can be considered the direct object of this crime.

The objective side of the crime can be carried out by two different actions:

establishment by an official of an organization carrying out entrepreneurial activity, contrary to the prohibition established by law. In this case, the official acts as a founder (one of the co-founders) of a commercial organization;

participation of an official in the management of an organization carrying out entrepreneurial activities, personally or through a trusted person, contrary to the prohibition established by law.

An obligatory condition for the criminal liability of an official for violating the prohibition on participation in entrepreneurial activity is that he, using his official powers and opportunities, provided benefits and advantages to an entrepreneurial organization established by him or an organization in the management of which he participates, or patronized them in another form. (preferential taxation, first-priority or preferential loans, the creation of various obstacles for competitors and their removal from the market, exemption from various inspections, audits, etc.).

The law does not provide for any special consequences of this activity necessary for the onset of criminal liability.

On the subjective side, a crime is committed with direct intent, as a rule, for selfish motives, although the motive for the crime is not directly specified in the law.

The subject of the crime is an official.

Illegal participation in entrepreneurial activity is a crime of minor gravity and is punishable by deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to five years with a fine in the amount of 100 to 200 times the minimum wage or in the amount of the wage or other income of the convicted person for a period of one up to two months, or by compulsory works for a term of one hundred and eighty to two hundred and forty hours, or by arrest for a term of three to six months, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to two years.

Bibliography

Reader on the history of the Ancient East. Ch. 1., M., 1980.

Kangle R.P. The Kantiliya Arthasastra VI. Bombay, 1960.

Lekhin I.V., Petrov F.N. Vocabulary foreign words. M., 1954.

Ozhegov S.I., Shvetsova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1995.

Criminal law of Russia. M., 1998.

Organized Crime - 3 / Ed. A.I.Dolgova, S.V.Dyakova. Moscow: Criminological Association, 1996.

Kuklin I.N., Smirnov M.P. Manifestations of organized crime in the field of taxation and measures to combat it // Organized Crime - 3. M .: Criminological Association, 1996.

Aslund A. Reforms and appropriation of rent in the Russian economy // Social policy during the transition to the market: problems and solutions. Moscow: Carnegie Moscow Center, 1996.

Shiryaev V.N. Bribery and extortion in connection with the general doctrine of malfeasance. Yaroslavl, 1916.

Organized Crime - 4 / Ed. A.I. Dolgovoy. Moscow: Criminological Association, 1998.

Crime, statistics, law. M., 1998.

Criminal law of Russia: Textbook for universities. T. 2. Special part. M.: Publishing house "Norma-Infra", 1998.

Introduction

At present, the fight against corruption is often mentioned. The destructive nature of the existing high corruption on state development and organization, the worldview of citizens, and the entire economy as a whole was repeatedly noted. Countering corruption is becoming one of the most urgent tasks and priority areas of legal reform in Russia. The problem of corruption is often covered in the media, public speaking. Various directions and methods of combating corruption are being developed.

Today, corruption in Russia has become systemic and cannot be defeated by administrative measures alone. It is determined to a large extent by the inefficiency of public administration, the peculiarities of the public mentality, the specifics of the political culture, the underdevelopment civil institutions designed to control the organs of executive power. This is exacerbated by the fact that the socio-economic and political conditions of society are constantly changing, which renews the "corruption field" of social interactions, introducing more and more actors into it. Objects and subjects of corruption relations are constantly expanding. Almost all citizens face corruption, but only a few facts are identified and, accordingly, punished, which ultimately undermines the principle of the inevitability of punishment.

According to various experts, the economic losses from corruption in modern Russia account for 5 to 50% of the country's gross domestic product.

The purpose of this work is to study corruption as a global management problem. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

1. To study the concept and types of corruption;

2. Study and analyze the nature, causes and factors that encourage corruption;

3. Study corruption in terms of economic security;

4. Consider mechanisms for combating corruption in the public sector;

5. Analyze ways to counter.

The object of the study is corruption as a global management problem.

The subject of the study is corruption as a socio-economic phenomenon, its essence, causes and methods of counteraction.

In preparation for the work, materials from educational and methodological literature, as well as periodicals on the topic of the study, were used.

In accordance with the tasks course work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a list of sources and references that reveal the main provisions of the topic.

The concept, essence and causes of corruption

The concept of corruption

Corruption, according to a common definition, is a social phenomenon that refers to the actions of officials and other privileged persons within the framework of models outside the standards at the level of laws, industry norms and social principles, as a rule, causing material damage to the state, company, society. The concept of corruption, therefore, has a predominantly economic nature. The person carrying out the type of action under consideration, as a rule, is interested in material gain. International interpretations According to the definition adopted by the organization Transparency International, whose activities are focused on the study of corruption phenomena, the type of activity under consideration is understood as the abuse of a trusted resource - usually a powerful one, in private interests. The Russian Federal Law "On Combating Corruption" contains an interesting wording. It says that the phenomenon under consideration is the abuse of position and authority, giving or receiving a bribe, commercial bribery and other options for the illegal use by a citizen of his official position as opposed to the interests of society and power in order to derive benefits. The Federal Law on Corruption, therefore, somewhat expands the interpretation of the term in the TI version, supplementing it with the fact that illegal acts of the corresponding type can be carried out not only by government, but also by business. The definition of corruption adopted by the UN looks different, it is a rather general formulation. According to UN documents, corruption is understood as a phenomenon of complex social, cultural and economic nature, present in all states. Some experts draw attention to the fact that even in the content of the UN Convention against Corruption, there is no specific definition of the phenomenon under consideration. Although, according to some analysts, there is some logic here - the essence and causes of corruption are so multifaceted that even at the level of one of the largest international structures it makes no sense to look for a common definition of this phenomenon. In every country in the world there may be precedents that allow it to be interpreted within the framework of concepts that may be completely different from those adopted in other states. Therefore, some experts believe that a common understanding by the world community of the problems caused by international corruption can be complicated. And all because there are no guidelines for finding a unified approach to the interpretation of this phenomenon.