A short message on the topic of corruption. What is corruption and ways to combat it. Anti-corruption methods

Corruption, concept and types

§ 1. The phenomenon of corruption (historical excursion)

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

Much attention is paid to social identities in the oldest section of the Bible - the Old Testament: “I know how many are your transgressions and how grave are your sins: you oppress the just, you take bribes, and you drive out the poor who seeks justice from the gates (Amos 5:12) ".

The ancient Indian treatise on the art of government, "Arthashastra" (IV century BC), emphasizes that the most important task facing the king is the fight against embezzlement. The treatise lists 40 ways of stealing government property and draws the disappointing 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 determine whether fish swimming in it drink water, it is impossible to determine whether officials assigned to affairs are appropriating property.” The main means of combating embezzlement is surveillance. The informer received a share of 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 corruption activities in Russia was implemented during the reign of Ivan III. His grandson Ivan IV (the Terrible) first introduced the death penalty as a punishment for excessive bribes.

Under Peter I, corruption and the tsar’s brutal fight against it became widespread in Russia. A typical episode is when, after many years of investigation, the Siberian governor Gagarin was exposed for 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 significant source of income for both minor government officials and dignitaries. For example, the Elizabethan chancellor Bestuzhev-Ryumin received 7 thousand rubles a year for his service to the Russian Empire, and 12 thousand rubles for his services to the British crown (as an “agent of influence”).

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 punished by the tsar more than once.

Of the latest 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 factory owners receive military orders during the First World War.

The change in government 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 term of at least 5 years, combined with forced labor for the same period). Subsequently, liability for bribery was established by the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922, 1926, 1960. These laws regulated liability for receiving a bribe, giving a bribe, mediation in bribery and provoking a bribe.

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

Secondly, the reasons for the occurrence of this phenomenon were associated with the conditions inherent in bourgeois society. For example, in the closed letter of the CPSU Central Committee “On strengthening 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 exploitative society.” The October Revolution eliminated the root causes of bribery, and “the Soviet administrative and managerial apparatus is an apparatus of a new type.” The reasons for corruption were listed as shortcomings in the work of party, trade union and government bodies, primarily in the field of education of workers.

A note from the Department of Administrative Bodies of the CPSU Central Committee and the CPC under the CPSU Central Committee on strengthening the fight against bribery in 1975-1980, dated May 21, 1981, states that in 1980 more than 6 thousand cases of bribery were identified, which is 50% more than in 1975. The emergence of organized groups is described (for example, more than 100 people in the USSR Ministry of Fisheries, headed by the deputy minister). It talks about the facts of conviction 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 elements of crimes are listed: release of scarce products; allocation of equipment and materials; adjustment and reduction of planned targets; appointment to responsible positions; concealment of fraud. Serious omissions in personnel work are indicated as reasons; bureaucracy and red tape when considering legitimate requests of citizens; poor handling of complaints and letters from citizens; gross violations of state, planning and financial discipline; liberalism towards bribe-takers (including in court verdicts); poor work with public opinion. It is reported that leading party workers (level - city and district committees) were punished 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 officials were practically untouchable. Rare exceptions include the cases of Tarada and Medunov from the highest regional leadership in Krasnodar, and the case of Shchelokov. When Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade Sushkov was convicted of bribes and abuses, the KGB and the Union Prosecutor General's Office 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 companies. 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 gave rise to corruption, since they went 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.

The entire post-war period, during and after perestroika, the growth of corruption occurred against the backdrop of a 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-established 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 determining the growth of corruption and having historical roots, in addition to the dysfunctions of the state machine and some historical and cultural traditions, it should be noted:

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

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

collapse of the party control system

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 integrity of its civil servants, was shocked by a huge scandal involving an official from the canton of Zurich, an inspector of restaurants and bars. He was accused of bribes amounting to almost $2 million. Immediately after this, an investigation was launched against 5 bribe-taking auditors from the Swiss government, who patronized individual companies in organizing government supplies. Then two more scandals broke out.

Numerous cases of corruption in Italy, affecting the highest levels of politics, led to more than 700 businessmen and politicians being brought to trial as a result of investigations that began in 1992 in Milan.

In September 1996, a special conference on combating corruption was held in Berlin. According to the materials presented there, in many large cities of Germany, prosecutors are busy investigating thousands of cases of corruption: in Frankfurt am Main there are more than 1000, in Munich about 600, in Hamburg about 400, in Berlin about 200. In 1995, almost three thousand were officially registered cases of bribery. In 1994, almost 1,500 people were put on trial, and in 1995, more than 2,000 people, and experts consider these data to be just the tip of the iceberg. Corruption involves foreign refugee inspection agencies, new car registration offices, and many other institutions. Thus, for cash you can illegally “buy” the right to open a restaurant or casino, driver’s licenses, and licenses to tow illegally parked cars. The construction industry is most affected by corruption.

In one of its newsletters, 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 countries, wealth and whose stable political traditions make it possible, however, to hide the scope of the enormous damage caused by corruption to the social and humanitarian spheres." A study conducted by TI's national affiliates in 1995 found that "corruption in the public sector takes the same forms and affects the same areas regardless of whether it occurs in a 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 corruption of public and political figures, government officials and officials.

Corrupt [lat. corrumpere] - to bribe someone with money or other material benefits.

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 to an obligation relationship regarding a single object and “rumpere” - to break, damage, cancel. As a result, an independent term was formed, which implied 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 society.

Roman jurists divided law into private and public. Public law expressed the interests of the state, and private law expressed the interests of the private individual. Private and public are divided according to the methods of regulating legal relations. In some areas, state power prescribes to citizens, in the name of general state order, mandatory behavior for them at 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 for regulation to many independent units that act as subjects of law. Such subjects are individuals (individuals) and various artificial entities (associations or institutions) or so-called legal entities. All these subjects of law are assumed to be bearers 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 a body that protects what will be determined by others.

There are different 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 and 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 apparatus of government, expressed in the disintegration of power, the deliberate use by state and municipal employees, other persons authorized to perform government functions, of their official position, status and authority of the position held for selfish purposes for personal enrichment or group interests."

The UN briefing document on the international fight against corruption defines corruption as “the abuse of public power to obtain personal gain.”

This concept includes bribery (giving a reward to seduce a person from a position of duty), nepotism (filling lucrative or profitable positions under the patronage of relatives or “insiders”) and misappropriation of public funds for private use.

The working definition of the Council of Europe's interdisciplinary group on corruption is much broader. Corruption is bribery and any other conduct by persons entrusted with the performance of certain duties in the public or private sector, which results in a breach of the duties imposed on them by their status as a public official, private employee, independent agent, or other type of relationship and has the purpose of obtaining any illegal benefits for yourself or others.

The report prepared by the Council on 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 that is morally unacceptable for public opinion), from which benefits some other party (for example, a company that secures a government order thanks to this decision contrary to the established procedure), and the official himself receives illegal remuneration from this party. Characteristic features of this situation: a decision is made that violates the law or unwritten social norms, both the parties act by mutual consent; both parties receive illegal benefits and advantages, both try to hide their actions."

The variety of points of view on the definition of corruption indicates the complexity of this phenomenon and requires a deeper and more comprehensive study. In this voluminous work it would be advisable to focus on the following two aspects. Firstly, deepening the theoretical level of knowledge of corruption, namely, the formation of its categorical apparatus, research into the causes of its occurrence and factors contributing to its development, influence on the economic, social and political life of society, etc. Secondly, a clear legal definition of corruption and the formation systems 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, or the company, but based on his own selfish motives. Historically, this dates back to the time of the formation of the first class societies and state formations in the ancient centers of human civilization: Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China in the 3rd-2nd millennia BC.

Based on this, corruption, in our opinion, in the 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 corruption relations are, on the one hand, officials, and on the other hand, representatives of the legal and illegal private sector.

The object of corruption can be almost all social and economic relations established and protected by law.

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

The problem of the need to fight corruption became obvious already in the early 90s. By this time, several projects aimed at combating corruption had been prepared and submitted to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Before the adoption of the anti-corruption law, the President of the Russian Federation issued Decree “On the fight against corruption in the public service system” No. 361 dated 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 decided 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 the Fight against Corruption.” However, this Law was not signed by the President of the Russian Federation and did not come 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 new version of the Federal Law “On the Fight against Corruption” was adopted twice by the State Duma of the Russian Federation and in December 1995 was approved by the Upper House - 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.

In November 1997, the State Duma adopted the Federal Law “On the Fight against Corruption” in the third reading. However, due to a number of legal and technical shortcomings, this normative act did not pass the remaining stages of lawmaking.

The chronology of work on the preparation of the Law “On the Fight against Corruption” allows us to see that a paradoxical situation has developed in Russia under modern conditions. On the one hand, corruption of the state apparatus and a number of non-state structures has become a widely known fact, has become widespread and is causing enormous damage to society. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that the adoption of this law and the formation of a system for combating corruption in general in Russia is openly being held back.

Currently, work continues on the preparation of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Fight against Corruption”. Article 2 of the draft Federal Law “On the Fight against Corruption” defines corruption as “the acceptance of material and other benefits and advantages not provided for by law by persons authorized to perform public functions, or persons equivalent to them, by using their status and related opportunities ( venality), as well as bribery of these persons by illegally providing them with these benefits and advantages by individuals and legal entities."

This is the definition we will use throughout this tutorial.

§ 3. Types of corruption

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

Corruption in public administration.

Parliamentary corruption.

Corruption in enterprises.

Corruption in the sphere of public administration occurs because it is possible for a civil servant (official) to manage public resources and make decisions not in the interests of the state and society, but based on his own 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 bureaucrats and is associated with making decisions that have a high price (formulas of laws, government orders, changes in forms of ownership, etc.). The second is common at 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 government organization. For example, when an official gives a bribe to his boss because the latter covers 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 because it indicates the transition of corruption from the stage of isolated acts to the stage of taking root organized forms.

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

According to the Constitution, the voter has a resource called “power”. He delegates these powers to elected officials 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 transaction, as a result of which the voter, violating the mentioned norm, receives money or other benefits; the candidate, violating the election legislation, hopes to gain a power resource. It is clear that this is not the only type of corrupt practices in politics.

Finally, let us mention corruption in non-governmental organizations, the presence 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 opportunity to illegally enrich himself through actions that violate the interests of the organization, in favor of the other party, who receives their own benefits from this. An obvious example from Russian life is loans obtained through bribes from commercial banks for projects whose purpose is to withdraw the money and disappear. Thus, the Federal Tax Service for St. Petersburg, while working on criminal cases under Art. 1622 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR it is established that the Varash company, which received 200 million rubles as an advance payment for goods from various commercial structures, 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 Varash company was killed.

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

Corruption has a corrupting influence on all spheres of society: the economy, the social sphere, and 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:

It violates the mechanism of market competition, since the winner is not the one who is competitive, but the one who was able to obtain advantages through 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 ineffective distribution of state budget funds, especially when distributing government orders and issuing loans, thereby preventing the effective implementation of government programs.

Leads to 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 costs”, as a result of which the consumer suffers.

It is a means of helping to ensure favorable conditions for the formation and development of organized crime and the shadow economy. This leads to a decrease in tax revenues to the state budget, an outflow of capital abroad and makes it difficult for the state to effectively fulfill its economic, political and social functions.

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

Corruption presupposes a significant difference between declared and real values ​​and creates 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 importance of a person is determined by the size of his personal fortune, regardless of the methods of obtaining it, there is a devaluation and breakdown of civilized social regulators of people’s behavior: moral norms, religious law, public opinion, etc.

Corruption contributes to the unfair redistribution of life's benefits 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 increased social tension in the country.

Corruption discredits law as the main instrument for regulating the life of the state and society. In the public consciousness, an idea is 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 a shift in policy goals from national ones to ensuring the rule of oligarchic clans and groups.

Corrupt entities hiding their capital abroad turn into a “fifth column” and contribute to the betrayal of the country’s national security interests.

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

Corruption reduces public 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 contributing to the knowledge of corruption, its coverage and overcoming, is determining the scale of damage caused to society by this negative phenomenon.

To assess the losses from corruption, let us 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 was established.

First, it was estimated that in Italy, after the Anti-Corruption Operation Clean Hands, government spending on road construction fell 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 an increase in tax collection by 20%.

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

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

Fourthly, attention should be paid to the most widespread source of top-level corruption throughout the world - government orders and procurement. According to estimates, losses from corruption in this area often exceed 30% of all budget expenditures for these items. (If we use this coefficient, then anti-corruption measures can 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 Hessian Audit Office, bribes in this area often amount to up to 20% of the amount of transactions; In this case, bribes are not paid in cash, but are transferred to the appropriate persons through shell companies or take the form of inflated invoices for work performed. According to experts, the cost of about 40% of all buildings erected by order of federal, state and municipal authorities is overpriced. According to the chief prosecutor of Frankfurt am Main, corruption in construction causes annual damage to the state in the amount of 10 billion marks, in particular by inflating the real market cost of work by 30%.

Dieter Frisch, former Director General for Development at the European Commission, noted that when losses increase in a country due to economically weak corrupt projects, these losses are not limited to the excess 10-20% of bribe costs, but usually include the entire the cost of unproductive and unnecessary projects.

To the given 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, it is easy to establish the order of the corresponding amounts, which will amount to billions of dollars.

Now let's turn to grassroots corruption. According to some estimates, the total amount of bribes paid by small entrepreneurs is equivalent to 3% of GDP. According to experts from the Russian public organization "Technology - XXI Century", small entrepreneurs throughout the country spend at least $500 million a month on bribes to officials! This amounts to $6 billion a year. (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 a business” requires permission from approximately 50 officials. These losses are directly transferred to ordinary buyers and small business clients, since the money spent on bribes is included in the price of goods and services.

Let us add to this the poorly studied and practically uncontrolled corruption within enterprises and non-governmental organizations (for example, 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 range from 10 to 20 billion dollars a year. These data are presented here not to surprise or scare anyone. It is important to see how profitable investments in serious, meaningful activities to systematically limit corruption can be.

§ 6. General characteristics of malfeasance

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

Corrupt practices. During the Soviet period of Russian history, liability for receiving a bribe, giving a bribe, mediation in bribery and provoking a bribe was regulated. According to the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (1996), the concept of “bribery” covers two crimes: receiving 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 talking about liability for mediation in bribery. 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 benefits of a property nature for actions (inaction) in favor of the bribe giver or persons represented by him, if such actions (inaction) are part of official the authority of an official or he, by virtue of his official position, can facilitate 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 times the minimum wage or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of seven months to one year, or by imprisonment for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for period up to three years. Responsibility increases (Part 2 of Article 290) when an official receives a bribe for illegal actions (inaction). A qualified type is the receipt of a bribe by a person holding a public position in the Russian Federation or a public position in a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as by the head of a local government body (Part 3 of Article 290). The law considers the commission of this act to be particularly qualified types of receiving a bribe (Part 4 of Article 290):

a) by a group of persons by prior conspiracy or 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 - grave, and in part 4 of Art. 290 - especially serious crimes. Just like other crimes against state power, the interests of civil service and service in local governments, receiving 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 non-material services is not recognized as bribery. In appropriate cases, these actions may be considered abuse of power.

Property assets (services) can be transferred (provided) both to the official himself - 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 bribe-taker's account. In practice, there were cases when the bribe-giver opened a bearer account at a bank and, as a bribe, handed over a savings (deposit) certificate to the official.

The official position of a person determines not only his legal capabilities related to the range of rights and responsibilities of the position held, but also the actual capabilities arising from the authority of the position held in a state body, local government body, state or municipal institution, the Armed Forces, other troops and military formations, as well as from the official’s official connections. Using them, an official can, for a fee, influence, or in one way or another facilitate the commission (non-commitment) of an action beneficial to the bribe-giver by another official, who may know nothing about this reward. Such persons may also be consultants, assistants, secretaries, assistants to responsible officials, heads of offices, inspectors, etc. officials who do not themselves make final decisions on issues of interest to the bribe-payers, but the essence of the decision made by another official largely depends on the actions they take in their service, the documents they prepare and other information.

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

Bribery is also recognized as the illegal receipt by an official of material values ​​and benefits of a property nature for general patronage 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 a period of up to three years. This kind of bribery is typical when receiving systematic rewards (gifts) from employees subordinate or controlled by an official, since the official constantly resolves issues affecting their interests, and the latter are interested in the bribe-taker’s favorable attitude towards them.

Receiving a bribe for patronage or connivance is typical for the corrupt apparatus of state and municipal bodies, various government structures, in particular in cases where representatives of organized crime seem to take on officials, reasonably expecting that, if necessary, they will act in the interests of the bribers. Receiving a bribe is considered a crime from the moment an 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 forged document in exchange for a bribe, illegally exempts from criminal liability, makes a deliberately unjust sentence or decision, falsifies evidence, facilitates theft, smuggling, violates the rules for dispensing narcotic drugs, etc. In this case, responsibility comes not only for receiving a bribe, but also for these illegal, criminal actions (inaction) themselves.

Thus, a bribe may have the nature of bribery, 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 material gratitude - a reward for something already done, although there is no prior agreement on this reward was and its recipient committed an official action (inaction), without counting on subsequent remuneration.

At the same time, the legislation 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 municipal bodies. Accepting such a gift does not entail any responsibility and does not even deserve moral condemnation. An “ordinary gift,” which does not entail any liability for both the official who accepted it and the person who presented the gift, differs from a bribe not only in its relatively small size. Regardless of the size of this “ordinary gift”, it should, in our opinion, be regarded as a bribe in the following cases:

if there was extortion of this reward;

if the reward was in the nature of bribery;

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

Now let’s look at how the current legislation interprets especially qualifying signs of receiving a bribe.

Receiving a bribe by prior conspiracy or by an organized group. A bribe should be considered received by prior conspiracy by a group of persons if two or more officials participated in the commission of the crime in advance, i.e. before the start of the crime, who agreed on this. The conspiracy of criminals includes that they will receive illegal remuneration (services) for certain actions (inaction) in the interests of the bribe-giver or the legal entities or individuals he represents 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.

Repeated receipt of a bribe presupposes the commission of acts provided for in Art. 290 of the Criminal Code, two or more times, regardless of whether the official was convicted of a previous crime or not.

The receipt of a bribe, committed by extorting it, was interpreted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR in a resolution of March 30, 1990 as “an official’s demand for a bribe under the threat of actions that could cause damage to the legitimate interests of the bribe-giver, or the deliberate placing of the latter in such conditions under which he forced to give a bribe in order to prevent harmful consequences for his law-protected interests.

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

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 of the illegal delivery, transfer of material assets or the provision of benefits of a property nature to an official personally or through an intermediary for the commission of actions (inaction) included in the official powers of the 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 the 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 correctional 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), as well as for illegal actions (inaction) of an official (part 2 of Article 291 of the Criminal Code - punishable by a fine in the amount of 700 to 1000 times the minimum wage or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of seven months to one year , or imprisonment for a term of up to eight years). Giving a bribe is inextricably linked with receiving it. Receiving a bribe cannot take place if no bribe was given. Accordingly, the completed crime of bribery cannot take place if the material assets or property benefits that were the subject of the bribe were not accepted by the official. Therefore, offering material assets or property benefits to an official, leaving valuables on the official’s desk or clothing, sending them by mail in a letter or parcel, and even transferring them to the official’s relatives or to an intermediary in bribery by the official, unless this is followed by the latter’s acceptance bribes should be classified 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, in contrast to other cases of complicity in this crime against the interests of the public service, identified as an independent crime.

By giving a bribe, a subject can induce an official to commit a deliberately illegal action (inaction) in the service, which in itself is a crime. In these cases, he must be held responsible not only for giving a bribe, but also for complicity (incitement) in the crime of an official.

Individuals, persons performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, and officials can act as bribe givers, which does not matter for the qualification of giving a bribe. An official or a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, who proposed to an employee subordinate to him in service to achieve the desired action or inaction by giving a bribe, is liable as a bribe-giver, and an employee who agreed to perform the stipulated actions for a bribe and handed over the bribe must bear responsibility liability 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 selfish motives and personal motives, the desire to circumvent the law, to be freed from responsibility, the desire to thank the official for the decision he made that 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 bribe-giver 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 whose authorized representative is the bribe-giver.

There are two independent grounds for releasing a bribe-giver from criminal liability:

if a bribe was extorted against him by an official;

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

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

Exemption of bribers from criminal liability on the grounds of extortion of a bribe or voluntary reporting of bribery does not mean the absence of corpus delicti in the actions of these persons. Therefore, they cannot be recognized as victims and do not have the right to claim the return to them of values ​​transferred in the form of a bribe, which are subject to conversion into state revenue.

Legalization of funds or other property acquired illegally. Current legislation establishes liability for carrying out financial transactions and other transactions with funds or other property acquired knowingly illegally, as well as the use of these funds or other property to carry out business or other economic activities, i.e. for legalization (laundering) of funds or other property acquired illegally. The 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 a term of 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. Let us 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 the corresponding criminal law prohibition 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 country’s economic system and, above all, monetary circulation from the entry 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 non-member criminals.

Socially and 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. acquisition of property in a deliberately illegal way, then the commission by another person of the main act, which includes either the subject of this crime conducting financial transactions and other transactions with property that is the subject of the previous act, or using this property to carry out business or other economic activities.

The objective side of the crime. This crime is considered completed at the time of the transaction, recognized as a financial transaction, 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 conclusion of the transaction, which is determined by civil law depending on the nature transactions. The acquisition of property by deliberately illegal means is the taking of property or the acquisition of actual rights to it without the necessary legal grounds.

Knowledge of illegal acquisition means that in relation to the acquisition the person acted with direct intent, certainly knowing that the way in which he acquired funds or other property was illegal.

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

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, for example, health care, provision of legal assistance, etc.

The advisability of distinguishing between entrepreneurial and other economic activities lies in the fact that some types of activities, requiring significant costs and involving payment of labor and receiving various benefits, are still not recognized as entrepreneurial. The use of these funds means the completion 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. concluding sales and purchase agreements, lending, payment for work or services performed. It is controversial to classify as this activity the placement of funds on 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, knowingly knowing about the illegal origin of funds or property, and wants to carry out a financial transaction or other transaction with them.

Abuse of official powers (Article 285 of the Criminal Code) is a crime of medium gravity, however, in the presence of qualifying circumstances provided for in Part 2 and Part 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 was committed out of selfish or other personal interest and entailed a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or legally protected interests of society or the state and is punishable by a fine in the amount of 200 to 500 minimum wages or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of two to five months, or compulsory work for a period of one hundred eighty to two hundred and forty hours, or correctional labor for a period 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.

Let's consider the objective and subjective sides of this crime.

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

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

the occurrence 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;

a causal relationship between an act and a consequence.

A mandatory element of the objective side of 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 if this consequence occurs will abuse of power or official position be a completed crime. Since a significant violation is largely an evaluative concept, it must be motivated in the investigation and court documents. It is essential that only an official can be the subject of abuse of official powers.

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.

A mandatory sign of the subjective side of abuse of office is a 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 employee of a local 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 were committed for personal gain. or other personal interest. It is in this way that the subject commits an attack on the normal activities of the public administrative apparatus, which is the object of this crime.

The 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 established by the legislation of the Russian Federation (Article 5 of the Federal Law “On Information, Informatization and Information Protection”).

The objective side of 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 genuine in form. The elements of forgery are formal and the crime is considered completed from the moment the specified actions are committed, regardless of whether this act entailed any consequences or whether this forged document was used.

Entering knowingly false information into official documents is the recording of information that does not correspond to reality in an authentic document, which at the same time retains all the signs and details of the present. This act can also represent the production of a document that is completely counterfeit in both form and content. This type of forgery also includes marking a 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.

Corrections to an official document that distort its actual content can be made by erasure, addition, and other means. Erasure consists of destroying in various ways previous entries or details in a genuine document with the possible replacement of them with false ones.

A prerequisite for recognition of an act as 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 a subject, who in principle is an official or employee, falsifies an unofficial document or does not use the opportunities that he has due to his official position when falsifying, there is no element of official forgery. In appropriate cases, these actions may be qualified under Art. 327 of the Criminal Code as a forgery of a certificate or other official document granting rights or releasing from obligations, committed by a private individual as a crime against the order of government.

The subjective side of official forgery is characterized by direct intent. The culprit knows for certain that he is introducing false information into official documents, and just as consciously commits other actions that constitute the essence of forgery. In doing so, he must be guided by selfish or other personal motives. The presence of any other motive when committing actions provided for in Art. 292 of the Criminal Code, excludes liability for official forgery. The law does not stipulate the purpose of falsification of official documents by an official or employee. However, in cases where forgery is committed for the purpose of subsequently using false documents to commit another grave or especially grave crime, the act must be qualified in its entirety as official forgery and preparation for a grave or particularly grave crime.

The use by an official or employee of knowingly produced fictitious documents when committing the theft of someone else's property through fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement should be classified collectively as theft and forgery.

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

If official forgery is committed with the aim of assisting another person in committing a crime, the perpetrator is held accountable under Art. 292 of the Criminal Code and for aiding and abetting another crime. Thus, if an official, state or municipal employee commits forgery and issues a false document, understanding that this document will be used to commit theft of someone else’s property, the culprit will be held accountable for both forgery and complicity in theft.

The law considers official forgery 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 wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to two months, or by compulsory work for a period of one hundred eighty to two hundred and forty hours, or by correctional labor for a period of from one year to two years, or arrest 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 two years.

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

A civil servant is obliged to transfer into trust management under the guarantee of the state for the duration of his public service the shares (blocks of shares) in his ownership in the authorized capital of commercial organizations in the manner established by federal law. The ban on engaging in entrepreneurial activities applies in accordance with Art. 60 of the Federal Law "On the General Principles of the Organization 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 proxy, contrary to the prohibition established by law, if these acts are related to the provision of benefits and advantages to such an organization or with patronage in another form. Thus, the direct object of this crime can be considered the order and principles of performing state and municipal services.

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

establishment by an official of an organization carrying out entrepreneurial activities, 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 engaged in business activities, personally or through a proxy, contrary to the prohibition established by law.

A mandatory condition for the criminal liability of an official for violating the ban on participation in entrepreneurial activity is that he, using his official powers and capabilities, provided benefits and advantages to a business organization established by him or an organization in the management of which he participates, or patronized them in another form (preferential taxation, priority or preferential provision of loans, creation of various obstacles for competitors and their elimination from the market, exemption from various checks, audits, etc.).

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

From the subjective side, a crime is committed with direct intent, usually for selfish reasons, although the motive for the crime is not directly indicated 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 hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to five years with a fine in the amount of 100 to 200 times the minimum wage or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one year. up to two months, or compulsory labor for a term of one hundred eighty to two hundred and forty hours, or arrest for a term of three to six months, or imprisonment for a term of up to two years.

Bibliography

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

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

Satarov G.A., Levin M.I. Russia and corruption: who wins? // Russian newspaper. 1998. 19 Feb.

Lekhin I.V., Petrov F.N. Dictionary of 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. Dolgovoy, S.V. Dyakova. M.: 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. M.: Moscow Carnegie Center, 1996.

Drunk G. Russian customs, incorrigible and legendary // Golden Horn. 1999. May 12. No. 35.

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

Organized crime - 4 / Ed. A.I. Dolgovoy. M.: 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.

History has been familiar with the phenomenon of corruption for a very long time. Aristotle also said: “The most important thing in any political system is to arrange things through laws and other regulations in such a way that it is impossible for officials to make money.” Bribes are also mentioned in the ancient Roman XII tables; in Ancient Rus', Metropolitan Kirill condemned “bribery” along with witchcraft and drunkenness. Under Ivan IV the Terrible, a clerk was executed for the first time for receiving more than his allotted roast goose with coins.

In the Russian Code “On Criminal and Correctional Punishments” of 1845. (as amended in 1885, in force in Russia until October 1917) the composition of receiving a bribe was already different - bribery and extortion.

Also, C. Montesquieu noted: “... it is already known from the experience of centuries that every person who has power is inclined to abuse it, and he goes in this direction until he reaches the limit assigned to him.” Accordingly, manifestations of corruption are found both in states with totalitarian and democratic regimes, in economically and politically underdeveloped countries and superpowers. In principle, there are no countries that could claim exceptional chastity.

For the first time, civilized humanity encountered the phenomenon of corruption in the most ancient times; later we find its signs essentially everywhere.

For example, one of the oldest mentions of corruption is found in the cuneiform writings of ancient Babylon. As follows from deciphered texts dating back to the middle of the third millennium BC, even then the Sumerian king Urukagin faced a very acute problem of suppressing the abuses of judges and officials who extorted illegal rewards. Great Soviet Encyclopedia // M., 2004. T.27.S.94

The rulers of ancient Egypt faced similar questions. Documents discovered during archaeological research also indicate massive manifestations of corruption in Jerusalem in the period after the Babylonian captivity of the Jews in 597 - 538. before the Nativity of Christ.

The theme of corruption is also found in biblical texts. Moreover, many authors speak bitterly about its presence and harm. For example, in one of the books of the Bible, the Book of Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, the father instructs his son: “Do not be a hypocrite before the lips of others and be attentive to your mouth... Let not your hand be stretched out to receive... Do no evil, and it will not befall you evil; move away from untruth and it will evade you... Do not strive to become a judge, lest you be powerless to crush untruth, lest you ever fear the face of a strong man and cast a shadow over your righteousness...” Bible. Sirach. 1, 29, 4, 9.P.644. It is not difficult to notice that the very nature of the instructions indicates that the biblical society was quite familiar with the facts of bribery of judges and dishonest justice.

The ancient era did not escape the manifestations and flourishing of corruption. Its destructive influence was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Later periods of Western European history were also accompanied by the development of corrupt relations. At the same time, their presence in the life and affairs of society was reflected not only in historical documents, but also in many works of art by such masters as Chaucer (The Canterbury Tales), Shakespeare (The Merchant of Venice, An Eye for an Eye), Dante (“Hell” and “Purgatory”). So, seven centuries ago, Dante placed corrupt officials in the darkest and deepest circles of Hell. History explains his dislike of corruption by the author's political considerations, for Dante considered bribery to be the reason for the fall of the Italian republics and the success of his political opponents.

Many famous Western thinkers have paid a lot of attention to the study of manifestations of corruption. It seems that Nicolo Machiavelli explored its origins very comprehensively in this sense. It is characteristic that many of his views on this problem are very relevant today. Suffice it to recall his figurative comparison of corruption with consumption, which is difficult to recognize at first, but is easier to treat, and if it is neglected, then “although it is easy to recognize, it is difficult to cure.” Machiavelli N. Works // Milan. 1994. P. 137 It would seem a simple truth, but how modern it is for assessing the current situation with the spread of corruption in Russia and the world.

Unfortunately, Russia, in terms of the presence of corruption relations, has not been and is not an exception to the general rule. Their formation and development also has a long history. In particular, one of the first written mentions of promises as illegal remuneration to princely governors dates back to the end of the 14th century. The corresponding norm was enshrined in the so-called Dvina Charter Charter (Vasily I Charter Charter) Russian legislation of the 10th-20th centuries // M., 1995. P. 181, and later clarified in the new edition of the Pskov Judgment Charter. It can be assumed that these sources only stated the existence of such acts, which clearly took place much earlier than their official normative consolidation.

The prevalence of extortion (bribery) in Russia was so significant that according to the Decree of Peter I of August 25, 1713 and later “legalizations,” the death penalty was determined as a punishment for extortionists. However, she did not frighten embezzlers too much. To imagine at least the approximate extent of the corruption of Russian officials, it is enough to recall such historical characters as the clerks and clerks of the royal orders of the pre-Petrine era and the clerks of the later periods, the very thieving associate of Peter I, Prince A.D. Menshikov, who was executed under Peter for embezzlement and extortion of the Siberian governor Gagarin, embezzlers and bribe-takers of the highest level from the inner circle of the last Russian emperor.

Very curious in this regard is the note sent to Emperor Nicholas I “of the Highly Established Committee to Consider the Laws on Extortion and the Provisions of a Preliminary Conclusion on Measures to Eliminate This Crime,” dating back to August 1827. This document examines with exceptional scrupulousness the reasons for the spread of corruption in the state apparatus, provides a classification of forms of corrupt behavior, and proposes measures to counter this phenomenon.

In particular, among the main reasons are mentioned “the rarity of people who are truly just,” “a penchant for covetousness, constantly irritated by the very structure of life and not hampered by any real obstacles,” the low level of salaries of officials who “... do not teach any means for a decent maintenance ... they do not give the slightest opportunity, after satisfying the daily needs of life, to devote something to raising children, to providing first aid when they are assigned to the service, or even to giving small rewards to daughters when they marry them off.” This contributes to the fact that the official uses the power entrusted to him by the Government “in favor of selfish interests, violates in all possible cases those laws that are entrusted to his custody, in a word, extortion is encouraged.”

The proposed list of forms of corrupt behavior, in particular bribery, is also interesting. They “are different: gifts, promises, promises, offers of services from their own patrons, seductions of all kinds; guess the inclinations of the Judges, look for their acquaintances and connections; If they don’t manage to appease one of them personally, they try to bribe him into a relative, a friend, a benefactor. Knowledge of man reveals to us that in those cases where private benefits flow, greater or lesser abuse is inseparably connected with them.”

As for measures to combat the corruption of officialdom, it was proposed to put in first place “the speedy publication of a complete systematic set of laws, which for each branch of State Administration should serve as a uniform guide in the production and resolution of cases without exception”; “the repeal of laws of those that obviously contribute to deliberate delays, oppression and forced bribes”; “the establishment in all parts of the State Administration of salaries that would be somewhat commensurate with the needs of existence in the rank in which someone is serving, and thereby would stop employees from attempting to arbitrarily satisfy these needs to the extreme, by extortion” ; “establishing fair proportionality in punishments” so that “the harm or sensitivity of punishment exceeds the benefit acquired from the crime,” and “the sensitivity of punishment for a repeated crime exceeds not only the benefit acquired through the crime, but also all the benefits that could be acquired through all repeated crimes in a person in whom vice has become a habit”; “the strictest, not just on paper, but in fact, monitoring the exact execution of the Highest Decrees, protecting the judiciary from the influence of the Commanders-in-Chief in different parts of the State Administration”; “the introduction of transparency in court proceedings, and in general in the administration of the clerical service, excluding only those cases that, due to their particular importance, will be excluded from this by the Supreme Government.”

However, all these good recommendations, in principle, remained unrealized, and the bureaucracy sank more and more into the abyss of corruption. It is no coincidence that the morals that reigned among the bureaucrats, including acts of corruption and their participants, were vividly reflected not only in historical documents, but also in the works of the great Russian writers N.V. Gogol, M.E. Saltykova-Shchedrina, I.I. Lazhechnikova, A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylina, A.P. Chekhov and many others.

Since ancient times, there have been three forms of corruption in Russia: honors, payment for services and promises Gaukhman L. Corruption and corruption crime. // Legality. 2006. No. 6.;. Offerings in the form of honor expressed respect for the one receiving it. The respectful meaning of “honor” is also manifested in the Russian custom of presenting a respected person, and especially high authorities, with bread and salt. But already in the 17th century. “honor” increasingly took on the meaning of a permitted bribe. And, of course, bribery in Russia flourished on the basis of the widespread practice of offering “honor” to officials. Sedov P.V. On a promise as on a chair. From the history of Russian officials of the 7th century. // Star. 2001. No. 4. P.208.

Another form of donations to officials is associated with the costs of conducting and processing affairs. The income of officials in the form of payments for conducting and processing cases was taken into account when determining their salaries: if the order had a lot of cases from which they could “feed”, then they were paid less salary. That is, the practice of “feeding from business” was part of the state system of maintaining bureaucrats in the 17th century.

The third form of corruption is promises, i.e. payment for a favorable resolution of cases, for committing illegal acts. Most often, “promises” were expressed in overpayments for services, for conducting and processing cases, and therefore the border between the two forms of corruption was blurred and barely distinguishable. Sedov P.V. Decree. Op. P. 210.

It is enough to recall the vivid images of degenerated Soviet employees created by V. Mayakovsky, I. Ilf and E. Petrov, M. Zoshchenko and other authors. And this despite the fact that Lenin considered bribery one of the most dangerous relics and demanded the most severe, sometimes “barbaric,” as he put it, measures to combat it. In a letter to a member of the board of the People's Commissariat of Justice Kursky, he demanded: “It is necessary to immediately, with demonstrative speed, introduce a bill that penalties for bribery (extortion, bribery, summary for a bribe, etc., etc.) should be no less than ten years in prison and, in addition, , ten years of forced labor." The severity of the measures in the fight against bribery was explained by the fact that the Bolsheviks viewed it not only as a shameful and disgusting relic of the old society, but also as an attempt by the exploiting classes to undermine the foundations of the new system. One of the directives of the RCP(b) directly noted that the enormous spread of bribery, closely related to the general lack of culture of the bulk of the population and the economic backwardness of the country, threatens to corrupt and destroy the apparatus of the workers' state Karatuev A.G. Soviet bureaucracy: System of political-economic domination. - Belgorod, 2003.;.

However, despite the severity of legal measures against bribe-takers, it was not possible to eradicate this phenomenon, and its main causes were not eliminated, many of which were outlined in the above-mentioned note to the Russian Emperor Nicholas I. Even during the totalitarian rule of I. Stalin's virus of corruption was not exterminated, although, of course, it should be recognized that the model of Stalin's quasi-socialism outwardly seemed the least corrupt. However, we should not forget that totalitarianism, based on political and economic terror, also appeared outwardly in other countries as being slightly corrupt (a classic example is Hitler's Germany), which in fact was not true.

Currently, not only the elderly, but also middle-aged Russians remember the massive facts of extortion and bribery for obtaining public housing, for allocating scarce industrial and food products to trading enterprises and selling to buyers “through pull”, for admission to prestigious universities, for business trips abroad and the like, which at one time was widely reported by people and even the press. And this despite the fact that nominally bribery was punished very strictly - up to the highest penalty under criminal law: the death penalty.

The conclusion about the widespread prevalence of corruption at the end of the era of socialism is allowed to come not only from the materials of trials and the press of the 1970-1980s, but also from a study of this problem conducted by one of them in 1990 in a number of regions of Russia and some union republics of the then existing USSR . Its results indicate that various types of corrupt behavior, including criminally punishable and therefore most dangerous forms, were already inherent in almost all union, republican, regional and regional state and party bodies, not to mention local ones. The most affected in this regard were the structures that provided financial and logistical support to business entities, foreign economic relations, organizing and controlling the spheres of commodity distribution and social support for the population. Moreover, if it was no longer possible to remain silent about these phenomena, they were presented as certain costs of the functioning of government bodies or individual facts that did not arise from the existing system.

All this created very favorable conditions for the further introduction of corruption into public relations during the liberalization of economic and socio-political conditions in the country at the turn of the 1990s. And, ultimately, it led to the fact that in recent years, even with continued criminal liability, bribes began to be taken, essentially, openly. The results of a study conducted already in 1999-2000 show, in particular, that with a relatively stable total number of persons convicted of bribery over the past 12-15 years, today only one in two to two and a half thousand can be brought to justice for this act persons who committed this crime (i.e., more than twenty times less than in the late 1980s and early 1990s). This essentially, if not formally, then practically decriminalized bribery as a type of crime. It is interesting that of those convicted today for bribery, up to half are representatives of law enforcement agencies, which indicates a high degree of corruption of those who, in theory, the authorities and the population should count on as the main support in countering offenders.

Today, Russia has acquired a persistent image of a kleptocratic and deeply corrupt state not only within the country, but also abroad. There is a kind of rating of government corruption, in which Russia occupies a very unenviable position in the top ten most disadvantaged countries in the world, in company with Venezuela, Cameroon, India, Indonesia, Syria, Kenya and some other countries with which respectable politicians and business partners are advised not to have unnecessarily affairs.

At the same time, one of the most negative features of the modern development of corruption in Russia is that today it has become less perceived and condemned by society, which was largely facilitated by gaps in the legal education of the population, as well as the efforts of some politicians and high-ranking officials to legitimize the relevant relationship as an integral part of society. element of public service. Unfortunately, the press and television cannot reverse this trend. The acuteness of perception of materials about corruption in society is increasingly being lost, and the influencing force in terms of creating an atmosphere of intolerance towards corruption as a social phenomenon is weakening day by day. A kind of addiction syndrome to it has arisen, which has become so significant that a huge part of society is not too irritated not only by the corruption of individual government officials, but even by the fact that the reputation of the first President of Russia and his closest associates was called into question due to suspicion of involvement in corruption. environment. A significant part of citizens generally perceive reports and revelations of corruption as attempts by some Russian politicians to denigrate their opponents and earn additional points in promotion to certain positions.

It is no secret that today corrupt relations act as a link between government agencies and criminal groups, including organized ones. It is very characteristic that at the turn of the 1990s this trend was already visible quite clearly, and the corrupt connections of criminal circles with government officials at various levels during this period largely predetermined the subsequent active formation and development of organized crime in Russia. According to experts, from one third to half of the income received as a result of criminal activity in Russia today is spent on creating and strengthening the position of organizers and active participants of criminal communities in the legislative and executive authorities, the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Summarizing what has been said, we can conclude that corruption has its roots very far, the problem has always been there, but now it has begun to manifest itself in more frightening forms, without delay it is necessary to focus efforts on limiting the scope of its manifestations, reducing the degree of its influence, minimizing harmful consequences, to ultimately reduce it to an acceptable socially tolerable level.

The issue of combating corruption is one of the eternal issues of state organization.

Perceiving corruption as a systemic phenomenon, the state creates and implements comprehensive measures to combat it. Since 2008, the Presidential Anti-Corruption Council has been formed, National Anti-Corruption Plans, a package of anti-corruption laws, and a number of decrees of the President of the Russian Federation have been developed and approved, expanding control over the activities of state and municipal employees and heads of state corporations. Federal Law No. 273-FZ of December 25, 2008 “On Combating Corruption” established the basic principles and foundations of the fight against corruption.

An important role in the fight against corruption is played by specific measures that can reduce corruption in the state and society, identify and punish those involved in corruption. A simple and quite effective measure is the mandatory annual reporting of officials (officials of executive authorities and deputies of the relevant levels) on income and property status. Declarations of income of these persons (as well as their children and spouses) are publicly available on the Internet, covered in official media, and checked by control and supervisory authorities.

Most executive authorities have created their own security services, the purpose of which is to suppress corrupt activities of employees within executive authorities and their territorial bodies in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

No matter how active the role of the state is in taking measures to combat corruption, it cannot do without the help of ordinary citizens in this fight.

Every Russian citizen must and is obliged to live and work, guided by the law. In order to avoid corruption, it is necessary to firmly know your rights, be able to defend them, and have a strong moral position that denies the use of corrupt methods in private, public and professional life.

WHAT IS CORRUPTION?

It is important to clearly understand the essence of this phenomenon and be able to distinguish it from other offenses.

But how then can we determine what is corruption and what is not? Today, there is a clear definition of the concept of “corruption” established by law.

The definition of the concept of “corruption” is given in the Federal Law of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption”.

Corruption is considered to be abuse of official position, giving a bribe, receiving a bribe, abuse of power, commercial bribery or other illegal use by an individual of his official position contrary to the legitimate interests of society and the state in order to obtain benefits in the form of money, valuables, other property or services of a property nature, etc. property rights for oneself or for third parties, or the illegal provision of such benefits to a specified person by other individuals, as well as the commission of these acts on behalf of or in the interests of a legal entity.

If a person takes part in the illegal use of his or someone else’s official position in order to obtain material or non-material benefits, he becomes part of a corruption system.

Unfortunately, for a large group of people, giving small bribes to resolve everyday issues does not contradict their own worldview or moral restrictions.

Corruption acts include the following crimes: abuse of official position (Article 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), giving a bribe (Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), receiving a bribe (Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), abuse of power (Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) RF), commercial bribery (Article 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as well as other acts that fall under the concept of “corruption” indicated above.

THE ESSENCE OF CORRUPTION

Corruption does not appear in society overnight. The essence of corruption is manifested in those social phenomena with which it is deeply interconnected. These include legal nihilism and insufficient legal literacy of citizens, low civic position of citizens.

Here are some sources of corruption: ineffective and unfair distribution and expenditure of material and intangible goods, a decrease in the efficiency of state and municipal bodies, a slowdown in economic growth, a decrease in the level of trust in government, and more.

PARTICIPANTS IN CORRUPTION

There are always two parties involved in the corruption process: the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker.

Bribe giver- a person who provides the bribe recipient with some benefit in exchange for the opportunity to use his powers for his own purposes. The benefit can be money, material assets, services, benefits, etc. In this case, a prerequisite is that the bribe-taker has managerial or administrative functions.

Bribe taker there may be an official, an employee of a private company, a state and municipal employee who exercises his powers for a fee for a certain person (circle of persons). He may be expected to perform, as well as non-fulfillment of his duties, transfer of information, etc. At the same time, he can fulfill the requirements independently or facilitate the fulfillment of the requirements by others, using his position, influence and power.

Even without conducting an in-depth socio-economic study, a number of objective reasons for the existence of corruption in our country are obvious.

Currently, there is a fairly large group of citizens among the population who prefer to regard corruption as a matter of course.

The person giving or taking a bribe receives immediate benefits. As a rule, the bribe giver or bribe taker does not think about what consequences this may have for him.

Sooner or later the question will arise about the legality of the actions taken, the legality of the income received.

Many people don’t even think that it is their actions that prevent them from effectively fighting corruption. What is the reason for such a passive attitude of citizens towards the corruption situation in the country and towards their personal fate? The reasons for corrupt behavior include:

Tolerance of the population to manifestations of corruption;

No fear of losing the benefit received in the future when checking the grounds for its acquisition;

The presence of an official choice of behavior when he can resolve the issue posed to him both positively and negatively;

Psychological uncertainty of a citizen when talking with an official;

Ignorance by a citizen of his rights, as well as the rights and obligations of an official or person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization;

Lack of proper control by management over the behavior of an official.

FORMS OF CORRUPTION

Bribe

The main act of corruption is receiving and giving a bribe. A bribe is not only money, but also other tangible and intangible values. Services, benefits, social benefits received for the exercise or failure by an official to exercise his powers are also the subject of a bribe.

Bribery is the transfer and receipt of material assets, both for general patronage and for connivance in the service. General patronage in the service may include, in particular, actions related to undeserved encouragement, extraordinary unjustified promotion, and the commission of other actions not caused by necessity. Connivance in service should include, for example, failure by an official to take action for omissions or violations in the official activities of the briber or the persons he represents, or dishonest response to his unlawful actions.

Abuse of power

Abuse is the use by a corrupt official of his official position contrary to the interests of the service (organization), or clearly beyond the scope of his powers, if such actions (inaction) were committed by him out of selfish or other personal interest and entail a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of society.

An official, or a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, in such cases acts within the limits of his powers on formal grounds or goes beyond the limits of his powers. This often happens contrary to the interests of the service and the organization.

Commercial bribery

Similar in its features to the elements of crimes such as giving a bribe and receiving a bribe, is commercial bribery, which is also included in the concept of “corruption”.

The difference between these crimes is that in commercial bribery, the receipt of material assets, as well as the illegal use of services of a property nature for the commission of actions (inaction) in the interests of the giver (provider), is carried out by a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization.

Just like for bribery, for commercial bribery the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal liability (up to imprisonment for up to 5 years) for both the person being bribed and the person bribing.

However, unlike a bribe, only commercial bribery that is committed by agreement is subject to criminal liability, regardless of when the bribery was transferred.

Bribe and gift

Important clarification: there is a difference between a bribe-reward and a gift. If you have an acquaintance who is an official and you want to give him a gift, then you should know that an employee of a government and management body in connection with the performance of his official duties is prohibited from receiving remuneration from individuals and legal entities: gifts, cash payments, loans, any property services, payment for entertainment, recreation, transportation costs, etc. Gifts received by employees in connection with protocol events, business trips and other official events are recognized as federal property or the property of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and must be transferred to the civil servant according to an act to the state body in which he serves. However, Article 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation allows gifts worth no more than three thousand rubles to be given to state and municipal employees.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORRUPTION

It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal liability up to imprisonment for a term of 8 to 15 years for receiving a bribe, and from 7 to 12 years for giving a bribe.

That is, not only the person who receives the bribe is responsible before the law, but also the person who gives the bribe, or on whose behalf the bribe is transferred to the bribe recipient. If the bribe is transferred through an intermediary, then he is also subject to criminal liability for complicity in giving a bribe.

Bribery is based on two types of crimes: receiving a bribe (Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and giving a bribe (Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Close to them are such criminal offenses as commercial bribery (Article 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), abuse of official powers (Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and abuse of authority (Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

The corpus delicti (bribery) will occur regardless of when the bribe was accepted - before or after the performance of the relevant actions, and also regardless of whether there was a preliminary agreement between the bribe giver and the bribe taker.

Giving a bribe (transferring material assets to an official personally or through an intermediary) is a crime aimed at inducing an official to commit legal or deliberately illegal actions (inaction) in favor of the giver: to obtain advantages for him, for general patronage or for connivance in the service ( Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Giving a bribe in the absence of circumstances aggravating liability is punishable a fine ranging from 15 to 30 times the amount of the bribe or forced labor for up to three years, or imprisonmentfor a term of up to two years with a fine of ten times the amount of the bribe.

Giving a bribe can be done with the help of intermediary. Mediation in giving a bribe is recognized as the commission of actions aimed at: direct transfer of the subject of the bribe on behalf of the bribe giver. The liability of an intermediary in bribery occurs regardless of whether the intermediary received remuneration for this from the briber (bribe-taker) or did not receive it.

If a bribe is transferred to an official through an intermediary, then such intermediary is subject to liability for aiding and abetting in giving a bribe.

It must be remembered that the person who gave the bribe is exempt from criminal liability if:

a) extortion of a bribe by an official;

b) if the person actively contributed to the detection and investigation of the crime;

c) if the person, after committing a crime, voluntarily reported giving a bribe to the body that has the right to initiate a criminal case.

Need to know that taking a bribe- one of the most socially dangerous official crimes, especially if it is committed on a large or especially large scale by a group of persons by prior conspiracy or by an organized group extorting a bribe.

Circumstances aggravating criminal liability for taking a bribe are:

Receipt of a bribe by an official for illegal actions(inaction);

Receipt of a bribe by a person holding public office Russian Federation or a government position of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as the head of a local government body;

Receipt of a bribe by a group of persons by prior conspiracy or by an organized group (2 or more people);

Extortion of a bribe;

Receiving a bribe on a large or especially large scale (a large amount is considered to be a sum of money, the value of securities, other property or property benefits exceeding 150 thousand rubles, and an especially large amount – exceeding 1 million rubles).

The mildest punishment for a bribe is a fine, and the most severe is imprisonment for a term from 8 to 15 years. In addition, for accepting a bribe one is deprived of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years.

Thus, an attempt to obtain benefits, advantages, or avoid troubles with the help of a bribe results in criminal prosecution and punishment.

HOW TO DEFEAT CORRUPTION

The fight against corruption, first of all, should be expressed in the reluctance of citizens to participate in corrupt relations.

That is why, in order not to become a victim of corruption, as well as not to take the path of breaking the law yourself, it is necessary to have clear ideas about how to combat corruption.

HOW TO BEHAVIOR YOURSELF?

Let's try to figure out what a citizen can do on his own to avoid becoming a participant in a corruption crime.

Before contacting state, municipal bodies and institutions, or commercial or other organizations, we recommend studying the regulatory framework on the basis of which a particular body, institution, or organization operates. After all, knowledge of the laws will help to understand when an official begins to abuse his position or extort a bribe for actions that he must perform due to his official duties.

This can be done without much difficulty in relation to state and municipal bodies and institutions. In order for information transparency of government activities to help ordinary citizens independently fight corruption, all state and municipal government bodies are required to post regulations governing their activities on their official websites on the Internet. Therefore, before contacting a particular state or municipal government body, we recommend studying information about the activities of this body, available, for example, on a website on the Internet.

Generalized information on many government services is presented on the website www. gosuslugi. ru.

With commercial and other organizations the situation is more complicated. The legislator, in relation to these organizations, cannot take similar measures on information transparency that he took in relation to state and municipal bodies and institutions. However, one should not assume that the activities of commercial and other organizations are not regulated in any way.

These organizations must obey the laws that regulate the field of activity in which the organization operates. So, if you are going to contact an organization that is engaged in trade, provision of services or performance of work, then it is advisable to first study the Law of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1992 No. 2300-1 “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”. It should also be remembered that this law, as well as a number of other documents relating to the activities of this organization, must be placed in the sales area, on a special stand.

If you want to contact an organization that provides medical services, you, in addition to the Law “On Protection of Consumer Rights,” need to know what medical services you are required to provide free of charge within the framework of your compulsory health insurance policy, as well as, if available, a voluntary policy health insurance. In addition, it is advisable to familiarize yourself with the regulations that regulate the provision of medical services. For example, Federal Law of November 29, 2010 No. 326-FZ “On compulsory health insurance in the Russian Federation”, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 22, 2012 No. 1074 “On the program of state guarantees of free provision of medical care to citizens of the Russian Federation for 2013 year and planning period 2014 and 2015.”

If you are applying for a job, then you need to study those sections of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation that relate to the rights and obligations of the employee and the employer.

ADDITIONAL MEASURES

It may be a good idea to take some additional steps.

You can consult with a lawyer, which will make you feel more confident in the conversation.

If possible, make your appeal in writing and submit it to the office of the authority to which you are applying. If you apply to a state or municipal body, then in accordance with Federal Law No. 59-FZ of May 2, 2006 “On the procedure for considering appeals from citizens of the Russian Federation,” you must be given an answer within 30 days from the date of your application.

If you have become a victim of abuse of your official position and powers by an official or a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, then the algorithm of your actions should be exactly the same as when extorting a bribe or commercial bribery from you.

If you are subject to any kind of inspection by state and municipal authorities (they draw up a protocol on violation of traffic rules or customs regime, they stop you and ask you to show your passport for inspection, etc.), then for the purpose of self-defense from abuse official position on the part of officials you should:

Check the authority of the official by looking at his official ID, and remember or write down his full name and position (rank);

Clarify the grounds for applying sanctions against you, taking actions against you or your property - the rule of law referred to by the official, remember this information or write it down;

If a protocol or act is drawn up against you, insist that the official fill out all the columns without leaving them empty;

Insist that the protocol contains all the witnesses whom you consider necessary to indicate (or attesting witnesses);

Insist that the protocol indicate all the documents to which you referred when giving explanations to the official. If an official refuses to accept the specified documents, demand a written refusal from him;

Do not sign a protocol or act without reading it carefully;

In case of disagreement with the information included in the protocol or act, indicate this before affixing the signature, so that the specified protocol or act can be challenged;

Never sign blank sheets or unfilled forms;

In the line of the protocol on an administrative offense, in which you must sign that your rights and obligations are explained to you, put the word NO or a dash if the official drawing up the protocol did not explain them to you or asked you to read them on the back. You should not read about your rights and responsibilities, they should be explained to you;

Insist on giving you a copy of the protocol or act.

You also need to know that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 28.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, a protocol on an administrative offense must be drawn up immediately after the discovery of an administrative offense. In addition, you do not have to prove your innocence.

The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 24, 2005 No. 5 indicated: “A person brought to administrative responsibility is not obliged to prove his innocence. Guilt in committing an administrative offense is established by judges, bodies, officials authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses. Irremovable doubts about the guilt of a person brought to administrative responsibility must be interpreted in favor of this person.”

REMINDER TO A CITIZEN ABOUT WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE EXCLUDED FOR A BRIBE:

Refuse to give a bribe.

In case of extortion of a bribe or the inability to refuse to give a bribe (for example, if there is a threat to life and health), this must be reported to law enforcement agencies, but the following recommendations should be followed when communicating with the bribe extorter:

Listen carefully and remember exactly the conditions given to you (size of amounts, name of goods and nature of services, terms and methods of transferring a bribe, etc.);

Try to postpone the question of the time and place of the bribe until the next conversation;

Do not take the initiative in the conversation, allow the “bribe taker” to speak out, give you as much information as possible;

Contact law enforcement immediately.

WHERE TO GO?

The following options are possible:

Appealing against illegal actions within the framework of existing administrative procedures - filing a complaint with immediate superiors or a complaint with higher authorities.

A complaint to regulatory authorities (within the framework of consumer relations, these may be territorial offices of Rospotrebnadzor, the Federal Antimonopoly Service; within the framework of relations with housing and communal services organizations - housing committees and housing inspections) or the prosecutor's office. Be careful: the accusations should not be unfounded; the complaint must contain specific information and facts.

You must also report the fact of extortion to law enforcement agencies or your own security departments, which, for example, are under the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia) and the Federal Security Service (FSB of Russia). Oral reports and written statements about crimes are accepted by law enforcement agencies around the clock, regardless of the place and time of the crime.

You can contact the reception office of the prosecutor's office, the duty station of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, the FSB of Russia, the customs authority or the drug control authority. You are required to listen to and accept the message, whether orally or in writing. In this case, you should find out the name, position and work phone number of the employee who received the message.

The best reports at a scientific student conference
“Social responsibility of the state, business and civil society”
MGIMO-University, December 5, 2008

“Their hands are turned to know how to do evil;
the boss demands gifts, and the judge judges for bribes,
and the nobles express evil desires
their souls and pervert the matter"
Book of the prophet Micah 7:3

Since ancient times, power and corruption have been inseparable. Throughout history, parallel to the evolution of the state, there has been an evolution of corruption. If at the dawn of the formation of statehood, payment to a priest, leader or military leader for personally seeking their help was considered as a universal norm, then later, as the state apparatus became more complex, professional officials began to officially receive only a fixed income - which meant the transition of bribes to the shadow economy.

The first mention of corruption (and, accordingly, the fight against it) can be attributed to the second half of the 24th century. BC BC, when Urukagina, the king of the ancient Sumerian city of Lagash on the territory of modern Iraq, reformed government in order to stop the numerous abuses of his officials and judges. However, the fight against corruption in the ancient world usually did not bring the desired results, especially in eastern despotisms. According to the author of the ancient Indian treatise “Arthashastra”, “it is easier to guess the path of birds in the sky than the tricks of cunning officials.” Corruption reached its apogee during the era of the decline of antiquity in the Roman Empire - and became one of the reasons for its collapse. The word “corruption” itself is of Latin origin - corrumpere means “to corrupt, spoil, damage.”

The world was changing, and so was the scale of corruption. Globalization and the development of the world economy have allowed corruption to reach the international level and become one of the most widespread and dangerous phenomena of our time. Corruption is one of the biggest problems around the world today: according to Daniel Kaufmann, director of Global Programs at the World Bank Institute, bribes amounted to more than a trillion dollars in 2007 - more than 2% of global GDP. What corruption is, what are its causes and impact on the state, society and economy, and whether it is possible to successfully fight it in the 21st century - all this will be discussed in this work.

1. The concept of corruption

According to Transparency International, corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private interests. The Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Combating Corruption” gives the clearest definition: “abuse of official position, giving a bribe, receiving a bribe, abuse of power, commercial bribery or other illegal use by an individual of his official position contrary to the legitimate interests of society and the state in order to obtain benefits” .

The United Nations views corruption as "a complex social, cultural and economic phenomenon affecting all countries", without providing a more detailed explanation of the term. It is noteworthy that even the text of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) does not contain a definition of what the participating countries are called upon to fight. However, this is explained by the fact that the phenomenon of corruption is too complex and multifaceted to be able to give a comprehensive and at the same time sufficiently detailed definition. According to the author, a more complete and accurate picture of corruption can be obtained by classifying all corruption phenomena according to various criteria. The criteria can be formulated in the form of questions - who, how, why and how often?

First criterion- type of activity of the corrupt official (diagram 1 - Who).

Scheme 1. Typology of corruption relations by type of activity of the corrupt official

Second criterion— forms of corruption relations ( how and why):

• bribery, bribery, obtaining illegal income (extortion, kickbacks);
• theft and privatization of public resources and funds;
• misappropriation (forgery, forgery, falsification, theft; misappropriation of money, property by deception), abuse in the use of public funds, embezzlement;
• nepotism or nepotism, favoritism (appointment of relatives and friends to posts and positions);
• promotion of personal interests, collusion (providing preferences to individuals, conflict of interest);
• accepting gifts to speed up problem solving;
• protection and cover-up (“protection protection”, perjury);
• abuse of power (intimidation or torture);
• manipulation of regulation (rigging elections, making decisions in favor of one group or person);
• electoral irregularities (vote buying, election fraud);
• rent-seeking is extortion (civil servants illegally set fees for services or artificially create deficits);
• clientelism and patronage (politicians provide material services in exchange for citizens' support);
• illegal contributions to election campaigns (transfer of gifts to influence the content of policies).

Third criterion- how often corruption occurs (Figure 2 - how often)

Scheme 2. Typology of corruption relations by degree of prevalence

Having understood the essence of corruption relations, we will briefly outline approaches to the interpretation of these phenomena (Table 1). These concepts, however, are not alternative, but complementary.

Table 1. Different approaches to interpreting the concept of corruption

Concept
Rational approach (economics of crime)	An individual weighs all the costs and benefits of his criminal actions and rationally decides to commit a crime if the expected utility of such actions is higher than if he remained honest and spent his time and resources in other ways.
Theory of rent-seeking behavior	Economic rent is payment for resources in excess of the maximum value of opportunity costs for the non-monopoly use of these resources. Rent-seeking behavior is efforts aimed at implementing government intervention in the market distribution of resources in order to appropriate the income artificially created in this way in the form of rent. Corruption is understood as a form illegal rent-seeking behavior
Institutional approach	Corruption is a contractual interaction between economic agents with the aim of abusing a position for the sake of private benefits.
Principal-agent model	Corruption exists due to asymmetric information and the high costs of monitoring the activities of an agent-official
Theory of opportunistic behavior	Corruption is a special case of opportunistic behavior
Classical liberalism	Corruption as a failure of the state and as a failure of the market, as a “social anti-good” that harms all members of society (negative externalities).

Source: Bondarenko I. A., Corruption: economic analysis at the regional level.

St. Petersburg, “Petropolis”, 2001, p.23-45

So, we are convinced that corruption is a truly complex political, economic, social and ethical phenomenon. Having understood what corruption is, you can explore the reasons for its occurrence - which is what the next section is devoted to.

2.Causes of corruption

“The roots of this phenomenon [corruption] lie in
that a significant part of the population
He just doesn’t give a damn about following the laws.”
YES. Medvedev, President of the Russian Federation

The author will allow himself to disagree with the opinion of the head of state. Disrespect for the law is only one of the factors determining the development of corruption in the country. There are many reasons for this - and we will try to consider both the main and secondary ones. So, what are the roots of corruption?

Some researchers give a laconic and witty answer to this question. One of the first to do this was Professor Robert Klitgaard, the creator of the famous “corruption formula”

K = M + P - O,

where K is corruption, M is the power of monopolies, P is arbitrariness of decisions, O is responsibility.

In other words, corruption is determined by the degree of monopoly

power and the right to make arbitrary decisions vested in government officials, as well as the extent of their responsibility for their actions.

Another, no less interesting model of corruption looks like this:

where I is the country, t is the year.

A similar formula is used to calculate indices such as CPI (Corruption Perception Index) in Transparency International or WGI (Worldwide Governance Indicators) in the World Bank.

Let's analyze the formula:

1) Firstly, the higher the level economic well-being(GDP per capita), the less inclined officials are to resort to illegal methods of obtaining profit, the stricter the anti-corruption measures and the stronger the civil society.

2) Secondly, the more developed democracy, the greater the risk that an official has of losing his position and the greater the opportunities for anti-corruption agencies.

3) Thirdly, development judicial system also prevents the expansion of corruption processes.

4) Fourthly, the larger and more complex bureaucracy, the more opportunities open up for corruption. The centralization of the state plays an important role: in most tightly centralized empires, corruption reached unimaginable proportions, as in the Roman and Byzantine empires. On the other hand, not all experts are inclined to consider decentralization as a guarantee of a low level of corruption.

5) Fifthly, although until recently researchers have neglected historical factors, the author considers it necessary to consider this group of reasons. For example, in “old” states, corruption mechanisms have been established through many years of practice and are largely a sociocultural phenomenon - as, for example, in the Russian Empire. On the other hand, in “young states” large-scale privatization and underdeveloped state mechanisms provide almost limitless opportunities for corruption - and the best illustration of this is not only the Russian Federation, but also almost all countries of the former socialist camp.

6) Role geographical factors(in combination with the factor of centralization of power) can be clearly illustrated by the same Roman Empire. The huge size of the country inevitably entails difficulties in managing and controlling the activities of local officials (remember the comedy “The Inspector General” by N.V. Gogol). In addition, state control over natural resources (which are also considered geographical factors) opens up one of the most profitable areas of corruption for officials, both in the form of extortion and bribes.

I would like to separately note that the phenomenon of Russian “backlash” is based on historical and geographical factors, and this once again emphasizes the need to consider them when analyzing the causes of corruption.

Abstracting from the above model, we can conditionally divide all the causes of corruption into six large groups (Table 2):

Table 2. Corruption factors

Group of factors	Factors
Fundamental	Imperfections of economic institutions and economic policies; imperfection of the political decision-making system, underdeveloped competition, excessive government intervention in the economy, monopolization of certain sectors of the economy, state control over the resource base, low level of development of civil society, ineffectiveness of the judicial system,
Legal	Weakness of the law, lack of a clear legislative framework and too frequent changes in economic legislation, non-compliance with international law, inadequate penalties for corrupt transactions, the possibility of influencing court decisions, the presence of rules allowing for a subjective interpretation of regulations
Organizational and economic	The weakness of the system of control over the distribution of state (especially natural) resources, the difficulties of managing a large territory, a cumbersome and ineffective bureaucratic apparatus, relatively low wages for employees, discrimination in access to infrastructure networks, strict trade protectionism (tariff and non-tariff barriers), other forms of discrimination
Information	Opacity of the state mechanism, information asymmetry, lack of real freedom of speech and press, the presence of offshore zones, lack of research into the problem of corruption
Social	Clan structures, traditions of nepotism, exploitation of “friendships”, cronyism, tradition of “giving” gifts and bribes, low levels of literacy and education
Cultural-historical	The existing system of norms of bureaucratic behavior; mass culture that creates a lenient attitude towards corruption; features of historical development; giving little importance to the concepts of honesty and honor

Sources: V.M. Polterovich “Factors of Corruption”, M. 1998; G. Brodman and F. Ricanatini “The Roots of Corruption. Do market institutions matter?”, World Bank, 2008; B. Begovic « Corruption: concepts, types, causes and consequences", CADAL, 2005, etc.

“Corruption, like cancer, prevents
economic development"
James Wolfensohn
President of the World Bank in 1995-2005.

Negative effects the effects that corruption has on various spheres of society are grouped in Table 3.

Table 3. Consequences of corruption

Political sphere	Economic sphere	Social sphere
Impossibility of implementing democratic principles	Ineffective distribution and expenditure of public funds and resources	Growing social inequality, poverty
Shifting policy goals from national development to ensuring the rule of oligarchic groups	High time and material costs when doing business; Growing financial and commercial risks	Inability of the authorities to solve social problems due to “kickbacks” to the detriment of the budgetary sector
Violation of the rule of law	Search for rent at the expense of material production	Rise of organized crime
Ineffectiveness of political and judicial institutions	Price distortion (increase)	Impunity for criminals
Decreased trust in government, its alienation from society	Reduced competition to the detriment of economic development	The rise of mafia groups
Decline in the country's prestige	Growth of the shadow economy, tax losses	Discrediting the law in the eyes of the public
The disappearance of real political competition	Worsening investment climate, declining investments	Moral standards are losing importance
State fiasco	Reduced efficiency of the country's economy as a whole	Growing social tension

Sources: see bibliography

However, it is no coincidence that there is a statement: “Corruption can be likened to the lubricant that makes the wheels of business spin faster.” In particular, some researchers argue that in some cases positive consequences corruption may have positive externalities, reducing transaction costs for bribers and expanding opportunities for economic activity.

Let's illustrate these statements with examples. Let's say a foreign corporation plans to undertake energy projects in an unstable country that lacks basic infrastructure and the rule of law. The company's energy investments in such a country could easily be subject to expropriation, not only by the central government, but also by local authorities or quasi-governmental groups that could harm or impede the company's activities. Thus, all of the listed entities can present corruption-related demands to such a company. In Angola, for example, Exxon had to meet the demands of similar groups to provide basic infrastructure services that the state could not or would not provide. Yielding to such pressure can be considered, if not illegal, then certainly an act of corruption in the broad sense of the word. However, such actions obviously benefited Exxon and at the same time had a positive impact on the Angolan economy.

A second example: in many Latin American countries, licensing restrictions on many types of businesses are so draconian that firms often operate illegally in order to avoid the endless obstacles and delays that businesses operating within the law face. To support such firms operating within the informal economy, bribes are essential. Bribes, as a rule, are given voluntarily, and therefore are made on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis - after all, this reduces the costs of doing business. The author of the book “Corruption and the State,” Susan Rose-Ackerman, believes that corruption can indeed act as a counterbalance to excessive bureaucratization, allowing for faster management decision-making processes and promoting more efficient management.

However, it is worth noting that the negative consequences of corruption are much more serious and larger than the positive ones: according to D. Houston, in countries with the most stable situation, the negative consequences of corruption exceed the positive ones by 50-100 times. A natural question arises: how, then, to combat this phenomenon?

4. Methods of combating corruption

If we abolish the state,
we are eliminating corruption.
Gary Stanley Becker, economist,
Nobel Prize Laureate
in Economics 1992

Such a large number of works have been written on this topic that it is difficult to identify any specific “recipes” against corruption, especially since the package of measures to combat this phenomenon depends primarily on the specifics of the country (remember the model of corruption given in the second chapter) - its level of economic well-being, institutional, historical, geographical, cultural factors. The author considers it appropriate to give examples of successful anti-corruption strategies and draw certain lessons from them.

I. Singapore strategy. Since gaining independence in 1965, Singapore has found itself with one of the highest levels of corruption in the world. The following steps have been taken to combat corruption:

• Strict regulation of the actions of officials, simplification of bureaucratic procedures, strict supervision over compliance with high ethical standards
• Created autonomous(!) Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). Its main functions:
  i. receive and investigate complaints alleging corruption in public and private spheres;
  ii. investigate cases of negligence and negligence committed by government officials;
  iii. audit the activities and transactions carried out by government officials in order to minimize the possibility of corrupt practices.
• Legislation has been tightened, the independence of the judicial system has been increased (with high salaries and privileged status for judges), economic sanctions have been introduced for giving a bribe or refusing to participate in anti-corruption investigations, and tough actions have been taken, including the complete dismissal of customs officers and other government services.
• Deregulation of the economy
• Increasing the salaries of officials and training qualified administrative personnel.

It is noteworthy that corrupt officials, in addition to executing the usual court sentence, are required to reimburse the cost of the bribe received. Those who are unable to make full restitution are subject to a harsher sentence. If the person accused of corruption has already died, his property will be confiscated.

Thanks to this strategy, Singapore has become one of the least corrupt countries in the world - 4th place in the Corruption Perception Index 2008, recently published by Transparency International.

However, what was the driving force that ensured such high effectiveness of anti-corruption reforms? The answer is simple: political will .

II. In the Swedish strategy, the emphasis was shifted to a system of incentives to encourage the population to combat corruption. Its distinctive features:

• Main instruments - taxes, benefits and subsidies
• Free access to internal government documents
• An independent and effective justice system
• Setting high ethical standards for government officials
• High salaries for civil servants

Just a few years after the anti-corruption campaign began, honesty became a social norm among officials. As for high salaries, at first they were 12-15 times higher than workers’ salaries, but over time this difference decreased to 2-3 times.

To date, Sweden has been awarded the first rank in the Corruption Perception Index. The secret of the strategy lies in the implementation of the following tasks: increasing economic well-being, achieving social equality, fighting poverty and, just as important, the perception of honesty as the norm of official behavior.

The anti-corruption measures listed in these examples have, in one form or another, been reflected in the strategies of other states. Without going into further details, we note that the most effective are combined “carrot and stick” methods; used individually, they are unlikely to lead to significant results, if at all they do not worsen the situation. Russian anti-corruption fighters need to remember this, too, especially considering that this year the country dropped to 147th place in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Unfortunately, it will not be possible to get by with good intentions alone - and the package of anti-corruption laws developed by the Presidential Anti-Corruption Council is a clear confirmation of this.

Conclusion

"It is possible to govern a country with bad
laws, but it is impossible to govern the country
with undisciplined officials"
Chancellor of the German Empire
Otto von Bismarck

Despite the fact that corruption is often compared to hydra, there are quite effective methods of struggle with this phenomenon, as successfully demonstrated by world practice. Not fighting corruption means supporting it, and given how destructive consequences Such inaction arises in all spheres of social life; the problem of countering this “internal enemy” faces any state. This is why it is so important to study reasons corruption - after all, it is necessary to fight not only the weed itself, but also its seeds. Understanding what corruption is, by studying this phenomenon and the experience of other countries in resisting it, we gain knowledge - and knowledge, as we know, is power. The main thing is that this power finds its proper use - this requires not only political will, but also support from the entire society. Otherwise, the battle against corruption will be lost.

List of used literature

1. B. Begovic “Corruption: concepts, types, causes and consequences”, CADAL, 2005

2. Carlos Leite, Jens Weidmann, “Does Mother Nature Corrupt? Natural Resources, Corruption, and Economic Growth”, IMF working paper, 1999

3. Douglas A. Houston, “Can corruption ever improve an economy?”, The Cato Journal, 2007

4. Global Corruption Report 2008, Cambridge University Press

5. Ian Senior, “Corruption—the World’s Big C: Cases, Causes, Consequences, Cures,” Institute of Economic Affairs, 2006

6. Lindbeck A. Swedish lessons for post-socialist countries. — Institute for International Economic Studies, Seminar Paper No. 645, Stockholm, 1998, p.4

7. Pranab Bardhan, “Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues,” Journal of Economic Literature Vol. XXXV (September 1997), pp. 1320-1346

8. Rajeev K. Goel and Michael A. Nelson, “Causes of corruption: History, geography and government”, BOFIT Discussion Papers, Helsinki, 2008

9. Shang-Jin Wei, “Corruption in Economic Development: Beneficial Grease, Minor Annoyance, or Major Obstacle?”, Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research

10. U Myint, “Corruption: Causes, Consequences, and Cures,” Asia-Pacific Development Journal Vol. 7, No. 2, December 2000

11. “United Nations Convention Against Corruption”

12. Wayne Sandholtz, William Koetzle, “Accounting for Corruption: Economic Structure, Democracy, and Trade,” 2000, International Studies Quarterly, 44, pp. 31-50

13. Bondarenko I. A., “Corruption: economic analysis at the regional level” St. Petersburg: “Petroposlis” 2001, p. 23-45

14. Brodman G. and Ricanatini F., “The Roots of Corruption. Do Market Institutions Matter?, World Bank, 2008.

15. Nomokonov V.A., “Organized crime: trends, prospects of struggle”, Vladivostok: Dalnevost Publishing House. University, 1998

16. Polterovich V.M., “Factors of corruption”, M., 1998

17. “Russia and corruption: who wins?”, analytical report of the Indem Foundation, M. 2008

Appendix 1. Measuring corruption

Measuring corruption is an important component of anti-corruption strategies. Assessing corruption in a country allows you to perform the following tasks:

• Making government decisions: identifying “hot spots” and factors that give rise to corruption in order to formulate an effective anti-corruption policy;
• Policy Execution: raising public awareness of the dangers of corruption, putting public pressure on governments; supporting regular monitoring of corruption to strengthen policy enforcement mechanisms;
• Decision making in the private sector: Recommendations regarding investment and other decisions.

Until recently, the dominant idea was that corruption was immeasurable. Indeed, researchers have faced many serious problems, such as:

• Novelty of the research topic;
• The hidden nature of corruption;
• Lack of objective statistics;
• Lack of interest from governments in collecting such statistics.

However, in 1995, the CPI, a corruption perception index developed by Transparency International, was first published. This composite index is considered the most authoritative today. The CPI 2008 used in this work is compiled from 13 sources (Table 4), each of which has its own ranking and scoring system. The task of Transparency International experts is to standardize ranks and transform scores into a single form, which is the CPI. Expert groups (often entrepreneurs from the countries under study), respondents to sociological surveys, and representatives of various international organizations participate in the preparation of the initial indices.

Table 4. Sources of CPI 2008

Abbreviation	Source	Index name	Research topics	Countries
	Asian Development Bank	Country Performance Assessment Ratings		29 countries in the region
	African Development Bank	Country Policy and Institutional Assessments	Corruption, conflicts of interest, waste, experience and achievements in the fight against corruption	52 countries in the region
	Bertelsmann Foundation	Bertelsmann Transformation Index	The ability of the state to effectively fight corruption	125 developing countries and countries with economies in transition
		Country Policy and Institutional Assessment	Corruption, conflicts of interest, waste, experience and achievements in the fight against corruption	75 countries associated with IDA (International Development Association)
	Economist Intelligence Unit	Country Risk Service and Country Forecast	Abuse of official power for personal gain/profit of a political party
		Nations in Transit	Perception of corruption by society and the media, anti-corruption initiatives and methods	29 countries/territories
		Country Risk Ratings	The likelihood of encountering corruption of all types	203 countries
IMD (2007 and 2008)	IMD International	IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook	State efficiency, losses from corruption
	Merchant International Group	Gray Area Dynamics	Corruption, volume of bribes
PERC (2007 and 2008)	Political and Economic Risk Consultancy	Asia Intelligence Newsletter	Level of perception of corruption in the public sector	15 countries in the region
	World Economic Forum	Global Competitiveness Report	International corruption, level of corruption and volumes of bribes in the public sector, during the export/import of goods, in the judicial and tax systems	131 countries

Corruption indicators (which are quantitative And quality) vary in subject and scope of research:

• Level of corruption in the country/city/region/sector: practices of corruption (for example, amounts and frequency of bribes, services requiring large payments);
• Level of corruption: perception of corruption (for example, the possibility of obtaining services through bribes, the reliability of giving a bribe, general attitude towards the possibility of bribery);
• Governance indicators (e.g. judicial independence, regulatory burden, informal sector)
• Indicators of public trust (for example, the general level of citizens' trust in authorities at the national and local levels; general trust in executive, legislative, judicial authorities, law enforcement agencies)
• Business efficiency
• Risks of business corruption
• Other criteria (freedom of information, political corruption)

To conduct a reliable study, it is necessary to take into account that:

In conclusion, we note that descriptions of specific methods for studying corruption are usually attached directly to the results of these studies.

Appendix 2. Main provisions of the draft Federal Law “On Combating Corruption”

Article 1. Basic concepts used in this Federal Law

For the purposes of this Federal Law, the following basic concepts are used:

1) corruption:

a) abuse of official position, giving a bribe, receiving a bribe, abuse of power, commercial bribery or other illegal use by an individual of his official position contrary to the legitimate interests of society and the state in order to obtain benefits in the form of money, valuables, other property or services of a property nature for himself or for third parties or illegal provision of such benefits to the specified person by other individuals;

b) committing the acts specified in subparagraph “a” of this paragraph on behalf of or in the interests of a legal entity;

2) anti-corruption - the activities of federal government bodies, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local government bodies of municipalities, civil society institutions, organizations and individuals within the limits of their powers:

a) to prevent corruption, including identifying and subsequently eliminating the causes of corruption (prevention of corruption);

b) to identify, prevent, suppress, disclose and investigate corruption offenses (fight against corruption);

c) to minimize and (or) eliminate the consequences of corruption offenses;

3) family members of a state or municipal employee - spouse and minor children.

Article 6. Measures to prevent corruption

Prevention of corruption is carried out by applying the following basic measures:

1) the formation in society of intolerance towards corrupt behavior, including through anti-corruption propaganda;

2) anti-corruption examination of legal acts and their projects;

3) presenting, in the manner prescribed by law, special (qualification) requirements for citizens applying for state or municipal positions and positions in the state or municipal service, as well as checking, in the prescribed manner, the information provided by these citizens;

4) establishment as a basis for the dismissal of a person holding a position in a state or municipal service, included in the list established by regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, from the position being filled in a state or municipal service or for the application of other measures of legal liability in relation to his or her failure to provide information or presentation false or incomplete information about one’s income, property and property-related obligations, as well as providing knowingly false information about the income, property and property-related obligations of one’s family members;

5) introduction into the practice of personnel work of federal government bodies, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local government bodies of municipalities of the rule, according to which the long-term, impeccable and effective performance of their official duties by a state or municipal employee must be taken into account when appointing him to a higher position, assigning him a military or special rank, class rank, diplomatic rank or with encouragement;

6) development of institutions of public and parliamentary control over compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on combating corruption;

7) establishing responsibility for committing corruption offenses.

Article 7. Main directions of activity of state bodies to increase the effectiveness of anti-corruption

The main areas of activity of government bodies to increase the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts are:

1) implementation of a unified state policy in the field of anti-corruption;

2) creation of a mechanism for interaction between law enforcement and other government bodies with public and parliamentary commissions on anti-corruption issues, as well as with citizens and civil society institutions;

3) adoption of legislative, administrative and other measures aimed at attracting, first of all, state and municipal employees, as well as individuals, to take a more active role in combating corruption, and at creating a negative attitude towards corrupt behavior in society;

4) improving the system and structure of government bodies, creating mechanisms for public control over their activities;

5) introduction of anti-corruption standards, that is, the establishment for the relevant area of ​​social activity of a unified system of prohibitions, restrictions and permissions that ensure the prevention of corruption in this area;

6) unification of rights and restrictions, prohibitions and obligations established for civil servants, as well as for persons holding public positions in the Russian Federation;

7) ensuring access of citizens to information about the activities of federal government bodies, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local government bodies of municipalities, increasing the independence of the media;

8) strict adherence to the principle of independence of judges and non-interference in judicial activities;

9) improving the organization of the activities of law enforcement and regulatory authorities to combat corruption;

10) development of a system of measures aimed at improving the procedure for performing state and municipal service;

12) ensuring transparency, competition and objectivity when conducting competitions and auctions for the right to conclude state or municipal contracts;

13) elimination of unfounded prohibitions and restrictions, especially in the field of economic activity, narrowing the scope of the shadow economy;

14) strengthening supervision over the ownership structure of an organization if there is information about its involvement in corruption offenses;

15) improving the procedure for using state and municipal property, state and municipal resources

(including when providing state and municipal assistance), as well as the transfer of rights to use such property and its alienation;

16) increasing the level of remuneration of state and municipal employees;

17) strengthening international cooperation and developing effective forms of cooperation with law enforcement agencies and special services, financial intelligence units and other competent authorities of foreign states and international organizations in the field of combating corruption and the search, confiscation and repatriation of property obtained through corruption and located abroad;

18) increasing control over the resolution of issues contained in applications from individuals and legal entities;

19) transfer of part of the powers of federal government bodies to government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation while simultaneously introducing a system for assessing their work and part of the functions of government bodies in the non-state sector;

20) reducing the number of state and municipal employees while simultaneously attracting qualified specialists to the state and municipal service and creating adequate financial incentives depending on the volume and results of work;

21) increasing the responsibility of federal government bodies, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local government bodies of municipalities and their officials for failure to take measures to eliminate the causes of corruption;

22) optimization and specification of the powers of government bodies and their employees, which must be reflected in administrative and official regulations.

Article 10. The concept of conflict of interest in state and municipal service

1. Conflict of interests in the state and municipal service is a situation in which the personal interest (direct or indirect) of a state or municipal employee affects or may affect the objective performance of his official duties and in which a contradiction arises or may arise between the personal interests of a state or municipal employee and legitimate interests of citizens, organizations, society or the state, which can lead to harm to the legitimate interests of citizens, organizations, society or the state.

2. The personal interest of a state or municipal employee, which affects or may influence the objective performance of his official duties, is understood as the possibility of the state or municipal employee receiving income in the form of material benefit or other undue advantage in the performance of official duties directly for the state or municipal employee, members his family or other persons, as well as for citizens and organizations with which the state or municipal employee is bound by financial or other obligations.

The draft Federal Law also:

• provides for provisions on the “duty of state and municipal employees to provide information on income, property and property-related obligations” (Article 8), on the “duty of state and municipal employees to notify about the commission of corruption offenses, failure to provide information on income, property and property-related obligations and on appeals for the purpose of inducing the commission of offenses” (Article 9)
• determines the procedure for preventing and resolving conflicts of interest in the state and municipal service (Article 11)
• talks about the restrictions imposed on a citizen dismissed from state or municipal service when he enters into an employment contract (Article 12)
• determines the liability of individuals (Article 13) and legal entities (Article 14) for corruption offences.

In addition to the draft Federal Law, the National Anti-Corruption Plan includes a package of other documents. The main documents are freely available and published on the website of the President of Russia.

Compare with the definition given back in the 16th century by N. Machiavelli: “the use of public opportunities for private interests”

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE, YOUTH AND SPORTS OF UKRAINE
SEVASTOPOL NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Economics and Management
Department of Economic Theory

ABSTRACT

On the topic of:
CORRUPTION: CONCEPT, ASSESSMENT, WAYS OF FIGHT
in the discipline "Institutional Economics"

Completed by: student of group EP-31d
Matvienko M.V. ______________________
________ "__"_______20__
Scientific supervisor: senior teacher
Drebot A.M. _____________________
_________ "__"______20__

Sevastopol

Introduction……………………………………………………… …….……………………3

Concept and assessment of corruption……………………………………….…………. ..4
Causes and consequences………………………………………………………………. …………6
Corruption in Ukraine. Ways of struggle………………………………………………………...11

Conclusion………………………………………………… ……………………….…..15
List of sources used…………………………………………….…… 16

INTRODUCTION

The problem of corruption and bribery in Ukraine has become so alarmingly acute that the motives and relevance of the chosen topic are simply obvious. Everything is bought and sold: from school grades to the adoption of a law in the Verkhovna Rada. Now combating corruption is one of the main tasks of the Ukrainian state in the short and medium term. The theoretical significance of this study is the analysis of lawmaking and law enforcement, the state and degree of corruption of society, the display of various sources of views on this topic, and their comparative characteristics. The purpose of the study is to reflect the shortcomings and gaps in legislation, evidence of this is that a state strategy to counteract this large-scale phenomenon has not yet been developed, a number of the most important anti-corruption laws and other socially significant documents have not been adopted, and the measures that are currently being tried to influence Its impact is assessed by professionals to a greater extent as an imitation of government activity, since they are initially ineffective. The objectives of the study are to improve the fight against criminal manifestations of corruption. The object of the study is the problem of combating corruption and bribery in Ukraine. The subject of the study is the general patterns of the emergence, functioning and development of corruption relations (as a way of implementing the plans of criminal communities), their essence, causes, consequences.

CONCEPT AND ASSESSMENT OF CORRUPTION

Like any complex social phenomenon, corruption does not have a single canonical definition. It is clear that sociologists, management specialists, economists, lawyers and ordinary citizens interpret this concept differently.
The most interesting is the definition of “corruption” made by N. Machiaveli - the use of public opportunities for private interests.
Definitions of corrumpire in Roman law were understood in the most general way as (to break), spoil, destroy, damage, falsify, bribe and denoted an illegal action, for example against a judge. This concept comes from a combination of the Latin words “correi” - several participants in one of the parties to an obligation relationship regarding a single subject and “rumpere” - to break, damage, violate, cancel. As a result, an independent term was formed, which implied the participation in the activities of several (at least two) persons, the purpose of which is to “spoil”, “damage” the normal course of the judicial process or the process of managing the affairs of society.
Further development of this concept in legal science narrows the scope of its designation and was defined as the corruption of official actions (bribery).
International public normative documents understand corruption in different ways. Some definitions cover the doing or omission of any act in the performance of duties or by reason of those duties as a result of gifts, promises or inducements sought or accepted or the unlawful receipt thereof whenever such act or omission occurs. However, it is emphasized that the concept of corruption must be defined in accordance with national law.
In UN documents on the international fight against corruption, there is also a definition of “corruption” - this is the abuse of government power to obtain benefits for personal purposes. It shows that corruption goes beyond bribery. This concept includes bribery (giving a reward to seduce a person from a position of duty), nepotism (patronage based on personal connections) and misappropriation of public funds for private use.
The working definition of the Interdisciplinary Group on Corruption of the Council of Europe has given an even broader definition: corruption is bribery and any other behavior of persons entrusted with the performance of certain duties in the public or private sector, which leads to a breach of the duties entrusted to them by their status as a public official, private employee, independent agent or other type of relationship and is intended to obtain any unlawful benefit for himself or others. In this case, the subject of corruption acts may not only be an official.
A similar idea is contained in the Guide prepared by the UN Secretariat based on the experience of different countries. It includes in the concept of corruption:

theft, embezzlement and misappropriation of state property by officials
abuse of official position to obtain unjustified personal benefits (benefits, advantages) as a result of unofficial use of official status
conflict of interests between public duty and personal self-interest.

Regulatory legal acts of Ukraine do not provide a uniform definition of the concept of corruption. Until now, the Law of Ukraine “On the Fight against Corruption” understands corruption as “the activities of persons authorized to perform state functions, aimed at the unlawful use of the powers granted to them to obtain material benefits, services, benefits or other advantages.” Thus, corruption can be defined as a complex social (and in its essence, asocial, immoral and illegal) phenomenon that arises in the process of implementing power relations by authorized persons who use the power granted to them to satisfy personal interests (the interests of third parties), and also to create conditions for committing corrupt acts, concealing them or facilitating them. Different manifestations of corruption have different ethical assessments: some actions are considered criminal, others are simply immoral. The latter tend to include nepotism and patronage based on political orientation, which violate the principle of meritocracy.
Corruption should be distinguished from lobbying. In lobbying, an official also uses his or her power to increase the chances of reappointment or promotion in exchange for actions in the interests of a certain group. The difference is that lobbying satisfies three conditions: - the process of influencing an official is competitive in nature and follows rules that are known to all participants;
- there are no secret or side payments;
- clients and agents are independent of each other in the sense that no group receives a share of the profits earned by the other group.
However, some researchers consider lobbying only an integral part of corruption. The most dangerous forms of corruption are classified as criminal offences. These primarily include embezzlement (theft) and bribes. Embezzlement is 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 manage resources legally: from a boss, a client, etc. A bribe is a type of corruption in which the actions of an official consist of providing any services to an individual or legal entity in exchange for providing the latter has a certain benefit to the former. In most cases, if the bribe is not a consequence of extortion, the bribe giver receives the main benefit from the transaction. Buying votes is also a criminal offense (although some consider it not a form of corruption, but a type of dishonest election campaign). Thus, corruption is a complex social phenomenon that negatively affects all aspects of the political and socio-economic development of society and the state. This phenomenon manifests itself in both illegal actions (inaction) and unethical (immoral acts).

CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF CORRUPTION

As stated, corruption is a complex, diverse phenomenon. Consequently, the many possible causes of corruption are also diverse. Its scale, specificity and dynamics are a consequence of the country’s general political, social and economic problems. The connection between corruption and the problems that give rise to it is two-way. On the one hand, these problems aggravate corruption, and their solution can help reduce corruption. On the other hand, large-scale corruption preserves and aggravates the problems of the transition period and interferes with their solution. It follows that, firstly, it is possible to reduce and limit corruption only by simultaneously solving the problems that give rise to it; and, secondly, the solution to these problems will be facilitated by combating corruption with all determination and in all directions.
The general problems that give rise to corruption include those that are characteristic of most countries at the stage of modernization, primarily those experiencing a transition period from a centralized to a market economy. Here are some of these problems:
1) the difficulties of overcoming the legacy of the totalitarian period. These include, first of all, a slow move away from the closeness and uncontrollability of the authorities, which, of course, contributed to the flourishing of corruption. Another circumstance is overcoming the fusion of power and economy characteristic of totalitarian regimes with a centralized system of economic management. The natural division of labor between government institutions, designed to create conditions for the normal functioning of the economy, and free agents of the market has not yet formed;
2) economic decline and political instability. The impoverishment of the population and the inability of the state to provide decent salaries to civil servants push both of them to violations, leading to mass grassroots corruption. This is reinforced by the old Soviet traditions of cronyism. At the same time, the constantly perceived political risk of long-term investments, difficult economic circumstances (inflation, clumsy and inappropriate presence of the state in the economy, lack of clear regulatory mechanisms) form a certain type of economic behavior designed for the short term, large, albeit risky, profits. This type of behavior is very similar to seeking profit through corruption;
Political instability creates a feeling of insecurity among officials at various levels. Without any guarantees of self-preservation under these conditions, they also succumb more easily to the temptation of corruption;
3) underdevelopment and imperfection of legislation. In the process of transformation, updating the fundamental principles of economics and economic practice significantly outpaces their legislative support. Suffice it to recall that in the countries of the former USSR, privatization (its party-nomenklatura stage) took place without clear legislative regulation and strict control. If earlier, under the Soviet regime, corruption often resulted from control over the distribution of the main resource - funds, then at the initial stages of the reform, officials sharply diversified the areas of control: benefits, loans, licenses, privatization competitions, the right to be an authorized bank, the right to implement large social projects, etc. .P. Economic liberalization was combined, firstly, with the old principles of bureaucratic control over resources, and secondly, with the absence of legislative
regulation of new areas of activity. This is one of the signs of the transition period and at the same time serves as fertile ground for corruption.
There is still significant legislative uncertainty regarding property issues. First of all, this concerns land ownership, the illegal sale of which gives rise to an abundant flow of corruption.
Defects in legislation are manifested in the imperfection of the entire legal system, in the vagueness of legislative procedures, in the presence of norms that create additional opportunities for corruption;
4) Ineffectiveness of government institutions. Totalitarian regimes build a cumbersome state apparatus. Bureaucratic structures are resilient and adapt well to surviving the most severe shocks. Moreover, the more energetic the transformation, the more energy and ingenuity the apparatus spends on its own preservation. As a result, the surrounding life is rapidly changing, and bureaucratic institutions and, consequently, the management system lag behind these changes.
The result is simple: the more complex and cumbersome the management system, the greater the discrepancy between it and the problems that it must solve, the easier it is for corruption to nestle in it;
5) weakness of civil society, separation of society from power. A democratic state is able to solve problems only in cooperation with the institutions of civil society. The deterioration of the socio-economic situation of citizens, which always accompanies the initial stages of modernization, the disappointment this causes, which replaces previous hopes - all this contributes to the alienation of society from power, the isolation of the latter;
6) lack of rootedness of democratic political traditions. The penetration of corruption into politics is facilitated by:
- unformed political culture, which is reflected, in particular, in the election process, when voters cast their votes for cheap handouts or succumbing to deliberate demagoguery;
- underdevelopment of the party system, when parties are not able to take responsibility for the training and promotion of their personnel and programs;
- imperfect legislation that overly protects deputy status, does not ensure the real dependence of elected officials on voters, and provokes violations in the financing of election campaigns.
Thus, subsequent corruption of representative bodies of power is laid down at the election stage.
Real political competition serves as a counterweight and limiter to corruption in the political sphere, on the one hand, and to political extremism, on the other. As a result, the chances of political instability are reduced.
Fictitious political life and the lack of opportunity for the political opposition to responsibly influence the situation push opposition politicians to exchange political capital for economic capital. At the same time, taking into account other conditions, there is a smooth transition from semi-legitimate lobbying to outright corruption.
Corruption negatively affects all spheres of public life, in particular the economy, politics, management, social and legal spheres, public consciousness and international relations. In this regard, the consequences of the influence of corruption on society can be classified depending on the areas of occurrence, into: social, economic, government, political, legal, international and moral-psychological.
1) Economic consequences:
- The shadow economy is expanding. This leads to a decrease in tax revenues and a weakening of the budget. As a result, the state loses financial levers to manage the economy, social problems worsen due to failure to fulfill budget obligations;
- the competitive mechanisms of the market are violated, since often the winner is not the one who is competitive, but the one who was illegally able to gain advantages. This entails a decrease in market efficiency and discrediting the ideas of market competition;
- the emergence of effective private owners is slowing down, primarily due to violations during privatization, as well as artificial bankruptcies, usually associated with bribery of officials. The consequences are the same as in paragraph 2 of this list;
- budget funds are used ineffectively, in particular in the distribution of government orders and loans. This further exacerbates the country's fiscal problems;
- prices increase due to corrupt “overheads”. As a result, the consumer suffers;
- market agents begin to lack confidence in the ability of the authorities to establish, control and comply with fair rules of the market game. The investment climate is deteriorating, and, consequently, the problems of overcoming the decline in production and updating fixed assets are not being solved;
- the scale of corruption in non-governmental organizations (firms, enterprises, public organizations) is expanding. This leads to a decrease in the efficiency of their work, which means the efficiency of the country’s economy as a whole decreases.
2) Social consequences:
- colossal funds are diverted from the goals of social development. This worsens the budget crisis and reduces the ability of the authorities to solve social problems.
- sharp property inequality and poverty of a large part of the population are consolidated and increased. Corruption fuels the unfair redistribution of funds to a small group at the expense of the most vulnerable.
- law is discredited as the main instrument for regulating the life of the state and society. In the public consciousness, an idea is formed about the defenselessness of citizens both in the face of crime and in the face of power.
- corruption of law enforcement agencies contributes to the strengthening of organized crime. The latter, merging with corrupt groups of officials and entrepreneurs, is further strengthened by access to political power and opportunities for money laundering.
- social tension is increasing, hitting the economy and threatening political stability in the country.
3) Political consequences:
- there is a shift in policy goals from national development to ensuring the rule of certain clans.
- trust in the authorities decreases, its alienation from society increases. Thus, any good undertakings of the authorities are jeopardized.
- the country’s prestige in the international arena is falling, and the threat of its economic and political isolation is growing.
- political competition is profaned and reduced. Citizens are becoming disillusioned with the values ​​of democracy. There is a disintegration of democratic institutions.
- the risk of the collapse of a nascent democracy increases according to the common scenario of the arrival of a dictatorship in the wake of the fight against corruption.
There is no doubt that corruption has a corrupting effect on all aspects of life. It should be emphasized that the economic losses from corruption are much wider and deeper than just the total amount of bribes - the price that individuals or companies pay to corrupt officials and politicians.

CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. WAYS OF FIGHT

Corruption in Ukraine has become one of the threats to national security. In essence, there are two subsystems functioning in society - official and unofficial, almost equal in their influence. Society and the state as a whole experience the negative impact of corruption. It undermines the economic foundations of the state, blocks the arrival of foreign investment, and provokes distrust of the population in government structures. Corruption has a negative impact on the international image of Ukraine, leads to the “shadowing” of the economy, and contributes to the growing influence of organized criminal groups.
Today, an extremely high level of corruption has been recorded in Ukraine, which is recognized not only by domestic and foreign analysts, experts, public and international organizations, but even by domestic representatives of the highest bodies of legislative and executive power.
Let's give some numbers. According to the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), developed by Transparency International, Ukraine ranks 134th in 2010, which it shared between Togo and Zimbabwe.
in 1998 2.8 points (70th place out of 85 countries);
in 1999 2.6 points (77th place out of 99 countries);
in 2000 1.5 points (88th place out of 90 countries);
in 2001 2.1 points (83rd place out of 91 countries);
in 2002 2.4 points (86th place out of 102 countries);
in 2003 2.3 points (111th place out of 133 countries);
in 2004 2.2 points (128th place out of 146 countries);
in 2005 2.6 points (107th place out of 158 countries);
in 2006 2.8 points (99th place out of 163 countries);
in 2007 2.7 points (118th place out of 180 countries);
in 2008 2.5 points (134th place out of 180 countries);
in 2009 2.2 points (146th place out of 180 countries);
in 2010 2.4 points (134th place out of 178 countries).
In the concept of overcoming corruption in Ukraine “On the Path to Integrity” (2006), it is noted that over the years of reforms “corruption has acquired signs of a systemic phenomenon through the defeat of vital institutions of society and has become a functionally important way of their existence”, began to constitute a significant threat to democracy , implementation of the principle of the rule of law, social progress, national security, the formation of civil society. Although over the following years, since the approval of this concept by the state, a number of significant steps have been taken to develop at the legislative and practical level procedures for combating corruption, but systemic reforms, the implementation of which would significantly affect the change in social relations, and then would reduce the institutional factors of corruption , there was no beginning. This is evidenced by the results of the project “Anti-corruption as one of the priorities of state policy in Ukraine: discrepancies between words and actions,” which was carried out by specialists from the Center for Public Expertise. As part of this project, an audit of the entire array of regulatory and legal acts that determine state policy in the field of overcoming corruption was carried out, and the main statistical indicators on the fight against corruption in Ukraine in 2009 were analyzed. This made it possible to identify 5 main factors that characterize the current state of the fight against corruption in Ukraine. Thus, during the year in Ukraine, from 3 to 7.5 thousand administrative protocols on corruption offenses are drawn up; bribery on average accounts for 0.3-0.5% of the total number of crimes registered in Ukraine: despite the usually high level of corruption of the judiciary in Ukraine, in 10 months of 2009 only three judges were brought to administrative responsibility; the total number of protocols on corruption offenses for 10 months of 2009 was drawn up by the Security Service of Ukraine - 35%; Prosecutor's offices for the corresponding period made up 28% of the protocols, and internal affairs bodies - 27%; the average administrative fine, which is levied in Ukraine based on the results of judges' consideration of protocols on corruption offenses, is UAH 291.84. .
The fight against corruption in Ukraine is carried out in accordance with international acts and national legislation ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. International acts in force in Ukraine include: “UN Convention against Corruption”, “Criminal Convention against Corruption”, “Civil Convention against Corruption”. Since independence, Ukraine has also adopted many regulations regulating the scope of activities that fall under under corruption. The most famous of them are the Laws of Ukraine “On Civil Service” (In particular, Articles 5, 12, 13, 16, 30), “On the Fight against Corruption”, “On the Fundamentals of Preventing and Combating Corruption”, “On the Responsibility of Legal Entities” persons for committing corruption offenses "," On amendments to certain legislative acts of Ukraine regarding liability for corruption offenses ".
The presidents of Ukraine also played an active role in the fight against corruption. Today, the current acts are the Decrees of the President of Ukraine “On mandatory special verification of information submitted by candidates for positions of civil servants” (dated November 19, 2001 No. 1098); "On priority measures to shadow the economy and combat corruption" (Dated November 18, 2005 No. 1615), "On the Concept of overcoming corruption in Ukraine "On the path to integrity"" (dated September 11, 2006 No. 742), "On the Council for ensuring implementation in Ukraine of the Corporation's Threshold Program
"Millennium Challenges" to reduce the level of corruption "(dated 12/23/06 No. 1121), "On some measures to improve the formation and implementation of state anti-corruption policy" (dated 02/01/08 No. 80)," On the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine dated April 21, 2008 “On measures to implement the national anti-corruption strategy and institutional support for a holistic anti-corruption policy” (dated 05.05.08 No. 414), “On the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine dated October 31, 2008 “On the state of combating corruption in Ukraine” "(Dated November 27, 2008 No. 1101), "On the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Committee" (dated February 26, 2010 No. 275), a decision was made on the formation, the main tasks of the NAC were determined) "The issue of the National Anti-Corruption Committee" (dated March 26, 2010 No. 454, approved personnel charged with preparing proposals for introducing comprehensive changes to the new anti-corruption laws).
At first glance, it becomes clear that the number of documents that should help in the fight against corruption in Ukraine and reduce its level is growing significantly from year to year, in contrast to the real situation in this area.
The situation can be radically changed only by eliminating corruption opportunities in legislation. The first step on this path is administrative reform. It was with this that the countries of Eastern Europe began after the collapse of the socialist camp. In Ukraine, it has not yet been carried out in a pan-European form. One of its main components is the adoption of the Administrative Procedure Code, which clearly defines the standards of work of executive authorities - requirements for applications, the rights of applicants and interested parties, functions of the executive body, deadlines for resolving cases, the procedure for appealing decisions of authorities, and more. The bill on the integrity of civil servants has also not been adopted; officials are prohibited from using state property for their own purposes, hiring relatives in subordinate positions, and accepting gifts.
Ukrainian experts are confident that these changes are unlikely to take place from above, since it is the representatives of the management system who are less interested in them.
It is possible to significantly reduce the corruption potential of officials not only through a long path of changes to legislation. It is quite possible to introduce many innovations without changing laws. This requires only the will of the heads of state authorities and local self-government. And the condition for administrative reform and overcoming corruption at the local level is competent and active civil servants and local government officials who are able to withstand political and economic pressure, who receive the necessary public and institutional support for this.
It is also necessary to minimize personal communication between citizens and officials who prepare or make decisions. This can be achieved through the use of postal services and e-mail, the creation of unified offices where citizens can submit all documents at once, the order of queues, increasing the reception hours of officials, improving the awareness of citizens through the creation of reference services and electronic resources with a detailed list of all services and the procedure for their provision , introduction of a mechanism for paying fines through banking institutions, and not on-site inspection by inspectors.
In the meantime, all these delights will be introduced throughout Ukraine, everyone can significantly reduce corruption risks for themselves by studying in detail the procedure for providing the required service by the state. The best way to fight corruption at a personal level is knowledge. The better a person knows the legislation and mechanisms for resolving a certain issue, the more protected he will be from corruption. And the proposed anti-corruption reform will be successful only when government institutions are able to form new norms of legal, political and economic culture. When corruption becomes only an element of society, and not its component. Unfortunately, today corruption is a striking but capacious characteristic of Ukrainian society.

CONCLUSION

Summing up, we can conclude that corruption is becoming the norm, not the exception, including among the political, ruling and economic elite. Law enforcement agencies, themselves partly affected by corruption, do not have sufficient capacity and the necessary real independence to combat institutional corruption.
To summarize, it can be argued that the influence of corruption on indicators of development of the social sphere can be both direct and reverse.
First, corruption significantly inflates the price of public goods.
Secondly, corruption reduces the volume and quality of public goods.
Third, corruption weakens investment in human capital.
Fourthly, corruption leads to a reduction in government revenue. Considering,
that the price of public goods may be inflated due to corruption, citizens reduce the demand for goods, which leads to a reduction in the tax base and a decrease in the state’s ability to provide quality public services.
At the present stage, corruption in the criminological meaning is an antisocial, socially dangerous phenomenon that threatens the economic and political security of Ukraine, permeating the branches of government, constituting a set of crimes committed by officials for the purpose of personal enrichment at the expense of the state, commercial and other organizations and citizens. This is achieved by obtaining, through the use of official powers, material and other benefits to the detriment of the interests of the state. But objectively, such actions are expressed in the merging of state power and organized crime. The criminological significance of corruption is limited only to those aspects of its general social and political economic meaning that reflect its antisocial, socially dangerous and criminally unlawful essence and content.

LIST OF SOURCES USED

Law of Ukraine “On the Fight against Corruption” dated June 19, 2003// http://ukrconsulting.biz/
The concept of overcoming corruption in Ukraine “On the path to integrity”: Order of the President of Ukraine dated September 11, 2006 No. 742 // zakon1.rada.gov.ua
United Nations Convention against Corruption of October 31, 2003 // http://www.un.org/ru/ documents/decl_conv/ conventions/corruption.shtml/
A.V. Dlugopolsky, A.Yu. Zhukovskaya. Corruption and social reforms: aspects of mutual influence / Current problems of economics No. 8 (110), 2010 [Electronic resource]// http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/natural/vcpi/TPtEV/2010_63/1_ 23.pdf
Doloshko N.G., Nikolaeva E.G. Determinants of corruption in transition economies [Electronic resource] // http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/natural/vcpi/TPtEV/2010_63/1_ 23.pdf
Yosifovich D.I. Assessment of the prevalence of corruption in the world./ MITN RIGHT No. 4(76)’2011, part 2
Kozak V.I. The phenomenon of corruption: a scientific view of the real state in Ukraine [Electronic resource]// http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/ Soc_Gum/Nvamu_upravl/2011_2/ 30.pdf
Risks of corruption in public administration // "Attorney at Law" -2010. [Electronic resource]

//http://osipov.kiev.ua/ novosti/1021-korupcijniriziki-v-publichnij-administraciyi. html

Results of the project “Anti-corruption as one of the priorities of state policy in Ukraine: discrepancies between words and actions” [Electronic resource]// www.newcitizen.org.ua
Sungurov. A.Yu. Civil initiatives and corruption prevention / Edited by St. Petersburg: Norma., 2000. - 224 p.
Chervonozhka V. Corruption in Ukraine: how to really change its scale // Novinar. [Electronic resource]// http://novynar.com.ua/ analytics/government/72994
Corruption Perceptions Index Results 2010 [Electronic resource] – Access mode A:

etc.................