145. Lutz, Donald S. The origins of American Constitutionalism. Baton Rouge, 1988. 178 p.
6. McCoy, Charles S. Federalism: The Lost Tradition? Publius, 2001, vol. 31, no 2 (Spring), pp. 1-14.
7. Morey, William C. The Sources of American Federalism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1895, vol. 6 (Sep.), 1-30.
8. Morgan, Edmund S. Puritan Political Ideas. Indianapolis, 1965. 404 p.
9. Ostrom, Vincent. Hobbes, Covenant, and Constitution. Publius, 1980, vol. 10, no 4 (Autumn), pp. 83-100.
10. Smith, Anthony D. The cultural foundations of nations: hierarchy, covenant, and republic. Malden, 2008. 264 p.
11. Witte, John Jr. Religion ant the American constitutional experiment: essential rights and liberties. Boulder, 2000. 385 p.
Федоров Александр Вячеславович - кандидат юридических наук, профессор, заместитель председателя Следственного комитета РФ, заслуженный юрист Российской Федерации, г. Москва. Е-mail: 1956af@mail.ru
КОНВЕНЦИЯ ОЭСР ПО БОРЬБЕ СО ВЗЯТОЧНИЧЕСТВОМ КАК ЧАСТЬ ПРАВОВОЙ СИСТЕМЫ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ И РЕАЛИЗАЦИЯ АНТИКОРРУПЦИОННЫХ СТАНДАРТОВ ОЭСР В РОССИЙСКОМ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВЕ: ВОПРОСЫ УГОЛОВНОГО ПРАВА И УГОЛОВНОЙ ПОЛИТИКИ
В статье рассматриваются вопросы, касающиеся реализации антикоррупционных стандартов Организации экономического сотрудничества и развития (ОЭСР) в области уголовного права в связи с присоединением Российской Федерации к Конвенции по борьбе с подкупом иностранных должностных лиц при осуществлении международных коммерческих сделок.
Исследуются проблемные аспекты криминализации обещания и предложения взятки в российском уголовном законодательстве, а также проводится юридическая грань между посредничеством во взяточничестве и обещанием и предложением взятки вне зависимости от суммы взятки. Акцентируется внимание на том, что установленные российским законодателем дискреционные полномочия судов в части изменения категории преступления нарушают конституционный принцип разделения властей.
В рамках проведенного компаративистского анализа Конвенции по борьбе с подкупом иностранных должностных лиц при осуществлении междуна-
родных коммерческих сделок и специальных норм Уголовного кодекса (УК) РФ, предусматривающих ответственность за коррупционные преступления, обосновывается необходимость регулятивного расширения предмета взятки в российском уголовном и административном законодательстве за счет указания на нематериальные блага. При этом отмечается, что расширение предмета взятки через незаконные преимущества неимущественного характера закономерно повлияет на изменение классификации и категоризации преступлений коррупционного характера, а как следствие - возникает потребность выработки юридических критериев оценки взятки неимущественного характера.
В рамках сравнительно-правового анализа норм Конвенции по борьбе с подкупом иностранных должностных лиц при осуществлении международных коммерческих сделок и УК РФ также затрагиваются вопросы оптимизации сроков давности в отношении коррупционных преступлений по уголовному законодательству России и специальных обстоятельств, исключающих уголовную ответственность за коррупционные преступления, а также рассматриваются проблемные аспекты пропорциональности штрафов в зависимости от суммы взятки и сложности оказания международной помощи в случаях подкупа иностранных должностных лиц.
Ключевые слова: Организация по экономическому сотрудничеству и развитию (ОЭСР), Конвенция ОЭСР по борьбе с подкупом иностранных должностных лиц при осуществлении международных коммерческих сделок, антикоррупционные стандарты, коррупция, взяточничество, подкуп, международный договор, правовая система, источники уголовного права, обещание и предложение взятки, уголовно-правовой запрет.
Alexander V. Fedorov, Cand. Sci. (Law), Professor, Deputy Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation, Moscow. Е-mail: 1956af@mail.ru
THE OECD ANTI-BRIBERY CONVENTION AS PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION LEGAL SYSTEM, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OECD ANTI-CORRUPTION STANDARDS IN RUSSIAN LEGISLATION: ASPECTS OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL POLICY
The article deals with issues regarding implementation of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) anti-corruption standards in criminal law in connection with accession of the Russian Federation to the 1997 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
The article reviews the problematic aspects of the criminalization of promises and bribe offers in the Russian criminal law and draws a legal distinction between mediation in bribery and the bribe promise and bribe offering regardless of the bribe amount. Attention is drawn to the fact that under Russian legislation discretionary powers of the courts in terms of changing the category of crime violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Comparative analysis of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the special provisions of the Criminal Code, stipulating the liability for corruption offenses, shows the necessity of regulatory extension of the object of bribe in the Russian criminal and administrative legislation by reference to intangible benefits. It is noted that the expansion of the bribe object into illegal non-material benefits will naturally change the classification and categorization of corruption-related crimes, and as a result will bring a need for developing criteria for legal assessment of non-material bribes.
A comparative legal analysis of the norms of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the Penal Code also involves addressing to the optimization of the limitation period in respect of corruption offenses under the Russian criminal law and special circumstances precluding criminal responsibility for corruption crimes; the article also discusses problematic aspects of the proportionality of penalties depending on the amount of the bribe and the complexity of international assistance in the cases of bribery of foreign public officials.
Keywords: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, OECD anti-bribery standards, corruption, graft, bribery, international treaty, legal system, sources of criminal law, criminal law prohibition, promise and offer of bribe.
In the contemporary world, development of national laws is increasingly influenced by international treaties. In the epoch of globalization, this influence extends over all states of the world, our country being no exception, whose inclusion in worldwide processes on the basis of international treaties is reflected in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Pursuant to Article 15 of the Constitution, international treaties of the Russian Federation form a constituent part of its legal system, and if an international treaty establishes rules different from those envisaged by law, then the rules of the international treaty shall be applied.
Due to that, legislative and law enforcement authorities often encounter issues concerning application of international acts' norms.
We deem it expedient to consider some of those issues by the example of implementation in Russian criminal law of provisions of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997 [1] (hereinafter referred to as «the OECD Convention», or «the Anti-Bribery Convention») to which the Russian Federation acceded in 2012 [2].
Under the Constitution, that international treaty has been recognized as a constituent part of the Russian legal system which, according to a definition developed by legal theory, represents a set of generally binding norms, legal ideology and judicial (juridical) practice [3, a 47-48].
But may this OECD Convention be viewed as a source of Russian criminal law?
For quite a long time, in domestic criminal law science, a thesis prevailed pursuant to which a criminal statute constitutes the only source of criminal law. In our view, that thesis should not be questioned today either, when we mean laying down normative regulations of criminal law's subject matter in the part touching criminalization and penalization, i.e. establishing criminality of and penalty for an act.
But if we take into account the Constitution's provisions relating to criminal law, and issues of law enforcement in view of existence of blanket dispositions and use of judgemental terms in criminal law, as well as the influence of judicial practice on law enforcement [4], it is possible to suggest a broader understanding of sources of criminal law, when under certain circumstances, an international treaty is recognized as such a source. In this regard, it is expedient to distinguish between sources of criminal law in a narrow and a broad sense.
The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as «CC») sets forth a narrow understanding of a criminal law source. Pursuant to Article 1 CC, Russian criminal legislation consists of CC, and new statutes providing for criminal liability shall be subject to mandatory incorporation in CC which is based, inter alia, on international law norms.
Thus, in the sphere of criminal law, norms of international conventions may not be applied directly, it is required that they are incorporated, through national law, into CC, which is consistent with both the classical Roman rule «nullum crimen sine lege» (no crime without law), and the Constitution of the Russian Federation whose Article 71 stipulates that a person becomes criminally responsible who has committed an act containing all elements of a criminal offence envisaged in CC.
That circumstance was underlined in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 2003 on Application of Universally Recognized Principles and Norms of International Law and International Treaties of the Russian Federation by Courts of General Jurisdiction [5; 6] explaining that international treaties, whose norms establish elements of criminally punishable acts, may not be applied by courts directly, since such treaties indicate the states' duty to ensure fulfillment of obligations laid down therein by way of establishing punishability of particular criminal offences in domestic (national) law.
International law norms envisaging elements of crimes, are applied as such
*
only if a CC norm directly requires application of an international treaty .
The CC articles establishing liability for giving a bribe to a foreign public official, accepting thereof by the latter and mediation in such bribery (Articles 290, 291 and 2911 CC), do not contain any references to international treaties. Moreover, the OECD Convention itself contains provisions, under which offences covered by it, are criminalized and penalized in accordance with a country's domestic law.
The above considerations provide a basis for some scholars to view such international treaties as a source of influence on development of Russian criminal law [7], which is, in our opinion, unquestionable, including instances when an international treaty lays down criminal prohibition of certain conduct.
There are many interpretations of a criminal law prohibition, but the classical approach is to understand thereby the conduct proscribed by criminal law under penalty, i.e. a legal characteristic of a socially dangerous act, the setting out of its elements in criminal law [8, a 5].
Incorporation of criminal prohibition defined by international treaty's norms, into national law is of paramount significance in the system of legal regulations of social relations in conditions of globalization, when certain unification of national legislations takes place, including that connected with minimization of specifics of individual national legal systems.
This is confirmed explicitly by the process of the Russian Federation's accession to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and subsequent implementation of its provisions by the Russian Federation as well as by other countries [9].
Although under the Constitution, the OECD Convention is a constituent part of the legal system of the Russian Federation, it cannot be applied directly, since its requirements are complied with by way of enacting norms of national law [10]. In particular, this regards determination of elements of relevant criminal and administrative offences.
Under the OECD rules, prior to receipt of this organization's invitation to accede to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, a particular state should bring its legislation in line with the main anti-corruption standards representing requirements in respect of national laws and practice of their application, recognized by the parties to that international treaty and subject to mandatory implementation laid down in the Convention, Commentaries thereon, as well as in numerous recommendations adopted by the OECD [11, a 532-555].
Например, ст. 355 УК РФ устанавливает ответственность за разработку, производство, накопление, приобретение или сбыт химического, биологического, токсического, а также другого вида оружия массового уничтожения, запрещенного международным договором Российской Федерации (Article 355 CC sets forth responsibility for developing, manufacturing, stockpiling, acquisition or sale of chemical, biological, toxic and other types of weapons of mass-destruction banned by an international treaty of the Russian Federation).
Among those standards are the establishment, with regard to natural persons, of criminal liability for bribery of foreign public officials and officials of a public international organization, and with regard to legal entities - of criminal or administrative liability for such bribery, the definition in national law of a «foreign public official» as well as «an official of a public international organization», and some others.
Based on those standards, in 2008-2012 in the Russian Federation, the necessary amendments were introduced into law.
In particular, the CC establishes responsibility for bribery of foreign public officials, and a note to Article 290 CC contains a definition of «a foreign public official» and «an official of a public international organization», and there was introduced administrative responsibility of legal entities for corruption-related offences.
Amendments to the legislation were introduced taking into account the preamble of the Commentaries on the OECD Convention adopted by the conference of authorized representatives together with the Convention and actually constituting its integral part, pursuant to which, to ensure a functional equivalence to Convention's provisions of the measures taken by a candidate country for accession, it is not required to achieve uniformity with this international treaty's provisions or introduce changes in fundamental principles of national legal systems.
For instance, as a rule, in the OECD member states there is a criminal liability of legal entities for bribery [12], but at the same time some of them permit establishing of administrative liability of legal entities for international bribery. Irrespective of the chosen liability type, whether criminal or administrative, the major type of penalty is a fine, sometimes amounting to millions of dollars.
In a showcase, German authorities, for the proved bribes by the «Siemens» company in Lithuania, Russia and Nigeria totaling EUR 12 million, imposed a USD 201 million administrative fine on that firm. Pursuant to a civil complaint, Siemens paid to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission USD 350 million, and another USD 450 million in criminal proceedings of the U.S. Department of Justice. Other compensatory payments added, the corruption-related violations had cost that company USD 1.180 billion [13, a 16-17].
Such a financial mechanism of countering corruption has a sobering effect on market players.
The effectiveness of measures taken in the countries party to the OECD Convention to combat bribery of foreign public officials, and related to the making legal persons responsible, is attested to by the following data for 2010.
In 2010, Parties to the Convention brought criminal charges of bribery of foreign public officials against 26 individuals (14 in Germany, 8 in the United States, 2 in the United Kingdom, 1 in Switzerland and 1 in France) and 10 legal entities (7 in the United States, 2 in Germany, 1 in the United Kingdom); admin-
istrative charges were brought against 12 individuals (8 in the United States, 4 in Germany) and 17 legal entities (all of them in the United States) [14; 15].
In the Russian Federation, it has been recognized as expedient to implement the concept of legal persons' administrative liability only. Pursuant to the Federal Law of 25 December 2008, for the first time in the Russian legislative history, Article 19.28 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter referred to as "CAO") introduced legal persons' liability for corruption offences [16].
In 2011, a new version of that article was adopted [17], providing for the maximum sentence of an administrative fine on legal entities in the amount of up to a hundredfold sum of the bribe (of money, value of securities, other property, property-related services, other proprietary rights illegally transferred or rendered, as well as promised or offered on behalf of a legal entity).
The evolving Russian judicial practice, like the OECD anti-corruption standards, is based on the principle that imposition of liability measures on a legal entity for corruption offences does not exempt from responsibility the individual who acted on behalf or in the interests of the legal entity, as well as making an individual liable does not relieve a legal entity of responsibility for a corruption-related offence.
Besides, in case of relief of responsibility in respect of an individual, a legal entity may be made administratively liable and vice versa.
That approach is not only set out in law, but acknowledged by decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as well .
Implementation of the rest of the anti-corruption standards is permissible after a state has already acceded to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and the international treaty has entered into force for that state . The respective work is currently underway in the Russian Federation. And a certain time span is re-
Определение Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 11 мая 2012 г. 3 674-О «Об отказе в принятии к рассмотрению жалобы гражданина Добрынина Дмитрия Станиславовича на нарушение его конституционных прав положением части 1 статьи 30.1 Кодекса Российской Федерации об административных правонарушениях» и Определение Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 24 декабря 2012 г. № 2360-О «Об отказе в принятии к рассмотрению жалобы закрытого акционерного общества «Корпорация «ГРИНН» на нарушение конституционных прав и свобод статьей 19.28 Кодекса Российской Федерации об административных правонарушениях» (Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated May 11, 2012 No. 3674-O «to refuse to accept complaints from citizen Dmitry Dobrynin Stanislavovitch violation of his constitutional rights provisions of Part 1 of Article 30.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences» and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of December 24, 2012 No. 2360-0 «To refuse to accept complaints from the closed joint-stock company Corporation "Green" the violation of constitutional rights and freedoms of Article 19.28 of the Code of Administrative Offences».
Конвенция вступила в силу для Российской Федерации 17 апреля 2012 г. (The Convention entered into force for the Russian Federation on April 17, 2012).
quired in order to ensure conformity of CC provisions with the OECD Conven*
tion, such time span being, by all appearances, a considerably long one [17] .
Under the OECD procedure, as soon as a country has acceded to the Convention, the course of its implementation of anti-corruption standards reflected in the Convention and the OECD acts connected the reto, is examined in the framework of a special Working Group.
During the evaluation of implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention by the States Parties thereto, the key issue concerns the compliance of national law with this international treaty's provisions and the effectiveness of application of domestic anti-corruption legislation. Such an evaluation is conducted in several phases.
Following the results of phases 1 and 2 evaluation of Russian legislation, some criminal law recommendations have been adopted.
In view of these recommendations, one can single out such main directions of amending criminal law, in order to implement the conventional obligations, as:
- criminalization of a promise and offer of a bribe as separate completed criminal offences;
- criminalization of the promising and offering of a bribe, as well as of mediation in bribery, regardless of the definition of gravity of a crime and the amount of the bribe;
- criminalization of promising, offering or giving improper non-property advantages to a foreign public official;
- establishment of statute of limitations sufficient for investigation and prosecution of bribery of foreign public officials;
- repeal of criminal law provisions allowing to relieve perpetrators of responsibility for bribery of foreign public officials;
- full criminalization of bribe-taking by a third person;
Реализация в национальном законодательстве положении международных конвенции достаточно часто осуществляется поэтапно. Например, РФ как государству - продолжателю СССР для полной реализации положений Единой конвенции о наркотических средствах 1961 г. потребовалось более 20 лет. Об этом см.: Федоров А. В. Реализация в сфере противодействия незаконному обороту наркотиков конституционного положения о признании международных договоров составной частью российской правовой системы // Конституция Российской Федерации как гарант прав и свобод человека и гражданина при расследовании преступлений. Ч. I: материалы Междунар. науч.-практ. конф. (Москва, 14 ноября 2013 г.). М. : ИПК СК РФ, 2013. С. 9-17. (Implementation in domestic law of international conventions' provisions is often done phase-by-phase, depending on existing conditions. Eg, it took the Russian Federation as a state-successor of the Soviet Union over 20 years to fully implement the provisions of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. See on this: Fedorov A. V. Implementation in the field of combating drug trafficking constitutional provisions recognizing the international treaties part of the Russian legal system // The Constitution of the Russian Federation as a guarantor of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in the investigation of crime Part I: proceed. of the Intern. sci. conf. (Moscow, November 14, 2013). Moscow : IPK RF IC, 2013. P. 9-17).
- ensuring proportionality of fines;
- ensuring criminal law grounds for rendering legal assistance on cases of bribery of foreign public officials, and some other decisions of criminal law nature.
The doubts expressed by the experts as to consistency of the Russian criminal legislation with the Convention's standards, as well as the recommendations on improvement of Russian legislation prepared by the OECD on the basis of their conclusions, should be subject to scrutiny [19; 20], taking into consideration, inter alia, other countries' experience in reforming criminal law.
1 Criminalization of the promising and offering of a bribe
as separate substantive offences
The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention views bribery as offering, promising or giving improper advantages to a foreign public official.
At first blush, issue of criminalization of promising and offering a bribe in the Russian Federation was resolved a long time ago by way of defining stages of commission of a criminal offence - preparations for a crime and an attempted crime.
According to Article 30 CC, the looking for, manufacturing, or adapting by a person of means or instruments for committing a crime, looking for accomplices for a crime, the conspiracy to commit a crime, or any other intentional creation of conditions to commit a crime shall be deemed preparations for a crime, if the crime has not been completed due to the circumstances outside the control of this person. A person's intentional actions (inaction) directly aimed at the commission of a crime, shall be deemed to be an attempted crime, if the crime has not been completed due to the circumstances beyond the control of this person.
Besides, with regard to the situation under review, the notions of «offer» and «promise» are not, in our opinion, equivalent to the notions of «preparation» and «attempt».
In Russian research works on the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, the offering and promising of a bribe are usually treated as a communication by a person of his readiness to give a bribe. Not in all events, having regard to particular circumstances of a case, such a communication may be considered as preparations for a crime. In Russian criminal law, communications of that kind can, under certain circumstances, be regarded either as the revealing of intent, which does not constitute such a stage of crime commission, or as preparations for a crime.
This is acknowledged by judicial practice. In para. 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 9 July 2013 No. 24 on Judicial Practice in Cases of Bribery and Other Corruption-Related Crimes [21] it is expounded that «the promising or offering to transfer [...] an illegal remuneration for carrying out actions (inaction) in office should be considered as intentional creation of conditions for commission of respective corruption crimes in the event, when the intention to transfer [.] a bribe or subject of commercial bribery expressed by
the person, was directed at informing other persons thereof with the aim of giving them [...] valuables, as well as in case the said persons reach agreement».
It follows from that interpretation of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, that the promising and offering are considered as intentional creation of conditions for commission of a crime, which allows to consider those acts as the respective stage - preparations for commission of a crime - under certain conditions only.
As opposed to the Russian legislation, the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention handles the promising and offering to give a bribe as a complete crime.
Under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, a promise is not a communication of the readiness to give a bribe, but it is a situation in which a bribe-giver comes to agreement with a foreign public official on the bribe-giving (e.g., when a bribe-giver gives his consent to a foreign public official's request for a bribe). That is, the promise implies the existence of an agreement between the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker, whereas the offer is considered as a communication of the readiness to give a bribe and does not premise the existence of a respective agreement with the potential bribe-taker.
The carried out analysis demonstrates that due to the described circumstances one can ascertain the difference of Russian criminal law from the standards of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which will further require introducing amendments into CC, because Article 1 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention sets out that each state party to this Convention shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish that it is a criminal offence, intentionally to offer, promise or give any undue advantage to a foreign public official.
As regards legislative drafting and content, this is quite feasible. Lawmakers already recognize as a complete crime some acts which are preparations for a crime in their nature.
For example, collecting information comprising state secrets with the aim of transferring it to a foreign intelligence agency is, in its essence, preparation for a crime. Nevertheless, the law recognizes such acts as a complete crime in Article 276 CC which defines «espionage» as transfer, or collection, or theft, or keeping for the purpose of transfer to a foreign state, or international or foreign organization or their representatives, of information constituting a state secret.
It is possible to apply that approach also to criminalization of the offering, promising, and giving (providing) a bribe to a foreign public official.
Proceeding from the foreign countries' experience, there are two practicable options. The first option, retaining the established Russian practice, is when one and the same article provides for responsibility for bribery of both domestic and foreign public officials. The second one is when the responsibility for bribery of domestic and foreign public officials is set forth in different articles.
Each of these options has its advantages and disadvantages, but, having regard to the purpose of ensuring the comprehensive conformity of Russian crimi-
nal law with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, the second option appears preferable.
It is also possible to use the terms «offer» and «promise», as they are used in Article 2911 (5) CC establishing liability for «promising or offering mediation in bribery», and in Article 19.28 CAO «Illegal Gratuity on behalf of Legal Entity» establishing liability for illegal «offering or promising on behalf or in the interests of a legal entity [...] to a foreign public official or official of a public international organization, of money, securities, other property, rendering him services of proprietary nature».
Some authors have already formulated concrete proposals on amendments to criminal law in this regard.
For instance, V. Maltsev, while not specifying what public officials are meant (whether domestic, or also foreign, public officials and officials of a public international organization), points out that it is necessary to establish criminal liability for «offering to accept or give a bribe», because «it is illogical under law to punish intermediaries for offering assistance in the giving or accepting of a bribe, whereas not imposing the responsibility on the persons who directly offer to give or accept it» [22, c. 34-35].
In view of that he has drafted a new CC article «Offer to Give or Accept a Bribe» formulated as follows:
«An offer to give a bribe to a public official or offer to accept a bribe of such a person in a significant amount, shall be punishable by a fine of fifteen- to seventy-fold amount of the bribe, with deprivation of the right to occupy certain posts or engage in certain activity for a term of up to three years, or by compulsory works for a term of up to two years» [22, c. 35].
From our standpoint, the proposed disposition of a new CC article may not be supported. Firstly, it sets forth criminalization of bribe-offering only and still does not concern the criminal offence of bribe-promising. Secondly, as was pointed out, it remains unclear, what public officials are meant - whether just domestic, or also foreign ones. Thirdly, the term «offer to accept a bribe of such a person» is hardly intelligible.
2 Criminalization of promising and offering a bribe, and of mediation in bribery irrespective of the definition of gravity of a crime and the amount of the bribe
Pursuant to Article 30(2) CC, criminal responsibility shall ensue only for preparations to commit a grave crime, i.e. punishable by the minimum penalty exceeding a five-year deprivation of liberty.
At the same time, under Article 291(1) CC, giving a bribe to a foreign public official or official of a public international organization, directly or through an intermediary, is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to two
years, and under Article 291(2) CC, the same acts committed in a significant
*
amount, are punished by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to three years.
Thus, preparations for giving a bribe to a foreign public official or official of a public international organization, whether directly or through an intermediary, in the amount less than significant, is not recognized as a crime in the Russian Federation, which contradicts Article 1 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention that contains no limitations on a graft amount.
This also applies to mediation in bribery. The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention necessitates criminalization (recognition as a criminal offence) of bribery of foreign public officials, whether directly or through intermediaries, stating that complicity in, including incitement, aiding and abetting, or authorisation of an act of bribery of a foreign public official shall be a criminal offence.
Thus, it follows from the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention that bribery can be committed in two forms: directly (when bribery is committed by the bribe-giver himself) or indirectly (when bribery is committed by the bribe-giver through an intermediary).
Under Russian law, the notion of «mediation in bribery» is defined in Article 2911 CC, pursuant to which the mediation in bribery is a direct transfer of a bribe on the instructions of the bribe-giver or bribe-taker, or other facilitation for the bribe-giver and/or bribe-taker in order to achieve or implement an agreement between them on the accepting and giving of a bribe.
At the same time, juxtaposition with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention's provisions calls into question the sufficiency of Article 2911 in its current version for implementation of the anti-corruption standards set out in this Convention.
The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention defines a «subject of bribe» as any undue pecuniary or other advantage offered, promised or given. The monetary value of the subject of bribe does not matter for recognition of a respective act as a criminal offence.
Consequently, mediation in any bribery, regardless of the monetary value of its subject, should be recognized as a criminal offence.
At the same time, Article 2911 CC establishes the responsibility for mediation in bribery in a significant and larger amounts only, which raises questions as to compliance of such an approach with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
Besides, pursuant to Article 30(2) CC, criminal liability may ensue only for preparations to commit a grave crime, i.e. punishable by the minimum penalty exceeding a five-year deprivation of liberty.
*
Значительным размером взятки в настоящей статье признается сумма денег, стоимость ценных бумаг, иного имущества, услуг имущественного характера, иных имущественных прав, превышающие 25 000 рублей (A significant amount of bribe in this Article is deemed the sum of money, value of securities, other property, services of a property nature, other proprietary rights exceeding RUB 25,000).
Therefore, it is concluded that the mediation in preparations to give a bribe -for the bribery of a foreign public official, when such an act falls under elements of crimes envisaged by Article 291(1), (2) CC and does not belong to the category of grave crimes, will not be recognized as a criminal offence, which may be regarded as a contradiction to Article 1 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention that imposes no limitations on a graft amount.
Apart from that, Article 2911(5) CC, whereas prescribing criminal liability for promising or offering the mediation in bribery, does not specify its amount. At the same time, considering Article 2911(5) CC in conjunction with Article 2911(1) CC allows to make an unequivocal conclusion to the effect, that also in this case the responsibility ensues only starting at a significant amount.
Otherwise, there would be a ridiculous situation - whereas the mediation in bribery in a less significant amount is not punishable, the promising or offering of such a mediation were punished.
The above shows, that in order to secure a strict, literal adherence to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, it is necessary to introduce amendments to CC repealing the provision on triggering the responsibility in the described situations only at the level of a significant amount of a bribe.
As was mentioned above, under Article 30(2) CC criminal liability ensues only for preparations to commit a grave crime.
It is necessary to take into account, that the Federal Law of 7 December 2011 No. 420-FZ on Introducing Amendments to CC and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation [23] supplemented a new paragraph to Article 15 CC determining categories of crimes, under which «depending on the actual circumstances of the crime and degree of its social danger, a court is entitled, where there are mitigating circumstances and there are no aggravating circumstances, to change the category of the crime to a less grave one, but by no more than one category» (Article 15(6) CC). That norm has not been understood clearly not only by foreign experts, but by Russian lawyers too [24], owing to the possibility of using it to discharge from liability persons who have committed preparations for a grave crime.
There also arises an issue of such norm's compliance with the RF Constitution, since it can be assessed as violating the constitutional principle of division of powers. The normative determination of crime categories (their gravity) falls into the legislative power's domain, and the question of to what extent legitimate is the lawmakers' decision to vest the judiciary with the right to change, at its own discretion, the crime category to a less grave one, is controversial.
3 Criminalization of promising, offering or giving improper
non-property advantages to a foreign public official
Article 1 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention sets out, inter alia, that each state party to this Convention shall take such measures as may be necessary
to establish that it is a criminal offence, intentionally to offer, promise or give any undue advantage to a foreign public official.
Under the Russian legislation in force, a subject of bribe may be «money, securities, other property, or illegal provision of services of a proprietary nature, or granting of other property rights» (Article 290 CC). Analogous is the definition of the subject of an unlawful remuneration on behalf of a legal entity in Article 19.28 CAO.
The Russian judicial practice also assumes, that a subject of bribery may be of a «property nature» only. This was pointed out in para. 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 9 July 2013 No. 24 on Courts' Practice in Cases of Bribery and other Corruption-Related Crimes, expounding that a subject of bribery and commercial bribery may be, along with money, securities, other property, also illegal provision of services of a proprietary nature and granting property rights. By «illegal provision of services of a proprietary nature», courts should understand the rendering to a public official as a bribe of any property-related advantages, including the release from property obligations, and by «property rights», a right to a property, including a creditor's right of claims, as well as other rights measurable in monetary terms, e.g., an exclusive right to the results of intellectual activity and means of individualization equivalent to them.
According to the said Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Supreme Court, «the property transferred as a bribe or subject of commercial bribery, services of a property nature rendered, or property rights granted should be assessed in monetary terms on the basis of evidence adduced by parties, including, if necessary, with consideration of an expert's opinion».
Thus, there is an obvious difference between the definitions of a «subject of bribery» in Russian criminal law and in the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention defines a subject of bribe as an «undue (improper) advantage», while under this Convention, such an advantage may be both material (having a monetary valuation) and non-material (not having a monetary valuation). Pursuant to para. 7 of the Commentaries on the Convention, bribery of a foreign public official is a criminal offence irrespective of the value of the improper advantage obtained by him.
The OECD publications mention the following examples of services of a non-material nature: sexual services; a place in a charge-free school for a public official's child; granting of a copyright; membership in an elite club; appointment to a political post; promotion.
Taking into account the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention's provisions and the difficulties often arising at classifying bribery, when it is impossible to determine a monetary valuation of the subject of bribe, it is appropriate to make amendments to CC and CAO, extending the notion of a «subject of bribe (bribery, remuneration)» to non-material advantages (benefits of a non-pecuniary nature).
It is rather complicated to prove the fact of offering, promising or giving non-material advantages (benefits), but it is no excuse to deny qualifying an act as bribery (bribe-giving), when the subject of bribery is a non-material advantage.
To assess the situation objectively, it is necessary to mention that a practice exists, when in case of a functionary performing an unlawful action or inaction in order to acquire non-material benefits for his personal gain, such a functionary may be made liable for abuse of public authority under Article 285 CC, whose disposition reads as follows:
«Use by a public official of his powers in violation of the interests of service, if this act has been committed out of mercenary or any other personal interest and involved a substantial violation of rights and lawful interests of citizens or organizations, or legally protected interests of society or the State».
The latest instance of the kind, from the Russian investigative practice, is when a head of a Ministry's unit facilitated the awarding of contracts to an educational institution, and the latter's administration secured receipt of good grades by his son studying at that higher educational institution.
A person, who has provided non-material benefits for the performance of an unlawful action or inaction, may be made responsible as an accomplice of the crime stipulated by Article 285 CC.
But this is, from our standpoint, a forced measure brought about by the lack of mentioning non-material subjects of bribe in the disposition of Article 291 CC.
And the said measure is only possible in relation to cases involving domestic functionaries, since perpetrators of the crime envisaged by Article 285 CC may be domestic public officials only.
Consequently, when a bribery of foreign functionaries takes place, the said approach to classifying the deed may not be applied.
The fact that abuse of public office may be committed out of mercenary (meaning material advantages) or other (meaning other - non-material benefits) personal interests, confirms, in our opinion, the possibility to include nonmaterial advantages (benefits of a non-monetary nature) in the subject of bribe.
But it must be taken into account, that recognition as a subject of bribe of unlawful non-property advantages will require changing the approaches to determination of amounts of bribe, which constitutes the ground for classification of respective acts under Articles 291 and 2911 CC:
- Article 291(1) CC (ordinary bribe-giving);
- Article 291(1) CC (bribe-giving in a significant amount), Article 2911(1) CC (mediation in bribery in a significant amount);
- Article 291(4) CC (bribe-giving in a large amount), Article 2911(3) CC (mediation in bribery in a large amount);
- Article 291(5) CC (bribe-giving in an especially large amount), Article 2911(4) CC (mediation in bribery in an especially large amount).
The basis for determination of the amount of bribe under Articles 290, 291 and 2911 CC is the note to Article 290 CC, pursuant to which, with regard to these articles, a significant amount of a bribe shall be deemed to be a sum of money, the value of securities, other property, services of a property nature, other proprietary rights in excess of RUB 25,000, a large amount of bribe - in excess of RUB 150,000, an especially large amount of bribe - in excess of RUB 1 million.
It will be required to work out the criteria for determination of amounts of a bribe, whose subject is improper non-property advantages.
4 Establishment of statute of limitations sufficient for investigation
and prosecution of bribery of foreign public officials
As was mentioned, under Article 291(1) CC, giving a bribe to a foreign public official or official of a public international organization, personally or through an intermediary, is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to two years, and under Article 291(2) CC the same acts committed in a significant amount, are punished by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to three years.
Those crimes are placed by Russian law into the category of crimes of little gravity, and the respective statute of limitations is two years after the commission of the crime.
Under Article 291(3) CC, giving a bribe to a foreign public official or official of a public international organization, personally or through an intermediary, for the performance of knowingly unlawful actions (inaction), is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to eight years, and this offence belongs to the category of grave crimes, whose statute of limitations is ten years after the commission of the crime.
Under Article 291(4) CC, the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment (grave crime), and under Article 291(5) - 12 years imprisonment (especially grave crime).
The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (Article 6) requires that any statute of limitations applicable to the offence of bribery of a foreign public official shall allow an adequate period of time for the investigation and prosecution of this offence.
The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention does not make exceptions as to the requirement of establishing the statute of limitations sufficient for the investigation and prosecution depending on the amount of bribery (bribe), the material or nonmaterial nature of the subject of bribe, as well as the fact, for what kind of actions (inaction) - knowingly unlawful or performed in accordance with law - the bribe is given.
Thus, the issue of sufficiency of statute of limitations in respect of bribery of foreign functionaries punishable under Article 291(1),(2) CC, should be examined, and depending on the outcome of such an examination, it will be concluded, whether amendments to Russian criminal law are required to apply the OECD anti-bribery standards, or not.
An extension of the statute of limitations is possible to accomplish in two ways: a) classical one, by way of increasing imprisonment terms for crimes stipulated by Article 291(1), (2) CC, and b) innovative one, through supplementing Article 291 CC with a note laying down a different statute of limitations for bribery of foreign functionaries, without changing the sanctions set forth in Article 291(1),(2) CC.
The issue of statute of limitations also pertains to the liability (in the Russian Federation currently, the administrative one) of legal entities for bribery of foreign public officials. Pursuant to Article 4.5 CAO, a resolution in a case of the administrative offence envisaged by Article 19.28 CAO «Unlawful Remuneration on behalf of a Legal Entity», may not be handed down upon expiration of six years after the commission of this administrative offence.
While assessing possible ways of amending Russian criminal law in the described portion with due account of the OECD anti-bribery standards, it must be borne in mind that the measures of penalty matter not for determination of statute of limitations only, but, based on the OECD anti-bribery standards, they must be severe, effective and proportionate enough to have a necessary dissuasive effect, as well as satisfy requirements on mutual legal assistance and extradition, because in some countries such requirements may be in place only in respect of cases of crimes punishable most severely (grave and especially grave crimes).
5 Removal of the circumstances allowing relief of liability for bribery
of foreign functionaries, from criminal legislation
Currently, Article 291 CC «Bribe Giving» has a note, pursuant to which, «a person who has given a bribe shall be released from criminal responsibility, if he actively assisted in the solution and/or investigation of the crime, and either the bribe was extorted by the public official, or the person had, after the commission of the crime, informed voluntarily a body authorized to institute criminal proceedings, of the fact of the bribe-giving».
A similar note is also contained in Article 2911 CC "Mediation in Bribery", pursuant to which, «a person being an intermediary in bribery, is relieved from criminal liability, if after the commission of the crime, he actively assisted in the solution and/or suppression of the crime, and informed voluntarily a body authorized to institute criminal proceedings, of the fact of the mediation in bribery».
At the same time, the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions, proceeding from systematic interpretation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, considers that such notes are not consistent with the Convention.
Firstly, for criminalization of bribery of a foreign public official, it does not matter, whether the bribe was solicited by the bribed foreign functionary, or not.
Secondly, active repentance (when the bribe-giver has actively assisted in the solution and/or investigation of the crime, or after the commission of the
crime informed voluntarily a body authorized to institute criminal proceedings, of the fact of the bribe-giving) already takes place after the crime has been committed, and may be considered, with respect to bribery of a foreign public official, only as a circumstance mitigating punishment.
In the Russian Federation, Article 61 CC sets forth among the circumstances mitigating punishment, the following: voluntary surrender and confession; active assistance in the solution and investigation of the crime, the exposure and prosecution of other accomplices in the crime, the search for property obtained through the crime.
The Working Group's arguments are understandable, but not undisputable. The inclusion of the aforementioned notes to Articles 291 and 2911 CC is determined by the fact, that corruption is a latent crime that is very difficult to detect. The release from responsibility fosters the situations, when bribe-givers inform of crimes committed by them, and actively participate in the exposure and bringing to justice of bribe-takers.
In view of the above, the issue of removal from criminal law of the circumstances set forth in the notes to Articles 291 and 2911 CC, allowing to relieve of responsibility for bribery of foreign functionaries those who assisted in their exposure, requires additional scrutiny and approval with the Working Group.
6 On bribe-taking by a third person
The Working Group's members still have doubts on Russian legislation's consistency with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention's provisions in some other aspects. For instance, in the criminalization of a bribe accepted by a third person.
It follows from the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 9 July 2013 No. 24 on Judicial Practice in Cases of Bribery and Other Corruption-Related Crimes, that the responsibility for bribery may arise, when for the performance by a public official of respective actions (inaction) in office, a property is transferred, property rights are granted, services of a property nature are rendered not only to him personally, but his relatives and close persons as well.
At the same time, Article 291 CC envisages liability for giving a bribe to a foreign public official, and is silent on the circumstance that a bribe may be given in favour of a third person.
Therefore, OECD experts have expressed an opinion, that under certain circumstances, the construction given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on a bribe in favour of relatives and close persons of the bribe-taker may be viewed as a broad interpretation of law, and to avoid such a situation, it is appropriate to amend the law itself.
Besides, they indicate, that pursuant to the requirements of Article 1 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, each State Party thereto shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish that it is a criminal offence under its
law intentionally to offer, promise or give any undue advantage to a foreign public official, for (in favour of) that official or for a third party (any person). The term «a third person» is broader than the term «relatives and close persons», and therefore the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention criminalizes a broader range of acts than CC does.
Moreover, para. 23 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 9 July 2013 No. 24 on Judicial Practice in Cases of Bribery and Other Corruption-Related Crimes contains two very important interpretations pertaining to the evaluation of CC's conformity with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention' provisions.
The first interpretation: «If for the performance by a public official of actions (inaction) in office, a property is transferred, proprietary rights are granted, services of a property nature are rendered neither to him personally nor to his relatives and close persons, but knowingly to other persons, including legal ones, and the public official, his relatives or close persons do not receive proprietary benefits therefrom, the act committed may not qualify as a bribe-taking (e.g., acceptance by the head of a state or municipal institution of a sponsorship support to facilitate this institution's activity, in return for the performance by him of actions in office in favour of the persons who have provided such a support). In case of respective grounds, a public official's actions may qualify as the abuse of public authority or exceeding of public authority».
This interpretation leads to an explicit conclusion. Given that a foreign public official may not be a subject of crimes envisaged by Article 285 CC (abuse of public authority) and Article 286 CC (exceeding public authority), a person who has provided proprietary benefits to a foreign public official for the performance of unlawful action or inaction, may not be made liable as an accomplice of the crimes envisaged by Articles 285 or 286 CC either. It goes without saying, that bribery as such in the described situation is out of the question.
This is underlined in the second interpretation, too, pursuant to which, «If a person who has transferred the property, granted proprietary rights, rendered services of a property nature for the performance by a public official of actions (inaction) in office, realized that the said valuables were not intended for unlawful enrichment of the public official, or of his relatives or close persons, then the act committed by him does not qualify as the crime envisaged by Article 291 or Article 2911 CC».
Those interpretations are not consistent with the approaches set out in the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, according to which a bribe, including an improper advantage, may be in favour of any third person beneficiary - natural or legal person, e.g. a political party.
7 On proportionality of fines
Under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, each Party thereto shall take such measures as may be necessary to provide that the bribe and the proceeds of
the bribery of a foreign public official, or property the value of which corresponds to that of such proceeds, are subject to seizure and confiscation or that monetary sanctions of comparable effect are applicable.
To implement this provision of the Convention, the Federal Law of 4 May 2011 No. 97-FZ on Introducing Amendments in CC and COA in connection with Improvement of State Management in the Field of Countering Corruption [25] introduced amendments to CC establishing several-fold amounts of a fine up to 100 fold amount of the bribe, but not exceeding RUB 500 million.
As a result, not only the amount of fines imposed on grafters went up, but also the frequency of application of this penalty to them increased significantly, with no considerable slump in imprisonments.
According to the data of the Department for Courts at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, while in 2010 a fine was imposed on 39 per cent of persons convicted for bribe-giving under Article 291 CC, in 2011 this penalty was already applied in 55 per cent of cases, and in 2012 - in respect of 86 per cent of defendants convicted for bribe-giving.
A similar situation has developed in the practice of application of a fine as a penalty under Article 290 CC for bribe-taking: in 2010 - 12,5%, in 2011 -33,8%, in 2012 - 73,3 %.
Thus, while earlier an imprisonment and a fine were imposed on the smallest portion of bribe-offenders, and others were sentenced to other punishments, mostly suspended ones, now a fine has become the main liability measure. Moreover, forfeiture of the subject of bribe is also applied.
In view of the above, one may acknowledge the existence of the potential to ensure effective observance by the Russian Federation of the OECD Convention's provisions stipulating application of monetary sanctions that secure proportionate and dissuasive effect on potential bribe-offenders.
Nevertheless, Russian reality is that the potential is available, but its effect does not always ensue.
The evidence thereof is the recent report of the Prosecutor General to the President of Russia, according to which sentences in the form of fines imposed on natural persons, are almost not executed. As of 1 April 2013, there were at the Russian Federal Bailiffs' Service 1045 writs of execution of fines totaling RUB 19 billion, of which only RUB 19 million on 121 writs had been collected [26; 27].
Thus, the execution of sentences in the form of a fine, calculated as total, constitutes 1 per cent.
Apart from that, the issue of depriving the bribe-giver of unlawful benefits obtained by him as a result of the bribery, is not completely resolved.
In view of the described situation, one may conclude that, although the legislation's content conforms to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, its application may not be evidently recognized as consistent with the practice of implementation of this Convention.
8 On criminal law grounds of rendering international legal assistance
in cases of bribery of foreign public officials
The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention contains provisions regarding mutual legal assistance (Article 9) and extradition (Article 10).
But, as pointed out in domestic scholarly research by A.G. Volevodz, there are obstacles of a criminal law nature for development of international cooperation in the said sphere, whose essence comes down to the following [28; 29].
At present, paragraphs 1-3 of Article 291 CC, as well as paragraphs 1 and 5 of Article ct. 2911 CC, stipulating punishment involving deprivation of liberty, do not indicate lower limits of sanctions, confining themselves to indication of upper limits only:
- Article 291(1) CC - up to two years imprisonment;
- Article 291(2) CC - up to three years imprisonment;
- Article 2911(1) CC - up to five years imprisonment;
- Article 2911(5) CC - up to seven years imprisonment;
- Article 291(3) CC - up to eight years imprisonment.
The absence of indication of the lower limit of sanctions in the form of imprisonment, in some instances, constitutes an obstacle to international legal assistance in cases of the aforementioned category, including: extradition of persons accused of bribery; collection of evidence overseas by way of mutual legal assistance; prosecution abroad based on transfer of proceedings; compensation of inflicted damage, as well as eventual confiscation of property.
This follows from both Russian law and international treaties, to which the Russian Federation is party.
For instance, under Article 462 of the RF Criminal Procedure Code, the Russian Federation may, pursuant to an international treaty or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity, extradite a foreign national or a stateless person located on the territory of the Russian Federation to a foreign state for criminal prosecution or execution of a verdict for acts punishable under both the criminal law of the Russian Federation and the law of the requesting foreign state in cases, when the criminal law provides a punishment in the form of imprisonment for a term of over a year or a longer sentence for the commission of such acts, if the extradition is sought for criminal prosecution.
Thus, the RF Criminal Procedure Code sets out establishment in the criminal law of the minimum imprisonment term for over one year as a mandatory condition for the legal assistance rendered under its Article 462.
Therefore, execution of a request for extradition of a suspect located on the territory of the Russian Federation, for the commission of a crime corresponding to the crimes envisaged by paras 1-3 of Article 291 CC, as well as paras 1 and 5 of Article 2911 CC, is, pursuant to Article 462 of the RF Criminal Procedure Code, not possible.
This issue is resolved in an analogous manner in the European Convention on Extradition (Paris, 13 December 1957) [30], whose Article 2 stipulates that
extradition shall be granted in respect of offences punishable under the laws of the requesting Party and of the requested Party by deprivation of liberty for a maximum period of at least one year or by a more severe penalty.
The same requirement is contained in some treaties on extradition between the Russian Federation and the states party to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
For example, the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Federative Republic of Brazil on Extradition (Moscow, 14 January 2002) [31] stipulates in its Article 2 that under this Treaty by extraditable offences are understood acts that are criminal offences under the laws of both Parties and are punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of at least one year or by a more severe penalty.
The Working Group's experts have also noticed the aforementioned circumstances and recommended a follow-up on the issues relating to mutual legal assistance in criminal and administrative matters, including cases of dual criminality and a waiver of bank secrecy.
9 On other issues of a criminal law nature
The experts raised questions in respect of effectiveness of the confiscation mechanism, including with regard to benefits acquired as a result of the bribe-giving, as well as the adequacy, in relation to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention's standards, of application of Article 19.28 CAO establishing a legal person's responsibility for unlawful gratuity on its behalf.
In respect of confiscation relating to bribery of foreign public officials, the Working Group has recommended that the Russian Federation, in order to fulfill the requirements set out in Article 3 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, ensure the availability of measures for natural and legal persons, allowing to detect, seize and confiscate bribes, proceeds of a bribe or its equivalent value.
Regarding accounting requirements, the Working Group has recommended that Russia take criminal law measures to ensure: the prohibition of omissions and falsifications in respect of books, records, accounts and financial statements for the purpose of bribing foreign public officials or for hiding such bribery; and the introduction of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for such omissions and falsifications.
The doubts expressed by the OECD experts with regard to the conformity of the Russian criminal legislation with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention's standards, and the proposals on improvement of Russian law require a careful consideration, including with account taken of other countries' experience in reforming and enforcing criminal law.
It will also be helpful to explore the enforcement of new norms of the criminal legislation of Ukraine on responsibility for bribery, adopted, inter alia, with account of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention's provisions.
In particular, the law of Ukraine of 18 April 2013 No. 221-VII has amended the Criminal Code of Ukraine by replacing the term «bribe» with the term «un-
lawful benefit». There was adopted a new version of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, earlier titled «Bribe-taking» («Oderzhannya khabara»). Its new title is «Acceptance of an offer, promise or receipt of unlawful benefits by a public official» («Pryynyattya propozytsii, obitsyanki abo oderzhannya nepravomirnoi vygody sluzhbovoyu osoboyu»). Respective amendments have also been introduced into this Article's disposition, including those recognizing non-material assets as a subject of bribe.
The conducted analysis shows that in order to bring the Russian legislation in line with the OECD anti-corruption standards, it will be required to introduce amendments to CC, part of which represent, in essence, a departure from some traditional provisions of national legal systems. Therefore, the issue of respective amendments to the Russian criminal law has not only an exclusively legal nature, and due to that it is necessary to take into consideration the following political and legal circumstances.
The peculiarity of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention lies in the fact that it sets out in a very «soft» manner rigorous requirements to the parties to the Convention.
On the one hand, this international treaty pursues the achievement of functional equivalence of measures taken by the states parties thereto to establish liability for bribery of foreign states' functionaries, without making requirements as to uniformity of legislative solutions or changes in fundamental principles of a party's legal system.
On the other hand, non-fulfillment of the requirements to implement certain uniform decisions is an obstacle to the receipt of the consent to become a party to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and thereafter, an OECD member.
Actually, a state candidate member of the Organization is confronted with the choice: whether to consent to amendment of national law (sometimes fundamental enough) in order to pass necessary evaluation procedures and receive an invitation to become a OECD member, or to refuse to amend domestic laws and to be recognized as not eligible for the OECD membership.
The Russian lawmakers, speaking figuratively, near the intersection on the road of development of national criminal law, and must decide which of two ways to take - to achieve uniformity with international anti-corruption treaties' standards, while waiving certain traditional provisions of national legal systems, or to retain and defend such provisions, which will become a predicament for the inclusion of Russia into some international integration processes and organizations.
Some Russian authorities unconditionally perceive foreign experts' recommendations as an action guide, including for working out respective bills, although their implementation often destroys, to a certain extent, the systematicity of Russian law.
A waiver of traditional provisions in criminal law is very controversial. One must defend the integrity of the Russian national legal system, and not violate the
principles of respective branches of law. None of foreign counterparts may dictate what the domestic legislation of Russia should be, basing on their interpretation of international treaties and own understanding of the practice of their application.
We deem it necessary to work out an express and consistent legal policy on issues of implementation by our country of international obligations, including those under anti-bribery conventions, and not only the OECD ones, but others as well.
At the same time, where it is permissible without contravening fundamental principles of national legal systems, it is necessary to introduce into legislation, including criminal one, the amendments being, in their content, nontraditional for contemporary Russian law, if it is required by the voluntarily undertaken international obligations.
The question arises, whether it was worth to accede to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and thereby to have it included into the Russian Federation's legal system, given the implementation of this international treaty will require such substantial changes in Russian law. We take the position that it undoubtedly was.
The OECD is an authoritative international economic organization, and a membership thereof, which is impossible without accession to the Convention, opens to a member state additional opportunities in development of international economic cooperation, inter alia, ensures participation in decision-making on important issues in the said area.
Apart from that, the OECD Convention is one of initial international multilateral anti-corruption treaties. It is only the 1996 Inter-American Convention against Corruption [11, с. 556-557] that was adopted before. The OECD Convention became a trailblazer for subsequent anti-bribery international treaties, and therefore it is, in comparison to the latter, less modern. It was adopted in the last century under different historical conditions and by a relatively narrow circle of countries. Due to those reasons, currently there has emerged a situation, where there are certain contradictions between the OECD Convention and international anti-corruption treaties of a later date.
Further countries' accession to the OECD Convention, and their subsequent inclusion into the OECD will, in our view, allow to create conditions for further development of the OECD anti-corruption standards, to ensure their transformation with regard to a new socio-political situation in the world and with due account of its state parties' interests, to iron out contradictions to other anti-bribery conventions.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Конвенция по борьбе с подкупом иностранных должностных лиц при осуществлении международных коммерческим сделок // Законодательство Российской Федерации. - 2012. - № 17. - Ст. 1899.
2. О присоединении Российской Федерации к Конвенции по борьбе с подкупом иностранных должностных лиц при осуществлении международ-
ных коммерческих сделок : Федеральный закон от 1 февраля 2012 г. № 3-ФЗ // Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации. - 2012. - № 6. -Ст. 622.
3. Алексеев, С. С. Право: азбука - теория - философия : Опыт комп -лексного исследования / С. С. Алексеев. - М., 1999. - 712 с.
4. Бойцов, А. И. Судебная практика как источник уголовного права // Судебная практика в российской правовой системе. - СПб., 2003. -С. 9-68.
5. Бюллетень Верховного Суда Российской Федерации. - 2003. -№ 12. С. 3-8.
6. Бюллетень Верховного Суда Российской Федерации. - 2013. -№ 5. - С. 1-2.
7. Родионова, Т. А. Проблемы влияния международного права на отечественное уголовное законодательство: история вопроса и перспективы развития / Т. А. Родионова. - М., 2012. - 184 с.
8. Основания уголовно-правового запрета (криминализация и декриминализация) / отв. ред. В. Н. Кудрявцев, А. М. Яковлев. - М. : Наука, 1982. - 303 с.
9. Федоров, А. В. Конвенция ОЭСР по борьбе с подкупом иностранных должностных лиц при осуществлении международных коммерческих сделок и её влияние на развитие законодательств стран Азиатско-Тихоокеанского региона // Развитие национального законодательства в условиях глобализации: опыт России и стран Азиатско-Тихоокеанского региона : материалы международной научно-практической конференции / отв. ред. А. И. Коробеев. - Владивосток : Изд-во Дальневост. федерал. унта, 2011. - С. 5-12.
10. Хабриева, Т. Я. Правовые механизмы имплементации международных антикоррупционных конвенций в национальное законодательство // Правовые проблемы противодействия коррупции : мат-лы междунар. науч. конф. / отв. ред. Л. В. Андриченко, О. О. Журавлева. - М. : Ин-т законодательства и сравнительного правоведения при Правительстве Российской Федерации; ИД «Юриспруденция», 2012. - С. 19-32.
11. Международно-правовые основы борьбы с коррупцией и отмыванием преступных доходов : сб. документов / сост. В. С. Овчинский. - М. : ИНФРА-М., 2004. - 640 с.
12. Голованова, Н. А. Уголовная ответственность юридических лиц в международном и национальном праве (сравнительно-правовое исследование) / Н. А. Голованова, В. И. Лафитский, М. А. Цирина ; отв. ред. В. И. Лафитский. - М. : Статут, 2013. - 312 с.
13. Андрианов, В. Д. Коррупция как глобальная проблема : история и современность / В. Д. Андрианов. - М., 2011. - 304 с.
14. OECD Working Croup on Bribery - 2010 Annual Report. [S. l.] : OECD Publ., 2009. - С. 29.
15. OECD Working Croup on Bribery - 2010 Annual Report. [S. l.] : OECD Publ., 2010. - С. 17.
16. О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные акты Российской Федерации в связи с ратификацией Конвенции Организации Объединенных Наций против коррупции от 31 октября 2003 года и Конвенции об уголовной ответственности за коррупцию от 27 января 1999 года и принятием Федерального закона «О противодействии коррупции» : Закон Российской Федерации от 25 декабря 2008 г. № 280-ФЗ // Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации. - 2008. - № 52, ч. I. - Ст. 6235.
17. О внесении изменений в Уголовный кодекс Российской Федерации и Кодекс Российской Федерации об административных правонарушениях в связи с совершенствованием государственного управления в области противодействия коррупции : Федеральный закон от 4 мая 2011 г. № 97-ФЗ // Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации. - 2011. - № 19. -Ст. 2714.
18. Федоров, А. В. Реализация в сфере противодействия незаконному обороту наркотиков конституционного положения о признании международных договоров составной частью российской правовой системы // Конституция Российской Федерации как гарант прав и свобод человека и гражданина при расследовании преступлений. Ч. I : материалы Междунар. науч.-практ. конф. (Москва, 14 ноября 2013 г.). - М. : ИПК СК РФ, 2013. - С. 9-17.
19. Сидоренко, Э. Л. Конвенция ОЭСР по борьбе с подкупом иностранных должностных лиц при осуществлении международных коммерческих сделок и перспективы совершенствования российского уголовного законодательства // Международное уголовное право и международная юстиция. - 2013. - № 1. - С. 13-18.
20. Федоров, А. В. Перспективы изменения уголовного законодательства об ответственности за взяточничество в связи с присоединением Российской Федерации к Конвенции ОЭСР по борьбе с подкупом иностранных должностных лиц при осуществлении международных коммерческих сделок от 21 ноября 1997 года // Актуальные проблемы расследования преступлений : материалы Междунар. науч.-практ. конф. (Москва, 23 мая 2013 г.) : в 2 ч. Ч. 1. - М. : Изд-во ООО «Буки Веди», 2013. - С. 153-169.
21. Бюллетень Верховного Суда Российской Федерации. - 2013. -№ 9. - С. 3-10.
22. Мальцев, В. Не провоцировать, а пресекать взяточничество // Законность. - 2013. - № 9. - С. 34-35.
23. Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации. - 2011. -№ 50. - Ст. 7362.
24. Крылова, Н. К вопросу о гармонизации и гуманизации уголовного закона // Уголовное право. - 2011. - № 4. - С. 26-29.
25. Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации. - 2011. -№ 19. - Ст. 2714.
26. Сенаторов, Ю. С взяточников решили много не брать / Ю. Сенаторов, Н. Сергеев // Коммерсантъ. - 2013. - 10 июня.
27. Родин, И. Генеральный прокурор по особым поручениям // Независимая газета. - 2013. - 10 июня.
28. Волеводз, А. Г. Гуманизация уголовного закона и международное сотрудничество в сфере уголовного судопроизводства // Уголовное право. -2012. - № 3. - С. 115-119.
29. Волеводз, А. Г. Уголовно-правовые препятствия международному сотрудничеству в сфере уголовного судопроизводства // Библиотека уголовного права и криминологии. - 2013. - № 2. - С. 164-172.
30. Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации. - 2000. -№ 23. - Ст. 2348.
31. Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации. - 2007. -№ 4. - Ст. 471.
REFERENCES
1. Konvencija po bor'be s podkupom inostrannyh dolzhnostnyh lic pri osushhestvlenii mezhdunarodnyh kommercheskim sdelok [Convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions]. Zakonodatel'stvo Rossijskoj Federacii, 2012, no 17, st. 1899.
2. O prisoedinenii Rossijskoj Federacii k Konvencii po bor'be s podkupom inostrannyh dolzhnostnyh lic pri osushhestvlenii mezhdunarodnyh kommercheskih sdelok: Federal'nyj zakon ot 1 fevralja 2012 g. № 3-FZ [On the Russian Federation to the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions: Federal Law of 2012 February 1, no 3-FZ]. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva Rossijskoj Federacii, 2012, no 6, st. 622.
3. Alekseev S. S. Pravo: azbuka - teoriya - filosofiya: Opyt kompleksnogo issledovaniya [Right: ABC - theory - philosophy: Experience a comprehensive study]. Moscow, 1999. 712 pp.
4. Boitsov A. I. Sudebnaya praktika kak istochnik ugolovnogo prava [Litigation as a source of criminal law]. Sudebnaya praktika v rossiiskoi pravovoi sisteme [Judicial practice in the Russian legal system]. Sankt-Peterburg, 2003, pp. 9-68.
5. Byulleten' Verkhovnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation], 2003, no 12, pp. 3-8.
6. Byulleten' Verkhovnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation], 2013, no. 5, pp. 1-2.
7 Rodionova T. A. Problemy vliyaniya mezhdunarodnogo prava na otechestvennoe ugolovnoe zakonodatel'stvo: istoriya voprosa i perspektivy razvitiya [Problem of the influence of international law on domestic penal law: background and prospects]. Moscow, 2012. 184 p.
8. Osnovaniya ugolovno-pravovogo zapreta (kriminalizatsiya i dekriminalizatsiya) [Foundations of criminal law prohibition (criminalization and decriminalization)]. Eds. V. N. Kudryavtsev, A. M. Yakovlev. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1982. 303 p.
9. Fedorov A. V. Konventsiya OESR po bor'be s podkupom inostrannykh dolzhnostnykh lits pri osushchestvlenii mezhdunarodnykh kommercheskikh sdelok i ee vliyanie na razvitie zakonodatel'stv stran Aziatsko-Tikhookeanskogo regiona [OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and its influence on the development of the laws of the Asia-Pacific region]. Razvitie natsional'nogo zakonodatel'stva v usloviyakh globalizatsii: opyt Rossii i stran Aziatsko-Tikhookeanskogo regiona : materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii [Development of national legislation in the context of globalization: experience of Russia and countries of the Asia-Pacific region: proceed. of the intern. Sci.-pract. Conf.]. Ed. A. I. Korobeev. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Fed. Univ. Publ., 2011, pp. 5-12.
10. Khabrieva T. Ya. Pravovye mekhanizmy implementatsii mezhdunarod-nykh antikorruptsionnykh konventsii v natsional'noe zakonodatel'stvo [Legal mechanisms for the implementation of international anti-corruption conventions into national legislation]. Pravovye problemy protivodeistviya korruptsii [Legal problems of combating corruption: proceed. of the Intern. Scien. Conf. «Legal problems of anti-corruption», no 2, Moscow, 2011]. Eds. L. V. Andrichenko, O. O. Zhuravleva. Moscow: Yurisprudentsiya Publ., 2012, pp. 19-32.
11. Mezhdunarodno-pravovye osnovy bor'by s korruptsiei i otmyvaniem prestupnykh dokhodov: sb. dokumentov [International legal framework to combat corruption and money laundering: sat documents]. Comp. V. S. Ovchinskii. Moscow: INFRA-M Publ., 2004. 640 p.
12. Golovanov N., Lafitskii V. I., Tsirina M. A. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost' yuridicheskikh lits v mezhdunarodnom i natsional'nom prave (sravnitel'no-pravovoe issledovanie) [Criminal liability of legal persons in international and national law (comparative law research)]. Ed. V. I. Lafitskii. Moscow: Statute Publ., 2013. 312 p.
13. Andrianov V. D. Korruptsiya kak global'naya problema: istoriya i sovremennost' [Corruption as a global problem: history and modernity]. Moscow, 2011. 304 p.
14. OECD Working Croup on Bribery - 2010 Annual Report. [S. l.]: OECD Publ., 2009, p. 29.
15. OECD Working Croup on Bribery - 2010 Annual Report. [S. l.]: OECD Publ., 2010, p. 17.
16. O vnesenii izmenenii v otdel'nye zakonodatel'nye akty Rossiiskoi Federatsii v svyazi s ratifikatsiei Konventsii Organizatsii Ob"edinennykh Natsii protiv korruptsii ot 31 oktyabrya 2003 goda i Konventsii ob ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti za korruptsiyu ot 27 yanvarya 1999 goda i prinyatiem Federal'nogo zakona «O protivodeistvii korruptsii»: Zakon Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 25 dekabrya 2008 g. № 280-FZ [On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in connection with the ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption of 31 October 2003 and the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption of 27 January 1999 and the adoption of the Federal Law «On Combating Corruption»: Federal Law 2008 December 25 No 280-FZ]. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation], 2008, no 52, P. I, art. 6235.
17. O vnesenii izmenenii v Ugolovnyi kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii i Kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh v svyazi s sovershenstvovaniem gosudarstvennogo upravleniya v oblasti protivodeistviya korruptsii: Federal'nyi zakon ot 4 maya 2011 g. № 97-FZ [On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences in connection with the improvement of public administration in the field of anti-corruption: Federal Law 2011 May 4 No 97-FZ]. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation], 2011, no 19, art. 2714.
18. Fedorov A. V. Realizatsiya v sfere protivodeistviya nezakonnomu oborotu narkotikov konstitutsionnogo polozheniya o priznanii mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov sostavnoi chast'yu rossiiskoi pravovoi sistemy [Implementation in the field of combating drug trafficking constitutional provisions recognizing the international treaties part of the Russian legal system]. Konstitutsiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii kak garant prav i svobod cheloveka i grazhdanina pri rassledovanii prestuplenii. Ch. I: materialy Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf., (Moskva, 14 noyabrya 2013). [The Constitution of the Russian Federation as a guarantor of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in the investigation of crime. Part I: proceed. of the Intern. Sci.-pract. conf., (Moscow, November 14, 2013). Moscow: IPK RF IC Publ., 2013, pp. 9-17.
19. Sidorenko E. L. Konventsiya OESR po bor'be s podkupom inostrannykh dolzhnostnykh lits pri osushchestvlenii mezhdunarodnykh kommercheskikh sdelok i perspektivy sovershenstvovaniya rossiiskogo ugolovnogo zakono-datel'stva [OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the prospects for improving the Russian criminal law]. Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnaya yustitsiya, 2013, no 1, pp. 13-18.
20. Fedorov A. V. Perspektivy izmeneniya ugolovnogo zakonodatel'stva ob otvetstvennosti za vzyatochnichestvo v svyazi s prisoedineniem Rossiiskoi
Federatsii k Konventsii OESR po bor'be s podkupom inostrannykh dolzhnostnykh lits pri osushchestvlenii mezhdunarodnykh kommercheskikh sdelok ot 21 noyabrya 1997 goda [Prospects for changes in criminal legislation on liability for bribery in connection with the accession of the Russian Federation to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 21 November 1997]. Aktual'nye problemy rassledovaniyaprestuplenii : materialy Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf., (Moskva, 23 maya 2013). Ch. 1. [Actual problems of crime investigation: Materials of the Intern. Sci. and Pract. Conf., (Moscow, May 23, 2013). P. I. Moscow: OOO «Buki Vedi» Publ. [LLC «Buki Lead» Publ.], 2013, pp. 153-169.
21. Byulleten' Verkhovnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation], 2013, no 9, pp. 3-10.
22. Mal'tsev V. Ne provotsirovat', a presekat' vzyatochnichestvo [Not provoke and prevent bribery]. Zakonnost', 2013, no 9, pp. 34-35.
23. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Laws of the Russian Federation], 2011, 2011, no 50, art. 7362.
24. Krylova N. K voprosu o garmonizatsii i gumanizatsii ugolovnogo zakona [The issue of harmonization and the humanization of the criminal law]. Ugolovnoe pravo, 2011, no 4, pp. 26-29.
25. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii 2011, no 19, art. 2714.
26. Senatorov Yu., Sergeyev N. S vzyatochnikov reshili mnogo ne brat' [With many corrupt officials decided not to take]. Kommersant", 2013, June 10.
27. Rodin I. General'nyi prokuror po osobym porucheniyam [Attorney General for Special Assignments]. Nezavisimayagazeta, 2013, June 10.
28. Volevodz A. G. Gumanizatsiya ugolovnogo zakona i mezhdunarodnoe sotrudnichestvo v sfere ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva [The humanization of the criminal law and international cooperation in criminal matters]. Ugolovnoe pravo, 2012, no 3, pp. 115-119.
29. Volevodz A. G. Ugolovno-pravovye prepyatstviya mezhdunarodnomu sotrudnichestvu v sfere ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva [Criminal and legal obstacles to international cooperation in criminal matters]. Biblioteka ugolovnogo prava i kriminologii, 2013, no 2, pp. 164-172.
30. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Laws of the Russian Federation], 2000, no 23, art. 2348.
31. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Laws of the Russian Federation], 2007, no 4, art. 471.
