Corruption as a threat to Russia's national security. Corruption as a factor of internal threat to Russia's national security

Corruption as a type of crime is closely intertwined with other types of antisocial manifestations and, above all, with organized crime, the shadow economy and terrorism, “feeds” them and “feeds” from them. This necessitates consideration of this phenomenon not as a set of individual facts influencing management decision-making through bribery of officials, but as an emerging and developing system, which is a serious challenge to our time, a real threat to the national and economic security of countries, including primarily Russia. Corruption is beginning to seriously affect the decline in economic growth, the decline in the potential of civil society institutions, violation of human rights, and has other negative impacts on the legal system.

Russia's gigantic resources are the “magnet” that attracts various forces (both within the country and abroad) interested in taking possession of them, including transnational and international corporations. To achieve criminal goals, these structures use all the means at their disposal - influence through government bodies and at the diplomatic level (including custom assessment and criticism of certain decisions of the top Russian leadership), special services, organized criminal communities (including international ones), terrorist organizations, banking structures, non-profit and non-governmental organizations, subjects of the criminal and shadow economy, etc.

Attempts in various ways to influence the adoption of management decisions by Russian state structures at various levels are beginning to acquire a coordinated nature, this is especially dangerous during the election period, when it becomes possible not only to influence officials, but also to make attempts to introduce representatives of certain financial institutions to government and management bodies. -economic groups.

According to experts, annual corruption in Russia reaches approximately one third of the country's budget. A significant part of businessmen is “covered” by bribery; business practically does not develop in the country without bribes. Corruption, its scale and social consequences as a system of relations based on the illegal activities of representatives of public authorities, is a serious obstacle to the socio-economic development of the country and the successful implementation of strategic national programs.

As a result of socio-economic transformations over the past years, society and public relations have moved into a qualitatively different state, characterized, in particular, by a strong merging of government bodies, business organizations and criminals, which dictates an urgent need to revise the functions and tasks of law enforcement agencies and national security agencies , economic security and law enforcement forces.

The transition of Russian society to a new state is inextricably linked with the emergence of new challenges and threats to both national security as a whole and its most important components such as economic and public security. The emergence of these threats against the background of a strong lag and insufficient development of the legislative framework of the Russian state is, first of all, associated with:

Accelerated capitalization of economic relations of society;

Rapid development of market relations;

Russia's involvement in global economic relations;

Globalization of the world economy;

Globalization and transnationalization of crime in the main vital areas of social relations;

The emergence and development of international terrorism, etc.

All this requires serious reflection and the development of new mechanisms for organizing the fight against national and transnational crime.

Corruption is a kind of indicator of the state of security of society. Its scale indicates that the sphere of shadow economic activity in our country may be much larger than the estimates that are currently the most common (40 - 45%). Based on the comparison with the national budget of estimates of the total volume of financial resources used for bribes and bribery of government and other officials, it can be expected that the volume of the shadow economy may exceed (and significantly) the volume of the legal economy, which also poses a clear threat to the economic security of the country.

At the same time, we can say with confidence that the triggers for the emergence and development of corruption are economic relations and the economy as a whole, and its foundation is economic crimes. The breeding ground for corruption is free, unaccounted for money, including illegally acquired money, which appears, as a rule, as a result of committing economic crimes. It follows that in order to effectively combat corruption, it is necessary, first of all, to take measures to undermine the economic foundations of this negative phenomenon and reduce the volume of cash turnover in business activities (reducing it to a controlled minimum); implement measures to combat economic crimes and suppress illegal financial flows. Today we can say that the economic foundations of corruption, organized crime and terrorism represent a kind of independent sector of the economy.

In order to develop effective mechanisms To combat corruption, it is necessary not only to comprehend its essence and scale, but also to identify the structure of this complex criminal phenomenon in its relationship with the main political, economic, social and other processes of the country’s life.

When carrying out corruption activities, various mechanisms are used: political and social (pressure, concessions, playing on human weaknesses and ambition, etc.), economic (bribery, bribery, material gain, etc.), mechanisms of blackmail and threats, as well as espionage and other illegal activities, which together constitute a very complex system.

Characteristic feature The current state of not only Russia, but also the entire world community is the high dynamics of development of forms and methods of crime, the increase in the number of crimes using powerful intellectual potential and the capabilities of the latest information and other technologies and means.

Despite opposition from the state, the adoption of various preventive, precautionary and punitive measures, modern corruption covers more and more new areas of life, negatively affecting, first of all, the political stability and economic security of the country, undermining them from within and creating a real threat to national security.

As new areas of influence, corrupt individuals who, uniting in organized criminal communities, choose, first of all, areas with an unstable legal framework, weakened law enforcement protection and territories with a multinational population and a long history of unresolved conflicts. It can be concluded that the use of punitive measures alone does not allow for effective control over corruption and its negative manifestations, as evidenced, for example, by the events of recent years in China.

Corruption traditionally pursues economic and political goals, is a means of struggle for economic dominance and political power and is directed, first of all, against the economic, social and political institutions of society. Over the past decade, the scope of threats posed by national and transnational corruption has expanded significantly. It began to include threats of a social and political nature, including threats to the territorial integrity of the country. The results of the most high-profile corruption scandals indicate that one of the negative consequences Such actions include a weakening of the national currency, a decrease in the investment attractiveness of the state, as well as a general decrease in the level of development of the national economy. State economy in conditions post-industrial society with the prevailing financial sector, it becomes very sensitive to any negative impacts, especially those caused by corrupt activities.

In addition, corruption finds support in society itself, which, being content with short-term benefits, undermines the foundations of its existence. This is most clearly manifested in countries with economies in transition, which may include Russia, where the problems of poverty and unemployment remain unresolved.

Modern corruption consists of many branched structures that not only carry out illegal activities, but are also included in the international mechanisms of the shadow economy. Some corrupt organizations have actually turned into network structures and are able not only to fully finance their activities, but also to accumulate financial resources for its expansion, financing scientific research aimed at developing schemes of criminal activity for corruption purposes.

Currently, we can talk about the emergence of the phenomenon of “corruption economy”. This phenomenon can be considered as a kind of parallel economy, which includes corrupt management of the production, distribution and consumption of various goods, including for the purpose of financial support for the corrupt activities themselves. Of particular concern is that corruption, in conjunction with organized crime, carries out the production and sale of prohibited goods that bring in excess profits (drugs, weapons), human trafficking, etc. In addition, corrupt organizations can control certain areas of legal production and circulation of goods, works and services .

Through corruption, criminal communities illegally appropriate for themselves part of the country’s legal GDP, including confiscating (according to experts and information from various sources) up to 30% for their benefit. budget funds.

The role of offshore companies in corruption mechanisms is constantly increasing. Largely due to the difficulties in establishing the sources of funds of these companies, this channel is successfully used for illegal corruption activities and obtaining financial resources for its implementation. Thus, it can be stated that modern corrupt organizations use numerous sources of financing their illegal activities.

If we talk about the priorities for considering issues related to improving anti-corruption activities, the following combination seems justified:

1. Development and implementation of a set of measures to increase the level of internal culture of an individual and strengthen the moral and ethical principles of a person, especially children and youth.

2. Development and adoption of the concept of anti-corruption policy.

3. The speedy adoption of the Law “Fundamentals of Legislation on Anti-Corruption Policy”.

4. Formation of economic and civil public institutions, making it possible to achieve greater attractiveness of an honest and conscientious public service compared to the prospect of entering into corrupt connections and communities.

5. Determining the place of anti-corruption measures in administrative and economic reform, as well as reform of the entire civil service and education system. Development and subsequent implementation of a system of such measures.

6. Elimination of gaps in the legal field associated with the lack of clear interpretations and definitions of corruption acts and their signs in the conceptual apparatus of jurisprudence, allowing to objectively evaluate and classify certain processes in various spheres of public life. Legal definition of the term “corruption”.

7. Ensuring the most complete reflection in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of the norms of the UN Convention against Corruption (2003), which classifies criminal corruption primarily as: bribery of officials representing national and international public organizations; theft, misappropriation or other misuse of property by a public official; abuse of influence for personal gain; abuse of official position; bribery in the private sector; theft of property in the private sector; laundering of proceeds of crime; obstruction of justice; illicit enrichment(i.e. a significant increase in the official's assets, exceeding his legal income, which he can justify in various ways).

8. Formation of an effective taxation system. Development of effective mechanisms to ensure the inevitability of the implementation of taxpayer responsibility, transparency of the financial activities of individuals and legal entities, and undermining the financial foundations of corruption.

9. Development of international cooperation to solve problems of combating national and transnational corruption, taking into account the ongoing integration economic processes at the global level and the high degree of criminalization of foreign economic activity.

Conclusion on the issue. Thus, the improvement of anti-corruption activities must be associated with the comprehensive implementation of legal, political, organizational, technical and financial measures that ensure the development of the necessary mechanisms, the implementation of which will create serious preconditions for a fundamental change in the situation in the field of combating large-scale manifestations of corruption.

Corruption is probably as old as humanity itself. It's complicated social phenomenon appeared in ancient times and, despite the scale of the damage it causes, continues to exist in modern society. At the same time, damage is caused to the most significant benefits and values ​​of the state, both spiritual and material.

The Federal Law “On Combating Corruption” dated December 25, 2008 N 273-FZ gives the following definition: Corruption is 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 state in order to obtain benefits in the form of money, valuables, other property or services of a property nature, other property rights for themselves or for third parties, or the illegal provision of such benefits to a specified person by others individuals.

In the modern Russian state, corruption is rightly considered a key threat to national security, threatening the very existence of Russia as a state. Corruption-related actions damage the fundamental constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen, namely: the principle of equality of all before the law and the court (Article 19), immunity privacy(Article 23), private property rights (Article 35, 36), the right to health care and medical care (Article 41), to education (Article 43), etc.

The President of the Russian Federation emphasizes the problem of combating corruption and the shadow economy as one of the main ones contributing to the risk of ensuring national security, thereby demonstrating attention to this acute socio-economic problem. In Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 31, 2015 No. 683 “On the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as the Strategy), national security is given a fairly broad definition. It is considered as a state of security of the state from external and internal threats, ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens, a decent standard of living, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state, as well as its sustainable social economic development. Here, in paragraph 6 of the Strategy, the concept of a threat to national security is formulated - the causes and conditions that together create a direct or indirect possibility of causing damage to national interests. Corruption is considered one of the most important threats to state and public security, along with terrorism, extremism, cyber attacks, natural disasters, as well as the activities of foreign intelligence services that harm national interests.

So why is it so difficult to deal with corruption - this plague of the 21st century, if the harm from it is obvious to everyone? Apparently, it has long since become chronic. Indeed, it seems that everyone has long come to terms with this phenomenon, considering corruption as something taken for granted, something without which modern society cannot be imagined. This is confirmed by the result of a survey by VTsIOM, according to which 56% of respondents are confident that corruption cannot be completely defeated. Thus, demoralization of citizens occurs - as long as corruption is seen as a natural way to solve any public issues, it will be extremely difficult to get rid of it and break this closed chain of bribery. Corruption of state institutions, organizations and institutions only benefits citizens, in cases where corruption is beneficial to both parties - as a result of the “deal”, both parties get what they want. As a rule, one of the parties is a representative of the authorities, and the other is an interested party. Another, no less important factor that helps reduce the level of intolerance to corruption is the emergence of more acute socio-economic issues than corruption that require urgent solutions, such as terrorism, extremism, inflation, rising prices, unemployment, and low living standards.

Speaking about the causes of corruption, we can distinguish 4 main ones - legal, economic, institutional and socio-cultural. Legal reasons include the ambiguity of some laws, as a consequence, the emergence of conflicts; insufficient literacy of citizens in the field of protecting their rights, often simple ignorance of the laws, which allows officials and other officials to abuse their power for personal gain; insufficiency of strict punishment for committing a corruption act (in Lately measures are being tightened). The economic cause of corruption is primarily unemployment, low wages, and rising prices. The socio-cultural reason is manifested in a low moral level. The institutional reason for the existence of corruption occurs due to the lack of transparency in the lawmaking system and nepotism.

Corruption is a rather complex and multifaceted phenomenon and is systemic and complex in nature. This phenomenon is observed in almost all areas of activity - property relations, social security, healthcare, education, etc. Detailed information on the level of corruption in different years is offered by the Legal Statistics Portal of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation. According to the Portal, in 2017, 105,087 economic crimes were registered, which is 3,667 less than in the previous year.

According to the international organization Transparency International, whose key goal is transparency and accountability of government, for the third year in a row, starting in 2015, Russia scores 29 points out of 100 possible on the corruption perception index.

Table 1.

	CPI (Corruption Perception Index)	Place	Shares space with -
			Nigeria, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, Iran,
			Azerbaijan, Sierra Leone
			Iran, Ukraine
			Dominican Republic, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mexico

The data presented in the table suggests that Russia consistently ranks not the most best positions in the proposed rating. Accordingly, there are no qualitative changes in the fight against corruption yet. In this regard, it is worth paying tribute to the shadow economy. The tandem of the shadow economy and corruption creates a vicious circle - one gives rise to the other. The shadow economy creates corrupt relations in all spheres of politics and economics for its own successful development, while corruption creates the ground for the formation of the shadow economy.

According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the damage from economic and corruption crimes in Russia in 2017 amounted to 177.5 billion rubles, 100.5 billion of which were recovered. Corruption negatively affects the economy of the state because... it promotes:

Development of the shadow economy;

Reduced efficiency of market mechanisms. This is explained by the fact that the advantage often falls on the side of unscrupulous participants who do not neglect to give a bribe, then monopolies and unhealthy competition arise in the economy, which leads to a decrease in the efficiency of its functioning;

Improper and uneven use of budget funds;

The emergence of social property inequality due to the squandering of funds allocated to the social sphere, which contributes to social tension in the country;

Formation of oligarchic groups in government bodies, etc.

Speaking about the negative impact on the country’s politics, first of all, we should highlight the undermining of the country’s prestige in the international arena, which creates the preconditions for its political and economic isolation. Oligarchic groups lobby for their interests, the executive and legislative powers are merging with criminal structures, and as a result, trust in the authorities is being undermined.

Having adopted an anti-corruption package of laws and regulations, Russia has entered a new stage in the fight against corruption. In accordance with the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 24, 2003 No. 1384 “On the Council under the President of the Russian Federation to combat corruption,” a specialized body was created - the Anti-Corruption Council under the President of the Russian Federation. The main task Council is to assist the head of state in determining priority areas state policies in the field of combating corruption and their implementation. Along with this, the Decrees of April 13, 2010 No. 460 and April 1, 2016 No. 147 approved the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and the National Anti-Corruption Plan for 2016-2017, according to which measures are being taken to:

Protection of applicants

Resolving conflicts of interest

Increased transparency

Anti-corruption education

Increasing the effectiveness of anti-corruption

Development of legislation on lobbying

Other effective laws to combat economic crime are: Federal Law No. 230-FZ of 03.12. 2012 “On control over the compliance of expenses of persons holding public positions and other persons with their income”, Federal Law No. 115-FZ of 08/07/2001 “On combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism” and etc.

With the adoption of the Federal Law “On Combating Corruption,” it became possible to bring individuals to criminal liability. And, indeed, in recent years it has been registered a large number of crimes of a corruption nature for which criminal cases have been opened. The culprits of the most high-profile corruption scandals of the last five years were the head of the property relations department of Oboronservis, the mayor of Yaroslavl, the governor of the Sakhalin region, the governor of the Kiev region, the head of the anti-corruption department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, the Minister of Economic Development of Russia, the ex-head of Udmurtia, etc. The beginning of this year turned out to be also fruitful - 39 criminal cases of corruption were initiated against managers at various levels in Dagestan.

President V.V. Putin, in his Address to the Federal Assembly dated December 1, 2016, noted that “in recent years there have been many high-profile cases against officials at the municipal, regional, and federal levels. However...the fight against corruption is not a show, it requires professionalism, seriousness and responsibility, only then will it give results and receive conscious, broad support from society.”

Bibliography:

1. Federal Law "On Combating Corruption" dated December 25, 2008 N 273-FZ (as amended on April 3, 2017 N 64-FZ) / SPS ConsultantPlus
2. "Constitution of the Russian Federation" (adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993) (taking into account amendments introduced by the Laws of the Russian Federation on amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation dated December 30, 2008 N 6-FKZ, dated December 30, 2008 N 7-FKZ, dated February 5, 2014 N 2 -FKZ, dated July 21, 2014 N 11-FKZ) / SPS ConsultantPlus
3. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 31, 2015 No. 683 “On the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation” / SPS ConsultantPlus
4. All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion https://wciom.ru/
5. Legal statistics portal of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation http://crimestat.ru/
6. Transparency International http://www.globalcorruptionreport.org/
7. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 24, 2003 No. 1384 “On the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the fight against corruption” / SPS ConsultantPlus
8. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated April 13, 2010 No. 460 “On the national anti-corruption strategy and the national anti-corruption plan for 2010-2011” / SPS ConsultantPlus
9. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated April 1, 2016 No. 147 “On the national anti-corruption plan for 2016-2017” / SPS ConsultantPlus
10. Federal Law No. 230-FZ dated 03.12. 2012 “On control over the compliance of expenses of persons holding government positions and other persons with their income” / SPS ConsultantPlus
11. Federal Law No. 115-FZ of 08/07/2001 “On combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism” / SPS ConsultantPlus
12. Address of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of December 1, 2016 / SPS ConsultantPlus

Corruption has been known since ancient times and poses a serious problem for almost all states of the modern world, among which no more than 25 are able to keep it at a low level. It is no coincidence that modern researchers consider corruption as a multifaceted and multidimensional phenomenon in its economic, political and cultural forms. It is quite logical that in modern science there are many different definitions of corruption.

The following general definition of corruption is usually used, namely: “Corruption (from Lat. soggitrege- spoil) - the use by an official of his powers and the rights entrusted to him for the purpose of personal gain, contrary to established laws and rules.” This definition of corruption actually duplicates the definition of corruption given in the Great Encyclopedia, published in 2006, which is presented as “criminal activity consisting in the use by officials, political and public figures of the rights and power entrusted to them for the purpose of personal enrichment to the detriment of the state and society and individuals..."

As noted by domestic lawyer K.S. Belsky, this definition of corruption is one-sided, having only an economic nature: “One-sidedness in the understanding of the phenomenon under study is a “birthmark” of Soviet thinking... It is difficult to immediately overcome the inertia of such thinking, it continues to operate to this day, manifesting itself both in scientific works and and in legislation." In Russian legislation on corruption, the emphasis is on the relationship between the bribe-taker and the bribe-giver, when the focus is on the personal enrichment of a civil servant through the criminal, selfish use of his official powers (this approach to understanding corruption has become widespread in the media, in the speeches of state leaders and political figures).

It should be noted that such an approach to understanding corruption also exists in foreign literature devoted to the problem of the relationship between the phenomenon of corruption and public administration. In the article “Corruption and Governance,” M. X. Khan proceeds from a narrow definition of corruption as a situation “when government officials (including both officials and politicians) violate formal rules of behavior in pursuit of their personal gain, whether we are talking about income in the form bribes or political acquisitions."

Thus, in this definition, corruption is understood as a transaction between an official (a group of officials) and a private individual (a group of individuals or the management of a corporation), when there is a violation of the formal rules of conduct of a public servant (for this he receives a reward for a corrupt act). In this situation, there are two options: in the first case, a private person receives a benefit that is a legal acquisition, otherwise inaccessible; in the second, a private person receives an illegal benefit due to gaining an advantage over other private individuals.

This definition of corruption, emphasizes M.Kh. Khan, makes it possible to place the focus of analysis on state officials because “corruption occurs only with the participation of officials; in this sense, corruption is simply a lens through which the workings of the state can be viewed." In other words, at the center of corruption analysis is the problem of the functioning of the state and the possibilities of its management activities.

A more comprehensive definition of corruption was adopted by the 34th session of the UN General Assembly on December 17, 1979 in the “Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials”, where “corruption was defined broadly as the performance by an official of any action or inaction in the sphere of his official authority for remuneration in any form in the interests”, and “the formula “for remuneration in any form” did not reduce corruption only to bribery, but considered it as a systemic phenomenon, leaving room for other forms of remuneration, i.e. for other elements". Such a broad definition of the phenomenon of corruption includes not only the illegal enrichment of an official managing public affairs, but also such negative phenomena as protectionism, nepotism, cronyism, nepotism, nepotism and connections discrediting the official. Based on this understanding of the phenomenon of corruption, K.S. Belsky identifies two essential elements in corruption, namely: bribery and protectionism, the first of which blocks the normal development of small and medium-sized businesses (prevents the formation of the middle class as the basis for the stability of society), the second, representing anti-selection in the sphere of public administration, impedes the path to power competent and gifted managers and puts incompetent people in their places. These two essential elements of the corruption system, according to K.S. Belsky, are relatively independent, i.e. one does not follow from the other, however, in some historical eras they are capable of being integrated into one whole, which at the political level can lead to the collapse of the national security system and the resulting death of the state.

In this case, a particular threat to national security is the corruption of the state bureaucracy, which now represents a specific social layer with its inherent power functions. In the context of the growth of economic and other types of crime, it is not able to ensure the inevitability of legal responsibility for crimes committed. In order to maintain its corruption and avoid criminal prosecution, the bureaucracy found a way out in liberalizing legislation in the field of anti-corruption. “The liberalization of legislation by 2011 made it possible to collect fines for corruption crimes instead of imprisonment. So what do we have? For the first half of the year, out of 20 billion rubles. 20 million were reimbursed, i.e. 1%... Putin concluded that today “liberalization is not working properly.” Therefore, the reorganization of the judicial system in the Russian Federation must be carried out simultaneously with the improvement of legislation, including the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation as its fundamental basis." Thus, the head of state assessed the untimeliness of liberalizing corruption crimes in Russian legislation, the scale of which is continuously increasing.

Statistical and criminological studies confirm the existence of relationships between the criminality of the ruling elite and general crime, which are rarely revealed due to the very high latency of criminal, especially corruption, behavior of the ruling strata and their corporate secrecy. The reasons for this are clearly described by V.V. Luneev: “1) offenses of the ruling circles are usually associated with the management activities of its subjects, which, even when openness is declared, remains largely confidential; 2) in malfeasance committed by the elite, as a rule, there are no direct and immediate victims, as well as witnesses interested in making such facts public; 3) “professional” crimes among the ruling elites of various countries are committed using sophisticated, highly intelligent methods of achieving illegal goals and modern methods of protection from exposure; 4) persons from the ruling circles who violated laws, even in developed democratic countries, due to the corporate solidarity of the entire establishment, are much more likely to avoid real criminal liability than other citizens.” Here, in many cases, representatives of the ruling elite in different countries, thanks to their corrupt connections, can buy their freedom. This is explained by the fact that the genetic phenomenon of corruption is structurally inscribed in the state apparatus, despite all kinds of changes, including revolutionary changes.

The phenomenon of corruption is a type of arbitrariness that contradicts social standards of behavior, “allowing participants in corrupt relations, using the discretion of public power, to redistribute material and non-material benefits for the benefit of a few to the detriment of the whole community, aggravating the inequality of individuals and groups.”

Russian society is considered by many Russian scientists as anomie, in which a significant part of citizens do not adhere to the norms of ethics and law in their life activities, and, moreover, Russian anomie has its own specifics, which are determined by the lack of confidence in the future and the implementation of short life projects, i.e. e. Russians do not want to look into the future and prefer to live in the present, which is also considered by scientists as a manifestation of anomie. A person who is not focused on the future and who is focused on life “here and now” is more prone to anti-legal actions.

Mass lawlessness, of course, becomes fertile ground for the flourishing of corrupt practices that threaten the national security of society.

There are a number of features that characterize corruption in Russia.

First feature- corruption is associated with anomalies of shock privatization and has roots in the peculiarities of the historical development of Russia. The American economist M. Goldman characterizes this privatization as follows: it “failed” and therefore the term “piracy” is a more appropriate definition than privatization.”

Second feature- Russia is a very rich country in resources, and this so-called “resource curse” is one of the reasons that over 20 years, under “most favored nation” conditions, a corrupt bureaucracy took key positions in the public administration system, distorted the principles of public service, Here, corruption has become so widespread that it can lead to a national catastrophe (the same problem exists in China, where at the January 2014 plenum of the CPC Central Committee decisions were made on a brutal, uncompromising fight against corruption).

IN post-Soviet Russia“The bureaucracy has formed as a class, with its own interests, spheres of influence and protection system, with a huge volume of circulating corruption funds, reaching 300 billion US dollars. At the same time, corruption is the most profitable, and therefore the most attractive business in the country, with its own specific services and established tariffs.

The main areas of corruption are the distribution of budget funds, the management of natural resources, the management of state property, public procurement, the illegal seizure of property of legal entities and citizens, and the gambling business”2. In the case of security agencies, it is necessary to take into account their secret nature, which makes them closed and inaccessible to social and parliamentary control.

Third feature- unlike Western corruption, the main driving force of which is citizens or business, Russian corruption is initiated by government officials.

Fourth feature- Russian corruption is of a forceful nature, since our “bureaucracy puts pressure, there are a lot of forms of pressure, starting from law enforcement agencies and ending with licensing and similar procedures.” To this must be added the ineffectiveness of the judicial system, due to the weakness of the legal system, and the indifference of society to corruption in all its forms.

Fifth feature- Russian corruption is fueled by idiosyncrasy Russian culture power, which “is characterized by a significant distance of power, the transformation of power from an instrumental

that for achieving important social goals as an end in itself, extreme asymmetry in the distribution of rights and responsibilities between the holder of power and the subordinate, the use of techniques of domination as a result of a combination of interests in the market, etc.” . In other words, the nature of Russian power lies in the fact that it functions according to the “power for itself” type, i.e. focused on the interests and needs of the power elite. This entails the erection of administrative barriers by officials, the overcoming of which fuels corruption.

The specificity of the Russian government lies in the low level of depersonalized trust (trust not in specific individuals, but in people in general), therefore, in the country, with total distrust of political institutions, there is the highest level of trust in the first person of the state - the President, despite the extremely unfavorable situation in the field of social -economic development and tensions in the field of international relations.

Sixth feature- corruption in Russia is no longer considered a form of deviant behavior, i.e. it has become the norm of life. Rimsky V.L. writes about it this way: “bribery has become a social norm in modern Russia, defining stable, albeit dynamic, stereotypes of behavior for both those giving and taking bribes,” and “this social norm is steadily transmitted from representatives of middle and older ages who have mastered it to representatives of youth.” . It can be considered that bribery in modern Russia has become a well-defined component of the social contract of society with the corrupt part of the government on mutual coexistence. “The specificity of Russian corruption,” emphasizes A. Khachaturyan, “in our opinion, is that for centuries it has served as one of the institutions of legitimization of power.”

Seventh feature - Russian corruption is highly organized, and the highest level of corrupt officials are not available for prosecution, and therefore the demonstrative fight against corruption in Russia is carried out at the grassroots, everyday level.

Let us confirm the identified features of corruption in Russia with some empirical data that will shed light on its nature and the reasons for sustainable reproduction.

Russian scientists, in the course of analyzing the reasons for the passivity of Russian citizens exposed to corrupt influences from officials, noted the futility of complaints against officials in Russia and the conviction that higher authorities are not interested in suppressing acts of corruption and establishing justice.

IN. Sergienko, in the course of a study of corruption practices in Russia and the attitude of the population towards them, found out that while the country has a fairly high level of loyalty to this type of corruption such as bribery (about 32%), and therefore, apparently, there is a low willingness of the population to report to the appropriate authorities about corrupt actions of officials (only 10.4% of Russian citizens are ready to do this free of charge, i.e. without material reward, and for a certain material reward about 5.7% of Russians are ready to report the fact of corruption).

The low degree of civil responsibility and activity in protecting one’s own rights, the violation of which occurs with a fairly high regularity, which, according to sociologists, determines a high sense of insecurity among the majority of Russian citizens (67%), judging by the answers, also have their own historical conditionality associated with authoritarian type of development of Russian statehood and the lack of a culture of political and civil participation.

The danger is caused not only by the fact of social passivity of Russians, who do not want to defend their own rights, but by the fact that at the level of society there is a low level of independence in assessing phenomena occurring in the space of socio-economic and political relations, the perception and assessment of which completely coincides with that which is broadcast in official media. Evidence of this is that the country’s residents, surveyed in a large-scale study by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, explained their material and financial ill-being, as well as the crisis state of modern Russia, by the influence of external factors (60%) and only 18% of Russians sensibly judged that the reasons lie in Russia’s internal problems .

Monitoring by VTsIOM, carried out for 10 years (from 2005 to 2015), recorded the fact that Russian residents consider not only the traffic police, the healthcare system and law enforcement agencies, but the media, both private and state

Very often today, the media makes noise around corruption revelations as demonstration performances demonstrating to the population of the country the efforts of the state in the field of combating corruption in the highest echelons of power. These situational revelations, sweeping across all information channels and networks, do not fit into the systemic program of the fight against corruption, but are aimed at forming in the mass consciousness the opinion that such a fight is being waged. After all, judging by the responses of Russians recorded in a Levada Center survey, the President of the country, and in particular V. Putin, should bear responsibility for the scale of corruption in the country (this was the answer of the overwhelming number of respondents - about 80% - in May 2015) with a minimum number of those who think differently - about 17%

(see table 1) .

Table 1.

DO YOU THINK VLADIMIR PUTIN SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SCALE OF CORRUPTION AND FINANCIAL ABUSE IN THE HIGH ECHLESONS OF POWER, WHICH HER OPPONENTS CONSTANTLY TALK ABOUT?

V. Putin’s authority is very high among Russians, who in the majority (64%) are convinced that he limits the bureaucracy in Russia in its desire to use the country’s property to its advantage (see Table 2).

Table 2.

DO YOU THINK VLADIMIR PUTIN PENDERS TO THE BUREAUCRACY OR LIMITS ITS APPETITES?

At the same time, judging by the results of the VTsIOM survey, Russians do not rate very highly the effectiveness of the fight against corruption in modern Russia: if we compare dynamics, then, compared to 2005, this assessment has increased significantly and the fight against corruption index has increased from - 35 to 5, however, 45% of Russians surveyed still We are convinced that there is no effective anti-corruption fight in the country (see Table 3).

Table 3. Results of the fight against corruption in Russia in the eyes of public opinion

The country's leadership constantly talks about the need to fight corruption. Do you see the results of this struggle - say, over the last year, or not? (closed question, one answer)
Yes, the country is doing a lot to fight corruption
There are results, but they are not too significant
There are no real results, everything remains as it was
The situation is getting even worse, corruption is only getting worse
I find it difficult to answer
Anti-Corruption Index *

Experts also note that the scale of damage from corruption crimes in Russia is growing rapidly: in 2014 it amounted to about 40 billion rubles, which is 50% more than in 2013, but the effectiveness of work to compensate for damage caused by corruption has increased significantly .

Methods of combating corruption are divided into various categories (legal, political, economic, organizational, educational, etc.), but we want to focus on methods of information influence on corruption, since information society It is these methods that play a decisive role in the formation of a system in which the possibility of corrupt behavior in the process of interaction between officials and the civilian population will be minimized.

In the information society of Russia, according to the federal law “On Security,” it is necessary to use information Technology and methods to combat corruption, as they play a significant role in the development of society and the economy. In the information age, information systems managers must address the challenge of operating highly complex and interconnected computer and network systems to meet the information needs of their consumers. Indeed, in recent decades, “the boundaries between the tasks of information systems and the most important business companies have gradually blurred.”

Information revolution in the field personal computers forces specialists and managers of information systems to take into account economic problems and their specifics in order to most fully satisfy the information needs of government agencies and commercial organizations, companies and corporations. In other words, we are talking about the integration of information systems and infrastructure of various types of government agencies and private companies. Information and communication technologies play a significant role here, especially the Internet and various types of social networks.

These new technologies are widely distributed in modern society in developed countries, China and Russia, and in Russia they enter the fabric of economic culture through their use by Russian companies - this is the mesa level with its power relations within the organization - and in the relations between these companies (this is the micro level). As a result, the new economic culture generated by ICT has an impact on “Russian power” (macro level): “At the meso and micro levels,” notes A.N. Oleinik, - elements other than those underlying the “Russian power” are becoming increasingly stronger, power relations. Without bringing power relations at the macro level into line with these trends, the socio-economic system

will remain in an unstable state, the threat will continue

crisis phenomena".

In other words, the use of ICT in the socio-economic system of Russia requires a reduction in the level of corruption in its government apparatus (in the bureaucratic machine).

In this regard, the following situation arose: “In the Internet era, the growing need for innovation and improved quality of services in general has had an impact on the government and government agencies. Citizens and even departmental organizations hope for a fundamental transformation of public administration both in the sphere of services to citizens and in the organization of internal processes.” The way out of this situation is to update the “government” based on the use of information and communication technologies, which led to the creation of “electronic government”.

E-government itself “is the provision of a full range of public administration services to individuals, businesses and institutions, along with organizational changes to significantly improve the quality of services, improve democratic processes and strengthen support for public policy; improving both the quality and efficiency of the information society; strengthening the role of citizens and consumers public services» .

The significance of ICTs used by e-government in the functioning and development of society, including in combating corruption, lies in the fact that they are a powerful mechanism on the consciousness of individuals, social groups and society as a whole.

Electronic government transforms the state in such a way that, based on open standards, it simplifies communication and improves coordination of the activities of administrative structures and levels of the bureaucratic machine, optimizes the costs of functioning of the state apparatus, makes ICT available to every citizen and, accordingly, an array of government information, ensures greater transparency in the interaction of authorities, business structures, non-governmental organizations and citizens, promotes a depersonalized level of trust and responsibility of authorities, business and citizens, enables citizens to take part in the management of social processes, which leads to a decrease in the level of corruption of the state apparatus. All this allows us to ensure sustainable and stable growth of the country’s economy and a sufficiently high level of national security of Russia.

At the same time, despite certain achievements in the field of information and legal influence on corruption in Russia, its level continues to remain very high, since the information and legal system of Russian society itself is corrupt and forms a link in a single chain of the corrupt institutional system of Russia, including the judicial, legal, political, economic, medical, sports, etc.

The practice of many countries around the world shows that combating corruption can be very successful when legal, economic, organizational, political, educational and other measures are applied. “Anti-corruption measures give practical results - the most impressive successes in the 20th century were achieved by Sweden and Singapore, and some other countries, but the People's Republic of China, despite the practice of public executions, is still far from eradicating corruption, Russia, despite the rapid anti-corruption legislation, is also among the corrupt leaders." International anti-corruption experience demonstrates the effectiveness of citizen participation in proactive control of corruption.

The social activity of citizens acts as a force that can act as a trigger that launches a system of civil control over the processes of corrupt activities of public servants. “Since the subjects of civil control are citizens and their associations autonomous from the state, only their responsible position and activity can be the driving force that can launch and ensure the systematic operation of the mechanism for monitoring the activities of public authorities. Being equipped with the tools of public expertise and with appropriate training, even in conditions where public authorities imitate to a greater extent rather than actually contribute to the work of the mechanism of civil control, they can exercise, if not completely, then at least partially, their right to combat abuses in the system authorities."

Thus, it is citizens, thanks to their social activity and the use of traditional and online media, who are able to exert proactive anti-corruption pressure on the bureaucratic machine. In this case, public examination is carried out in the following areas, believes Yu.A. Nisnevich: anti-corruption examination of normative legal acts, activities of the State Duma and the Federation Council and legislative assemblies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and their deputies, filling positions in the state civil service through competition, preventing conflicts of interest in the system of government bodies.

This is also facilitated, firstly, by the fact that in the information society, citizens have certain, albeit limited, information about the activities of government bodies, Secondly, impact of regulations and laws international law as an external factor.

In his work, Yu.A. Nisnevich emphasizes the fundamental fact of using information and communication technologies, especially the Internet and social networks, in the system of civil control. He writes the following about the importance of ICT in civil control over the corrupt activities of officials: “Civil control, based on the use of the Internet and the latest ICT, in principle makes it possible to radically change the situation compared to the one described by J. Orwell: “Big Brother is looking at you". Situations are being created in which citizens themselves control “Big Brother.” The whole point is that thanks to the public disclosure of the fact of possible corruption crimes of government officials during civil control, they create risks for them that are caused by a change in the political situation, which entails not only the end of their official career, but can also lead to the dock .

So, e-government has considerable potential to counter corruption of government officials, the implementation of which is resisted by the bureaucracy, not only in Russia, but also in other countries. The variety of forms and methods of legal counteraction to corruption is complemented by the capabilities of Internet technologies used by e-government and citizens of social networks such as Facebook (the United States has accumulated positive experience in introducing e-government into practice). At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the important circumstance according to which new problems of e-government management have emerged, caused by the management of complex information and communication systems special purpose.

Currently, the dynamic development of the latest telecommunications and information and communication technologies, most leading IT companies are carrying out developments to introduce new models for managing complex information and communication systems: “ Modern models control systems began to be implemented in the field of ground-based and space-based systems designed to improve both military communications, and connections large corporations, strengthening the national security of states (emphasis added - author)."

These management models are closely related to the ongoing improvement of the global Internet, the ultimate goal of which is the creation of a global database of personal data of all inhabitants of the earth and their connections.

It is clear that these models should be used in the activities of the Russian national security system so that they can effectively counter the dangers caused by terrorism and corruption. This involves a transition from a distributed scheme for constructing an infocommunication system to the principle of network-centric construction of special-purpose infocommunication systems. “The network-centric infocommunication system built in this way,” notes K. Legkov, makes it possible to link all subscribers (officials), its structural divisions, software products, Web pages, multimedia data into a single interface for management, monitoring and development of management decisions. , as well as the necessary personal data for their use by various software applications, regardless of the location of special-purpose network subscribers."

The national security system is able to use these special-purpose networks to effectively combat corruption in government bodies, and the effectiveness is significantly increased in the case of social participation of citizens and various kinds of non-governmental associations and communities that express critical opinions and post materials on Twitter.

The significance of this kind of management models lies in the fact that a system of integrated social networks (such as Facebook) gives citizens access to manage their activities in order to, through their social participation in the management of social processes, solve pressing problems of the development of society, including monitoring and examining corruption behavior of officials.

In other words, we are talking about the processes of social life in the global cyberspace of the Network (the Internet and other social networks associated with it), when members of social groups take part in solving important practical problems of public administration.

It is no coincidence that so-called technology-mediated social participation (TMSP) systems are now widely used in world practice. “As we move from early ideas about the nature of social participation in cyberspace to today's discussions of open government, participation, and collaboration, there is an increasing level of understanding of the possibilities for fundamental changes in personal communications, work organizations, and online communities. TMSP systems can provide significant public benefits, for example by supporting national priority projects."

These social networking technologies can facilitate profound changes in the fields of lifelong learning, business innovation, medicine and public safety, aimed at counteracting the negative phenomena of public life, especially corruption. TMSP systems have enormous potential to engage and encourage citizens to become more involved in supporting positive government initiatives and addressing potential risky situations.

All these network systems are connected to the global Internet, which is not just a key technology, but also a systemic phenomenon of civilization, radically changing society itself. Thanks to the functioning of the global Internet and related other computer and telecommunication networks, the secret manipulation of information, which always serves as the basis of power of any government, any bureaucratic machine, becomes increasingly difficult.

The well-known Western ICT specialist D. Farber characterizes the current situation as follows: “I expect that shared access to information will develop, perhaps because we cannot stop it. Information leaks occur, this information is posted in the public domain and becomes generally known. Over time, there will be more and more such cases, and I think this is a healthy trend. But governments, naturally, don’t like this, just as they don’t like the existence of such a resource as WikiLeaks.”

In this case, there is no doubt that open access to an increasing amount of information posted on the Internet, the greater the likelihood of identifying secret, confidential data. Therefore, the desire of the corrupt bureaucratic apparatus to keep its activities secret collides with the functioning of the global Internet: “As technology develops,” notes D. Farber, “we will have more and more opportunities to separate valuable information from noise, and it will be more and more difficult to hide information.” more difficult. This may be one of those major advances in ICT that truly changes society for the better. Although they can change it in the opposite direction.”

Domestic jurists I.S. Filippov and E.A. Kuznetsov proposes to take the following measures to combat corruption: “So far, constructive ideas are limited to the need to return political competition to the life of Russia. That is, to introduce some kind of competition into the activities of the elites - open, legislatively formalized, procedurally defined and based on the will of the electorate. More specific proposals, as a rule, come down to the following list: vesting parliament with additional powers; providing additional rights and guarantees to the opposition; ensuring media independence; reform of the judicial system, etc.” . However, they focus on the fact that it makes sense to use such a private legal mechanism as the category of claims in defense of an indefinite number of persons, which exists in Russian legislation.

“Protection of public interests (the interests of a large group of persons or an indefinite number of persons) in court, carried out by the citizens themselves and their associations, - promising direction in the fight against corruption, the inefficiency of government bodies and private companies, and the “legal nihilism” of Russians.” An important role in the widespread prevalence of corruption is played by the “legal nihilism” of Russians, which has its own sociocultural foundations. Above we considered the results obtained in the work of V.L. Rimsky, the results of a special sociological study of the problem of bribery in government bodies and budgetary organizations, which represent part of informal practices supported by a “system of norms and values ​​rooted in Russian society.” In Russia, as a rule, there is often a discrepancy between legal norms and laws and norms of culture and morality in the case of the mandatory nature of committing (or prohibitions on committing) certain actions. This discrepancy lies at the basis of V.L.’s hypothesis. Rimsky, according to which corruption has become the norm Everyday life Russians.

Verification of this hypothesis in the course of empirical studies of both social behavior and the state of public consciousness in the field of rationalizing bribery as a social phenomenon and countering it in Russian society confirmed it. The analysis is based on the results of sociological

research on corruption in interactions between citizens and

representatives of government authorities, conducted by the INDEM Foundation in 2001

(2017 respondents), 2005 (3100 respondents) and 2010 (3200 respondents).

Here, corruption situations were analyzed when respondents understood that solving their problems in government agencies involved giving a bribe, regardless of whether this act was committed or not. This kind of corruption situations was presented to respondents with a list of 16 situations of everyday life, including receiving free medical care in a state or municipal medical institution, admission to kindergartens, secondary schools and universities, appeals to the authorities social protection to obtain rights to social benefits and their recalculations, contacting authorities to solve housing and land problems, as well as appealing to the courts and the police, including the traffic police. “The study revealed a significant dependence of respondents’ choice of the type of behavior in corruption situations on what these situations were and what problems they needed to solve in relationships with officials. Bribes in corruption situations, almost regardless of belonging to one or another social group, were much more often given to solve problems with the traffic police and to obtain free medical care. In these situations, for the majority of Russian citizens, refusal to pay bribes often leads to significant problems in the future, and if necessary, receiving medical care can even lead to vital consequences.”

In the case of not very dangerous consequences of refusing to give bribes (registration and recalculation of pensions and social benefits, employment, career growth, relations regarding the repair and maintenance of housing, etc.), citizens are above average ready to refuse to solve their problems through corruption." .

However, danger arises in the case of registering real estate transactions, going to court and the police, so citizens often have to worry about their own safety, which blocks legal behavior, contributes to the growth of “legal nihilism” and the growth of corruption in the country. Therefore, there is a need in Russian society to use such a legal mechanism for combating corruption as lawsuits in defense of the public interests of an indefinite number of persons.

The need to use this legal mechanism in the fight against corruption also follows from the fact simple fact that the level and volume of corruption in Russia makes the arsenal of the country’s prosecutor’s office, one of the strongest departments in the world in this category, used to combat it not very effective. At the same time, claims in defense of an indefinite number of persons, enshrined in Article 46 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, operate in cramped conditions, since Russian legislation does not encourage the filing of such claims. Therefore P.S. Filippov and E.A. Kuznetsov propose to use the Anglo-Saxon experience in reforming Russian legislation so that an individual citizen can file such a claim (this is currently prohibited by the country’s legislation). "U political elite, current or future, there must be enough flexibility and wisdom to use world experience to overcome social cynicism and legal nihilism in society and, relying on an active and law-abiding minority, to establish the rule of law.

Without the support of this minority, any leaders, no matter how qualified and motivated they are, will not be able to contain the spread of corruption.” Only the support of ordinary citizens can put into action legal mechanisms to combat corruption in the system of government.

Research into the forms and methods of combating corruption shows their diversity, which follows not only from economic parameters, but also from a number of civilizational characteristics of a particular society. In the social space of modern Russia, corruption (its civilizational features were shown in the previous paragraph) acts as one of the main threats not only to socio-economic development, but also to the existence of the country.

“The threat of the development of such a phenomenon exists not only in Russia, but its scope in our country is nonsense for civilized countries. This is the extreme phase of decomposition: unbridled bribery, theft, fusion of bureaucracy with crime and criminalized business.” It is quite natural that the corrupt bureaucracy is resisting the aspirations of Russia’s top leadership to

to renew the rule of law, to combat corruption through the use of the latest information and communication technologies, especially the introduction of electronic government built on them.

It is quite natural to use the legal and security potential of the Russian national security system to combat corruption among government officials. “The national security system must first of all be based on serious legal basis, including the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, the Federal Law “On Security”, a number of other laws and regulations of both the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local governments, adopted within their competence and relating to the security sector. The importance of the legal framework is enormous, since it is here that legal status the country’s national security system, which is the central key point that determines the practical construction of elements and the implementation of the functions of the system.”

The importance of Russia's national security system has increased now that it operates in conditions global development, which brings with it such negative global threats as information-psychological and information wars, the improvement of illegal forms in the field of high technologies (primarily in the field of information and communication technologies), terrorist attacks, violations of information sovereignty, etc. It should be especially emphasized that there is a connection between international terrorism and the corrupt behavior of the domestic bureaucracy, which in practice results in terrorist explosions on Russian territory (as recently happened in Volgograd).

It is no coincidence that, according to the Federal Law “On Security”, in the content of ensuring security, the problem of forecasting, identifying, analyzing and assessing threats to the security of Russia is in the foreground (see Article 3) and attention is focused on the significance of state policy in the field of ensuring security as an essential component of Russia's foreign and domestic policy and is carried out by the apparatus of the state machine on the basis of conceptual documents (see Article 4).

It is also important that the Russian National Security Strategy establishes ways and means to counter negative factors, challenges and risks to national security. Essential in terms of our problems is that negative factors (corruption, shadow economy, arbitrariness of officials, etc.) are part of the fabric of Russian foreign and domestic policy and are caused by challenges and risks of national security, derived from the risks of the so-called risk society.

Combating corruption in the information society involves the use of ICT in the justice system, which should be manifested in the widespread dissemination of electronic justice (it is already beginning to function in Russia), however, for now, corruption retains its systemic properties in Russia and does not allow obtaining the maximum effect from its implementation and use legal norms and mechanisms in the network space.

It is quite obvious that the anti-corruption potential of information and legal methods far exceeds the level of its use in modern Russia, which allows us to underestimate the effectiveness of measures of information and legal influence in the fight against corruption in Russian society, which has taken a course towards strengthening bureaucratic capitalism, which is not compatible with norms of democratic consciousness and behavior, civil control and participation as components of legal consciousness and behavior.

It is quite obvious that the strategic importance of the information and legal aspects of combating corruption in the context of Russia’s national security is important, and as a methodological premise, they often start from the fact that in order to suppress corruption, a subjective approach to this phenomenon is required, differentiated into instrumental and state-political types. Combating the first type of corruption requires the activities of bodies of the internal state control system.

Singapore is usually cited as an example as a state that most effectively uses a clearly formalized mechanism to combat corruption. This is achieved in the following ways, namely: firstly, the civil servant has good career prospects; secondly, he receives decent wages for his work, comparable to wages in the private sector; thirdly, the application of the principle of presumption of corruption of a civil servant, which does not allow him to commit illegal actions in the interaction between the state and business. Therefore, it is quite natural that Singapore, in which the behavior of a civil servant of any rank is monitored by law enforcement agencies, has almost zero level of corruption in the world.

A fundamental conclusion follows from this example, according to which the strategy to combat institutional corruption in Russia through information and legal measures should not be based on the presumption of innocence of an ordinary citizen, but on the principle of guilt of a civil servant in acts of corruption.

The second type of corruption (it is inherent not only in Russia, but also in other countries of the world) is state-political corruption, which is a much more complex phenomenon and more difficult to combat. For most nation states, this type of corruption acts as a key problem, because it is a significant factor hindering national development.

State-political corruption (it is not reduced to bribes and kickbacks, it does not suppress apparatus corruption), Yu. Boldyrev emphasizes, “being an absolute problem for national states, it certainly turns out to be not a problem, but, on the contrary, an effective tool for those various “ shadow" or even legal forces that seek to subordinate the actions of the state

institutions to their private interests contrary to the interests of the whole society.”

A special danger of state-political corruption lies in the fact that corrupt bureaucracy serves as the fundamental support of the listed forces, since it is “suspended” on the “hooks” of these forces. It is focused on the stability of a corruption system based on long-term actions of informal permissions “from above” in order to obtain benefits with impunity in their areas of competence. “To maintain such “stability,” this support of power is ready to commit many crimes, including, of course, those related to the falsification of any elections.” The adaptive strategy of the state using information and legal tools to combat corruption should, first of all, be aimed at combating this systemic phenomenon. In this regard, it should be noted that the state prohibits civil servants from having accounts in foreign banks, which is only the first step in combating corruption.

In the context of anti-corruption modernization of Russia, aimed at increasing the level of well-being of society and the level of human and intellectual capital, it is necessary that a cybersecurity strategy be included within the framework of the adaptive strategy of the state. Nowadays, increasing importance is being attached to cybersecurity strategy, which affects almost all social groups and structures of the state and business. " Public policy cybersecurity (national cyber security strategy - NCSS) serves as a means of strengthening the security and reliability of the state’s information systems... In fact, the strategy is a model for solving cybersecurity problems within the state.” Protecting Russia's cyberspace involves the use of legal and information methods in countering various types of crimes, especially corruption crimes that impede the implementation of the adaptive strategy of innovative modernization of the country.

1999 № 4 (111)

Corruption in Russia has now become not so much a criminal problem as a national negative factor, not only undermining the authority of the authorities, but also destroying statehood and contributing to an ever deeper erosion of economic security. According to foreign experts, Russia's direct losses from corruption amount to $15 billion annually. Russian society, while generally aware of the scale of corruption, does not fully understand the threat it poses to the state.

In recent years, almost no document characterizing the socio-economic and political situation in modern Russia, as well as the state of affairs with crime, can do without mention of corruption. However, the very concept of “corruption” does not yet have a legal definition and is sometimes used with different meanings.

CORRUPTION like a threat national security of RUSSIA

A. Kulikov, Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, Chairman of the State Duma Commission for verifying facts of participation of officials of public authorities of the Russian Federation in corruption activities E. Ivanov, Advisor to the State Duma Commission

E thymologically, the term “corruption” comes from Latin word Corruptio (corruption), meaning “damage, bribery.” These two words define the understanding of corruption. “Although the concept of corruption,” states the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 17, 1978, “must be defined in accordance with national law, it should be understood that it covers the commission or omission of any act in the performance of duties or by reason of those duties as a result of required or accepted gifts, promises or inducements or the unlawful receipt thereof whenever such act or omission occurs.” Here, therefore, corruption refers to bribery, corruption of officials (public servants) and their official behavior carried out in connection with received or promised remuneration. However, there is, and seems correct, a broader understanding of corruption as a social phenomenon that is not limited to bribery.

It appears that corruption is a social phenomenon consisting in the disintegration of power, when state (municipal) employees and other persons authorized to perform government functions use their official position, status and authority of their position for selfish purposes for personal enrichment or in group interests1 .

The state of affairs with corruption in Russia is largely due to moral decay in society, which is especially evident in government bodies. This was the result of an unjustified transition to a new social and economic system in its transience, which was in no way supported by the much-needed legal framework and not only ineffective, but also largely negative activities of the executive branch. Yes, we got a market, but it is a market dominated by corruption, which has become part of the mentality of Russian citizens.

Society condemns the enrichment of a small handful of members of the elite, being convinced, and not without reason, that all their wealth was acquired by dishonest, illegal means. Everyday “small” corruption is perceived as an integral part of social reality, but not as a crime directed against the entire society. The deformation of life guidelines among a significant part of Russians, especially among teenagers and youth, has led to the fact that some forms of immoral, antisocial and criminal behavior have become recognized as socially approved; convictions, criminal prosecution, parasitism, and drug addiction are not considered shameful. In the minds of many people, the value of productive work as a source of well-being and the main means of personal self-realization has been lost. Criminally significant deformations of the spiritual and moral sphere are largely associated with abuse of freedom of speech in the media, propaganda of violence and the cult of profit at any cost. As a result, Russian citizens, like the government itself, operate in an ethical and moral vacuum. The new system gradually slipped into political arbitrariness and the spread of corruption, unprecedented for Russia.

High government officials gradually created a new political system in which such concepts as the rule of law and the public good are secondary to the desire to maintain power and manage state wealth.

Over the past seven years, statehood in Russia has been largely lost. The political system has created an entrenched elite, united by corruption and mutual guarantee, who are in no way interested in the transparency of the political system or the rule-based state and economy. The criminalization of the economy and the corruption of the public sector are two sides of the coin. How can political functionaries and government officials implement decriminalization of the economy when many of them are corrupt and “tied up” with criminal structures? Corruption is both a cause and a consequence of the weakness of the state as the bearer of state power and the guarantor of the social well-being of society.

The growth of a cancerous tumor - corruption - is inevitable if the current Constitution has not endowed the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation with the rights to control the executive branch and the judicial system of Russia. Only relatively recently (in 1998) a Commission began to work in the State Duma to verify the facts of participation of officials of state authorities of the Russian Federation and state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in corruption activities, which are not recognized by law with the necessary rights, but still already have an impact to fight the evil of crime.

According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the president of our state has enormous power, but has not yet effectively shown the ability to use it to reduce crime in society and ensure the rights of Russians. The President of the Russian Federation used the fight against corruption as a means to discredit officials he disliked (Rutskoy A.), and subsequently to maintain his image of an incorruptible person (on the eve of the 1996 presidential elections), but did not essentially solve the problem of combating corruption and even three times did not sign the Federal Law “On the Fight against Corruption”. At the same time, it is necessary to note “nepotism”, which, according to his example, found fertile ground in the state executive authorities.

Since December 1993, when the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted, the executive power has become very strong, but the Government of the Russian Federation has not set or solved problems for the political stability of society, its economic and social improvement and well-being. In the Government of the Russian Federation, by this time “clan politics” had already taken root and became a characteristic feature of the executive branch, which in itself is fertile ground for the growth of corruption.

The clans sought to accumulate power and entrust this power in the form of a high position in the government to some political leader in order to influence the decision-making process at the national level in the interests of the clan, primarily in the financial and economic spheres. If one person is both a member of government and a representative of a powerful interest group, then the distinctions between protectionism, lobbying and corruption disappear. Power clans emerge. The struggle for the power of the clan was and is being carried out by all available means, including bribery of representatives Federal Assembly Russian Federation.

In areas where strategy is being developed in the oil and gas industry, strategic resources and non-ferrous metals, the interests of clans have been realized for a long time.

A very striking example of this is the article in the newspaper “Top Secret” (No. 12, 1988) “Transafera” about how Russian citizens in public service, using foreign shell companies and, apparently, state funds, acquired a tenth of the joint stock Transneft company. This was done not without the knowledge of the Government of the Russian Federation under the leadership of V.S. Chernomyrdin.

It is the arbitrariness of government leaders that plays a leading role in the system of distribution of government positions. Representatives of the political elite decided that they could easily hold positions in government bodies and at the same time acquire, own and manage blocks of shares and, accordingly, enterprises, mostly highly profitable ones. In 1995, the State Duma adopted the Federal Law “On the Fundamentals of the Civil Service of the Russian Federation,” which prohibits government officials from engaging in other paid activities, except for teaching, scientific and other creative activities, and from being a member of the management body of a commercial organization. Some officials, like V. Potanin, have left their posts, but their contacts with government officials appear to be working.

During the time of Chernomyrdin V.S. The government itself did not really take into account the interests of the state and society. Thus, on October 11, 1994, the ruble lost 27% of its value. The government blamed the so-called “speculators” for this, but it itself speculated, gaining from 400 to 500 million dollars in one day. An investigation into this incident conducted by the Secretary of the Security Council O. Lobov showed that a number of commercial banks received fabulous profits: Most Bank - 14 million dollars, Neftekhimbank - 12 million, Alfa Bank - 12 million, Mezhkombank - 5 million, i.e. banks, which were apparently the most informed about the upcoming event.

The seriousness of the situation forced the President of the Russian Federation in 1996-1997. take measures aimed at combating corruption, but in the fall of 1997, as if to confirm the severity of the situation with corruption in the highest government bodies, a scandal broke out about the so-called “writers,” members of the presidential team. Chubais A.B. lost his post as Minister of Finance and publicly repented, but was left as Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, and 3 high officials lost their posts. Here, first of all, the problem of laundering illegally acquired money is highlighted in contrast, although it is relatively small compared to what probably ended up in the pockets of these officials.

Metastases of corruption have affected not only the federal authorities, but no less the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Mainly where, for some reason, state control over transport, energy and financial flows has been lost.

Particularly severe and neglected forms of corruption in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation arose when organized crime merged with local administrations and law enforcement agencies.

The commission spent a long time studying materials related to the situation in Novorossiysk.

Part of Russia’s strategic commodity-export potential, including 40 million tons of oil, passes through the Novorossiysk port. The port provides a third of the country's export earnings.

The State Maritime Administration of the Port of Novorossiysk is the richest institution on the coast. More than 30 million dollars annually received into its accounts should be spent on reconstruction, repair of berths, ensuring navigation safety, but are used for other purposes: they end up in commercial banks, are spent on “charity” and the purchase of foreign cars. The total damage from various types of theft of export proceeds in ports is comparable to the revenue side of the Russian budget.

Despite the fact that parliamentary inquiries and official statements were made about the abuses and corrupt activities of officials and other offenses, and there was a willingness to submit documents, not only was there no proper investigation, but there was a silence about the problem. The commission was faced with large-scale corruption by officials at all levels of government, and if only for the inaction of law enforcement agencies. In order to intensify the resolution of problems related to corruption in this region, a special Interdepartmental Working Group (IWG) was created. On November 19, 1998, the State Duma Commission at its meeting considered the issue “On the crime situation in Novorossiysk and other ports on the Azov-Black Sea coast of Kuban,” with the invitation of the heads of the relevant ministries and law enforcement agencies, and journalists from central media. Unfortunately, the work of the Commission has not received and is not receiving adequate coverage in the press and on television, as well as the work of the IWG. Despite the fact that the IWG began to carry out its work in October 1998, in cities and sea ​​ports On the Azov-Black Sea coast, 136 criminal cases were initiated, for which 155 people were brought to criminal liability, of which 41 people. arrested, 25 detained in accordance with Art. 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, with 58 people. a recognizance not to leave was taken. 171 crimes are being investigated in criminal cases. This contributed to achieving a positive economic effect. Thus, in the city of Novorossiysk, the amount of tax revenues for November 1998 was: to the federal budget - 210%, to the regional budget - 113%, to the local budget - 168.4%. During the period of work of the IWG, an additional amount of 25,372,480 rubles was accrued to the budget, material assets in the amount of 13,551,500 rubles were seized, in foreign currency - $70,000.

The Commission is currently considering no less relevant materials on corruption in the Kursk, Rostov and Volgograd regions, Nizhny Novgorod, the Komi Republic and other constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The foregoing clearly indicates where the roots of corruption in the Russian Federation are located.

A very important and logically understandable situation in connection with what was happening in the country was the situation when law enforcement agencies were subjected to a certain and sometimes very significant destruction and became the objects of frequent attacks by the media. The importance of protecting state and public interests as one of the most important tasks of law enforcement began to be downplayed. The multilateral ties between law enforcement agencies and their employees and the population that existed in the USSR were practically lost.

Law enforcement agencies, which are subjects of the law of operational investigative activities, were not oriented and were unable to timely acquire strong operational positions in the areas of criminalized economic structures, which, on the contrary, increased due to the influx of morally and financially dissatisfied professionals dismissed from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, intelligence, prosecutor's office. There is practically no training of specialists in law enforcement agencies who would understand the nature of corruption and could fight it in modern conditions.

At the same time, if “pickpockets” earn ten or more times more than law enforcement officers, then there is no need to talk about the rule of law, or about sufficient protection of Russian citizens from crime and corruption.

Corruption crime has a number of criminological features associated with the subjects of such crimes, areas and methods of their commission. It can be characterized as elite-power crime, taking into account the fairly high social status of the subjects of corruption. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, in 1996, the structure of corrupt persons brought to justice and subject to trial was as follows: employees of ministries, committees and their local structures - 41.1%, law enforcement officers - 26.5%, employees of credit financial system - 11.7%, employees of regulatory authorities - 8.9%, customs service employees - 3.2%, deputies of representative authorities - 0.8%, others - 7.8%. Thus, corruption covers almost all areas of public administration. The most affected are government structures related to the consideration and resolution of issues of privatization, financing, lending, banking operations, creation and registration of commercial organizations, licensing and quotas, foreign economic activity, distribution of funds, and land reform.

A characteristic feature of corruption crime is its highest latency. Expert estimates by specialists of the size of identified cases of money-grabbing in relation to their actual level range from 0.1 to 2%.

The Concept of National Security of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1997 No. 1300, notes the weakening of legal control over the situation in the country, the merging of the executive and legislative authorities with criminal structures, their penetration into the management of banking business, large industries, trade organizations and commodity production networks. “The underworld has essentially challenged the state, entering into extensive competition with it. Therefore, the fight against crime is not only legal, but also political in nature.”

The Russian administrative apparatus, regardless of the hierarchical level, has become characterized by such new manifestations of corruption as:

part-time employment in commercial structures controlled by a state or municipal employee or interested in cooperation with him;

organization of commercial structures by officials using their status, participation in the management of these structures, providing them with a privileged position;

use of official position in the process of privatization of state enterprises in order to acquire them into private ownership or take possession of a significant number of shares by the official himself, persons close to him or other private persons in whose interests the official acts;

illegal transfer for mercenary or other reasons commercial organizations finance and loans intended for national needs;

use of advantages not provided for by legal acts in obtaining credits, loans, acquisition valuable papers, real estate and other property;

use for personal or group purposes of premises, means of transport and communication, electronic computer equipment, funds and other state or municipal property provided for official activities;

receiving, for one’s official activities or in connection with it, for patronage or connivance in one’s service, illegal remuneration in the form of money, other material assets and services, including in a veiled form through the payment of illegal bonuses, commissions, clearly inflated fees, payment to the official himself or members of his family allegedly performing work, traveling abroad under business pretext, purchasing real estate abroad, opening accounts for them in foreign banks, issuing interest-free long-term loans, etc.

Extensive and diverse criminological information indicates widespread “bureaucratic racketeering” when registering charters and other constituent documents of created organizations, licensing relevant activities, processing customs documents, obtaining loans, etc.

A characteristic feature of corruption crime is its close connection with organized crime. Here we are just encountering a situation of direct and complete bribery or total bribery, when representatives of organized crime, crime bosses establish close ties with government officials of various ranks, take them for their maintenance, as if “buying them up on the vine”, believing that at the right moment , in the appropriate situation, a corrupt representative of government and management will act as the bribers expect. Operational data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB of Russia indicate that government officials assist every tenth organized criminal group, of which there are about eight thousand in Russia.

According to estimates by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, organized crime controls 40% of private enterprises, 60% of state-owned enterprises, and from 50 to 85% of banks in the Russian Federation. Almost no sector of the economy is protected from its impact. It was corruption, which permeated all levels of Russian government, that became one of the main obstacles in the fight against organized crime and caused its powerful growth, especially in the economic sphere. By helping to strengthen the economic base of organized crime, it is corruption that deals the most significant blows to the economic security of Russia. Largely due to the corruption of high-ranking officials and their dishonest performance of official duty, the “shadow” business has reached 40% of the country’s total gross domestic product, and 9 million Russians are drawn into this area.

It is significant that for 1989-1995. the number of organized criminal groups in Russia has increased 17 times, while the number of groups with corrupt connections has increased 170 times. According to a number of studies, organized criminal groups spend from 30 to 50% of their criminally acquired funds on corrupt functionaries of the state apparatus.

It is clear that the main subjects of corruption are the owners of large criminal capital, who, through corruption in government bodies, solve three main tasks for them: multiplying capital, ensuring their power and their own security, and they succeed.

The export of Russian capital abroad (up to $400 billion has ended up there in recent years) and the legalization of illegally obtained income are two of the most important factors due to which corruption exists and is gaining strength on the one hand, and on the other hand, which are realized thanks to corruption. According to UN estimates, up to $500 billion of so-called dirty money is laundered annually in the world, which is 8% of the volume of international trade. Since these two factors are the financial and economic basis of organized crime in our country, they largely influence the spread and existence of corruption. It should be noted that the Federal Law “On Combating the Legalization (Laundering) of Illegally Obtained Income” and the accompanying Federal Law “On Amendments and Additions to Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation”, adopted by the State Duma on October 21, 1998... could would have put an effective barrier to corruption and economic crime, but were rejected on November 12, 1998 by the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

It should be noted that the struggle over these laws was political in nature. And we must clearly understand that these laws are elements of anti-corruption policy, therefore they were opposed by the banking system, where “dirty money” is “laundered” and organized crime, which obtains this “dirty money”. We hope that these laws will be adopted at the beginning of 1999, and our Commission will actively work for this.

Despite numerous expert assessments and statements by Russian government and public figures about the enormous scale of corruption, the number of corruption offenses identified is insignificant. Moreover, statistics do not reflect real trends in corruption, but the actual weakening of the fight against it. If from 1986 to 1996 registered crime doubled, then recorded corruption crime, on the contrary, not only did not increase, but decreased significantly.

It is very important for the creation of a rule of law state that all its citizens have equal rights to protect themselves from illegal or criminal attacks from whomever they come: from the president of the country, members of legislative bodies, law enforcement officers or judges. The legalized hypertrophied immunity from justice of representatives of the legislative and judicial authorities must be significantly limited, brought into line with generally accepted standards in the world, and the actual ability of officials, primarily high-ranking ones, to evade responsibility for violating laws must be decisively eliminated. There are reasons for such a judgment.

Noteworthy is the sharp discrepancy between the number of identified factors of corruption and the number of convicted corrupt officials. Thus, during the period from 1986 to 1996, a total of 43,690 factors of bribery were registered, while only 12,943 people were convicted in these cases. (29.6%). Moreover, if in 1986-1987. every second of the identified corrupt officials was convicted, then in subsequent years - at best, every fourth.

If we take the types of official crimes (including bribery) for which sentences have entered into legal force, then the statistics of those convicted for 5 years is as follows: 1992 - 2038 people, 1993 - 1968 people, 1994 - 2251 people ., 1995 - 2524 people, 1996 - 2890 people.

A number of provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the status of judges in the Russian Federation”, adopted back in 1992, in particular, the provisions of Art. 13, 14 and 16 of the Law provide judges with unprecedented guarantees of immunity: the impossibility of bringing them to disciplinary liability; bringing to criminal liability, arrest - are possible only with the consent of the relevant qualification board of judges; detention is also possible only with the consent of the relevant qualification board of judges and with the sanction of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation or the person performing his duties, or a court decision; a number of operational investigative measures against a judge can be carried out only in connection with a criminal case initiated against him, etc.

In order to combat organized crime and corruption, it is necessary to more fully realize the law enforcement potential of the new Criminal Code.

The current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation gives grounds to classify as corruption crimes such as fraud, embezzlement and embezzlement committed using official position (clause “c” of Part 2 of Article 159 and 160 of the Criminal Code), abuse of official powers (Article 285) , illegal participation in business activities (Article 290), forgery of official duties (Article 292), obstruction of legitimate business activities (Article 169), restriction of competition (Article 178) and a number of other crimes committed by civil servants or employees of local governments using one’s official position (in the broad sense of the word) for selfish or other personal or group purposes.

In addition to corruption in the state and municipal service system and among persons involved in state (municipal) administration, the current criminal legislation allows us to talk about corruption of persons performing managerial functions in commercial and other organizations, as well as corruption in sports and show business (Article 201, 204 and 184 of the Criminal Code).

The Criminal Code thoroughly addresses issues of liability for bribery.

At the same time, we can already talk about problems, as well as provisions of the 1996 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, that need adjustments. In particular, it would be possible to introduce a category of crimes of exceptional gravity; specify the legal characteristics of an organized group and criminal community; in order to strengthen the fight against criminal recidivism and professional crime, amend the norms establishing the procedure for imposing punishment in cases of repetition and accumulation of crimes; expand the list of aggravating circumstances; clarify the conditions for exemption from criminal liability in case of voluntary renunciation of a crime; tighten sanctions for crimes related to weapons, kidnapping, corruption crimes, establish criminal liability for systematic non-payment of wages, pensions, and scholarships without good reason.

A necessary condition for improving the legal framework for combating crime is the immediate elimination of the gap between criminal and criminal procedural legislation. Material (criminal law) norms, including those of a fundamentally new nature, cannot be realistically applied without an effective criminal procedural mechanism for their implementation. The law must establish an optimal regime for the investigation and judicial review of criminal cases, guaranteeing both the protection of individual rights and the effectiveness of legal means of combating crime. Criminal procedural legislation should regulate in detail the procedure for registering crimes, resolving the issue of initiating criminal cases (and refusing to initiate cases), tighten departmental and judicial control, and prosecutorial supervision over the response to statements and reports of crimes.

When preparing new criminal procedural legislation, it is necessary to ensure a balanced balance of public and private interests, reliable protection of the rights of victims, witnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings.

In 1998, the State Duma Commission to verify the participation of officials of state authorities of the Russian Federation and state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in corruption activities was in its infancy: simultaneously with the solution of personnel and organizational issues, conceptual foundations, forms and methods of work were developed within the constitutional framework the activities of the highest legislative body of power and the status of the Commission itself determined by it.

The beginning of intensive activity of the Commission of the State Duma of the Russian Federation was somewhat ahead of the explosion of public attention to the problems of corruption and their widespread discussion at the international level in Strasbourg and, to some extent, probably influenced the adoption of certain decisions by the President and the Government of the Russian Federation.

Currently, the Commission has accepted for production more than 30 materials covering a wide range of problems across the entire vertical of state power, starting with verification of materials about the corruption of the highest official in the state: the Berezovsky transfer to B.N. Yeltsin. ORT shares, presence of Yeltsin B.N. account. in a London bank and real estate abroad, as well as in relation to officials of FAPSI, the Ministry of Railways of the State Company "Rosvooruzhenie", - and ending with the investigation of materials of corruption activities in territorial entities covering a wide geography.

At meetings of the Commission with the participation of representatives of all law enforcement agencies in the second half of 1998, 18 materials were considered.

Realizing that the problems of combating corruption require intellectual efforts on the part of representatives of science and law enforcement agencies, the Commission held a round table on December 3, 1998, at which a very interesting exchange of views took place.

With the participation of the Commission, work will continue under the Federal Law “On Combating the Legalization (Laundering) of Illegally Obtained Income.”

A draft Federal Law “On Amendments and Additions to the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation” has been prepared for submission to the State Duma.

Legislative proposals are being prepared in Art. 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, in Art. 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and others. The analysis of the legislative field in the field of combating corruption will continue with the aim of improving it.

We will try to implement in 1999 the proposals made at the round tables on conducting a forensic examination of draft federal laws in order to combat organized crime and corruption.

I would like to express confidence that in 1999 the President of the Russian Federation will sign the Federal Law “On the Fight against Corruption,” which the State Duma adopted three times, and the President vetoed. Currently, the conciliation commission is finishing work on the law.

Based on the general rule that the fight against crime should not be reduced to the elimination of criminals, we believe that the anti-corruption system needs to be improved in four directions:

1. Accurate assessment of the state of affairs, forecast and planning of operations.

2. Crime prevention by influencing the causes of corruption (one timely personnel decision is more effective than ten prosecutorial charges).

3. Direct law enforcement activities, along with punitive measures, must restore the violated rights and legitimate interests of the injured party (in our case, the state and its population).

4. Inevitability of punishment.

One of the most important factors in combating corruption is the effective use of information resources, and, above all, the media. However, one cannot ignore that “independent” media were the first to switch to the “market” mechanism of popularity, and the interaction of state authorities with them today is very difficult.

This is especially true in conditions when the world community has realized the seriousness of the threats of information warfare and the most developed countries have begun to give priority attention to the problems of information warfare. As noted at the parliamentary hearings of the Federation Council on November 30, 1998 “On ways to implement the concept of national security,” “expenses for the development and acquisition of information warfare equipment in the United States now occupy first place among the expenses for all weapons programs.” I think that this fact could not but affect the activities of some Russian media and should entail adequate actions on the part of the Security Council and the Government of the Russian Federation.

Despite the objective difficulties, the State Duma commission to verify the facts of participation of officials of state authorities of the Russian Federation and state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in corruption activities persistently seeks interaction with the media that have preserved the state mentality, and is interested in close cooperation with them.

Deputies and staff members work with special respect and attention with authors of publications who carry out independent journalistic investigations.

But it is noteworthy that not a single newspaper, magazine, radio or television program has ever made the speeches of the Prosecutor General and the Russian security ministers to the public in full over the past six months to a wide audience.

Public consciousness, largely formed by the media, needs the care of the state and must serve the interests of the state and the majority of its population.

On the agenda is the issue of creating a technology for the media to interact with government authorities in matters of combating corruption solely in the interests of Russia’s national security.

TO In addition, a significant gap in anti-corruption activities at the moment is the lack of interaction between the Security Council and the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

Such interaction is necessary not only in terms of improving legislation, but also for the implementation of a representative government body in matters of combating corruption.

We believe that the Security Council, in determining the national policy in the field of security and compliance with the rule of law and coordinating the implementation of a unified state anti-corruption program, could rely to a greater extent on the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, in particular, on the work of the State Duma Commission for verifying the facts of the participation of officials government bodies of the Russian Federation and government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in corruption activities.

1 This characterization of corruption is given by Prof. Volzhenkin B.V. in the book "Corruption". Series “Modern standards in criminal law and criminal procedure.” St. Petersburg 1998, p. 44.

Note: This publication is based on the text of a speech by one of its authors at the scientific and practical conference “Strong Russia - Security and Law and Order,” organized and held by the Central Council of the VOPD “Spiritual Heritage” in December 1998.

To comment you must register on the site.

The text of the work is posted without images and formulas.
The full version of the work is available in the "Work Files" tab in PDF format

Introduction

Today's reality is such that corruption has penetrated into all spheres of life and activity and has become a familiar, everyday phenomenon. Both the state and the business community are interested in reducing the level of corruption. Increasingly, materials appear in the media that this or that official is abusing his official position, taking bribes, embezzling budget money or state property. Each of us condemns the corruption of such an official, but few people ask the question of what our role is in the development of this negative phenomenon. Can we, should we, resist corruption? Does it affect the country’s economy and can it become an obstacle to its development? To understand the nature of corruption, the threats it poses, and answer the questions posed above - this is the main task of this study.

Thus, the purpose of the study was to determine the essence of corruption, identify the causes that give rise to it, analyze the scale and systematize the directions of counteraction.

The object of study is corruption itself. The subject is socio-economic relations between subjects that give rise to corruption. The research is theoretical in nature, so scientific methods include synthesis and analysis.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

consider the causes and nature of corruption;

assess the scale of corruption and its negative impact on the development of business activity in Russia;

systematize the set of anti-corruption measures existing in domestic practice.

1 The essence of corruption

Anti-corruption has long been one of the most pressing tasks and priorities of legal, economic and social reforms in Russia. Currently, the issue of combating corruption is particularly acute. The destructive nature of the existing level of corruption affects state development and structure, standard of living and social security of citizens, as well as the entire economy as a whole. In order to highlight the most effective ways to combat corruption, it is necessary, first of all, to determine the essence of this phenomenon.

The concept of “corruption” was formulated at the 34th session of the UN General Assembly on December 17, 1979 and defined as “the performance by an official of any actions (inaction) in the sphere of official authority for remuneration in any form in the interests of the person giving such remuneration, as with violation job descriptions, and without their violation" 1 . The 2005 UN Convention against Corruption decomposes this phenomenon:

Corruption in the public sector (analogous to the state sector in Western terminology);

Corruption in the private sector.

According to Federal Law 273 on anti-corruption, it constitutes: “abuse of official position, giving and receiving bribes, 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, other property rights for oneself or for third parties, or the illegal provision of such benefit to the specified person by other individuals” 2.

The problem of corruption is quite relevant and widely discussed in scientific literature. Well-known scientists in this field A.I. Dolgov and B.V. Volzhenkin understands corruption as a social phenomenon characterized by the “decomposition of power,” “bribery and corruption” of state (municipal) employees who use their official official powers in the name of personal or group selfish interests 34 .

L.I. Shershnev defines the corruption of officials and politicians as an element of an artificially built capitalized market economy based on fierce competition, the cult of money and material values ​​5.

V.V. Luneev characterizes corruption as a phenomenon that includes “... numerous forms of misappropriation of public funds for private use” 6.

A.I. Kirpichnikov gives a very clear description of corruption, “... this is the corrosion of power, just as rust corrodes metal, so corruption destroys the state apparatus and corrodes the moral foundations of society” 7.

The considered opinions of scientists and specialists give reason to believe that corruption in the broad sense of the word is a nationwide socio-economic phenomenon, characterized by a destructive nature and being, on the one hand, a certain “market of shadow and criminal services”, on the other hand, a criminal phenomenon covering a number of crimes provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (CC RF). 8

Corruption as a social and legal phenomenon poses a threat to national security, infringing on the vital interests of the individual, society and the state as a whole. About a third of Russians define corruption as “a mechanism for compensating for bad laws” 9 that allows people to solve their problems.

The following main forms of manifestation of corruption can be distinguished:

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 fraud), 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 patronage (“protection protection”, perjury);

Abuse of power (bullying);

And others.

The main causes of corruption are:

1) expansion of the shadow economy. The shadow economy is an objectively existing and constantly reproducing subsystem of the economy, in which business entities strive to achieve economic benefits through unfair competition methods, i.e. on their own initiative or under the influence of external circumstances resort to actions contrary to the law, business ethics, the rules of the game between business and government, the moral standards of society.

2) an imbalance between low salaries of officials and their high powers. This is especially evident in developing and post-Soviet countries, where government officials have the opportunity to influence the activities of firms and citizens.

3) closed and overregulated work of government departments, opacity of lawmaking, cumbersome reporting system, erroneous state personnel policy, which allows promotion “through cronyism” regardless of the performance of employees.

4) demoralization of society, lack of awareness, underdevelopment of civil institutions and passivity in relation to bureaucratic lawlessness.

5) discrediting the ideas of market competition, since the winner is not the one who is competitive, but the one who was illegally able to gain advantages.

6) inefficient use of budget funds, in particular in the distribution of government orders.

7) criminalization of business and others.

Analysis of literary sources allows us to systematize the consequences of corruption (Fig. 1).

Among the economic consequences it is advisable to highlight the following:

The growth of the shadow economy, carried out outside of state registration and accounting.

Figure 1 - Main group of consequences of corruption

Decrease in the country's budget revenues.

Violation of the competitive mechanisms of the market, since often the winner is not the one who is competitive, but the one who was illegally able to gain advantages.

Slowing down the emergence of effective private owners.

Ineffective use of budget funds, in particular, in the distribution of government orders and loans.

Raising prices and ultimately the consumer suffers.

Expanding the scale of corruption in non-governmental organizations (firms, enterprises, public organizations). This leads to a decrease in the efficiency of their work, which means the efficiency of the country’s economy as a whole decreases.

The investment climate is weakening, not only are foreign partners leaving, but the level of attracting domestic investment into the economy is also decreasing. Renowned economist Paolo Mauro analyzed the impact of corruption on the economy in 94 countries and concluded that a 25% decrease in the level of corruption in a country usually leads to an increase in investment of 4% of the gross domestic product (GDP). This, in turn, leads to the fact that the share of GDP per capita increases by 0.5% 10 .

Social consequences include:

The diversion of colossal funds from the goals of social development, thereby reducing the ability of the authorities to solve social problems.

Consolidation and increase in property inequality, poverty of a large part of the population.

Discrediting 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 crime and in the face of power.

Strengthening organized crime due to growing corruption in law enforcement agencies. The merging of entrepreneurs with corrupt groups of officials increases the opportunities for money laundering.

Increased social tension that threatens political stability in the country.

And finally, the political consequences:

Shifting policy goals from national development to ensuring the rule of certain clans.

Decreasing trust in the government, increasing its alienation from society.

The decline in the country's prestige in the international arena, growing threats to its economic and political isolation.

2 Domestic experience fight against corruption

The fight against corruption has deep historical roots. The first mentions of corruption come from Russian chronicles of the 13th century, where it was defined by the concept of “bribery.”

The first legislative restriction of corrupt activities was implemented during the reign of Ivan III in the 15th century. The Code of Law, introduced in 1497, established the investigative form of the process and provided for the death penalty or trade penalty as punishment, i.e. whipping.

During the reign of Ivan IV in the 16th century, the death penalty was first introduced as punishment for excessive bribery.

The 17th century during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich was marked by the appearance of the article “Punishment for a crime falling under the concept of corruption” in the Council Code of 1649.

In the 18th century, Peter I, together with the collegiums, introduced the activities of the Secret Chancellery (Secret Police). Thus, in 1722, the prosecutor’s office was created as a body to oversee the implementation of laws “to destroy or weaken the evils arising from disorder in business, injustice, bribery and lawlessness.”

Anna Ioannovna and Elizaveta Petrovna in 1739 issued a Decree “On recovery for stolen property and for bribes”, in 1761 a Decree “On the prohibition of bribes and delays when inspecting travelers at outposts.”

In 1762, Catherine II issued a Decree “On keeping judges and officials from extortion,” which established salaries for officials and threatened the death penalty. In order to prevent corruption, in addition to salary, a pension was awarded after 35 years of service.

In the 19th century, Alexander I in 1812 issued a Decree “On the prohibition of bringing gifts to governors and other provincial employees.”

According to contemporaries, in 1823, Ivan Ivanovich Pushchin appeared in the Moscow court court - “the first honest man who ever sat in the Russian treasury chamber,” an irreconcilable fighter against bribery.

During the reign of Nicholas I in 1826, corruption became a mechanism of government, but it was created III department for the safety of the emperor and the fight against crime.

The period of reforms in Rus' was marked by the emergence of one of the first judicial reforms. According to the Decree of Alexander II in 1864, the court became classless, public, independent and adversarial. Jury trials were also introduced.

During the Soviet period, the fight against corruption continued, so in 1922 the Criminal Code provided for execution for bribery. And in 1957, the official fight was suspended, since corruption was considered a rare phenomenon.

As you can see, no one has been able to completely defeat corruption. The two most successful leaders in this matter were Ivan IV and Joseph Stalin. To achieve this, both had to resort to brutal repression with the use of special law enforcement agencies. In addition, during the leadership of the country I.V. Stalin defeated corruption with a unique system of measures that affected everyone, regardless of connections and position in society. Even relatives of the corrupt official were brought to justice, who knew but did nothing to identify the criminal. Moreover, everyone who even half-heard but kept silent about someone taking bribes or engaging in other illegal activities was put on trial. And, of course, the most effective means of control is denunciations. Denunciations were widespread, because there was also criminal liability for concealing a crime seen. According to most researchers, it was the extensive network of informants that played decisive role in eradicating corruption in the country.

1. Areas of corruption

According to media reports, today corruption is increasingly covering various spheres of life of Russians. According to annually published studies, at least 70% of municipal employees, 80% of judges and traffic police officers, 40-45% of doctors, and 60% of university teachers regularly take bribes.

Figure 2 shows that over ten years the top level of corruption has remained virtually unchanged. Thus, the corruption of local authorities, the judicial system, and health authorities is increasing, and the corruption of law enforcement agencies and federal authorities has a positive downward trend.

Figure 2 - Dynamics of changes in the most corrupt areas and institutions

The areas of activity that are most susceptible to corruption in Russia include:

customs services: passage of goods prohibited for transportation across the border; return of confiscated goods and currency; reduction of customs duties; unjustified detention of cargo and deferment of customs payments;

tax authorities: non-collection of taxes in full; “turning a blind eye” to tax violations; failure to carry out control activities; inspections and production stoppages caused by competitors;

law enforcement agencies: initiation and termination of criminal cases, as well as their referral for additional investigation; lack of legal punishment for offenses of varying severity;

administrative structures: bribes for issuing certificates, permits, and other documents; creation of affiliated commercial firms that expedite the processing of documents for an additional fee;

educational institutions: purchase and sale of diplomas; inflated exam results; admission to university for people with low Unified State Examination scores.

According to the statement " Novaya Gazeta", out of 35 ministries and departments of Russia, the five most corrupt have been identified - these are: the Ministry of Defense; Ministry of transportation; The Ministry of Economic Development, including its subordinate Rosimushchestvo and Rosreestr; Ministry of Health and Social Development, as well as its subordinate Rospotrebnadzor; Ministry of Finance.

Experts say: corruption in Russia is becoming a kind of business.

The identified areas of corruption are not independent in their own right. On the contrary, they form a kind of chain, being the result of the functioning and development of neighboring links.

1. 1. Corruption crime statistics

To assess the scale of corruption, you can use the corruption perception index - this is a global study and the accompanying ranking of countries around the world in terms of the prevalence of corruption in the public sector. This indicator is calculated using the methodology of the international non-governmental organization Transparency International, based on a combination of publicly available statistics and the results of a global survey. According to researchers, the only reliable source of information is the opinions and testimonies of those who directly experience corruption (for example, entrepreneurs) or professionally study it, i.e. analysts.

The Corruption Perceptions Index is a summary indicator that ranks countries on a scale from 0 (highest level of corruption) to 100 (lowest level of corruption). It is worth noting that not a single state has a mark of 100 points (Appendix 1). Thus, in 2016, Denmark and New Zealand had the lowest corruption perception index score of 90 points; Russia over the past two years received the same number of points - 29 and occupied low ranking positions (2015 - 119th place out of 168, 2016 - 131 place out of 176 possible) 11.

Corruption undermines the economic security of the country and, among other things, causes significant harm to entrepreneurship.

The country's economy largely depends on entrepreneurial activity, the share of which in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation currently does not exceed thirty% (for comparison, in economically developed countries these figures are much higher - from 70%). Therefore, the current goal set by the government for 2020. is to increase the share of the active population engaged in entrepreneurial activities to 60-70% (Fig. 3) 12.

Current indicators Target indicators

Figure 3 - Share of small and medium-sized businesses as a percentage of Russia's GDP

Unfortunately, a corrupt business model has developed in Russia, where entrepreneurs perceive corruption as one of the components of forced costs and consider this the norm. For example, according to the results of anti-corruption monitoring, only 23% of surveyed entrepreneurs did not participate in corrupt transactions.

Among entrepreneurs who reported that in the past they had resorted to paying bribes as a means of solving problems, 40% of cases of illegal remuneration were transferred in order to speed up the processing of documents with authorities; 23% of entrepreneurs transferred remuneration in order to ignore the identified violations by inspectors; 8% - to ensure victory in tenders and competitions; 6% expected assistance in competition (Fig. 3) 13 .

Figure 3 - Results of anti-corruption monitoring of domestic entrepreneurs

Experts World Bank consider corruption to be the main economic problem modernity. According to them, 40% of businesses worldwide are forced to pay bribes. In developed countries this figure is 15%, in Asian countries - 30%, in CIS countries - 60%. Over the four years of active Russian anti-corruption campaign, the average bribe size has increased 33 times. In 42% of cases, the bribe amount exceeded 100 thousand rubles, and in some cases reached two million rubles. 14

An increase in these “corruption costs” leads to the monopolization of the Russian market and, as a consequence, to a decrease in its competitiveness, which in turn leads to the weakening and forces small and medium-sized businesses to leave the market.

We can highlight the main directions of creating threats from corruption to the economic security of business activity:

negative pressure on business due to excessive bureaucracy and unnecessary administrative barriers created to strengthen corruption ties in the business environment;

extortion for the purpose of obtaining bribes in the form of money, gifts, services when civil servants carry out control and licensing functions provided for by law;

participation of government officials in the activities of companies in order to extract additional income through abuse of their official position.

The impact of these threats on the economic situation in business is manifested:

in unnecessary losses of working time associated with the settlement of corruption barriers to business development;

impact on the increase in the costs of doing business associated with forced shadow financing of representatives of state and municipal authorities, which entails an increase in all types of prices in Russia (it is believed that the corruption component in the price of goods and services reaches 70%);

in creating obstacles to starting and expanding activities not on a corrupt basis (the use of government resources to penetrate markets and squeeze out companies not involved in corruption; discrimination (inequality) of access to all types of resources for the development of business activities).

All informative results of 2016 on corruption are given in Annexes 2 and 3.

1. 1. The fight against corruption in the Russian Federation

Over the past 10 years, the Russian Federation has taken measures to combat state and public corruption:

Federal Law No. 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption” was adopted. Appendix 4 presents the main penalties for giving a bribe and intermediary in bribery;

National Anti-Corruption Plans are approved (the latest for 2016-2017);

a law was signed on the ratification of two major international anti-corruption conventions: the UN Convention against Corruption and the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption;

accession to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development of the European Communities (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials;

control was introduced over large expenses of officials and a ban on maintaining accounts abroad;

On December 3, 2013, by decree of V.V. Putin created the Office of the President of the Russian Federation for Anti-Corruption Issues;

an electronic system of the Government to combat corruption is being developed;

the propaganda of non-acceptance of corruption in society is intensifying, cases of solving crimes of officials are being increasingly covered in the media, rallies and actions are being held;

Civil society institutions are being formed to combat corruption, including the signing of an anti-corruption charter for Russian business.

Conclusion

As a result of the study, the following conclusions can be formulated.

It is impossible to completely eradicate corruption. Even under pain of the death penalty (such is the punishment in modern China), there are cases of its manifestation. But this does not mean that it is not necessary to fight it; it is necessary to create conditions for its rejection in society.

Corruption hinders the economic development of the country. It harms both the state and society as a whole. The appropriation of budget funds by civil servants distracts them from the process of creating economic benefits. Lobbying and bribery, artificially created administrative barriers and other manifestations of corruption do not allow small and medium-sized entrepreneurs to develop their activities and bring economic benefits to the state, solve the problem of employment, and satisfy the needs of citizens.

Our state is constantly improving its methods of combating corruption: introducing amendments to the legislative framework; implements countermeasures programs; joins international organizations; covers high-profile cases in the media; conducts propaganda policy using banners and the Internet.

As modern statistics show, the level of corruption in our country is gradually decreasing, but there is an urgent need to involve society, including entrepreneurs.

Bibliography

Vorobyov Yu.L. The quality of laws is an inoculation against corruption // Parliamentary newspaper. - 03/20/2009. - No. 15. - http://archiv.council.gov.ru/senators/vorobievul/pub/item25.html

Gromak K.V., Kiseleva A.M. Methods for measuring the scale of corruption // Bulletin of Omsk University. Series "Economics". - 2012. - No. 2. - With. 56-59

Klimov I.P. Historical and legal experience in combating corruption and its significance for modern Russia // Bulletin of TSU. - 2010. - No. 2. - With. 147-154

Moiseev S. D. Corruption as a threat to economic security // Scientific and methodological electronic journal “Concept”. - 2015. - T. 23. - p. 56-60

Timofeeva I.Yu. Anti-corruption methods: advice to entrepreneurs: educational and practical guide. / I.Yu. Timofeeva. - Smolensk: Non-profit partnership “Unity of students and business of the region”, 2010. - 68 p.

Appendix 1 World ranking on the prevalence of corruption in the public sector according to the ANO "Center for Anti-Corruption Research and Initiatives Transparency International - R" Appendix 2

Main results of 2016 on corruption

Appendix 3

The main centers of corruption in Russia based on the results of 2016

Appendix 4

Punishments in Russia for bribery and mediation

1 Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 34/169 of December 17, 1979) // GARANT System: http://base.garant.ru/1305338

2 Article 1 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption”

3 Criminology: Textbook for legal. universities / Under general. ed. A.I. Debt. - M.: Norma, 2005. - 912 p.

4 Volzhenkin B.V. Corruption. - St. Petersburg: Modern standards in criminal law and criminal procedure, 1998. - 44 p.

5 Shershnev L.I. The way out of the “swamp of general corruption” // Security. - 2003. - No. 3. - P. 64.

6 Luneev V.V. Corruption: political, economic, organizational and legal problems // Corruption: political, economic, organizational and legal problems. Collection of materials from the international scientific and practical conference (Moscow, September 9-10, 1999). - M.: Yurist, 2001. - P. 17-38

7 Kirpichnikov A.I. Bribe and corruption in Russia. - St. Petersburg: Alpha, 1997. - 352 s.

8 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation dated June 13, 1996 No. 63-FZ (as amended and supplemented on March 7, 2017) http://base.garant.ru/10108000/1/#block_1000

9 Vorobiev Yu.L. The quality of laws is an inoculation against corruption // Parliamentary newspaper. - 03/20/2009. - No. 15 http://archiv.council.gov.ru/senators/vorobievul/pub/item25.html

10 The fight against corruption - a global scale // Information and analytical agency "MiK". - http://www.nacbez.ru/ecology/article.php?id=97

11 According to the ANO “Center for Anti-Corruption Research and Initiatives” Transparency International - R” http://transparency.org.ru/research/indeks-vospriyatiya-korruptsii/

12 Moiseev S. D. Corruption as a threat to economic security // Scientific and methodological electronic journal “Concept”. - 2015. - T. 23. - P. 56-60. http://e-koncept.ru/2015/95256.htm.

14 Gromak K.V., Kiseleva A.M. Methods for measuring the scale of corruption // Bulletin of Omsk University. Series "Economics". - 2012. - No. 2. - With. 56-59.