Corruption, both in general and corporate in particular, is recognized one of the most serious problems for Russia in the modern period.

Under its pressure, individual elements of the economic system actually change: the principles of market competition give way to the principles of shadow lobbying. The manifestation of corruption in the economic sphere, especially in the areas of procurement of goods and services by government and corporate structures, often in construction, production and sale of agricultural products causes significant damage to the Russian economy.

There is a kind of economic sign: the higher the bribe rates for officials, the more developed the business. Although this statement is quite controversial, since in fact the rates increase depending on the level of development of a particular type of business. Officials at all levels have been using this “market lever” for a long time. We can say: corruption is our national tradition. Throughout the entire period of the existence of the Russian state, there has never been a time when bribes were not given.

Is it possible to eradicate corruption in a short time? Let's try to figure this out.

When we talk about corporate interests, we mean not only commercial organizations, but all sectors and departments of the economic and management systems of Russia.

May 27, 2009 Chairman of the Supreme Court V. Lebedev at a meeting of the Federation Council said that the majority of corruption cases concern small bribes, and those convicted of bribes on an especially large scale make up only 7% of all convicted persons. At the same time, he recognized the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs as the most corrupt

shaped structure. However, experts believe that this phenomenon is also thriving in the FSB, customs, executive branch offices and other government bodies.

The multifaceted nature of corruption in Russia was noted, while in the relationship between government officials and business, the situation with bribes is much more serious than in the police. Based on the results of a large-scale study of corruption in different regions of the country, conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM), it turned out that entrepreneurs most often encounter corruption: 56% of them admitted that they pay bribes.

According to international experts, corruption is now the main obstacle to Russia’s economic growth. According to some estimates, the volume of the corruption market exceeds $240 billion, and in the Russian business sector the average annual volume of corruption since 2001 has been to 2005 grew from 33 to 316 billion dollars. The average size of a bribe that Russian businessmen give to officials has increased over a short period since Yutys. up to 136 thousand dollars. At the highest level of the country's leadership it is recognized that in recent years corruption in Russia has become systemic.

In May of this year, the authorities summed up the first results of experiments in housing and communal services. State Duma deputies checked the effectiveness of management companies (MCs) for three years. Without improving their work, private companies turned out to be, to put it mildly, the same “spenders” as the former housing offices.

Since 2005 Residents of apartment buildings overpaid them 1.2 trillion rubles. With this money, management companies bought real estate, securities, currency, issued loans, etc. Some management companies collected money from residents and went bankrupt. Those who remained in business only by making notes in the accounting department “earned” an additional 1.7 billion rubles. profit. At the same time, no one is ready or willing to take responsibility for the material losses of people.

Bribery, lobbying, bribery, malfeasance, theft of public funds and money laundering.

Many defense enterprises cannot conclude contracts and, accordingly, receive financing. At a meeting of the Presidium of the Government of the Russian Federation, Prime Minister V. Putin, without identifying the guilty departments, indicating that there was money for enterprises of the military-industrial complex, gave instructions to speed up the work on concluding contracts. It seems that there were some corruption schemes here too.

Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Yu. Chaika also notes that corruption has a corrupting effect on all the most important spheres of the state and society, is acquiring ever larger proportions, and is characterized by diversity and highly organized forms. Bribery, lobbying, bribery, abuse of office, theft of public funds and laundering of criminal proceeds - this is not a complete list of its manifestations.

Y. Chaika identified CORPORATE CORRUPTION as one of the areas of prosecutorial work in the economic sphere. Corruption in business has as its goal the creation of a material resource for corruption in the state apparatus. One of the main reasons that gives rise to it is the opacity of economic activity. This is facilitated by the lack of effective mechanisms in the Russian legislative system to control the disclosure of information and its use. The possibility of using insider information leads to manipulation of the securities market in the interests of certain financial groups.

As for internal corporate corruption itself, Russia in this area is almost on the same level as some European countries. Many specialists from large companies consider it acceptable to give a bribe to obtain lucrative contracts and assume the possibility of distortion of financial statements. One of the characteristic features of corporate corruption in Russia is its development among top managers of companies that do not have a stake in the authorized capital of the enterprise. In some cases, they can contribute to hostile takeovers, or even raider takeovers.

Raiding is often referred to as a friendly takeover, when, as a result of often serial negotiations, the debtor is convinced of the advisability of making an appropriate decision. Such negotiations do not always take place in the correct form, as a result of which the debtor is forced to give consent under the pressure of actual and negative circumstances for him. If the decision to take over or merge is made on a completely voluntary basis, then this will not be a raid, but a legal merger or takeover.

Sometimes the management of a potential “absorbed” company is bribed, which can simply “withdraw” assets to structures controlled by the raider by concluding formally legal transactions, take out loans secured by property at already known “exorbitant” interest rates, and even deliberately bring the enterprise to bankruptcy.

One of the most dangerous manifestations of corporate corruption is the kidnapping of close relatives of company owners or executives, since in this case the health and lives of people are endangered. The kidnappers do not always demand a ransom; instead, the “ransom” is the consent of the owner or manager of the company to deliberately cause damage to their business, usually in favor of dummies.

The global financial and economic crisis has given new impetus to corruption in Russia. The expert community almost unanimously believes that money laundering in Russia, as soon as the crisis began and as soon as budget money was allocated to combat it, almost doubled.

According to VTsIOM, the majority of Russians do not believe in the success of plans to combat corruption; 58% of those surveyed by sociologists said that corruption in Russia cannot be completely defeated.

To summarize, only one thing can be said unequivocally: the country’s top leadership has correctly identified the danger of corruption for the economic security of the state and society, and is truly sincerely trying to find real ways and methods to combat it. However, the judiciary, the prosecutor's office and justice in Russia unanimously stated that the statistics may be positive, but there is no real fight against this antisocial manifestation. Consequently, modern forms of corruption can only be realistically overcome by strictly repressive measures against truly major corrupt officials of all forms. All other measures will take a long time to implement.

Legal agency "SODBI" lawyer: M.Ya. Yachkurinsky.

1. The concept of corruption as a social phenomenon.

2. Political, economic and legal aspects of corruption.

3. Signs of corruption.

5. Main types of corrupt behavior.

6. Social consequences of corruption.

7. Causes of corruption: concept and main factors.

8. Anti-corruption policy: concept, content, types.

9. Subjects and objects of anti-corruption policy.

10. Goals, means, tools, directions of anti-corruption policy. Requirements for the implementation of anti-corruption policy.

11. Main features of anti-corruption policy in modern Russia.

12. Problems and contradictions in creating a system for the formation of anti-corruption consciousness.

13. Anti-corruption activities of public organizations. Coordination of anti-corruption activities of state and public institutions.

14. Anti-corruption education: concept, essence, levels.

15. Anti-corruption propaganda: concept, essence, focus.

16. Anti-corruption expertise: concept, procedure for appointment and production.

17. Anti-corruption monitoring: concept and content.

18. Anti-corruption legislation: concept, content, structure.

19. Anti-corruption behavior: concept, content, methods of formation.

20. Anti-corruption education: concept, content, focus.

21. Main goals of anti-corruption policy.

22. Political corruption: concept and content.

23. Economic corruption: concept, content, types.

24. Anti-corruption international legal acts: types and content.

25. Activities of law enforcement agencies in combating corruption.

26. International cooperation to combat corruption: concept, types and results.

27. Specialized anti-corruption bodies: types, status, powers.

28. Public organizations to combat corruption: legal status and effectiveness of activities.

26. Regional anti-corruption policy: mechanism for launch and implementation.

27. Municipal anti-corruption policy: concept and content.

28. Departmental anti-corruption policy: concept and content.

29. Corruption in government bodies.

30. Corporate corruption: concept and content.

31. Party corruption: concept and content.

32. Parliamentary corruption: concept and content.

33. Socio-economic factors of corruption: concept and content.

34. Political causes of corruption: concept and types.

35. The essence of civil control. The development of civil society as the basis for democratization and modernization of modern society.

6.3. Self-control tests

1. The Federal Law “On Combating Corruption” establishes:

a) basic principles of anti-corruption;

b) the causes of corruption;

c) forms of organizing the activities of state civil servants;

d) models of anti-corruption behavior.

2. The basic principles of anti-corruption do not include:

a) recognition, provision and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen;

b) informational secrecy of the activities of state bodies and local governments;

c) legality;

d) the inevitability of responsibility for committing corruption offenses.

3. President of the Russian Federation:

a) determines the main directions of state policy in the field of anti-corruption;

b) does not interfere with state policy in the field of anti-corruption pursued by the Government of the Russian Federation;

c) has the exclusive right to take anti-corruption measures.

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

a) implementation of a unified state policy in the field of combating corruption;

b) ensuring the independence of the media;

c) creation of organizations to protect the rights of state and municipal employees;

d) improving the procedure for performing state and municipal service.

5. Which persons are family members of a civil servant in respect of whom he is obliged to provide information about income:

a) parents;

b) spouse;

c) brothers and sisters;

d) grandparents.

6. A state or municipal employee in the event of a conflict of interest:

a) may inform the employer about this if such a need arises;

b) is obliged to notify the employer about this;

c) must contact the employer to terminate the employment contract;

d) may not inform the employer about this.

7. A person holding a government position in the Russian Federation is subject to dismissal due to loss of confidence in the event of:

a) the person’s failure to take measures to prevent and resolve a conflict of interest to which he is a party;

b) participation of a person on a paid basis in the activities of the management body of a commercial organization;

c) the person carries out entrepreneurial activities;

d) the person carries out teaching activities.

8. The National Anti-Corruption Plan is approved:

a) the President of the Russian Federation;

b) the Government of the Russian Federation;

d) the State Duma of the Russian Federation;

e) the Federation Council of the Russian Federation.

9. Can the current President of Russia be brought to criminal liability for committing a crime of corruption:

a) yes, if he is detained at the scene of the crime;

b) only with the consent of the State Duma of the Russian Federation;

d) only with the consent of the Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.

10. The following are subject to anti-corruption examination:

a) only current regulatory legal acts;

b) both existing regulatory legal acts and those that have lost force;

c) regulatory legal acts and draft regulatory legal acts;

d) only draft normative legal acts.

11. Anti-corruption examination is carried out in relation to:

a) federal laws;

b) presidential decrees;

c) Government resolutions;

d) regulatory legal acts of federal executive authorities.

12. Anti-corruption examination has the right to conduct:

a) civil society institutions;

b) teachers of law schools;

c) prosecutor's office;

d) bodies of the Ministry of Justice.

13. Is a corruption offense a crime under Russian law?

a) is;

b) is if the offense was committed by a public servant;

c) is not.

14. The conclusion based on the results of an independent anti-corruption examination is:

c) mandatory if it contains corruption-related factors;

d) mandatory if the conclusion is published in the media.

15. Is anti-corruption policy being developed at the regional level:

a) yes, if the region considers it necessary;

c) only if such an instruction comes from government authorities;

d) yes, without fail.

7. Educational, methodological and information support of the discipline (module) Fundamentals of anti-corruption policy in the Russian Federation

a) literature:

Ageev V.N. Legal means of combating corruption in the public service system of the Russian Federation / V.N. Ageev // Administrative and municipal law. – 2012. – No. 9. – P. 5 – 10.

Ageev V.N. State control over the implementation of anti-corruption policy in the Russian Federation / V.N. Ageev // Current problems of economics and law. Federal scientific peer-reviewed journal. – 2010. - No. 4 (16). – P. 5 – 8.

Ageev V. N. Principles of anti-corruption examination of normative legal acts and their projects / V. N. Ageev // Actual problems of economics and law. Federal scientific peer-reviewed journal. – 2009. – No. 4 (12). – P. 5 – 11.

Ageev V.N. Anti-corruption policy of Russia in the field of public service / V.N. Ageev // Investigator. Federal edition. – 2009. – No. 2 (130). – P. 8 – 11.

Ageev V.N. Restriction of the basic constitutional rights of civil servants as a way to combat corruption / V.N. Ageev // Investigator. Federal edition. – 2008. – No. 3 (119). – P. 11 – 14.

Anti-corruption examination of normative legal acts and their projects: terminological dictionary / author: V.N. Ageev, O.V. Ageeva, I.I. Bikeev, A.E. Bikmukhametov, M.A. Gavrilov and others; hands auto team and scientific ed. Doctor of Law sciences, prof. P.A. Kabanov. – Kazan: Publishing House “Poznanie” Institute of Economics, Management and Law, 2010. – 146 p.

Astanin V.V. Problems of monitoring law enforcement in order to implement anti-corruption policy / V.V. Astanin // Administrative and municipal law. – 2012. – No. 6. – P. 5 – 11.

Astanin V.V. On effective mechanisms of interaction between the state and civil society in the field of combating corruption / V.V. Astanin // Administrative and municipal law. – 2011. – No. 4. – P. 5 – 8.

Belova S.V. Compliance with legislation on the fight against corruption / S.V. Belova, L.G. Alekseeva // Legality. – 2011. – No. 8. – P. 30 – 33.

Bikmukhametov A. E. Gaps in Tatarstan anti-corruption legislation: understanding the regional experience / A. E. Bikmukhametov, R. R. Gazimzyanov, P. A. Kabanov // Business Security. – 2008. – No. 1. – P. 7 – 10.

Bulgakova I. G. Some aspects of the prevention of corruption in government bodies / I. G. Bulgakova // Journal of Russian Law. – 2012. – No. 8. – P. 75 – 80.

Vlasenko N. A. Theoretical analysis of legal means and legal models of combating corruption / N. A. Vlasenko, S. A. Gracheva, E. E. Rafalyuk // Journal of Russian Law. – 2012. – No. 11. – P. 68 – 80.

Grib V.V. Legal issues of institutionalization of interaction between civil society and government bodies / V.V. Grib // Russian justice. – 2011. – No. 3. – P. 10 – 11.

Didych T. O. Law-making of the state and combating corruption in modern conditions / T. O. Didych // Journal of Russian Law. – 2012. – No. 8. – P. 69 – 74.

Zemtsova Yu. Basic instinct. Riddles and answers to corruption / Yu. Zemtsova // Financial newspaper. – 2012. – No. 5.

Kabanov P. A. Some forms of interaction between civil society institutions and local governments in the field of combating corruption / P. A. Kabanov // Administrative and municipal law. – 2012. – No. 5. – P. 5 – 8.

Kabanov P. A. Political corruption in the conditions of reforming Russian statehood at the turn of the century: monograph / P. A. Kabanov, G. I. Raikov, D. K. Chirkov. – M.: Friendship of Peoples, 2008. – 224 p.

Commentary on the Federal Law of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption” (article-by-article) / ed. S. Yu. Naumova, S.E. Channova. – M.: Justitsinform, 2009. – 272 p.

Korotkova O. I. Corruption and its manifestations in the public service system - as one of the most pressing problems of Russian reality / O. I. Korotkova // State power and local self-government. – 2012. – No. 3. – P. 22 – 25.

Kostennikov M.V. Administrative and legal means of minimizing corruption risks in the official activities of civil servants in foreign countries / M.V. Kostennikov, A.V. Kurakin, D.N. Kolchemanov, A.V. Maryan // Administrative and municipal law. – 2010. – No. 5. – P. 5 – 20.

Kudashkin A.V. Anti-corruption expertise: theory and practice: scientific and practical guide / A.V. Kudashkin. – M.: Norma, Infra-M, 2012. – 368 p.

Scientific and practical commentary to the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of July 17, 2009 No. 172-FZ “On anti-corruption examination of normative legal acts and draft normative legal acts” / V.N. Ageev and others; under scientific ed. Doctor of Law sciences, prof. P.A. Kabanova; entry Art. Doctor of Law sciences, prof. I.I. Bikeeva. – Kazan: Publishing House “Poznanie” Institute of Economics, Management and Law, 2010. – 120 p.

Nechaeva T.V. Commentary on the Federal Law of July 27, 2004 No. 79-FZ “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation” (article-by-article) / T.V. Nechaeva, A.V. Kirilin. – M.: Business Dvor, 2013. – 368 p.

Ovechko V.V. Measures to combat corruption in the public service system of the Russian Federation / V.V. Ovechko // Military legal journal. – 2011. – No. 9. – P. 17 – 18.

Pokrovsky M. N. Anti-corruption in Russia: administrative, legal and ethical aspects / M. N. Pokrovsky // Administrative and municipal law. – 2010. – No. 6. – P. 28 – 30.

Ramazanov R. U. Anti-corruption examination of normative legal acts and their projects as an effective way to combat corruption / R. U. Ramazanov // Law and Politics. – 2011. – No. 10. – P. 1674 – 1678.

Talapina E.V. Commentary on the legislation of the Russian Federation on combating corruption (item-by-article) / E.V. Talapina. – M.: Wolters Kluwer, 2010. – 192 p.

Tikhomirov Yu. A. Law against corruption / Yu. A. Tikhomirov, E. N. Trikoz // Journal of Russian Law. – 2007. – No. 5. – P. 39 – 52.

Khabrieva T. Ya. Corruption and law: doctrinal approaches to the formulation of the problem / T. Ya. Khabrieva // Journal of Russian Law. – 2012. – No. 6. – P. 5 – 17.

Khabrieva T. Ya. Economic and legal analysis: methodological approach / T. Ya. Khabrieva // Journal of Russian Law. – 2010. – No. 12. – P. 5 – 26.

What is corruption and how to fight it / ed. A. G. Panova, B. V. Yatselenko. – M.: Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, 2010. – 32 p.

b) regulatory legal acts:

Constitution of the Russian Federation: adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993 // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. – 1993. – December 25.

On control over the compliance of expenses of persons holding public positions and other persons with their income: federal. Law of December 3, 2012 No. 230-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2012. – No. 50 (part 4). – St. 6953.

About the police: federal. Law of February 7, 2011 No. 3-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2011. – No. 7. – Art. 900.

About the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation: federal. Law of December 28, 2010 No. 403-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2011. – No. 1. – Art. 15.

On anti-corruption examination of normative legal acts and draft normative legal acts: federation. Law of July 17, 2009 No. 172-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2009. – No. 29. – Art. 3609.

On combating corruption: federal. Law of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2008. – No. 52 (part 1). – St. 6228.

On municipal service in the Russian Federation: federal. Law of March 2, 2007 No. 25-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2007. – No. 10. – Art. 1152.

On the ratification of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption: Federal. Law of July 25, 2006 No. 125-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2006. – No. 31 (1 hour). – St. 3424.

On ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption: fed. Law of March 8, 2006 No. 40-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2006. – No. 12. – Art. 1231.

On the state civil service of the Russian Federation: federal. Law of July 27, 2004 No. 79-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2004. – No. 31. – Art. 3215.

About political parties: federal. Law of July 11, 2001 No. 95-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2001. – No. 29. – Art. 2950.

On military duty and military service: federation. Law of March 28, 1998 No. 53-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 1998. – No. 13. – Art. 1475.

On the service in the customs authorities of the Russian Federation: federation. Law of July 21, 1997 No. 114-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 1997. – No. 30. – Art. 3586.

On the status of judges in the Russian Federation: Law of the Russian Federation of June 26, 1992 No. 3132-1 // Gazette of the Council of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation. – 1992. – No. 30. – Art. 1792.

About the prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation: federal. Law of January 17, 1992 No. 2202-1 // Gazette of the Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation. – 1992. – No. 8. – Art. 366.

On the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and the National Anti-Corruption Plan for 2010–2011: Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated April 13, 2010 No. 460 // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2010. – No. 16. – Art. 1875.

On measures to combat corruption: Decree of the President of the President of the Russian Federation dated May 19, 2008 No. 815 // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2008. – No. 21. – Art. 2429.

On anti-corruption examination of normative legal acts and draft normative legal acts: Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 26, 2010 No. 96 (together with the “Rules for conducting anti-corruption examination of normative legal acts and draft normative legal acts”, “Methodology for conducting anti-corruption examination of normative legal acts” and draft normative legal acts") // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – 2010. – No. 10. – Art. 1084.

On combating corruption in the Republic of Tatarstan dated May 4, 2006 No. 34-ZRT // Republic of Tatarstan. – 2006. – May 7.

On the state civil service of the Republic of Tatarstan: Law of the Republic of Tatarstan dated January 16, 2003 No. 3-ZRT // Republic of Tatarstan. – 2003. – January 21.

On measures to organize and conduct monitoring of the effectiveness of the activities of executive authorities of the Republic of Tatarstan, territorial bodies of federal executive authorities in the Republic of Tatarstan, local governments of municipal districts and urban districts of the Republic of Tatarstan for the implementation of anti-corruption measures on the territory of the Republic of Tatarstan: Decree of the President of the Republic of Tatarstan dated 23 March 2011 No. UP-148 // Collection of resolutions and orders of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan and regulations of republican executive authorities. – 2011. – No. 18. – Art. 0636.

On the Anti-Corruption Policy Strategy of the Republic of Tatarstan: Decree of the President of the Republic of Tatarstan dated April 8, 2005 No. UP-127 // Republic of Tatarstan. – 2005. – April 14.

On the organization and monitoring of the effectiveness of the activities of executive authorities of the Republic of Tatarstan, territorial bodies of federal executive authorities in the Republic of Tatarstan, local governments of municipal districts and urban districts of the Republic of Tatarstan in the implementation of anti-corruption measures on the territory of the Republic of Tatarstan: Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan dated June 10 2011 No. 463 // Collection of resolutions and orders of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan and regulations of republican executive authorities. – 2011. – No. 25. – Art. 1081.

On approval of the Comprehensive Republican Anti-Corruption Program for 2012-2014: Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan dated August 18, 2011 No. 687 // Collection of resolutions and orders of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan and normative acts of republican executive authorities. – 2001. – September 7.

On approval of the Procedure for conducting anti-corruption examination of certain regulatory legal acts and draft regulatory legal acts and on introducing amendments to certain resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan: Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan dated December 24, 2009 No. 883 // Collection of resolutions and orders of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan and normative acts of republican executive authorities. – 2010. – January 20.

On the development of a system of administrative regulations for the provision of public services by executive bodies of state power: Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan dated June 16, 2006 No. 310 // Collection of resolutions and orders of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan and normative acts of republican executive bodies. – 2006. – July 12.

On measures to combat corruption in the municipal formation of the city of Naberezhnye Chelny: Resolution of the Executive Committee of the municipal formation of the city of Naberezhnye Chelny of the Republic of Tatarstan dated April 15, 2011 No. 1916 // Chelny News. – 2011. – April 20.

Despite the frequency of use of the concept of “corruption” in professional, periodical and popular literature, there is no unity in the scientific community regarding the understanding of the term and the essence of the phenomenon. Etymologically, the term “corruption” comes from the Latin word corruptio, meaning “damage, bribery.” In essence, these two words define the understanding of corruption and provide opportunities for interpreting this phenomenon.

Very often, among professional criminologists, corruption is personified with bribery. For example, A.I. Dolgova defines corruption as “a social phenomenon characterized by bribery and corruption of government or other employees and, on this basis, their selfish use for personal or narrow group, corporate interests of official official powers, associated authority and opportunities” Criminology: Textbook for law schools / Under general ed. A.I. Debt. M., 1997. P. 501.

Another famous criminologist N.F. sees the essence of corruption in the bribery of some individuals by others. KuznetsovaKuznetsova N.F. Corruption in the system of criminal offenses // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Episode 11. Law. 1993. No. 1. P.21. . This point of view is consistent with the perception of corruption in the public consciousness (for example, according to VTsIOM, 45% of Russians understand corruption as bribery of officials. Abramov K.V. current state of corruption in Russian society / Current problems of combating corruption: Round table materials (Moscow, May 22 2008) - M.: All-Russian Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2008.- p. 7.). However, this approach seems narrow and does not allow us to cover all the variety of forms of corruption that we actually have.

There are points of view in scientific discourse in which corruption is assessed ambiguously negatively. Susan Rose-Ackerman is considered one of the leading experts in the field of corruption research. She conducts her research within the framework of an economic approach and views corruption as a form of social exchange, and corruption payments as part of transaction costs; in this case, corruption is associated with excessive government intervention in economic processes. At the same time, as is known, in some countries with a fairly high state participation in the economy, corruption is low (for example, in Denmark) Muzalevskaya E.A. Corruption in the public service system in Russia: origins and trends (1992-2005). Autorefdisser. PhD in History M. 2006.

There are definitions in which the essence of corruption is conveyed through images, for example G.N. Borzenkov, believes that corruption is the decomposition of the administrative apparatus, based on the use by officials of their official position for personal purposes. Borzenkov G.N. Criminal legal measures to combat corruption // Bulletin of Moscow University. Episode 11. Law. 1993. No. 1. P. 30.. Or, for example, the approach of A.V. Kirpichnikov, who believes that corruption is the corrosion of power. Just as rust corrodes metal, corruption destroys the state apparatus and corrodes the moral foundations of society. The level of corruption is a kind of thermometer of society, an indicator of its moral state and the ability of the state apparatus to solve problems not in its own interests, but in the interests of society. Just as for a metal, corrosion fatigue means a decrease in the limit of its endurance, so for society, fatigue from corruption means a decrease in its resistance.” Kirpichnikov A.I. Bribe and corruption in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 17..

Scientists give their definitions, argue about the content of the phenomenon, emphasizing certain aspects. The recently adopted long-awaited law “On Combating Corruption” should have resolved many disputes, but upon closer examination of this legislative document, more questions arise than answers.

For example, the law says: “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 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 benefits to the specified person, other individuals, or the commission of the specified acts on behalf of or in the interests of a legal entity ....” Federal Law “On Combating Corruption” December 25, 2008 No. 273.

The definition in the law is given through a list of crimes, without identifying the essential qualities of this phenomenon. In addition, scientists noted the use of the term “commercial bribery”, an act that can be committed by a person working in commercial organizations, and this cannot include a police officer. In general, according to experts, the definition proposed in the law associates corruption to a greater extent with bribes.

There are other points of view regarding the effectiveness of the legislative definition of corruption. Grigoriev V.V. notes that the concept of corruption is given in the law in a collective sense, through the reflection of a number of acts expressed in the dispositions of Art. 201, 204, 285, 289, 290, 291 CC. The Law does not define the concept of a corruption offense, and this is not at all explained by the economy of legislative material. Grigoriev V.V. notes that the experience of anti-corruption rule-making around the world shows that the legislator has comprehended only one universal way of defining corruption, which consists in constructing extremely general rules that consider its objective side V.V. Grigoriev. Scientific and practical commentary to the Federal Law of December 25, 2008 N 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption” / Guarantee..

Grigoriev V.V. draws attention to the fact that, as an addition to the list of acts (without reference to any articles), the legislator establishes another element of corruption, expressed in 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 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 benefits to the specified person by other individuals.” This addition reflects a fairly broad definition of the constituent elements of the concept of corruption and the connections based on it. The legislator defined the concept of the subject of corruption offenses committed using a special provision. This does not mean an official (by analogy with the definition given in Note 1 to Article 285 of the Criminal Code), but an individual who illegally uses his official position. This approach expresses the position of fundamentally expanding the circle of persons who are held accountable for committing acts of corruption.

This approach is associated with the requirements of international anti-corruption treaties in which Russia participates. They are: the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS N 173), concluded by the Council of Europe on January 27, 1999, and the UN Convention against Corruption, adopted on October 31, 2003. They place key importance for effectively combating corruption at the national level on the widest possible identification of subjects of corruption offenses. In particular, they include not only civil servants, but also persons performing public functions in general, regardless of in what sphere - private, state or public (political) - they are employed, and regardless of any specific position held (manager, performer). It should be noted that Russia, in the implementation of the convention provisions regarding the determination of the subject of corruption from among persons with official status, more fully, in comparison with other GRECO member states, reflected the required provisions. For example, in accordance with the Bulgarian Law “On Public Officials”, a public official is a person who, by virtue of administrative appointment, holds a paid position in a public administration body and assists it in the performance of the functions assigned to this body. The approach to defining subjects of corruption implemented in this Law essentially lays the ideological and legal foundations for changing existing stereotypes that corruption is characteristic exclusively of the public service.

Returning to the definition of the term, we propose to use the definition of Professor B.V. as a worker. Volzhenkin: “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 interests »Volzhenkin V. Corruption as a social phenomenon // Clean Hands. No. 1. 1999. - pp. 28-31..

Since the law “On Combating Corruption” does not provide precise definitions of the concepts of “corruption offense” and “corruption crime,” one can rely on these concepts enshrined in the Agreement on Cooperation of the Prosecutor General's Offices of the CIS Member States in the Fight against Corruption, which was concluded on April 25 2007 in Astana (Republic of Kazakhstan). Thus, the parties applied the following concepts:

corruption offense - a violation of the existing procedure for performing service and performing their professional duties, which does not entail criminal liability, committed by persons who, by the national legislation of the states of the parties, are classified as officials or equivalent to them, if such a violation contains signs of corruption, as well as their failure to comply with prohibitions and rules established by national regulatory legal acts;

corruption crime - the commission by persons who, by the national legislation of the States of the Parties, are classified as officials or equivalent to them, of an intentional criminal act using their status, the status of the body they represent, official powers or opportunities arising from this status and powers, if such an act contains signs of corruption.

The topic of the lecture draws attention to the phenomenon of corruption in relation to the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In this case, you can use the definition given in the work of Tirskikh A.A.: “corruption in the internal affairs department is a negative social phenomenon consisting of deformations in the activities of the law enforcement system due to the use by employees of internal affairs bodies of their official powers, authority and status of the service in the interests of individuals and legal entities to obtain benefits of a material or intangible nature for themselves personally or in corporate interests” Tirskikh A.A. Regional criminological characteristics of corruption in internal affairs bodies: based on materials from the East Siberian region. Author's abstract. dis... cand. legal Sci. - Irkutsk, 2006. - p. 12..

The above definition emphasizes that corruption is a form of deviant behavior, which we can agree with. In addition, the definition notes that the benefits can also be of an intangible nature, not for oneself, that is, the phenomenon also includes “telephone law” (when something is decided by calling) taking place in the law enforcement system.

Corruption is often associated with bureaucracy, but these are not synonymous concepts. Bureaucracy - (from the French bureau - bureau, office and the Greek xbfpt - domination, power) - this word means the direction that public administration takes in countries where all affairs are concentrated in the hands of central government authorities acting according to by order (of superiors) and through orders (by subordinates); then the bureaucracy refers to a class of persons sharply separated from the rest of society and consisting of these agents of the central government power Wikipedia. Bureaucracy is a necessary part of management. M. Weber proved that bureaucracy is one of the most useful ideas in the history of mankind.

However, it should be noted that the Russian bureaucracy, given its size and the income of officials, is particularly prone to corruption. There has been a steady increase in the number of officials in Russia, despite the fact that the population is falling. According to the Federal State Statistics Service, the number of employees in government positions and civil service positions in government bodies of the Russian Federation as of October 1, 2008 amounted to 846.307 thousand people, having increased by 1.74 times compared to the figure for January 1, 1999. The number of municipal officials in Russia amounted to 367.62 thousand people, while their number increased from January 1, 1999 to October 1, 2008 by 2.07 times.

Next, let us turn to a consideration of the types of corruption acts. Any classification is created to organize objects, to structure the world and the relationship to these objects. The classifications of corruption phenomena given below will highlight the problems with the criminalization of the phenomenon of corruption and explain the difficulty of identifying, investigating and preventing corruption.

Depending on the chosen basis, corrupt acts can be divided into bureaucratic and political corruption; coercive and coordinated, centralized and decentralized, purely criminal (mainly of an economic nature) and political, which, in turn, is divided into deviant and criminal behavior.

A more complex classification was proposed by M. Johnston. He identified several types of corruption:

• - bribes of officials in the field of trade (for the sale of illegally produced products, inflating the quality of goods, etc.);
• - relations in patronage systems, including the patronage of “bosses” based on fellow countrymen, family, and party principles (a phenomenon described by M. Weber and then by R. Merton);
• - friendship and nepotism;
• - as well as the so-called crisis corruption, due to the fact that entrepreneurs are forced to work in conditions of extreme risk, when government decisions can lead to significant changes for business and therefore these decisions become the subject of trade

A. Heidenheimer divided corruption into white, gray and black. The first denotes practices regarding which there is agreement in public opinion: these actions are not considered reprehensible. They are essentially integrated into the culture and are not perceived as a problem.

Black corruption is the object of a different consensus: actions are condemned by all sectors of society. A. Heidenheimer called gray corruption those practices regarding which there is no agreement. It is around gray corruption that scandals arise: A.S. Bystrova, M.V. Silvestros. The phenomenon of corruption: some research approaches // Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 2000. v.3. issue 1..

The complexity of corruption phenomena can be reflected in the table Muzalevskaya E.A. Corruption in the public service system in Russia: origins and trends (1992-2005). Autorefdisser. PhD in History M. 2006.

Table 1. Typology of corruption relations

According to the law, let us turn to the list of crimes called corruption. Let's repeat them:

• - giving a bribe;
• - receiving a bribe;
• - abuse of official position;
• - commercial bribery
• - 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 himself or for third parties;
• - illegal provision of benefits to the specified person or other individuals;
• - or committing the specified acts on behalf of or in the interests of a legal entity Federal Law “On Combating Corruption” December 25, 2008 No. 273

Many scientists believe that this list is not exhaustive; researchers propose expanding it. According to Volzhenkin B.V. The current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation gives grounds to classify as corruption crimes such as:

• - fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement committed using official position (Part 3 of Art. 159 and 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation),
• - abuse of official powers (Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation),
• - illegal participation in business activities (Article 289 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation),
• - official forgery (Article 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), obstruction of legitimate business or other activities (Article 169 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation),
• - prevention, elimination or restriction of competition (Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and a number of other crimes committed by civil servants or employees of local governments using their official position (in the broad sense of the word) for selfish, other personal or group purposesVolzhenkin V.B. . Corruption. St. Petersburg 1998.- p.4..

The Law “On Combating Corruption” itself names another type of corruption crime - concealing information about corruption.

The list of types of corruption acts is open - reality offers more sophisticated and complex types of corruption.

Which advises organizations on governance issues, including strengthening operational integrity and transparency. The international anti-corruption portal publishes an exclusive translation of Karanfa's article on the fight against corporate corruption.

We are quick to spot government bribery and are quick to talk about it, but when it comes to unethical business practices, we remain silent.

“Doctors take bribes to promote drugs, the head of the purchasing department expects something similar when it comes time to pay the bills, the pharmacist wants money in exchange for purchasing certain drugs for the warehouse of his pharmacy. How can professionals holding key positions and receiving good salaries contribute to such corruption?” I asked my mentor, the CEO of a huge international biopharmaceutical company, twenty years ago. I told him that I wanted to change the industry I was in.

“If you want to make money through questionable practices, it doesn't matter what role you play or what industry you're in,” he responded. I didn’t believe him then; over the past 20 years, a huge number of incidents have occurred in corporate culture that confirm his words. The latest such case was the case of the Punjab National Bank and diamond dealer Nirav Modi.

Organizations that require large-scale procurement of goods or services are particularly vulnerable in this regard. In such companies, specific individuals have the authority to purchase goods or services worth hundreds of millions of dollars. However, even a large, reputable corporation, if its control system is weak, tends to produce employees who can abuse the trust of their colleagues and superiors. This can happen in any department, not only in administration or procurement, but also in information technology, finance or human resources, where corrupt practices occur live. Even in sales, marketing and at the CEO level, if those in positions of power do not maintain the highest standards of integrity.

Those who work in large companies encounter such incidents periodically, if not regularly. Therefore, let's not consider ourselves saints and say that this only happens to politicians, bureaucrats and civil servants. Any serious private sector brand also faces embarrassing episodes of individual or corporate corruption.

Silencing what is happening

Just recently, one international company was forced to call the police, an independent lawyer and its own APAC team to come to the organization's headquarters and escort the company's CEO from there. While the head of the corporation was away for a long time, they discovered that most of the contracts were concluded with a newly created organization, of which their CEO was a co-owner. Unfortunately, fearing the destruction of their reputation and the hype in the press, they did not sue. They closed the case. Almost all companies react with lightning speed, firing employees when it turns out that they participated in corruption. However, they never let the public know what happened and do not take legal action to put an end to such crimes forever.

Forms of corporate corruption galore

Detecting the existence of corporate corruption is not easy because many cases border on favoritism and are not necessarily about money.

Some corrupt officials ask for trips to exotic places, the latest iPhone, expensive watches or electronic gadgets, and such gifts are very difficult to track. However, one way or another, the immediate colleagues and superiors of the one who is involved in corruption most likely know about what is happening. They are either silent witnesses or accomplices. Even though most transactions tend to take place outside the office walls, corruption is very difficult to hide when you work for a large corporation. Some organizations, by the way, have completely banned holding meetings, lunches, dinners and events with the participation of service providers outside the company’s walls. We all know that tracking or implementing such policies is very difficult. Additionally, there is a gray form of corruption where service providers give out awards in various categories to their own clients. How can you repay someone who gave you positive press coverage?

Many organizations are implementing strict regulations regarding corruption. They purchase goods or services from various suppliers, collecting orders in parts. When key purchasing decisions are made, neutral managers from other divisions of the organization are involved to ensure compliance with anti-corruption practices. Other companies change service providers every few years. Some appoint ombudsmen to monitor employees. And yet, despite all the above measures, corporate corruption remains the “scourge” of companies.

Vigilance is paramount

Some professionals “take” service providers with them whenever they change jobs. Such practices need to be carefully scrutinized. Large organizations must be more vigilant and creative in tracking down violators who continue to come up with new ways to deceive inspectors.

We all instantly recognize corruption in politics and government institutions. We feel entitled to find out how taxpayers' money is being spent by the people we trust to care for them.

But is corruption only widespread in state institutions or state-owned companies? Much of what happens in the private sector or corporations does not make it to the pages of publications because it is carefully hidden by the organizations themselves. It is very important to emphasize that these are just a handful of greedy individuals who can breed corporate corruption.

However, it is important for every company's CEO and CFO to ensure annual audits of their suppliers are carried out to avoid the embarrassment of public scrutiny when such matters come to light from the outside. What would you do if you knew your colleague was engaging in corporate corruption? I mean special treatment to third parties and receiving tangible or intangible bonuses? Tell your boss or send an anonymous email to the address the organization has set up for such complaints? Very often you will not be able to prove anything.

Instead of quitting or suffering in silence every day, find a way to maintain your integrity and protect the organization that pays your bills.

In a company with more than thirty employees, bribes and theft cannot be avoided, if only simply because it is impossible to completely control the work of each employee. This is the opinion of experts who shared with FD the schemes known to them for giving and extorting bribes

In the recent past (and according to unofficial data, even today), the following situation took place at one of the largest city-forming metallurgical plants. After suppliers and contractors fulfilled their obligations, for a long time they could not obtain payment from the financial or other services of the plant for the products or services supplied.

I had to spend a long time courting and asking various middle managers to transfer money. Knowing that the counterparties would not go anywhere, since they were entirely dependent on the plant’s orders, the company’s employees sometimes did not pay anything at all, and most often asked for a percentage of the transferred amount.

“This kind of system of relationships can be called “velvet” corruption: it is bloodless - formally no one breaks the law or extorts money,” notes Eduard Chaikin, director of the Research Institute for Problems of Legal Nihilism.

According to him, such methods of soft extortion exist to this day in almost all types of businesses represented by large and medium-sized post-Soviet enterprises. Very often this is encountered in construction, when the customer delays signing the acceptance certificate for the work performed. Even law firms that are forced to make discounts, for example, to the chief accountant, experience similar problems in order to receive the money due for services rendered. “This has really become a norm long ago, which is nice to call gratitude for assistance in receiving your own money. The amount of gratitude to the employee who helps resolve the issue can reach up to 10 percent of the amount of upcoming payments,” the general director of one of the construction companies in Moscow shared his experience on condition of anonymity.

Alexander F., the head of a law firm, agrees with him and explains the current practice this way: “Often a top manager is only “top” on paper.” He has a relatively small salary and has no interest in the results of his work. Moreover, he perfectly understands the problems of a counterparty who demands his hard-earned money for the work performed, but in a conversation he will still not forget to hint at the need for some gratitude. And its size will largely depend on the scale of cooperation.”

It would seem that the enterprise does not suffer from this type of corporate corruption, since its income does not decrease. But at the same time, counting on remuneration from the counterparty, those making such decisions may deliberately postpone and in every possible way delay making payments. And this is a direct threat to the company. In accordance with Federal Law No. 127 of October 26, 2002 “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy),” a creditor may apply to the court for bankruptcy of the debtor if the latter does not repay a debt of 100 thousand rubles for more than three months. If we remember that bankruptcy is a favorite tool of raiders, it is not difficult to imagine how the dishonesty of one manager could result in the entire company.

According to Eduard Chaykin, methods to reduce the risk of this type of corruption in a company are trivial. “Of course, the company needs to weigh its losses and benefits from publicizing the activities of an individual employee to management. But the only legal method of counteraction, no matter how trivial it may sound, is to notify the owners of the company personally (via targeted mail, etc.) about such extortion and hope that this is not the system of operation of the company as a whole and its founders are not “ share,” he noted. In other words, the company must declare its commitment to combat bribes and inform counterparties about this, providing them with information about who in your organization should contact if any of the employees solicits a bribe.

Roman Makeev, Head of the Operational Audit Department of Svyaznoy Group of Companies, on ways to identify corruption in the company:
“Cases of fraud can be evidenced by the “living beyond one’s means” of specific employees and the appearance of managers with the same name.”

CLASSICS OF THE GENRE

Kickbacks have long been a classic of corporate corruption. The same can be said about tenders with a previously known winner, which, to be fair, is usually found when it comes to government orders. Nevertheless, this is the most common type of bribe in the business environment, and it is not decreasing. On the contrary, the methods of obtaining such bribes are only being improved.

“It is traditionally accepted that the most dangerous areas from the point of view of commercial bribery are the supply and construction departments. This is usually caused by the lack of transparency in procurement procedures and contractor selection,” says Ivan Ryutov, partner at Ernst & Young, head of the fraud investigation and dispute resolution services department in the CIS. – During inspection activities at an enterprise, the following cases are often identified:
– receiving unjustified benefits for choosing a specific product;
– manipulation of additional agreements to signed contracts;
– fixing procurement conditions suitable exclusively for one participant in the competition;
– unlawful expansion of the quota, increase in volume or expansion of the range of purchases;
– providing the supplier company with preferences and preferential conditions (no prepayment, commodity lending, etc.).”

Another classification of schemes for obtaining kickbacks was proposed by Roman Makeev, head of the operational audit department of Svyaznoy Group of Companies. “The stakeholder needs to ensure the desired outcome while maintaining the appearance of integrity. There are several typical schemes here,” he explains. – The first is the formation of tender conditions for a specific supplier. If the required supplier is known in advance, then the rules are developed for him. The second is an artificial limitation of the list of possible suppliers. The tender boils down to holding a “stamp competition”, although formally everything is correct. The third is creativity in evaluating suppliers.

A great way is through scoring. As practice shows, their use allows you to purchase poor quality goods at a very high price. And finally, the fourth is manipulation of the tender results. It happens that it is not at all necessary to conclude agreements with the winners. The main thing is that the winner himself is to blame, for example, for evading the conclusion of an agreement. This can be achieved in several ways, the simplest of which is that the manager is physically inaccessible to the winner, and then a huge number of all kinds of “random” errors in the draft agreement are used, up to the “loss” of letters, documents, etc.”

The consequences of this kind of corruption may be no more tragic for business than the “velvet” methods of extortion. However, unlike the case when a manager, by action or inaction, makes it clear that he is not averse to fulfilling an obligation for a fee, it is more difficult to detect kickbacks. Experts advise studying both the nature of the transactions and the biographies of the people responsible for the decisions made.

“Usually, signs indicating possible abuse are violations of company regulations (for example, on tenders) or the absence of control procedures. Such violations are usually detected by the company's internal audit. For example, during one of the inspections, contracts were identified for which tenders were not actually held, and photocopies of sheets with signatures of commission members, “borrowed” from actually conducted tenders, were attached to the tender documentation,” Igor Lebedev, manager of Ernst & Young, shares his experience ", department of services for investigation of fraud and assistance in controversial situations.

– In addition, the strange nature of the transaction can often be a sign of a rollback. For example, purchasing services unnecessary for the company or purchasing goods from little-known companies if there are offers from manufacturers or official distributors. And, of course, a number of violations are discovered by chance and are of a curious nature. So, in one of the companies, an employee accidentally noticed the seals of several companies on a colleague’s desk. An additional check revealed that the seals belong to companies headed by the employee’s sister and supplying the company with goods at inflated prices.”

There are simpler ways to identify kickbacks that not only qualified internal auditors can use in their practice. “In my opinion, it is extremely difficult to detect collusion with counterparties or corruption. Even the tender procedure can be arranged in such a way that from a formal point of view everything will look ideal. Nevertheless, the signs exist, says Roman Makeev. – The simplest signs are changes in payment terms. For example, an enterprise works with all contractors on deferred payment terms, and suddenly it turns out that an advance payment is required for some products. Or, despite the fact that the company operates only on prepayment, accounts receivable appear. Cases of fraud may be evidenced, for example, by the appearance of namesake managers whose signatures appear on documents from your counterparties.”

BLITZINTERVIEW

Igor Nezhdanov,
independent expert on competitive intelligence and business security

Can a lay person identify cases of corruption in a company?

If something like this happens, it is only by chance. I'll explain why. What could be the signs of corruption? Discrepancy between the standard of living of a particular employee and his official income. But this will require the help of at least a security service to monitor employee correspondence and telephone calls.

What should an anti-corruption system ideally look like?

It needs to include both passive and active activities. Passive is the collection of information about potential attackers and those companies or individuals who can give bribes. This involves, among other things, close communication, for example with the sales managers of your suppliers.

But it should not be built on behalf of the security service, but, for example, on behalf of colleagues and have a decent appearance. The purpose of such contact is to find an approach to the employee. Active measures include provocation or “test purchases.” Moreover, it is often enough information that such events are carried out to reduce the level of corruption in the company.

Involving your employees or professional detectives in such work is a big question. Their people are absolutely controlled, but also known - it will be difficult for them to work with contractors under a legend. Nobody knows external performers, so it will be easier for them to communicate, but it is much more difficult to control them.

In what case, in your opinion, and at what stage is it better to involve law enforcement agencies?

You can use the resource of law enforcement agencies in the internal affairs of a company only if you have sufficient grounds for suspicion. You also need to be sure that law enforcement officers, having begun work on an issue that interests you, will not “bring to light” a couple of facts that are unpleasant for you. But using knowledge about the possibility of involving security forces in the investigation as a motivating factor is quite appropriate.

HOW TO FIGHT

What to do if there are all the signs of kickbacks and dishonest colleagues? Is it possible to somehow collect evidence of bribes and what to do with this information? According to Ernst & Young specialists, the fight is usually carried out in two directions: significant discrepancies are identified between the official income of staff and their lifestyle, and control is exercised over the implementation of procedures approved by the company. In addition, preventive measures are the most effective. They allow for the timely detection and prevention of abuses, for example through the redistribution of responsibilities and collegial decision-making.

If prevention does not work, mass repression is needed. Companies are most often afraid of making the results of internal investigations public. But this only encourages dishonest managers who are sure that the maximum punishment for their fraud is dismissal. Moreover, such publicity, accompanied by transparent investigation and referral of cases to the justice system, could have a tangible positive effect.

Let us recall, for example, automobile companies that from time to time admit to structural problems with their cars, but immediately organize recalls and free replacement of parts on tens and hundreds of thousands of cars, which only strengthens confidence in the integrity of the manufacturer.

According to both lawyers and law enforcement officers, it is impossible to bring the thieving managers to justice without the active participation of the company employees themselves. “Before contacting the Ministry of Internal Affairs, you need to make sure that the suspected employee violated any of the procedures, regulations, etc.,” says Roman Makeev. – At a minimum, the following must be attached to the police application:
– a manager’s job description with his personal signature, in which he is charged with the responsibility of making decisions in the interests of the organization;
– regulations and provisions, together with familiarization sheets, in accordance with which the manager had to act;
– documents confirming the manager’s violation of job descriptions and regulations. For example, commercial proposals received from counterparties, a list of alternatives approved by the manager, minutes of meetings, results of the work of internal investigation commissions, etc.”

WHAT IS BUSINESS CORRUPTION?

The Criminal Code distinguishes between the concepts of a bribe to an official and a bribe to a company employee. The first is considered a more serious crime (punishment up to 12 years in prison), as it undermines the foundations of state or local authorities. Thus, only “public sector employees” can be punished for taking a bribe (Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

When giving or receiving a bribe to a company employee, only the interests of the non-governmental organization suffer. Responsibility for this is provided for in Article 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Commercial Bribery”, the maximum penalty is five years. An example of such bribery is a criminal case that was recently investigated in the Tyumen region. As the regional prosecutor's office reported, the head of the local branch of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Russian Post" and his deputy demanded 200 thousand rubles from the enterprise's long-time partner - the general director of the transport company Sibiriada LLC - for the extension of the contract for the carriage of goods.

Plus, they wanted to receive 10 percent monthly of the money received by Sibiriada LLC for services provided to the post office. At the same time, in order for the transport company to be able to compensate for the “losses,” the head of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise proposed to the general director of the company to increase the cost of mail delivery services for the postal department of the Tyumen region by 18 percent.

The transport workers did not accept the bribe and reported the extortion to the police. As a result, the police carried out an operation and detained the head of the federal state unitary enterprise and his deputy after the transfer of money. A criminal case was initiated under Part 4 of Article 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (commercial bribery committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, associated with extortion).

During the investigation, it turned out that this is not the first episode of extortion by the head of the company. Thus, he demanded 171 thousand rubles from Osnova Construction Company LLC for signing certificates of repair work performed in one of the post offices. On September 17, the prosecutor's office sent a criminal case against the leaders of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise to the Central District Court of Tyumen. At the time of going to press, the verdict had not yet been rendered.

PROSECUTION UNDER THE LAW

CORPORATE CORRUPTION IN NUMBERS