Analysis of Sanctions of Corruption Crimes Related to Bribery and

Other Types of Illegal Remuneration

Pavel Vladimirovich Nikonov

Department of Criminal and Legal Discipline, Irkutsk Law Institute (branch), The University of Prosecution of the Russian

Federation, Shevtsova Street, 1, Irkutsk, Russia

Keywords: Criminal law, crime, corruption, bribery, embracery, sanction, punishment.

Abstract: The article examines the problem of the lack of systematic approach of the legislator in the presentation of

sanctions for corruption crimes related to the giving and receipt of bribes and other types of illegal

remuneration, which was formed as a result of inconsistent actions of the legislator in the reform of criminal

legislation, the lack of a unified approach to understanding these crimes, non-compliance with a number of

theoretical foundations for the construction of sanctions in terms of the choice of punishments, establishing

their terms and proportions. The purpose of this article is to establish a link between the sanctions imposed

for the commission of corruption offences related to bribery and other types of illegal remuneration, the actual

penalties applied, and to ensure the objectives of punishment. It is established that unnecessarily broad

«range» of punishments results in unnecessarily broad judiciary inquiry. Criminals effectively use gaps in

legislation or other problems of juridical regulation, this way punishments applied for them are unable to

provide restoration of social justice, correcting convicts and preventing them from committing new crimes.

This makes criminal responsibility for these crimes ineffective and makes punishments for them a determinant

of the commission of such crimes. With the extensive use of analysis methods, comparative-legal research,

legal modelling, a study of sanctions has been conducted and conclusions have been drawn that approaches

to their establishment should be changed, and the nature of the crimes committed should be taken into account.

In particular, it is recommended to reduce the number of alternative punishments, increase the size and

duration of minimum penalties in sanctions, reducing the opportunities for judicial discretion.

1 INTRODUCTION

Sanctions of corruption-related bribery and other

forms of bribery are an essential element in their

prevention system. At the same time, the legislator is

manifesting a clear inconsistency in determining the

types of punishments, their size and timing. In fact,

changes and additions in this part are made without

studying the fundamental reasons for this. In this

regard, sanctions do not have a proper impact on the

perpetrators of these crimes, which makes it

impossible to solve the tasks of restoring social

justice, correcting the convict, preventing the

commitment of new crimes. There is now a clear need

to examine the sanctions imposed for these crimes in

order to improve criminal responsibility.

https://orcid.org/

0000-0003-2721-0481

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The article is prepared using analysis methods

(mostly critical), comparative-legal research, legal

modeling, and synthesis.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis of the publications of scholars and

practitioners on the issue of the use of punishments

for corruption crimes, in particular those related to

bribery and other types of illegal remuneration,

makes it possible to identify several positions existing

today on the issue. The first view reflects the opinion

that «the liberalism of judges is criticized or there are

calls for increased criminal and legal sanctions for

Nikonov, P.

Analysis of Sanctions of Corruption Crimes Related to Bribery and Other Types of Illegal Remuneration.

DOI: 10.5220/0010629800003152

In Proceedings of the VII International Scientiﬁc-Practical Conference “Criminal Law and Operative Search Activities: Problems of Legislation, Science and Practice” (CLOSA 2021), pages

109-112

ISBN: 978-989-758-532-6; ISSN: 2184-9854

109

crimes of corruption» (A.I. Dolgova, 2003; P.S. Yani,

2001; V.V. Luneev 2007; P. Blavatskyy 2001.). The

excessively radical-liberal approach to both the

judicial reform itself and the subsequent changes in

the criminal law, including the imposition of criminal

penalties for corruption crimes, is not perceived by

such scientists as A.I. Alekseyev, V.S. Ovchinsky,

E.F. Pobegailo (A. I. Alekseyev, V.S. Ovchinsky,

E.F. Pobegailo 2006.), B.Y. Gavrilov (B.Y. Gavrilov

2008.). At the same time, there is the exact opposite

position that «the adoption of repressive measures of

a criminal nature to corruption by public servants

should be almost at the last level in the fight against

corruption» (A.V. Kurakin). In his turn, a well-

known researcher of corruption phenomena in

society, G.A. Satarov, not denying the negative sides

of the «force» war on corruption, draws attention to

the need to develop and implement a comprehensive

or mixed strategy to counter it, involving criminal

repression (S.Y. Novikov).

The scientific and practical interest represents

S.V. Maksimov's point of view on sanctions for

crimes of corruption, which proposes a fundamental

shift from preferential use in the construction of legal

norms alternatives to certain sanctions to the

preferential use of alternative absolutely defined

sanctions (e.g., imprisonment for two years or

correctional work for one year) (S.V. Maximov

2008.). This approach appears to significantly limit

the differentiation of criminal responsibility and

narrows the scope of judicial discretion.

At the same time, it is worth agreeing with those

authors who speak about those changes in the

criminal law, which resulted in the exclusion of the

lower limits of the penalty of imprisonment,

enshrined in the sanctions of a significant number of

criminal and legal norms, which establish

responsibility, including for serious and especially

serious crimes, which significantly expanded the

boundaries of judicial discretion (B.Y. Gavrilov

2020.).

If we pay attention to the sanction of Part 2 of

Article 141 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation, which establishes responsibility for the

obstruction of the exercise of voting rights or the

work of electoral commissions, coupled with bribery,

it can be concluded that it enshrines a penalty of up to

five years in prison. In this sanction, the penalty in the

form of a fine is of interest. On December 8, 2003,

Federal Law No. 162-FL set a fine of up to two

hundred thousand rubles, allowing judges to appoint

it in the amount of five to two hundred thousand

rubles, i.e. this possibility implies a fairly broad

judicial discretion in sentencing in the form of a fine.

Further, it should be said that in 2012, the Federal

Law No. 106-FL the amount of the penalty in the

form of a fine provided in the sanction of Part 2 of

Article 141 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation, was set from one hundred thousand to

three hundred thousand rubles, i.e. indicating its

lower and upper borders.

Analysis of the sanction, enshrined in the part. 3

Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation, which establishes responsibility for the

illegal receipt and disclosure of information that

constitutes commercial, tax or bank secrecy,

committed out of self-interest, shows that the Federal

Law of 29.06.2015 No. 193-FL significantly

expanded the limits of the penalty in the form of a

fine, currently the size of which is up to one million

five hundred thousand rubles (before making changes

to its size was up to one hundred thousand rubles). In

the sanction of p.4 Article 183 of the Criminal Code

of the Russian Federation we should pay attention to

the term of imprisonment, which today is up to seven

years, although before the changes made by the

Federal Law from 07.12.2011 No. 420, the term of

imprisonment was up to ten years, without specifying

the lower border, i.e. these changes in the criminal

law narrowed the term of imprisonment.

The sanctions stipulated in Parts 2 and 4 of Article

184 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

which impose a penalty for exerting unlawful

influence on the result of an official sporting event or

a spectacular commercial competition, in the

presence of qualifying features, which enshrine the

term of imprisonment of up to seven years, draw

attention to themselves. It should be noted that such a

term of imprisonment in these sanctions was

established as a result of changes of the criminal law

by the Federal Law of 23.07.2013 No. 198-FL. Prior

to these changes, the term of imprisonment for the

commission of the act, provided for by Part 2 of

Article 184 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation, amounted to five years, and the term of

imprisonment for the commission of the act, provided

for by Part 4 of Article 184 of the Criminal Code of

the Russian Federation - up to two years.

In 2018, Article 200 of the Criminal Code of the

Russian Federation appeared in the criminal law,

establishing responsibility for bribing a contract

service employee, a contract manager, a member of

the procurement commission. There is an interesting

fact, we should pay attention to, that sanctions

implying responsibility for qualified and especially

qualified contents of considered crime, contain

punishment as imprisonment with terms without low

borders. Thus, for the commission of an act stipulated

CLOSA 2021 - VII INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC-PRACTICAL CONFERENCE “CRIMINAL LAW AND OPERATIVE SEARCH

ACTIVITIES: PROBLEMS OF LEGISLATION, SCIENCE AND PRACTICE”

110

in p.2 Article 200 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation, the penalty is up to seven years in prison,

p.3 Article 200 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation - for a period of up to eight years, p.5

Article 200

of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation - a term of up to ten years.

In 2008, the above specified Federal Law No.

280-FL amended the sanction of p. 3 Article 204 of

the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

enshrining penalties for the commission of

commercial bribery in the presence of qualifying

features, namely, the lower limit of the penalty in

prison and the term of this punishment up to seven

years. Almost eight years later, the Federal Law of

03.06.2016 No. 324-FL Art. 204 of the Criminal

Code of the Russian Federation was set out in the new

version, including the change of the sanction of

Article 3, namely, the limits of the sentence of

imprisonment were set from three to seven years.

A study of the sanctions imposed for bribery

shows that they also have prison terms with a wide

range of individual crimes. For example, in the

sanction of part 2 Article 290 of the Criminal Code of

the Russian Federation in the version of the Federal

Law of 04.05.2011 No. 97-FL, the penalty of

imprisonment for up to six years is enshrined.

Federal

law of 04.05.2011 No. 97-FL Article 291 was

supplemented by p.3, establishing responsibility for

paying a bribe to an official, a foreign official or an

official of a public international organization

personally or through an intermediary for the

commission of knowingly illegal acts (inaction), the

sanction of which provides for a penalty of up to eight

years imprisonment. In addition, the sanction of Part

3, Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation provides for a fine of up to one million five

hundred thousand rubles, which also clearly shows a

fairly broad judicial discretion in determining the size

of the fine. In this regard, it is appropriate to give an

example of the verdict of the Fokin District Court in

Bryansk. The citizen B. was found guilty of a crime

under p.3 Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the

Russian Federation, for paying a bribe personally to

an official for committing knowingly illegal acts, in a

significant amount, and he was sentenced to a fine of

only one hundred and fifty thousand rubles.

It should

be noted that the study of the judicial practice of

applying a fine for the commission of a crime under

Part 3, Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the

Russian Federation, shows that the courts assign

different sizes of the fine (one hundred thousand

rubles, three hundred thousand rubles, etc.), while the

circumstances of the act may be almost similar (V.V.

Mercuryiev, T.G. Makhanov, V.S. Minskaya 2017.).

4 FINDINGS

Thus, the analysis of the existing criminal legislation

leads to the conclusion of some positive trend,

indicating that the legislative authorities adequately

perceive criticism from the scientific community

about excessively broad limits in the size and duration

of penalties in the form of fines and imprisonment. In

some sanctions of articles (p. 2 Article 141 of the

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, p. 3 of

Article 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation), providing criminal responsibility for

corruption crimes related to bribery and other types

of illegal remuneration, the lower and upper limits of

these types of punishments were established.

However, today there are sanctions in the criminal

law, which enshrine responsibility for the types of

crimes under consideration, where penalties with

wide ranges of sizes and terms are provided, which

negatively affects the formation of uniform

jurisprudence. Such ranges of the size and duration of

punishments, established in criminal and legal

sanctions, result in clear disproportions in the size and

timing of the penalties imposed by the courts and

violate the criminal principle of justice. At the same

time, this phenomenon with a high degree of

obviousness carries a corruption component directly

of the criminal law itself, which, in turn, is designed

to fight corruption. It follows that sanctions should

not be stiffened and the ranges of terms and sizes of

punishments, enshrined in them, should not be

expanded, but, on the contrary, narrowed and applied

on the basis of the principle of justice.

REFERENCES

Alekseyev, A. I., Ovchinsky, V. S., Pobegailo, E. F., 2006.

Russian criminal policy: overcoming the crisis.

Blavatskyy, P., 2001. Obesity of politicians and corruption

in post-Soviet countries. In Economics of Transition

and Institutional.

Dolgova, A. I., 2003. Crime, its organization and criminal

society.

Gavrilov, B. Y., 2008. Russia's modern criminal policy:

figures and facts.

Gavrilov, B. Y., 2020. Russian law of the criminal-legal

complex: the current state and ways of development. In

Herald of the East Siberian Institute of the Russian

Interior Ministry.

Kurakin, A.V., 2007. Administrative and legal means of

preventing and suppressing corruption in the public

service system of foreign countries.

Luneev, V. V., 2007. Corruption in Russia. In State and

law.

Analysis of Sanctions of Corruption Crimes Related to Bribery and Other Types of Illegal Remuneration

111

Maximov, S. V., 2008. Corruption, law, responsibility.

Mercuryiev, V. V., Makhanov, T. G., Minskaya V. S.,

2017. Some aspects of criminal punishment by a fine

calculated as a multiple of the bribe in the criminal

legislation of the republic of Kazakhstan. In

Russian journal of criminology. 11 (2). pp. 416-425.

Novikov, S. Y., 2004. Anti - corruption policy: a textbook.

Yani, P. S., 2001. Only repression is effective in the fight

against corruption. In Russian Justice.

CLOSA 2021 - VII INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC-PRACTICAL CONFERENCE “CRIMINAL LAW AND OPERATIVE SEARCH

ACTIVITIES: PROBLEMS OF LEGISLATION, SCIENCE AND PRACTICE”

112