“Kommersant” became aware of the details of the review of corruption cases prepared by the Supreme Court (SC) of Russia. These are the 27 most typical situations that arise in connection with the prosecution of corrupt officials, seizure of their assets and dismissal due to loss of trust. In particular, courts are ordered to consider anti-corruption claims if the prosecutor’s office’s refusal to do so is contrary to the public interest. The head of the Supreme Court, Igor Krasnov, insists on “brevity”, “predictability” and “understandability” of court decisions.
The Supreme Court studied and summarized the practice of courts considering cases in 2020–2026 related to the application of anti-corruption legislation and the conversion into the income of the Russian Federation of property acquired as a result of violation of requirements and prohibitions aimed at preventing corruption. This was done to “ensure a uniform approach” of courts to such cases.
Speaking on July 1 at a meeting of the Presidium of the Supreme Court, Chairman of the Supreme Court Igor Krasnov said:
“Our goal is to make judicial practice predictable and understandable to everyone: so that a person, faced with a legal problem, can figure out what to rely on and be confident in the fairness of the decision.”
The review of judicial practice, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court chaired by Mr. Krasnov, includes 27 legal positions developed based on an analysis of court decisions over the past six years. Among other things, the Supreme Court indicated that an official’s evasion of the obligation to provide information on income, expenses and property is grounds for early termination of his powers due to loss of confidence. The reason for resignation may be distortion of information about assets or concealment of property. Resignation for negative reasons threatens officials who combine their state (municipal) activities with business. At the same time, the person involved cannot terminate his powers early if an anti-corruption audit is already underway against him.
The document notes that the circle of persons whose interaction with a civil servant may lead to a conflict of interest is not limited to close relatives. As follows from the examples given by the Supreme Court, judicial practice extends to cousins. The emergence of personal interest does not even preclude divorce. The court cited as an example the case of the head of a rural settlement and the chairman of the council of deputies, who were formally divorced, but continued to live together and raise common children. At the same time, the head of the council of deputies chaired the meeting where her ex-husband was elected to the post, kept minutes and voted for him.
The Supreme Court indicated that in anti-corruption claims it is necessary to turn into state income not only property for which evidence of its acquisition with legal income has not been provided, but also assets received as a result of committing illegal acts of corruption, as well as income from its use and sale.
It is especially noted that the prosecutor has the opportunity to seize all property obtained through corruption even before the accused appears in court in a criminal case.
The Supreme Court recalled that, in accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Court, the statute of limitations for anti-corruption claims is not limited by law.
The Supreme Court also took care of the rights of defendants, who have the right to prove in court “by all available means the legality of the origin of funds spent on the acquisition of property, regardless of when they were received and whether they were reflected in the relevant certificates and declarations.” The Presidium of the Supreme Court emphasized: a legally significant circumstance for cases of this category is precisely the establishment of the fact of the legal origin of funds spent on assets, and not the formal discrepancy between the expenses incurred and the total income for three years. The practice of satisfying anti-corruption claims against groups of citizens, sometimes without detailing their role in corruption offenses, has already undergone changes. How reported “Kommersant”, the Moscow City Court recently returned a stake in Rusagro Group of Companies (valued at 1.5 billion rubles) to one of the co-defendants in the case of ex-senator Vadim Moshkovich, Sergei Tribunsky. His lawyers proved the legality of the acquisition of 14.3 million securities.
In turn, the Supreme Court indicated that the property of all family members living together can be taken into account as part of the legal sources of income if they maintained a common household and a joint budget.
Property acquired before the defendant entered public office, as well as money received before that into his accounts, are not subject to confiscation. However, according to Kommersant’s information, the courts often turn almost all the assets of the accused into state income.
The court noted the possibility of bringing to civil liability, including jointly and severally, not only officials, but also other individuals and legal entities involved in a corruption offense. The circle of such persons is not determined in the system of the current legislation of the Russian Federation by any list, but directly depends on the fact of committing or participating in the commission of a corruption offense.
The review clarifies that money received into the account of an official or his wife, the legality of which has not been confirmed, is subject to conversion into state revenue even after the defendants’ divorce. As an example, the Presidium of the Supreme Court cited a claim for the recovery of more than 23 million rubles. from a former civil servant and his ex-wife. According to the court decision, they were punished jointly and severally, since suspicious amounts were transferred to their accounts during the period of marriage and joint housekeeping.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation drew attention to the fact that if the value of property in a purchase and sale agreement is clearly underestimated or overestimated, then the court, when assessing the correspondence of expenses or income to legal receipts, has the right to proceed from its market value. During the consideration of the anti-corruption claim of the prosecutor’s office, the defendant indicated that he purchased the disputed car for half a million. However, experts estimated its market value at 7 million rubles, and it was this amount that was recovered from the corrupt official.
If an anti-corruption claim is filed against a defendant against whom bankruptcy proceedings have been introduced, the Supreme Court indicated in its review, then it must be considered in a court of general jurisdiction outside the framework of the bankruptcy case.
The Supreme Court clarified that property obtained through corruption cannot be included in the bankruptcy estate and must be converted exclusively into the income of the Russian Federation.
This legal conflict arose, for example, in the case of former Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov, whose assets were simultaneously claimed by prosecutors with an anti-corruption lawsuit and by creditors to whom he owed money.
The Supreme Court also considered situations where prosecutors completely or partially refused their anti-corruption requirements. In this case, the Supreme Court decided, the courts should check whether such a refusal does not contradict public interests and whether constitutional values are not affected. In this case, the refusal should be recognized as groundless and not accepted when considering the claim on its merits. The court cited as an example the actions of an employee of the supervisory agency, who abandoned claims for 196 million rubles, citing the results of an additional audit, but did not familiarize the court with them and did not explain how else to protect the interests of the state.
At the end of the meeting, Igor Krasnov called on the judges to approach their work “creatively, but with utmost responsibility.” “Remember the words of the classic: “Brevity is the sister of talent.” Our explanations should be succinct, without unnecessary water – so they will be convenient to read and apply in practice. It is important not just to present legal positions, but to present the material in such a way that it is accessible to an experienced judge, a young specialist, and a citizen who wants to understand the issue,” emphasized the Chairman of the Supreme Court.
