Partial decriminalization of corruption-related crimes using the example of the institution of administrative prejudice in foreign criminal legislation

The scientific article is based on the statement that Russian criminal legislation has a repressive character, which is expressed in the possibility of bringing to criminal responsibility for the commission of certain illegal acts that do not have a sufficient degree of public danger. The discussion regarding the partial decriminalization of the above-mentioned acts is also present in the scientific circles of foreign countries. For example, in the United States, some legal scholars propose decriminalizing nonviolent criminal offenses. According to the analysis of law enforcement practice, this circumstance will have a positive impact on crime prevention. For the Russian legal reality, the issue of abolishing punishment for minor crimes is not relevant, since there is legislation on administrative offenses that performs protective functions. In our opinion, minor crimes of corruption are among the acts that can be partially decriminalized by extending administrative prejudice to them. Russian law enforcement practice is predisposed to these humanistic innovations. An analysis of the regulation of the institute of administrative prejudice in foreign countries makes it possible to understand the essence of this institution and the specifics of its practical application for research purposes. According to the legislation of the Western countries of the Romano-German legal family, the institute of administrative prejudice was created in contrast to the increased number of criminal offenses during the period of active economic development, by simplifying the procedure for bringing to justice. At the same time, in the Western countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal family, prejudice refers to circumstances established by the courts in previously considered criminal and civil cases, which, under certain conditions, can be used as evidence that does not require additional verification. In neighboring countries, each State assigns different degrees of public danger to the most classic corruption-related crimes (bribery, bribery, commercial bribery). Thus, in the Republic of Belarus, the application of administrative prejudice to the above-mentioned acts is impossible due to the high degree of public danger. The criminal legislation of Georgia explicitly establishes in the anti-corruption legislation the possibility of applying administrative prejudice to acts related to the false declaration of income by public officials. There is no institution of administrative prejudice in Kazakhstan. However, the notes to individual articles of corruption-related crimes actually allow the use of this institution if the amount of funds does not exceed the amount established by criminal law. Thus, the institution of administrative prejudice can be used as a tool for the partial decriminalization of certain corruption-related crimes. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References