Receiving a bribe (Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Official bribe

Bribery is considered one of the oldest and most common corruption phenomena. Licenses are issued for illegal remuneration, the signing of profitable contracts is ensured, the necessary examination results are generated, freedom of competition is limited, etc. Let us further consider the responsibility for receiving a bribe.

Urgency of the problem

Receiving a bribe in the Russian Federation is regarded as a self-serving official crime. The essence of the act is the acceptance by the authorized employee from other entities of obviously illegal material rewards. There are different types of bribes. Acceptance of illegal remuneration may be carried out by the guilty person in person or with the help of an intermediary. In domestic law it is punished as taking a bribe (Article 290 of the Criminal Code RF), and her dacha (norm 291 of the Code). Both standards provide for general and qualifying signs of a crime. Accordingly, punishment is imposed taking them into account.

Characteristics of the crime

Acceptance of a bribe (Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) implies acceptance by the employee of funds, securities, other property or benefits for inaction / actions in favor of the entity transferring these objects, or of the persons represented to them, if they fall within the powers of this employee or he the strength of its position may contribute to such actions / inaction. Punishment is also provided if the guilty person promises protection or connivance in the service for illegal remuneration. These acts form the overall composition of receiving a bribe. It is established in part 1 of the above norm.

Aggravating circumstances

The toughening of punishment is provided for receiving a bribe by an official for carrying out illegal actions / inaction. Part Three establishes sanctions for a crime committed by an employee of a state federal or regional government body, as well as by the head of a local government structure. Particularly qualified types of obtaining illegal remuneration include the commission of an act:

1. A group of entities by prior arrangement.
2. Repeatedly.
3. Extortion-related remuneration.
4. In large size.

The crimes provided for in the first part, in this regard, are considered acts of moderate gravity, in parts 2 and 3 - serious, in part 4 - especially serious.

Specificity

Taking a bribe of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is classified as a crime against the interests of the civil service, state power. This act is an encroachment on the normal functioning of the state administration apparatus. One of the key principles of his work is the public law, legal procedure for remuneration of his employees. They do not have the right to accept from organizations and citizens any rewards (money, gifts, loans, payment of leisure or entertainment, compensation for transportation costs, etc.) related to the performance of their duties.

The Criminal Code regards receiving a bribe as an element that corrupts the normal operation of the administrative apparatus. This crime discredits the management and power structures of municipal and state institutions, undermines their authority, and casts doubt on their competence. Such attacks give an idea of ​​the venality of authorized bodies, the ability to resolve issues through bribery of employees.Often the bribe-taking by an official is connected with connivance or direct assistance of organized crime groups, embezzlement, smuggling, illicit trafficking of prohibited substances and items, tax crimes obstruction of free entrepreneurial activity and other acts. This undoubtedly enhances the social danger of the encroachment in question.

Thing

As it can serve a variety of material values:

1. Cash (including foreign currency).
2. Securities.
3. Industrial and food products.
4. Real estate and so on.

Various benefits can also be transferred, property services that are provided to the guilty entity free of charge, despite the fact that they must be paid, or at too low a price. For example, receiving a bribe by an official can be expressed in accepting money allegedly in debt, in concluding fictitious labor contracts with the subsequent payment of funds for allegedly performed work, assistance provided, etc.

Concurrent Activities

Under current law, municipal and civil servants are forbidden to perform any paid work, with the exception of scientific, pedagogical or other creative work, to receive fees for presentations and publications as employees of governing bodies. At the same time, violation of this restriction in itself cannot automatically act as receiving a bribe. A crime will take place only if the work was not actually performed or the paid actions consisted of performing ordinary duties.

Objective part

In norm 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, receiving a bribe involves reciprocal:

1. Inaction / actions in favor of the transferring entity or the entities represented by it, which are included in the official powers of the receiver.
2. Aiding in the implementation or non-implementation of activities.
3. Patronage of service or connivance.
4. Illegal inaction / actions in favor of the transmitter or the entities it represents.

In the first case, a bribe is received for legitimate subsequent behavioral acts of the perpetrator. Such inaction / actions shall not violate his official duties. They do not go beyond his authority. In other words, the perpetrator had the right or was obliged to commit these behavioral acts.

Service status

The official position of the subject is determined not only by its legal capabilities relating to the range of duties and rights. They are charged to him because of his professional activities. Service status also implies actual opportunities that arise from the authority of the position held by the subject in a state body, local government, municipal institution, military formation, as well as from relations arising in the performance of his duties. Using them, the perpetrator may influence or otherwise contribute to the commission or non-commission of another employee who is beneficial for the bribe-taking entity. Moreover, the latter may even not know anything about the crime.

Sun clarifications

In its Order No. 3 of March 30, 1990, the Court clarifies that for entities that did not have the necessary authority to perform, for a fee, actions beneficial to the transferring value of a citizen, but because of their official position they could take measures to facilitate their completion by other employees, punishment for receiving a bribe should be applied. Article of the law applies, in particular, to:

• Of consultants.
• Referents.
• Secretaries.
• Assistants to senior officials.
• Inspectors.
• Heads of office and others.

These entities do not make a final decision on a particular issue of interest to remunerating citizens.However, the resolution of a given situation may largely depend on the actions performed by these employees. Using only kindred, friendly relations to achieve the desired result for the subject who transferred the remuneration will not act as an abuse of official status. This, in turn, eliminates the punishment for receiving a bribe.

Connivance and patronage

As a rule, the specific actions of the guilty subject are not specifically negotiated. However, participants in an illegal transaction understand that accepting a bribe involves satisfying the interests of the transferring entity or other people whom it represents. The connivance or patronage as a result will be expressed in certain inaction / actions of the guilty employee. This type of bribery takes place, as a rule, when receiving systematic offerings from controlled or subordinate employees. This is due to the fact that a superior employee constantly resolves situations affecting the interests of lower-ranking employees. Moreover, the latter, of course, are interested in creating the most favorable conditions for them.

Receiving a bribe if the employee does not discuss further behavior for connivance or patronage is characteristic of the corrupt administrative apparatus of municipal or state structures, various authorities. One example is the case when representatives of organized crime groups to a certain extent “take on” the employees of these institutions, assuming that, if necessary, they will act in their interests.

Illegal Behavioral Acts

They are mentioned in part two of Art. 290. Inaction / actions that go beyond the official authority of an employee are considered illegal. They also include behavioral acts that are included in the competence of an official, but under the circumstances there was no reason to commit them. In other words, unlawful acts / omissions constitute misconduct.

Important point

The crime will be considered completed from the moment of receipt (acceptance) by an employee of at least part of the remuneration. It does not matter if he performed the agreed action or not, was going to commit it or not. In this case, it is important that the citizen accepts the benefits or values ​​precisely as an official who is able, personally or through influence on other employees, to ensure the satisfaction of the needs of the person transferring the items or of the citizens he represents.

Effects

The inaction / action itself, which is performed for a fee, is outside the scope of the crime in question. In this regard, it must be qualified separately. In some cases, the subject, using his official status, commits acts that in themselves act as a crime. For example, an employee for a fee provides a fake document, pronounces a deliberately unreasonable sentence, exempts from criminal punishment, falsifies evidence, aids smuggling, embezzlement, violates the procedure established by law, etc. In such cases, liability arises from the totality of articles.

Subjective part

Taking a bribe is a deliberate crime. It is committed for selfish motives. The official receiving the bribe understands that the benefits and values ​​are transferred and provided to him illegally for his subsequent inaction / actions related to his duties or for facilitating other employees to carry them out.

In the case where the guilty entity in the adoption of values confuse citizens transmitting them, creating the appearance of the lawfulness of their provision, the deed does not fall under the considered norm.For example, executive may indicate that the transfer of objects acts as payment for the service provided by the institution, the work performed by it. Such acts are qualified as fraudulent acts using official position. Only an official may act as a subject. All other entities that participate in the commission of the crime in question, including those that impersonate employees, are accomplices, organizers, or accomplices.

Qualifying attribute

Separately, this article provides for punishment for civil servants of federal or regional bodies, as well as heads of local administrations. These subjects are considered special. In the previous Criminal Code, a qualifying attribute was the receipt of a bribe by an employee who held a responsible position. This concept was purely evaluative in nature and was widely interpreted in practice. Currently, the definition of persons who hold a public position in the Russian Federation is disclosed in the notes to Art. 285, as well as in the Federal Law governing the foundations of civil service, and the Decree of the President of January 11, 1995.

Extortion

In the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces, it is defined as a demand by employees of remuneration under the threat of taking actions that could harm the interests of those who give a bribe. Extortion can also be expressed in deliberate creation of such conditions under which a citizen is forced to provide material values ​​to the guilty in order to avoid negative consequences for himself.

In any of these cases, the entity gives a bribe in order to protect or ensure the implementation of its own legitimate interests that are at risk. If the person transferring the remuneration is interested in unlawful actions / omissions of the employee, seeks to evade punishment, receive undeserved benefits, etc., then extortion will not take place.

An employee demanding a bribe may not express a threat directly. He may simply intentionally not perform certain actions that he not only could, but also had to perform. By such behavior, the official violates the legitimate interests of the bribe giver. The latter, therefore, is forced to obtain appropriate actions or inaction from the employee by providing him with remuneration.

Large size

It is determined in monetary terms. The cost of the transferred items is set in accordance with the prices of products, tariffs for work / services, and the exchange rate in force at the time the act was committed. If it is not possible to determine the cost in this way, an expert is given who gives his assessment. If the subject is guilty of receiving a bribe in an amount exceeding 300 minimum wages, then paragraph "g" applies to him. Part 4 of the considered norm. Remuneration can be received by the subject in parts. If these episodes act as elements of one crime, the act is also qualified under subsection "d" of part 4.

Conclusion

In the case of committing an act in complicity, qualifying circumstances that characterize the increased social danger should be blamed on the co-executors, and the instigators, and the organizers, and accomplices, if these signs were covered by their intent. This, in particular, refers to cases provided for in part four of Art. 290 (large size, extortion, preliminary conspiracy, etc.). At the same time, the circumstances that characterize directly the identity of the accomplice cannot under any circumstances be taken into account in the process of qualifying the acts of other accomplices. Such characteristics, for example, include the frequency of an illegal act.