The use by employees of state structures and local authorities of their official position, which entails a significant violation of the interests and rights of society and the state, organizations, citizens, is punishable by Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Abuse of authority - encroachment on the normal work of government bodies, municipal and state enterprises. 
Punishment
Behind abuse of authoritycommitted out of mercenary or other personal interest, entailing the above consequences, shall be charged:
- Cash collection up to 80 t. or in an amount equal to the income of the offender for six months.
- The ban on holding posts or conducting activities of certain types for up to 5 years.
- Up to 4 years of forced labor or imprisonment.
- Up to six months of arrest.
Aggravating symptoms
Abuse of authority a citizen holding a post in a federal or regional power structure, as well as the head of a territorial self-government body, shall be punished:
- A pecuniary penalty of 100-300 t. or in the amount of the guilty income for 1-2 g.
- Forced labor up to 5 liters.
- Imprisonment of up to 7 years.
In addition to the last two sanctions, a ban on staying at posts or conducting certain types of activities for 3 years may additionally be imposed. If sabuse of authority entailed grave consequences, guilty faces up to 10 years in prison. Additionally, the prohibition indicated above (for the same period) may also be imputed.
Subject of crime
Art. 285 of the Criminal Code applies to citizens who temporarily, permanently or by special authority exercise the functions of government representatives, performing administrative, organizational or organizational and administrative tasks in state bodies, local self-government structures, municipal or state institutions, state corporations, state enterprises, unitary, including in AOs, a controlling stake securities in which belongs to the state, regions or municipalities. The norm also applies to employees of the armed forces and other military units of the country.
Under the employees of federal, regional bodies should be understood as employees holding positions enshrined in the Constitution and charters of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for the direct implementation of the powers of state structures. Municipal and civil servants are held liable in cases specially provided for by law. According to general rules, they do not belong to the category of officials in the context of Art. 285. For imputation of punishment, there must be appropriate circumstances. 
Explanations
Art. 285 of the Criminal Code in the new edition establishes liability for an act containing three mandatory signs:
- Use by a citizen of his status contrary to official interests.
- The occurrence of consequences expressed by significant violations of the interests and rights of legal entities and individuals, society and the state.
- The connection between the act and its result.
Let's consider each of them.
Use of service status
Abuse of authority involves the performance of actions that, although directly related to the implementation by an employee of his duties and rights, but are not caused by necessity.Such behavioral acts contradict both the general requirements and tasks carried out by the state apparatus and local self-government structures, as well as the purposes for which the citizen received the appropriate powers.
Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation applies to cases of acts of selfish or other personal interest in the absence of grounds and mandatory conditions for this. For example, citizens who do not perform labor duties are hired, a driver’s license is issued to people who have not passed the exam, and their chiefs (commanders) are relieved of their duties from their duties with a direction to equip the employee’s private property or work in commercial organizations.
Additionally
Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation also applies in cases of intentional non-fulfillment by employees of their duties. At the same time, responsibility arises if such inaction was committed for personal gain or for another personal interest, objectively did not agree with the tasks for which the citizen received his status, and entailed a violation of the interests and rights of the state, organizations, society, individual citizens.
Protectionism also falls under the norm in question. It should be understood as illegal assistance in employment or promotion, promotion of an employee, as well as other protection done out of self-interest or other personal interest. 
Art. 285 of the Criminal Code: acquittal
If the act, the punishment for which the considered norm fixes, is committed by the employee to eliminate the danger that directly threatens the interests and rights of the citizen, society, state, and it cannot be liquidated by other means, then such behavior is not considered a criminal act. In this case, the limit of emergency must not be exceeded.
Persons related to the exercise of their official powers by themselves, which entailed harm to the protected interests of society and the state, organizations and citizens, if they were committed in pursuance of an order or order, which is binding on him, cannot be regarded as criminal acts. The relevant provision is enshrined in Art. 42 of the Code.
Special cases
If a citizen commits an intentional crime under Article 285 or 286, pursuant to an order / order, which is obviously illegal for him, he is liable according to general rules. The actions of the chief who issued the act are regarded as incitement to or organization of an assault. Such actions are qualified according to the relevant norm of the Special Part of the Code with reference to article 33 (part 3 or 4). An employee who issued a deliberately unlawful order (order) to a subordinate who did not realize the unlawfulness of the act and carried out it is held liable as an executor.
If, to achieve an unlawful result, a citizen uses not any official position, but any connections, the authority of his post, etc., then the provisions do not apply to him Art. 285 of the Criminal Code. Corpus delicti There is no commented norm. 
Effects
Sentences under Art. 285 of the Criminal Code shall be made upon establishing the fact of damage to the interests and rights of citizens, the state, society, organizations. This, in particular, is about legal opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution and federal legislation. For example, the actions of an employee may violate the right to respect for the dignity and honor of a person, inviolability of home, privacy, privacy of correspondence, telegraph, postal communications, telephone conversations, judicial protection, compensation for harm caused by an act, access to justice, and so on.
Violation of the legitimate interests of organizations and citizens as a result of the unlawful use of official status is considered to be the creation of obstacles in meeting the needs that do not contradict the norms of law and morality. For example, actions that block the possibility of choosing, at the sole discretion of the organization for cooperation, committed by an employee of a state agency, fall under the commented norm. Judicial practice under Art. 285 of the Criminal Code indicates the need to take into account the degree of negative impact of unlawful behavior on the normal operation of enterprises, the size and nature of the pecuniary damage suffered by them, the number of injured citizens, as well as the severity of the property, moral and physical damage inflicted on them.
Motives
On the subjective side, the act is characterized by guilt in a deliberate form. The intent can be both indirect and direct. An obligatory element of the subjective side is the motive. It is a selfish or other personal interest. The first should be understood as the employee’s desire, through the commission of unlawful actions, to extract property benefits for himself or other persons. Moreover, it is not associated with the gratuitous illegal circulation of material assets in their favor or other citizens.
The commented norm includes actions aimed, for example, on unlawful receipt of benefits, a loan, exemption from expenses, repayment of property, payment for services, repayment of debt, etc. Another personal interest is manifested in the employee’s desire to derive non-property benefits. It is determined by motivations such as nepotism, careerism, the desire to embellish the real state of affairs, receive mutual services, enlist someone's support in solving a problem, hide incompetence and so on. 
Nuance
In contrast to the theft of property belonging to other persons using official powers, their abuse from selfish motives form such actions of the employee that are either not associated with the seizure of material assets (for example, obtaining benefits from the operation of things for other purposes), or are associated with reimbursable / temporary seizure. If the act was expressed in the actual appeal of the object in favor of the perpetrator, then it is fully covered by part 3 of article 160 or h. 3 tbsp. 159 and additionally, under the considered norm, are not qualified. In the case when an employee, using his position, except for embezzlement, commits other illegal actions that are associated with the abuse of authority from self-interest or other personal interest, his behavior falls within the relevant provisions of the Code in aggregate.
Qualifying Attributes
In the second part of the norm under consideration, a penalty is imposed for abuse of authority by a person with a special status. In particular, employees of a federal or regional government agency, as well as heads of territorial self-government structures are held liable. As a particularly qualifying feature provided for in part three of the norm, grave consequences from the committed act are made.
What are they expressed in? The actions of a person who has abused his official position can, for example, lead to major accidents, prolonged downtime of the transport / production process, the occurrence of major property damage, death by negligence, attempted suicide or suicide of the victim, and so on. 
Important point
In the process of considering cases of crimes falling under Art. 285, it is necessary to establish which regulatory documents and other acts establish the duties and rights of a citizen who is held accountable. At the same time, the resolution indicates the legal possibilities that were unlawfully used, with reference to a specific part of the commented norm.
Conclusion
The danger of abuse of official position consists mainly in the fact that unlawful actions of authorized persons discredit the activities of authorities in the eyes of the people. Illegal behavior undermines the authority of structures, disrupts their normal functioning. In addition, significant damage is caused to the interests of citizens and organizations.
The legislation establishes a limitation period under Art. 285 of the Criminal Code. The acts for which responsibility is enshrined in the first part of the norm relate to offenses of medium gravity. For them, the statute of limitations is 6 years. Acts, punishments for which establish 2 and 3 parts, are considered serious. You can hold those responsible accountable for them for 10 years. In 2013 was amnesty declared. Art. 285 of the Criminal Code was included in the list of rules by which the perpetrators were released. 
It is worth saying that at present, at all levels of government, control over the activities of employees has been tightened. However, while the measures taken in federal and regional bodies have an effect, the situation in municipalities remains extremely difficult. This is due to the fact that the legislation divides the sphere of power into two areas: state and local. In the latter case, normative acts, although adopted in compliance with federal laws, are substantially adapted to a specific administrative-territorial unit. As a result, the direct resolution of issues related to tightening local controls depends on the municipal government.
Nevertheless, at the level of a number of municipalities, active work is underway to identify persons who abuse their official position. Of course, this area requires a special approach. For each municipality, specific measures should be developed that take into account the specifics of the area, the branching of the administrative apparatus, as well as other factors that deserve attention.