Analysis of national legislation of foreign states in the fight against corruption (Singapore, South Korea, USA, Russia)

RESEARCH MATERIALS on Anti-Corruption

Kamnazarov M.M. Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Sarsenov A. - Doctoral (PhD) ENU by L.M. Gumilyev

Analysis of national legislation of foreign states in the fight against corruption (Singapore, South Korea, USA, Russia)

Phenomena associated with corruption in the public service, were found and are found in almost every state. However, this does not mean that corruption is everywhere and always the same. Its causes and spread into public service systems of various countries are very diverse, and therefore attempts to develop universal legal and administrative means to prevent and combat corruption is highly unlikely. [1] However, it should be noted that "foreign crises in a globalized world is not the case, especially since they are overtaking close neighbors. The chain of corruption puts stamp on one state after another: undermining the wellbeing of developed and exacerbates poverty in the Third World". [2]

Despite this, a number of foreign countries have managed to create such mechanisms that limit the corruption scale, which do not represent a serious risk to the proper functioning of the state apparatus. Of particular interest is the practice of those states where structural reforms have given the greatest results and thereby created the prerequisites for successful economic growth. These countries are: Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Singapore, Finland, Switzerland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Luxembourg, Austria, Hong Kong, Germany, Norway, Ireland, UK, USA, Japan [3]. These countries have had some success in the fight against corruption. The idea of the isolation of anti-corruption programs that have proven to be effective in practice, presents enormous opportunities for borrowing positive foreign experience.

For all the specifics of foreign public administration, cultural, historical, economic and other differences, the foreign experience of preventing and combating corruption in the public service should be investigated and partly used in the reform of the civil service system of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Let's start with the fact that in the western states the training of highly qualified personnel in the public service has centuries-old traditions. So, by the orders of Napoleon was founded highest elite school - "Ecole Polytechnique", which for many years was a training center for professional public servants. At one time, O. Bismarck remarked, "With bad laws and good management officials still possible, but with bad officials will not help any laws». ¹

The system of selection and training of civil servants in foreign countries (USA, UK, France, Germany), their social status, the important role they play in the regulation of social and economic processes taking place in society, promote the formation of this layer elitist morality.

Its part is chosen and peculiar sense of responsibility for the state of society, the cult of managerial professionalism, pragmatism and hard work. All this has created in England, France and Germany, the strongest factor tradition, objectively counteracting corruption.

Given these important points should still refer to the experience of the younger countries, which also passed the stages of socio-economic transformation - Singapore, South Korea and, in particular, its capital, Seoul. Also noteworthy is the U.S. anti-corruption policy. The experience of these countries as the least corrupt category carriers of the world, it is more feasible in terms of Kazakhstan. Use and registration of foreign and international experience in preventing and combating corruption in the public service of the Republic of Kazakhstan is due, in our view, by the fact that the basic laws of functioning of the bureaucracy are universal and, as practice shows, not largely depend on national circumstances.

Consider some of the features of the organization of anti-corruption activities in these countries. Corruption, firstly, it is recognized by the government of these countries as a serious national security issue. While corruption is seen as external and internal threats. Clearly distinguished two aspects of corruption: political and economic. Development of political corruption can lead to uncontrollable political situation in the country and is a threat to democratic institutions and the balance of the various branches of government. Economic corruption reduces the efficiency of market institutions and regulatory activities of the state. It is important to note that efforts to curb corruption in these countries tend to be institutionalized and impressive for its size. [4]

Comparative legal analysis of legal acts in the sphere of fighting corruption:
 

     
 Politics of Singapore in the fight against corruption

According to the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) of Transparency International for 2008 Singapore is among the cleanest in respect of corruption after Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand. This country is the fourth of the least corrupt countries in the world with a total rating of 9.2 points out of 10. [5] Its power is really able to create an effective mechanism to combat corruption, which really works and gives results.

Inspirer and organizer of the struggle against corruption in Singapore was a former Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew (1959-1990). In November 1999, Mr Lee said: "Honestly, effective government with an unblemished reputation was and remains the most valuable achievement of the ruling party and the main advantage of Singapore". When in 1959 the ruling party came to power, she took powerful program to combat corruption, based on certain principles. Mr. Lee said that when the power is seen as an opportunity for personal enrichment and not as evidence assistance the people trust, it becomes a problem of ethics. All societies applying for long existence, must uphold the principle of honesty, otherwise society will not survive, he said. The easiest way to stop corruption is to minimize the opportunities for public officials to act at their own discretion, he added. In October 1999, Mr Lee said, that Singapore's tough position against corruption is a question rather of necessity than simply maintain national dignity. The reason is that Singapore wants to benefit from foreign investment, and for this it is necessary to exclude the possibility of using investment funds improperly. [6]

In Singapore, the fight against corruption is carried out directly by political leaders and senior officials, it fully supports the public. In other words, the fight against corruption is carried out continuously, as evidenced by the presence of permanent specialized body to combat corruption - the Bureau to investigate cases of corruption (founded in 1952 ), which has political and operational autonomy. [7] But before the adoption of the Act on the Prevention of Corruption the work of Bureau did not bring tangible results. The fact that this Act has eliminated several major obstacles. First, he gave a clear and comprehensive definition of all kinds of corruption. Takers could no longer equivocate, receiving "gratitude" in the form of gifts and hiding behind vague wording. Second, the Act regulated the work of the Bureau and gave him a serious powers. Third, it increased prison terms for taking bribes. All this gave free rein to the Bureau: it received permission to detain potential bribe, to search in their homes and at work, checking bank accounts, etc. So, Art. 18 states that the Bureau is authorized to check bank books of civil servants, and according to Article 19 - their wives, children and agent if necessary. The Bureau is authorized to make arrests, searches, check bank accounts and assets of suspects in crimes of corruption [8].

Furthermore, the Bureau:

investigates complaints containing allegations of corruption in the public and private spheres;

investigate cases of malpractice and negligence committed by public officials;

check the activities and operations carried out by public servants, in order to minimize the possibility of committing acts of corruption. [9]

In the department there are three divisions: the operational, administrative and informational. The last two except operational support are also responsible for the "purity" of the bureaucracy. In their selection of candidates run for high public office, preventive measures and even the organization of tenders for public contracts [10].

This independent body investigates and seeks to prevent corruption in the public and private sector of the economy of Singapore, while in the act of corruption has clearly qualified in terms of various forms of "compensation". The head of this body is the director, directly responsible to the Prime Minister. This means that ministers cannot intervene to stop the investigation or otherwise affect it. The Bureau is responsible for maintaining the principle of honesty and integrity in the public service and the promotion of corruption-free transactions in the private sector. Also its duty is to check abuses of government officials and reporting such cases to the authorities to take necessary steps in the disciplinary area [11]. Bureau studies methods of potentially vulnerable to corruption of public authorities to detect possible weaknesses in the control system. If it is determined that such gaps can lead to corruption and abuse, the Bureau recommends appropriate action heads of those departments.

Since the second half of the 1980s the government began work on the "quality" of the bureaucracy. Incentive to commit corrupt practices among civil servants and political leaders was reduced by ensuring their wages and fringe benefits comparable to the private sector. However, the government may be unable to raise the salary, if there is no economic growth. Nevertheless, the effects of low wages in the public sector are unfavorable, as talented civil servants leave to settle in private companies, while less capable and will involve themselves in corrupt actions to compensate for low wages.

Reporting in 1985 to Parliament about the justification for the maintenance of cost, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said: "I am one of the highest paid and probably one of the poorest of Prime Ministers of the Third World ... There are different ways of making. I propose our way in a market economy, which is honest, open, and justifiable. If you prefer it hypocrisy, you come up with duplicity and corruption. Make a choice".

 To officials salaries have been seriously raised (hereinafter it was done every few years) that was to keep them from taking a bribe. Now salaries of senior officials are calculated according to the average earnings in the business and go up to $ 20-25 thousand per month. And parliamentarians and people embraced this initiative with suspicion, but Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew publicly justified its expediency. He explained that the government needs professionals in their field, so they pay wages close to their market value. It would be unrealistic to expect that talented people will sacrifice their careers and families for many years to meet the requirements are often not appreciating their efforts public. If Singapore is not received at the disposal of the supreme political power of the best experts, it would have ended mediocre governments, poor monetary policy and corruption. [12]

 Government officials conceived to make a profession not only paid, but also respected. In Singapore, at the state level preached the principle of meritocracy. [13] The way up is opened before the most intelligent, forward-thinking and capable. This is the responsibility of the Agency (Bureau) to combat corruption. Recruitment takes place at school, and then the future elite are to be lead: helping to enter the university, sent to study and training abroad, and encourage progress. So gradually bureaucracy updated properly learned and well mannered staff, many of whom join the ranks of the agency [14].

Singapore Fighting corruption is based on certain principles that reveal the fundamental notion of "logic in the control of corruption", "attempts to eradicate corruption should be based on the desire to minimize or eliminate the conditions that create both incentives and the ability of the person declines to commit corrupt acts" [15].

First, measures should be taken in relation to both sides: those who give bribes and those who take them.

Secondly, clearly, the principle of responsibility: it is necessary to punish corruption in administrative or criminal procedure. But public reprimand is an integral part of the punishment.

Third, there must be a clear separation between public duties and private interests. That meant that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew when he declared that the Confucian duty to help his family, relatives and friends should be performed only with the involvement of their own, and not public funds.

Fourth, it is necessary to strengthen the rule of law. This is achieved through the cooperation of the Bureau, investigating cases of corruption and judicial authorities who decide what will be the punishment. The public must be confident that the Bureau is working efficiently and is legal.

Fifth, corruption must be eliminated as much as possible by establishing clear and precise working methods and decision-making. Once the public is aware that there is no opportunity to influence government decisions through bribery, corruption will be less.

Sixth, leaders must lead by example of impeccable behavior at the highest level to maintain its moral authority needed to fight corruption. Consequently, integrity should be a key criterion, the main goal of political leaders.

Seventh, there must be guarantees that it is the recognition of personal and professional merit rather than family ties or political patronage, should be the determining factor in the appointment of officials. Using family ties undermines the credibility of the public service to its effectiveness and impartiality. In contrast, recognition of merit ensures that the specialist will be appointed to the appropriate post.

Eighth, as emphasized by Mr. Li, the basic rule is to respect the principle of integrity and to dismiss the officials tarnished its reputation. The press plays an important role in publicizing cases of corruption and punishment detail to inform the public about the consequences of corruption. This helps to create an atmosphere of honesty and trust to the public service, as well as to enshrine the principle of corruption punishment because the fight against corruption depends on the value system of political leaders, public service and society.

Ninth, the civil servants should be paid accordingly. In Singapore the ministers and top officials are paid according to a formula linked to the average wage of successfully working in the private sector persons (lawyers, bankers, etc.). Bureaucracy of Singapore is considered one of the most efficient in the world. And the highest paid are the salaries of officials higher than equal to them on the status of employees in the United States.

Tenth, the need to establish effective working on the principle of honesty and dedication of an anti-corruption, and the protection of whistleblowers who report cases of corruption.

Eleventh, the need to minimize the number of required signatures for documents.This will reduce the opportunities for corruption.

Twelfth, you must use the laws in such a way as to extend their officials to clarify the sources of their income. If they cannot explain why they have additional funds, it can be assumed that the source is corruption. In Singapore, every year from public servants require filling in special forms for declaration of their property, assets and debts. [16]

Singapore was able to exert control over monetary policy unsatisfactory due to rigid rules, such as strict limits on campaign spending, permission to carry out only donations to political parties rather than individual ministers or members of parliament, because you cannot afford to buy so influence to change government policy [17]. Power - corruption - money is an understandable logic chain. Therefore, since July 1973 a special anti-corruption program was launched by the Ministry of Finance of Singapore. This program included, inter alia, the following measures:

improving procedures for communication with citizens and organizations in order to avoid delay;

ensuring transparency control subordinate officials parent;

administration officials rotation to avoid the formation of stable corrupt ties;

conducting roadside checks;

ensuring the confidentiality to prevent leakage of important information, which can be used for corrupt purposes;

introduction of procedures for reviewing complex anti-corruption measures every 3-5 years [18].

Enacted in the early 70s this anti-corruption program in the Ministry of Finance, Singapore made impressive gains. Much of this was due to the correct definition of the priority areas of the program: the transparency of the authorities, the convergence of ordinary citizens and supervising organizations, grassroots curbing corruption.

Interesting figures given by scientists from Harvard University. It is estimated that the reduction in the level of corruption in a country with Mexico to the level of Singapore produces economic effect equivalent to increasing tax collection by 20% [19].

Fighting corruption, like meritocracy (promotion to key positions only on merit), a multinational policy and pragmatism, is one of the key factors in the economic success of Singapore. Tough laws appropriate salary for ministers and civil servants, the punishment of corrupt officials, the effective functioning departments to combat corruption, personal examples of senior executives - all these facts constitute anti-corruption program in Singapore. Thus, the success of this state - the result of hard work on the fight against corruption being waged in all spheres of life.

Analysis of the legislation of South Korea in the fight against corruption

In the area of ​​internal policies and management systems in South Korea identifies the following key objectives:

optimization of the public administration and its transparency and non-corruption;

rational decentralization of the economy and balanced regional development;

broad participation and consolidation of the people in political reforms.

As the South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, "Corruption exists at two levels - top and bottom. So deal with it is necessary to start from the top." One of the necessary conditions for overcoming corruption is the political will. [20] If the state on behalf of its parent governing bodies will be interested in the survival, the fight against corruption and its eradication - a very real problem. A good example of this positive ambition became Seoul is  the capital of South Korea. Here power is really able to create an effective mechanism to combat corruption, actual acting and showing the results.

Matching untimely, Seoul considers the latest scientific developments and technologies on the basis of improving their local anti-corruption policy measures.

It is known that one of the causes of corruption is bureaucracy. In South Korea, the simplification of bureaucratic procedures by reforming state institutions contributed significantly to reduce the level of corruption of public officials. The number of required signatures for documents, direct contacts with officials working in regulatory, licensing and other state institutions were reduced.

The best example in this case is the Seoul program OPEN, launched in 1999 and will enable citizens to monitor the Internet review process of their requests by government officials. [21] This program was developed and was implemented under the mayor of Seoul Mr Goh Kun, who announced his intention to wage the most uncompromising war against corruption, informing the public about the activities of public services from consideration of citizens to decision-making policies.

Through this program, citizens can at any time to follow the course of consideration of documents in its treatment. Online monitoring system for the consideration of citizens «OPEN», ensuring transparency in the work of the city administration, to prevent unnecessary delays or unjust consideration of the citizens’ affairs by officials, allows citizens to keep track of how issues are resolved to grant permission or authorization for a particular case in cases when most likely manifestation of corruption and protest if notice any violation. Thus, ensuring the transparency of the administration creates prerequisites for the eradication of corruption. [22] The "OREN" is built on the following principles:

Availability. It should be considered in three ways:

at any time and from any location via the Internet, citizens can monitor the progress of petitions filed in the city administration – it is geographically temporal aspect;

get any information in the program regulated domains, affecting their rights - this is an information aspect;

facilitates the implementation of quality control of the power structures and can quickly respond to detected violations – it is an operative functional aspect.

2. Transparency. This program is provided by an open monitoring system, real-time access to information concerning the details of the processing of applications of citizens and decision-making, the ability to view documents and tracking of consideration.

An important advantage of the program is to eliminate personal contact officials and citizens as a necessary condition of the existence of corruption.

The "OPEN" is simple enough. Once a citizen applies, for example, the receipt of the decision to build, at the appropriate place of administration information to the site. Using a computer with Internet access, citizens learn in real time, if properly registered their claim to exactly who is involved, when you can expect a solution or the reasons why the request is not granted.

The system requires all employees of administration indicated on the website the day and hour of each statement indicates the expected date of the next procedure in the process of moving securities at each stage.

Since April 1999, when the system "OPEN" was introduced, the city department published 48,330 applications from citizens, and the number of visitors to the site as of April 2000 was 10,000,000.

The program clearly defined spheres of life, civic projects that should be considered open, because it is in them, as it turned out after the research, the most typical spread of corrupt practices. In particular, the housing and construction; construction work; transport; the environment; culture and tourism; industry and economics; urban planning; sanitation and social security; administration. Each sphere includes a specific set of projects. For example, the category "Housing and Construction" is broken into 1) housing projects; 2) construction permit and control; 3) remodeling projects; 4) projects to improve the ecology of the neighborhood; 4) approval of architects; 5) authorization for the outdoor advertising [23].

Thus, the program «OPEN» presents opportunities for social control over the timely execution of the processing of applications, tracking and prevent any delays in the process, фы input data, as well as identifying opportunities for abuse.

System «OPEN» is a progressive tool in the administrative sector, allowing to establish a correct and healthy for its functioning, with all public services at central and local level should learn to work with this program and contribute to its development and improvement.

In addition to its independent and autonomous existence value system «OPEN» is only part of a comprehensive Seoul Anti-Corruption Strategy. Program on the fight against corruption is carried out in four main areas: 1) preventive measures, 2) repressive measures, and 3) greater transparency of the administration, 4) Close cooperation between individuals and public services.

1. Preventive measures consist in reducing government regulation in all administrative areas. Excess norms of municipal regulation were either canceled or simplified.
Official, too long sitting in his chair in his department may establish a system of "buyer-seller". To eliminate potential collusion, Seoul administration canceled the long-established practice of transferring a certain area under the control of single decision-makers on permitting, monitoring and sanctions. Henceforth officials prescribed daily to consider applications from different areas. In addition, significant personnel changes were carried out in 25 districts administrations. Thus, the personnel policy in Seoul, as well as in many other states, remains central to the anti-corruption policy.

2. Repressive measures are put into effect for each offense committed city officials in Seoul. To implement the principle of zero tolerance to corruption introduced a system of direct appeal to the mayor. Once a month, postcards paid reply sent to those who had to deal with the city administration in areas prone to corruption. They are asked to send postcards with information about any abuse back to the mayor. Mayor personally read all the postcards and ensures that every lawbreaker was duly punished.

3. Transparency of administration provides to Seoul the program «OPEN». Along with it introduced index of anti-corruption indicators. He allowed in 1999 to determine the level of "purity" of each administrative unit, the results were published. Anticorruption indicators index was calculated according to a survey opinions persons seeking public services, as well as using anti-corruption measures statistics provided by the administration. Index serves as a stimulant, generating healthy competition between city authorities of Seoul.

4. Cooperation between individuals and public services observed in all the above areas. In addition, it introduced another innovation - the "Agreement on the integrity" whose purpose - to prevent corruption and any other violations of the law in the supply of goods and services to the public. Commitment not to take bribes is an agreement between officials supervising the delivery of goods and services, and applicants for construction work or suppliers of goods and services. By signing this agreement, the parties agree that in the event of non-compliance will be duly punished. [24]

Taken together, these measures qualitatively complement each other mutual support and ensure the effectiveness of the anti-corruption system in Seoul.

Another cause of corruption is the weak legal framework and activities of anti-corruption agency.

After a series of scandals in South Korean society largely under pressure from non-governmental organizations had the understanding that they need a separate agency that will work exclusively with this problem, including work planning for the long term. As a result, in July 2001, the Parliament had adopted the relevant law (Law on the Fight against Corruption), and a committee was established to combat corruption, which started on January 25, 2002.

South Korean law "On Combating Corruption", which came into force on January 1, 2002, has received international acclaim. [25] In accordance with the right to initiate an investigation of corruption in fact granted to any adult citizen of the country. Committee is required to start an investigation into allegations of any statement, but to institute criminal proceedings, he has no right. Protection against abuse of such a right of citizens provided one of the articles of the law - responsibility for false accusation of corruption, violation of which may face imprisonment up to 10 years / or a fine of up to 40 thousand dollars.

After consideration of the application of a citizen of the Committee not later than 30 days, conduct its review of the validity of it. If it turns out the reality of the offenses, the Committee makes a request to the police, prosecutor or other appropriate authorities, i.e. in those organs that control this activity, giving them the materials of the case. To this are given no more than 60 days. These agencies under the Law on the fight against corruption are required within certain time limits to hold its investigation and report on actions taken (excitation cases, administrative penalties, etc.). If the Committee is not satisfied, then he treats repetitive request. The Committee shall notify the applicant of the results of the investigation.

In addition, the law defined the remuneration to the applicant in size from 2 to 10% of the amount that determines the size of the corruption of this incident, but no more than 200 million won (about 195,000 dollars). [26]

Committee formally subordinated only to the president. At the head of the committee is the Board of 9 people. The executive, legislative and judicial branches are three of their representatives, who are guaranteed three years of work in the council committee. Neither the president nor the prime minister, nor anyone else can give guidance committee. In this regard, the Committee is independent from any interference. Reports on its work, the Committee submitted to the President of the country, but only in order to inform, rather than obtaining estimates or recommendations [27].

According to the annual report of Transparency International corruption CPI for 2008 South Korea is on the 40th place, its CPI Score of 5.6 out of 10 [28]. Compared with 2006, where South Korea ranked 43rd [29], its CPI Score in 2008 increased by 0.5. In 2004, South Korea was found 774 cases of corruption among public officials. Proved to be the most corrupt officers of local authorities - 321 cases (41.5%), followed by the police - 236 (or 30.5%) cases, and closes leaders members of the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice -117 (15.1%) [30].

Based on the foregoing, we can talk about the high level of ingenuity and creative approach taken by the Government of Seoul. Develop new positive and very promising ideas to combat corruption, the observance of which is already yielded positive results.

U.S. legislation in the fight against corruption

President Bush has identified the fight against corruption as a key priority of U.S. foreign policy, "the fight against corruption is necessary in order to respond to the major challenges of our time. When corruption is rampant, it weakens confidence in public institutions, such as advocacy and undermines the value of honesty, on which democracy rests. All people deserve legal system; promote empowerment, rather than protecting the narrow interests of the few, well-connected ". [31] American criminal law is of particular structure. It consists of the federal criminal law and criminal codes of individual states. And the states and federal laws generally provide liability for the same kinds of malfeasance in office in corruption. The main part of the federal criminal law relating to some extent corruption is contained in section 18 of the U.S. Code.

In the U.S., the concept of corruption of officials includes a number of illegal acts, provided mainly in four chapters of Title 18 of the Code of Laws: 1) Chapter 11 "Bribery, illegal income and Abuse of public officials"; 2) Chapter 93 "Officials and employees of employment"; 3) Chapter 41 "Extortion and threats"; 4) Chapter 29, "Elections and political activities."
At the same subjects offenses which are punishable under the said Chapter, are respectively:
1) The officers of higher authorities and government officials; 2) The officers and employees of departments and offices that allow malpractice gain or receive illegal remuneration; 3) any federal officers and employees; 4) persons who have committed abuses in the electoral law. [32]
In the U.S. anti-corruption legislation is characterized by extreme rigidity. So, for different types of corruption [33] - a bribe, kikbeking (payment of the illegal money party transactions) and others - provides for fines treble bribes or imprisonment of 15 years, or both simultaneously, and aggravated - denial for up to 20 years.

U.S. law provides for punishment for giving and receiving remuneration for services included in the responsibilities of the official. Promotion by American law, the official can only get official - from the government. The penalty for violation of this rule - a fine or imprisonment for up to two years, or a combination of punishments.

The recognized corrupt transaction between any parties about the device on the federal public service. So, is the requirement of a criminal offense of money or property benefits, or receive them in a device to facilitate the public service. Perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment for one year or a fine not required or the amount received, or a combination of both forms of punishment. An exception is the special activities of recruitment agencies that have permission to participate in the recruitment to the public service. [34]

U.S. anti-corruption legislation is systemic. It also consists of legal acts regulating lobbying, banking, stock exchange and other activities. As the I.V. Bocharnikov said, "although it does not guarantee the complete eradication of corruption in the U.S. its level is much lower than in other states," [35].

For example, in the number of federal malfeasance actions included employees of banks, which may cause damage to the federal banking system. Officers, directors or employees of any bank of employment included in the Federal Reserve System or insured by the Federal Insurance Corporation, the National Agricultural Credit Corporation, the proposed inspector bank loan or a tip, commits an offense punishable by a fine up to $ 5,000 or (and) imprisonment for up to one year. The same punishment awaits bank inspectors themselves if they take credit or tip (§ 212, 213). Any employee of the bank, which deposits insured by the Federal Insurance Corporation, a Federal intermediate credit bank, or the National Agricultural Credit Corporation, who for a commission or gifts contributes to obtaining a loan person, firm and corporation commits the same offense (§ 215).

Kind of abuse is the official views of the purpose of using bribery influence in the appointment to public office. In this case we are not talking about a bribe in the strict sense, the remuneration received or given for the mere promise to use their influence in the future. The subject of this crime can be not only an individual, but also firm, corporation. Liability is incurred and for those who pay and those who offer or promise to pay for future support or exerting influence in the appointment. By abuse of power the federal legislation include:

-Classes of public servants that are incompatible with the basic duties;

-The activities of officials, aimed at enrichment at the expense  public funds, the use of information and speculation. [36]
Fighting corruption is facilitated by the fact that in the U.S. there is virtually no immunities for officials. Any official, including the president, congressmen and senators can be held criminally liable, albeit in a specific order, after his removal from office.

In addition to the above provisions US other major direction of the U.S. anti-corruption strategy is the prevention of corruption in the public service. It is based on the introduction of the so-called "administrative morality", which are the ethical and disciplinary standards. In this case we are talking about anti-corruption reforms moral character.

First Code of Ethics was adopted by the government service in 1958 as a congressional resolution. Code, although had a recommendation, subsequently became the basis for the legal regulation of "administrative ethics" U.S. government officials. In the development of the Code in 1962, the U.S. Congress had adopted the so-called "official rules of conduct of elected officials (members of both Houses of Parliament) and public officials of the executive power." In 1965, President Johnson's ordered to the standards of conduct, ethics norm of the officials. In 1978, these rules took the form of the Law "On the Ethics of employees in state agencies" [37], according to which the United States operates an office professional ethics of civil servants. Director of the Office sends the whole policy of executive power through the development, recommendations and interpretation of the rules governing the problem of conflict of interest and ethics officials and the submission of a formal opinion on the application of the provisions of relevant laws.

In turn, each agency pursuant to the provisions required to establish personnel management service advisors, who would provide the best advice and guidance to employees of these agencies on conflict of interest and ethical standards of behavior. Moreover, any officer adviser’s agencies may apply in case of need for help in the office of professional ethics.

Since the late 80-ies of XX century ethical principles of public service have been the object even tougher legal regulation. In 1989 the U.S. Congress passed the Law "On Ethics Reform Act," which made significant changes to the rules governing the ethical conduct of officials, and distributed them to all branches of the federal government - legislative, executive and judicial. In October 1990, the law was supported by an executive order of U.S. President #12731 "Principles of Ethical Conduct, officials and public servants." These principles have been applied not only to senior officials and ordinary civil servants. [38]

In addition, the United States shall adopt such legislative initiatives not only in terms of corruption existing within national borders, but also in connection with the practice of international corruption. The U.S. is the first country in the world, which elevated to the category of criminal bribery of foreign public officials through the adoption of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCP) in 1977 [39].

It is through this act and continued lobbying by the U.S. adoption of similar legislation in other countries (to neutralize the fact of non-competitiveness of U.S. companies in the global market), in December 1997 was adopted, and in February 1999, entered into force on the CBFP Convention on Combating Bribery foreign public officials in international transactions. [40] Almost all of the 35 signatory parties have ratified the convention and adopted laws erecting bribery of foreign officials a criminal offense.

Also by congress in October 5, 2000 was adopted the International Law against Corruption and Good Governance (LACGG) "in order to aid program of the United States promoting good governance through assistance to other countries in the fight against corruption in society and to increase transparency and accountability at all levels of government and in the private sector "[41].

LACGG further requires that the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Minister of Commerce and administrator of the Agency for International Development (USAID) preparing an annual report to Congress with an overview of diplomatic and programmatic efforts of the U.S. government to fight corruption, as well as the efforts of host governments in priority countries.

In the U.S., criminal investigations against senior officials engaged in an independent prosecutor appointed by a special unit of federal district court in Washington. Moreover, the committees of the U.S. Congress have the right to investigate the facts of the offense committed by the president and senior officials. In the USA the Department of the Ministry of Justice to combat official corruption, which oversees:

prosecution of elected and appointed officials at all levels of government, accused of violating federal laws, including congressmen and federal judges;

investigating crimes related to election campaigns, and the prosecution of perpetrators of such crimes;

 implementation of the specific provisions of the law on ethics in government. [42]

Major role in the investigation of corruption in the federal bodies of state power plays Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI jurisdiction specified type of crime applies to appointed and elected officials, not only at the federal but also at the state and local levels of government. However, in the latter case, the FBI is authorized to act only when the relevant officials committed acts constitute a violation of federal laws.

Useful experience in combating corruption and in other developed countries. Thus, a system to combat corruption in the Netherlands along with other methods include the development of systems for monitoring the possible points of corruption in government and public organizations, the system of selection of persons for positions dangerous in terms of corruption. Every officer has the right to review the information that characterizes it as a positive and a negative side.

Considerable interest is the British attitude to the widespread practice worldwide migration of professionals between the public service and business. This "revolving door syndrome" causes them concern, as public servants makes effective lobbyists in the interests of those companies where they work or go to the contrary, to have moved from the civil service.

This creates an unfair advantage for those companies that have managed to get this kind of personal connections with the state apparatus. Another concern when managers of businesses arrive at some time in the public service, and then come back enriched with knowledge of confidential information that gives them an unfair advantage to businesses to compete for government contracts.

In France, this issue the Commission on the ethics of public service, this is designed to assess the compatibility of the future work of the civil servant to its functions in the public service. However, in contrast to the English system, the Commission does not run those starting a career in private companies or banks, and then enters the public service.

Russian anti-corruption policy.

From the outset, the socio-economic transformation in Russia proclaimed fight against corruption as a whole in the government and in its individual links. So, in the public service prevention and suppression of corruption was defined priority of the state authorities have Russian presidential decree of April 4, 1992 "On the fight against corruption in the public service". [43] But as experience has shown, many of the provisions of the aforementioned Decree remained unclaimed for a variety of circumstances, both objective and subjective nature order. Its rules officials on the need to provide a declaration of income and assets have been launched only five years after the release of additional Decree in 1997 Moreover, poorly executed federal law "On Civil Service in the Russian Federation", providing some of the restrictive anti-corruption measures. One of the reasons - lack of law mechanisms and procedures for implementing the rules laid down in it. This deficiency is very common Russian rulemaking and constantly generates new conditions conducive to corruption. [44]

Since 1997, Russia proceeds to open tenders for government contracts, strengthened fiscal discipline. Laws, which should contribute to a narrowing of the bridgehead of corruption: "The law on enforcement proceedings", "Law on Bailiffs", "Law on Privatization", "Bankruptcy Law". The budget for 1998 provides for an increase to 48% financing for the judicial system.

Nevertheless, according to M.I. Grishankova, "currently corruption in Russia has reached such a level that it threatens human rights, rule of law, stability of democratic institutions and the moral foundations of society, violates the principles of equality and social justice, undermines governance and hinders economic development of the country" [45 ]. A survey of Russian officials at various levels, revealed a high tolerance for corruption in this environment. In most cases, bosses are not willing to ignore corrupt behavior of their subordinates. [46]

According to a study of Fund INDEM for bribes in Russia spent annually an amount equal to approximately U.S. $ 37 billion (revealing that all Russia's budget revenues of 40 billion dollars). [47] Thus, the only cases of bribery in 2002, 7311 were registered in 2003 - 7346, 2004 - 8929, in 2005 - 9821 to 2006 - 10988. Particular relevance corruption gives its highest latency [48 ]. According to expert estimates, Russia dropped from 127th to 147th in the world ranking of corruption, published annually by the international non-governmental organization Transparency International [49].

Being the President of Russia V.V. Putin in his speeches repeatedly stressed that "... the roots of corruption are themselves device flaws economic and administrative life of the state, fueled by poor-quality legislation and spread in the absence of effective control over the activities of officials of state and municipal authorities" [50].

Due to heightened criminal situation in Russia and the danger that corruption poses to Russian statehood, overdue reform of anti-corruption legislation, providing effective legal protection of individuals, society and the state from bribery and bureaucratic arbitrariness. At the heart of this reform should be uncompromising will of the state and the adoption, thanks to her efforts, a comprehensive law designed to combat the phenomenon of corruption. However, it will be implemented and effective, subject to direct action, having your own subject of legal regulation, the existing gaps in the law and address the shortcomings of identifying a set of measures to combat corruption and to establish a mechanism for their implementation [51].

But first need to analyze the regulations that directly addresses the problem of corruption.

Besides the Criminal Code, Russian law there is a number of other regulations providing for the fight against corruption in government. Law "On State Civil Service of the Russian Federation" (N 79-FZ of 27.07.2004) prohibits civil servants perform other paid work without notifying the employer, and if this additional work entails a conflict of interest with official duties officer (Article 14). Officials are required to provide annual information on income and property, report personal interest in the performance of duties (Article 15).

The law prohibits a fee to participate in the activities of the management body of the commercial organization, engage in entrepreneurial activity, purchase securities, to retain the more expensive gifts 5 the minimum wage (500 rub.) receive monetary compensation, loans, services, payment for entertainment, recreation, transportation costs and other remuneration. After the dismissal of the former official, cannot within two years to hold the positions in organizations that he was responsible (Article 17) [52].

RF Law "On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation" (N 3132-1 from 26.06.1992) and "On the status of a member of the Federation Council and the status of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation" (N 3-FZ of 08.05.1994) impose similar restrictions on judges and parliamentarians.

Interaction of state bodies with commercial entities regulated by the Law "On placing orders for goods, works and services for state and municipal needs" (N 94-FZ of 21.07.2005) "On protection of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs during state control (supervision) "(N 134-FZ of 08.08.2001)" On Licensing Certain Types of Activities "(N 128-FZ of 08.08.2001)," On state registration of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs "(N 129-FZ 08.08.2001) "On Accounting" (N129-FZ of 21.11.1996) "On Auditing" (N 119-FZ of 07.08.2001), "Development of Small and Medium Enterprises in the Russian Federation" (N 209 - FZ of 24.07.2007) [53].

Earlier this year, an interagency working group under the President of Russia under the leadership of Viktor Ivanov prepared a new draft law "On Combating Corruption" - very hard, very specific. Also prepared amendments to various pieces of legislation (starting with laws on police, prosecutors and the FSB and ending Penal and Labor Codes). As noted by E. Dvortcova, "promised large-scale offensive against the most painful problem of the country. Alas, still fighting battles modest limited local importance. Distressful law on corruption dusts in the Duma for 14 years. One option even reached second reading. This deal ended in "[54].

 "The new bill has a major difference compared to previous versions - explained" the Russian business newspaper "Director, Center for Anti-Corruption Research Transparency International - Russia Elena Panfilova. - The country has ratified two international instruments - the UN Convention against Corruption in 2003 and the Convention of the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption in 1999". Under the anti-corruption investigation can now get not only physical but also legal entities, which may have their own interests, realized unlawful manner. Another major innovation of the bill, according to Michael Grishankova, is that in the Russian legislation, finally, there may be a definition of "corruption".

In addition, a major factor could be the introduction of anti-corruption examination regulations in order to identify "corruptogenic provisions." In the pilot mode, this institution has been tested in the Duma and confirmed its effectiveness. [55]

At present, Russia is ready to actively participate in international anti-corruption efforts, the proof of this is the involvement of numerous representative Russian interagency delegation in the two important conference of States Parties of the UN Convention against Corruption in Jordan in 2006 and in Indonesia in 2008, during which the international community has made significant efforts to promote the implementation of the Convention - an effort to develop effective mechanisms for auditing and examining the problem of the return of funds obtained by criminal means, and developing mechanisms for technical assistance.

Russia continues to hold the view that the global, international efforts to combat corruption and strengthen the need to develop, but the process should be adequate, i.e. sequential proceeding step by step, that will enable the international community to move forward together, without introducing any graduation or any competition in the field of international cooperation in the fight against corruption. We believe that this is the approach that the UN uses to resolve issues related to the fight against corruption in the framework of the mechanisms established in accordance with the UN Convention against Corruption.

Russia consistently makes cooperation in the fight against corruption on the agenda in contacts with foreign partners, including the activities of the dialogue and cooperation between ministries and agencies, as well as law enforcement agencies directly involved in the fight against corruption in Russia.

Russia most active and constructive way involved in the work against corruption in a number of European organizations such as the Council of Europe and OSCE. In 2006, Russia ratified the Criminal Law Convention of the Council of Europe anti-corruption and thus joined the Group of States against Corruption (GSAC). In April 2008, the first evaluation visit GSAC experts in Russia (1st and 2nd rounds of joint evaluation), which in autumn 2008 at the plenary meeting of GSAC present their assessment of measures taken by Russia in the fight against corruption. Currently offering to sign the Convention on civil liability for corruption with all relevant Russian ministries and departments and is under consideration of the Government of Russia.

Russian authorities and the OECD began to develop contacts to explore ways to develop synergies that will include Russia's accession to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery.

February 3, 2007 decree of the President of the Russian Federation was formed Inter parliamentary Working Group (IWG), chaired by the Assistant President. The IWG included representatives of federal and regional executive bodies, parliamentarians, representatives of the higher courts, civil society, as well as leading scientists specializing in law. IWG task was to develop proposals for the incorporation of the provisions of international conventions on combating corruption in the national legislation, including the establishment of a specialized body to coordinate work in the field of fight against corruption. According to Mr. Mishin, in the present period there is a consensus between the "parliamentary majority and the president," that suggests the presence of formed prerequisites for removing the deadlock work on a special anti-corruption law. [56] Thus, the IWG was drafted legislation to combat corruption.

Currently, Presidential Decree of 19 May 2008 in Russia, a new body to fight corruption - Council against Corruption, headed by the President of the Russian Federation. The purpose of the Council is to develop proposals for public policy in the fight against corruption, coordination of central and local authorities for the state anti-corruption policy and the implementation of appropriate controls in these matters. This decree has completed work of the IWG.

Recently, at the legislative level, a number of measures aimed at improving the legal mechanisms to prevent corruption.

Among the laws that contain important anti-corruption components and provisions to ensure transparency of operations necessary to note the following federal laws: the Federal Law "On the Public Service in the Russian Federation» № 58 dated 25.05.2003; "On the State Civil Service in the Russian Federation» № 79 of 27.07.2004; "On Municipal Service in the Russian Federation» № 25 of 02.03.2007; "On placing orders for delivery of goods, performance of works, rendering services to public and municipal needs» № 94 dated 21.07.2005 and the decree of the President of the Russian Federation № 885 of 12.08.2002 "On general principles of conduct for civil public servants" that are designed to create prerequisites for preventing corruption in state and municipal government.

Other adopted laws designed to increase openness and transparency in government, access to information, were the following laws: "On Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information» № 149 of 27.07.2006; "On the procedure of discussing the proposals of citizens of the Russian Federation» № 59 dated 02.05.2006. In March 2007 the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation approved the first reading of the draft law № 386525-4 «On the provision of information about the activities of state bodies and local self-government."

Within the framework of the Federal Target Program "Development of the Russian judicial system" for 2007-2011, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued to the State Duma a draft law № 287750-4 «On protection of rights of citizens and organizations to provide information on the activities of the courts of general jurisdiction in the Russian Federation" improve transparency to ensure justice.

In accordance with the decree of the Government of the Russian Federation 1789-r dated 25 October 2005, adopted the Regulations on Administrative Reform in the Russian Federation in 2006-2008, part of which is a plan for the prevention and extermination of corruption in public administration.

The purpose of the administrative reform is to find the most appropriate ways in which the government, suggesting the development of anti-corruption mechanisms at the federal level with the subsequent introduction to his county and regional levels.

In the framework of administrative reform to be achieved the following objectives:

Increased transparency of public authorities at all levels, including the development of civil society engagement;

Improving the mechanism of control and supervision;

Improving the efficiency of public procurement;

Development of a mechanism to prevent corruption in the state executive power;

Development of the mechanism controlling the rate of administrative reforms, including the general public with the practical results of the reforms.

However, in Russia, along with other systemic and conceptual aspects of the fight against corruption, it is believed some reputable scientists, former practitioners who believe only the most effective repression. This is the opinion of Doctor of Law, Professor P.Yani. Why he believes the most effective means of repression to fight corruption?

If we turn to the theoretical principles of international anti-corruption programs, the author argues, we can see that the basis of the idea of ​​the primacy of non-repressive methods are based on the concept of civil society as an "equal power." Given the state of affairs in the developed countries of western democracy is built "model-triangle", whose vertices are the power, capital and civil society. The latter refers to the organization and structure, which are separated from all branches of government, but interact with them.

Significant refinement in the design of such a model for Russia is the lack of civil society in the understanding of the authors, i.e. Institute equal in power and authority no capital. So, in my opinion, if we assume the axiom of the need to combat corruption, the main means of combating it is not so much the transparency of officials, freedom of the press and so much persecution from the arsenal of criminal justice.

No ethical considerations can match the strength of precautionary influence with apprehension officer to be caught and punished.

Naturally, such a view has a right to exist, but it is hardly certain.

According to Russian analysts, the problem of corruption is inextricably linked with the level of administration in the economy. They believe that unjustified curtailment of the regulatory role of the state in the economy adversely as it has brought enormous material and moral losses.

Radical wing of the "young reformers" guided one overpowering idea - no place for the state in the economy, market mechanisms themselves will put everything in its place. As a result of public property was totally unprotected from the open looting. Therefore, the development of legislation on combating corruption, they say, it should be noted that the prosecutor's office - a unique public-law institution, designed to contribute to strengthening the legal means legal regime in the country.

An important task of the prosecution should be the prosecutor's support of social initiatives of the President in the form of supervision over the enforcement of the legislation on the target budget funds. Reduces the possibility of corruption proper prosecutorial supervision over the implementation of laws on timely and complete accounting of state property, leased, transferred in the form of contributions to the charter capital, etc.

Thus, analysis of international experience in combating corruption offenses lead to the conclusion that in developed countries, corruption was the most excluded, first, by establishing clear and precise working methods and decision-making. Once the public is aware that there is no opportunity to influence government decisions through bribery, corruption will be less.

Second, leaders must lead by example of impeccable behavior at the highest level to maintain its moral authority needed to fight corruption. Consequently, integrity should be a key criterion, the main goal of political leaders.

Thirdly, there must be guarantees that it is the recognition of personal and professional merit rather than family ties or political patronage, should be the determining factor for appointment to judicial office. Using family ties undermines the credibility of the public service to its effectiveness and impartiality. In contrast, recognition of merit ensures that the appropriate post will be appointed specialist.

Fourth, the basic rule - respect the principle of integrity and dismiss tarnished its reputation of the judiciary. The mass - media plays an important role in publicizing cases of corruption and punishment detail to inform the public about the consequences of corruption. This helps to create an atmosphere of honesty and trust to the public service, as well as to enshrine the principle of corruption punishment because the fight against corruption depends on the value system of political leaders, public service and society.

Fifth, it is necessary to establish an effective working on the principle of honesty and dedication of an anti-corruption, and the protection of whistleblowers who report cases of corruption.

Sixth, the need to minimize the number of required signatures for documents. This will reduce the opportunities for corruption.

Seventh, you must use the laws in such a way as to extend their officials to clarify the sources of their income. If they cannot explain why they have additional funds, it can be assumed that the source is corruption.

[1] See: A. Kurakin, VA Tyurin, AA Savostin International, European and national aspects of the fight against corruption in the civil service of the Russian Federation. p.2 to 3.

[2] See: Nomokonov VA Decree op. Vladivostok in 2004. p.35.

[3] According to the Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International in 2008 http://www.transparencykazakhstan.org/UserFiles/file/CPI2008.pdf

[4] See: Nomokonov VA Decree op. Vladivostok in 2004. p.36.

[5] for details see: Corruption Perceptions Index 2008. Transparency International. http://www.transparencykazakhstan.org/UserFiles/file/CPI2008.pdf

[6] See: Mark Hong. Singapore - a country that has overcome corruption. 2000 http://world.ng.ru/azimuth/2000-05-18/6_sing.html

[7] the same.

[8] See: http://www.korrup.ru/index.php?s=5&id=160

[9] the same.

[10] See further: http://www.hbr-russia.ru/issue/31/177.

[11] For details see: Organized crime trends, prospects struggle. Vladivostok, 1999. p. 251-253.

[12] See: Mark Hong. Singapore - a country that has overcome corruption. 2000 http://world.ng.ru/azimuth/2000-05-18/6_sing.html

[13] Meritocracy - management principle, according to which leadership positions must take the most capable people, regardless of their social or economic background. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[14] See further: http://www.hbr-russia.ru/issue/31/177/

[15] Organized crime trends, prospects struggle. Vladivostok, 1999. S. 250. Quoted. by Nomokonov VA Ordinance. Op. C\p. 41.

[16] See: Mark Hong. Singapore - a country that has overcome corruption. 2000 http://world.ng.ru/azimuth/2000-05-18/6_sing.html

[17] See: Nomokonov VA Decree op. Vladivostok in 2004. p.42.

[18] See: INDEM. Russia and corruption: who wins? International experience in fighting corruption: from failure to success in China Israel. Clean hands. 1999. № 3. p. 12. Quoted.

[19] See: M. Alekseev Ordinance. cit., p. 2. Quoted. by Nomokonov VA Decree op. Vladivostok in 2004. p.43.

[20] For details see: VA Nomokonov Russia needs a strategy to combat corruption. Clean hands. 2000. № 4. p. 27-31.

[21] See: Gilevskaya M. Analysis of the anti-corruption program in Seoul. http://kiev-security.org.ua/box/4/78.shtml

[22] See: Miras A. Their manners. How to fight corruption in the world. http://www.zakon.kz/our/news/news.asp?id=30192302

[23] See: Gilevskaya M. Analysis of the anti-corruption program in Seoul. http://kiev-security.org.ua/box/4/78.shtml

[24] the same.

[25] See: Yu Chernega to live on one salary. Kommersant Vlast. 2002. August 20. S. 33, p. By Nomokonov VA Ordinance. Op. C.49.

[26] See: Fighting Corruption: South Korean experience. Seoul Gazette number 93 February 2005 http://vestnik.tripod.com/articles/korea-corruption-2.html

[27] the same.

[28] See: Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International in 2008. http://www.transparencykazakhstan.org/UserFiles/file/CPI2008.pdf

[29] See: Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International in 2006. http://www.transparencykazakhstan.org/UserFiles/file/CPI% 202007% 20presskit_FINAL_rus.pdf

[30] See: Fighting Corruption: South Korean experience. Seoul Gazette number 93 February 2005 http://vestnik.tripod.com/articles/korea-corruption-2.html

[31] Speech by President Bush at the Third Global Forum on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity. May 2003 http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-russian/2005/January/20050111083035XL...

[32] See: A. Kuznetsov, R. Yu Silinsky, Chomutov AV Russian and foreign legislation on anti-corruption measures. Vladivostok, 1999. p. 98-102

[33] The definition of corruption and responsibility for it is set out in Chapter 11, "Bribery, illegal income and conflict of interest" of title 18, United States Code. Article 201 titled chapters criminalizes the offering, promising or giving a bribe in exchange for committing illegal acts official (so-called "active bribery"). Paragraph (b) of this Article provides for the liability of a public official, which "directly or indirectly as a bribe demands, seeks, receives, accepts or agrees to receive or accept any value personally or for any other person or organization" in exchange for what- or unlawful act or omission in the service (passive bribery).

[34] I.V. Bocharnikov Foreign experience in combating corruption. Analytical Bulletin of the Federation Council. Number 6 (351) 2008 г.

[35] the same. p.2.

[36] See: A. Kuznetsov, R. Yu Silinsky, Chomutov AV Ordinance. Op. p. 100-103.

[37] See: Kurakins AV Civil Service Reform in Russia should have an anti-corruption focus. Russian justice. 2002. № 7. S. 26.

[38] See: Bocharnikov IV Ukaz.soch. Analytical Bulletin of the Federation Council. Number 6 (351) 2008 г. p.2.

[39] See: the Law "On Foreign Corrupt Practices Act" in 1977 See: De George R. T. Business Ethics. Moscow, 2001. p. 913-916

[40] For details see: The U.S. strategy in the fight against international corruption (based on the Trade Representation of the Russian Federation in the United States). BIKI. 1999. № 122. p. 5.

[41] United States, Europe leads the fight against corruption. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-russian/2005/January/20050111083035XL...

[42] International experience in fighting corruption: from China to the success of failure of Israel (analytical report of the Fund "for Democracy") Clean Hands. 1999 number 3 p. 17-26.

[43] See: Sheets SND and RF Armed Forces. 1992. N 17. St. 923.

[44] Russia and Corruption: Who. Moscow. 1998 p. 36.

[45] M.I. Grishankov Recommendations of the parliamentary hearings on the topic: "On the problems of implementation of the Russian legislation in connection with Russia's accession to the UN Convention against Corruption (2003), the Council of Europe" On the Criminal Law "(1999) and" On the civil liability Corruption "(1999)," Moscow 2004

[46] For details see: Levin Corruption is everywhere / / Kommersant Vlast. 2000. March 21. p. 28.

[47] INDEM. Corruption in Russia. Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2002. May 22.

[48] ​​See: Chershintsev VS Prevention of corruption offenses at the municipal level. Dissertation author's abstract on scientific degree of Candidate of Sciences. Moscow. 2008

[49] According to the Corruption Perception Index for 2008, Russia ranks 147th http://www.transparencykazakhstan.org/UserFiles/file/CPI2008.pdf

[50] From Vladimir Putin's speech January 12, 2004 at the first meeting of the Council on Combating Corruption under the President of Russia.

[51] See: Nomokonov V.A. Decree op. Vladivostok in 2004. p.63.

[52] See: E. Dvortcova bribe - a family affair. Russian business newspaper number 639 of February 5, 2008.

[53] the same.

[54] the same.

[55] the same.

[56] Mishin G. Ordinance. Op. p. 132.