• Благотворительный фонд Весна в сердце




Russia takes small steps to fight judicial graft


Although judges in Russia are generally immune from criminal prosecution, the law allows their prosecution for bribery. And each year, the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation opens multiple criminal investigations against judges for alleged bribe taking, with some cases resulting in convictions and punishment. Continue reading →


Russia: No corporate criminal liability for bribes, but there’s still punishment


There is no criminal liability of a legal entity for bribery in Russia because only a person is subject to the Russian criminal law. But that’s not the end of the story.

Under an administrative law, a legal entity can be held liable for a bribe if someone acting on behalf of the legal entity paid the bribe. An example would be when an employee pays a bribe so that the company can obtain a license for some business activity. In that situation, the person can be prosecuted under the criminal law. The company isn’t subject to criminal prosecution but can be held responsible under the administrative law.

Article 19.28 of the Code of the Russian Federation on the Administrative Offenses dated December 30, 2001 № 195- FZ imposes administrative liability on a legal entity — here’s a rough translation — “for the unlawful provision, offer or promise of anything of value to a public official for any actions or omissions to act in the interests of the legal entity.”

The sanctions for violations vary, depending on the amount of “the unlawful remuneration” (the bribe). The minimum sanction is a fine of up to three times of the amount of the bribe, but not less than RUB 1,000,000 ($17,450). The maximum sanction is a fine of up to 100 times of the amount of the bribe, but not less that RUB 100 million ($1.745 million). In all cases, the government has the right to confiscate the amount of the bribe or its equivalent.

The official statistical figures demonstrate year to year an increasing the number of cases being decided by Russian courts under Article 19.28 the Code of Administrative Offenses. In 2011, courts convicted only 65 entities under the provision. In 2012 the number of cases doubled (101) and in 2013 reached 222 cases. There is no statistical information yet for 2014.

Moreover, when a company is fined due to the administrative proceeding, the fine is deemed to be damages suffered by the company. Thus a shareholder of the company has a right to sue any culpable directors of the company for damages.

Kristina Furlet serves as compliance specialist in a Russian subsidiary of a global provider of telecom services.

Source: The FCPA blog.

Article originally appeared on The FCPA Blog (http://www.fcpablog.com/).


A step in the right direction – Russia’s proposed regulation of bribery in arbitration


crp

Corruption has been a feature of human existence for thousands of years; it is considered <<an insidious plague>> (Kofi A. Annan), which has a destructive impact on both states and societies. Unfortunately, both international commercial arbitration and Russian domestic arbitration can be tainted by corruption.

On 2 June 2014, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation announced draft amendments to the Criminal Code of Russia, which are designed to combat bribery of domestic arbitrators. Mikhail Samoylov, Senior Associate at KIAP Attorneys at Law and Lexis®PSL Arbitration contributor, discusses this latest development.

(далее…)


Малазийскому арбитру предъявлено обвинение в вымогательстве взятки


yusof-holmes

26 июня Малазийское арбитражное сообщество шокировано новостью о том, что Малазийская антикоррупционная комиссия (The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)) предъявила обвинение Юзофу Холмесу Абдуллы (Yusof Holmes Abdullah), 69 лет, арбитру Регионального центра арбитража в Куала-Лумпур (Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA)), адвокату, члену Арбитражного комитета Малазийской Международной торговой палаты (Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Committee) (на фотографии крайний справа).

Юзоф Абдула подозревается в вымогательстве взятки размером 6 миллионов малазийских ринггит (RM) (эквивалент $ 1,8 млн.) в период с 1 августа по 30 сентября 2012 года в связи с участием в рассмотрении спора в качестве арбитра. Соучастником по делу выступает бизнесмен Сью Тек Хуа (Siew Teck Hua), 59 лет (на фотографии по центру).

Обоим предъявлено обвинение по разделу 16 (А) Малазийского закона об антикоррупционной комиссии (the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009), предусматривающему ответственность до 20 лет тюремного заключения или крупный штраф, согласно разделу 24 (1) (А) закона.

По решению суда Юзофу Абдула и Сью Теку избрана мера пресечения в виде залога в размере RM50 000 каждому. Оба обвиняемых заявили о своей невиновности.

26 июня Региональный центр арбитража распространил пресс-релиз, согласно которому Юзоф Абдула исключен из списка арбитров центра.

Следует отметить, что буквально за несколько дней до предъявления обвинения, а именно 18 июня, Региональный центр арбитража и Малазийская антикоррупционная комиссия подписали соглашение о сотрудничестве в сфере противодействия коррупции и был пересмотрен Кодекс поведения арбитров (Code of Conduct for Arbitrator), также направленный и на борьбу с коррупцией.

Фотография: Asman Ibrahim, New Straits Times