Countering corruption as a threat to public security in foreign countries

Filatova Elena ORCID: 0000-0002-4330-9775 PhD in Law Associate Professor of Southern Federal University 344000, Russia, Rostov-On-Don, B.sadovaya str., 105/42 elenarum27@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

The concept of "security" is a complex category that is quite multidimensional in its content, formed by a large number of constituent elements that acquire their essential manifestation in relation to various aspects of human life, society and the state. At the same time, if the problems of ensuring personal and state security are in the focus of attention of representatives of various branches of science, one of the key places among which is law, public security is given significantly less attention, although studies of the essence and characteristics of this category were inherent in both Russian pre-revolutionary and Soviet legal science.

In particular, back in 1874, the Russian jurist I.E. Andrievsky, using the concept of "public safety", meant by it a characteristic of the state of security of society as a whole [Andrievsky, 1874: 53]. In Soviet times, public safety was understood as a system of public relations and legal norms regulating them, aimed at maintaining public peace, the inviolability of life and health of citizens, ensuring their work and recreation, as well as the functioning of organizations, institutions and enterprises [Legal Encyclopedia, 1984: 204].

In modern Russian legal literature there is no uniform point of view regarding the interpretation of the essence of the definition of "public safety".

Thus, G.V. Osipov and V.N. Kuznetsov define this category as the ability of society to preserve its essence unchanged within the framework of the manifestation of real or potential threats and constant changes in environmental conditions [Osipov, Kuznetsov, 2005: 187]. According to K.A. Krasnova and E.T. Sibagatullina, it can be represented as a set of social relations that form conditions that are safe from the point of view of the normal course of public life [Krasnova, Sibagatullina, 2011: 7].

In this context, it should be pointed out that the above definitions are typical examples of using a broad approach to the interpretation of the essence of public security as a condition characterizing the normal mode of public life. At the same time, within the framework of a narrower administrative and legal approach, ensuring public safety is associated with the implementation of public relations, which are focused on leveling negative manifestations emanating from sources of increased danger. At the same time, N.A. Boshamdjieva directly refers public security to the objects of administrative and legal support [Boshamdjieva, 2012: 54].

Concerning the legal consolidation of the content of the concept of "public safety", we note that Article 1 of the Model Law "On Security", which was adopted by the Resolution of the Interparliamentary Committee No. 9-9 of October 15, 1999, defines the state of protection of life, health and well-being of citizens, as well as public values from dangers and threats that may cause them any damage.

A definition similar in its essential content is contained in the Concept of Public Security in the Russian Federation, approved by Presidential Decree No. Pr-2635 of November 14, 2013. The state of protection of man and citizen, material and spiritual values of society from criminal and other illegal encroachments, social and interethnic conflicts, natural and man-made emergencies.

It should be noted that in the scientific community there are different points of view regarding the correlation of the content side of the concepts of "public safety" and "national security". Thus, I.V. Kardasheva calls public security the "highest cross-section" of national security, stating that in terms of its significance it can only be correlated with such an element of national security as state security, while she believes that, while national security is a generic concept relative to the general concept of "security", public safety in such a hierarchy acts as a specific concept [Kardasheva, 2010: 110].

At the same time, Yu.G. Fedotova points to a wider range of manifestations of relations regarding public security, partly finding their manifestation within the framework of ensuring national security, and partly going beyond this framework (Fedotova, 2014: 3). M.A. Kamilov notes that the Concept of public security in the Russian Federation deduces from the content of this the concepts of aspects related to ensuring state security, which gives an individualized content to public security [Kamilov, 2014: 776].

Based on the normative definition contained in the text of the Concept of Public Security in the Russian Federation, it follows that the objects of its provision are, on the one hand, a person directly, and on the other – material and spiritual social values. At the same time, ensuring public safety involves the organization of countering manifestations of unlawful encroachments against public security facilities, natural and man-made emergencies, as well as problems caused by social and interethnic conflicts.

One of the factors that pose a systemic threat to public security in the text of this Concept is quite rightly and justifiably, given the realities of modern Russian public life, corruption is called, which is supported by many representatives of domestic legal thought [Gashko, 2019: 83]. In this context, it should be pointed out that if, in relation to the specifics of ensuring national security, manifestations of corruption carry threats of an economic and political nature, then the main threat to public security is the undermining of values and the entrenchment of negative practices of public behavior.

Undoubtedly, the period of socio-economic transformations that clearly manifested itself in our country in the 1990s had a significant impact on the expansion of the spectrum and significance of corruption practices in Russian reality, turning them into one of the key threats to public security.

Almost all States of the world have faced and continue to face manifestations of this threat. At the same time, many of these States experienced the negative impact of the spread of corruption on the state of public security much earlier than the Russian Federation, which allowed them to accumulate more substantial practical experience in countering this impact, the analysis of which is very useful both from a methodological and practical point of view. Of particular interest in the context of the attribution by many authors of public security to the objects of administrative and legal support are precisely the administrative and legal aspects of anti-corruption regulation.

First of all, it should be pointed out that there are two main models within which the system of combating corruption in foreign countries is built - vertical and horizontal.

The first of these models is often referred to as "Asian" or "Singapore", since it was its successful use in Singapore that made it possible to radically overcome the negative situation that has been characteristic of this city-state for a long time in terms of the level of corruption manifestations. The basic elements of this model are strict regulation of the implementation of anti-corruption rules and norms of conduct, in particular in the field of public service, and the presence of severe measures of legal responsibility, including administrative and legal for their violation.

The basic regulatory legal act forming the system of legal support for the fight against corruption in Singapore was the Act on the Prevention of Corruption adopted on June 17, 1960. At the same time, the state body with the main powers in the anti-corruption sphere, the Bureau for Investigating Corruption Practices of Singapore, was founded back in 1952, that is, before the country gained independence. The Bureau's powers extend to both public and private sector organizations. In cases of detection of relevant offenses, the Bureau initiates a procedure to eliminate the causes of corruption and makes recommendations to the relevant departments. At the same time, the investigation is often based on the assumption that an official has committed a corruption crime, the absence of involvement in which he must prove. Also, within the framework of activities aimed at neutralizing corruption risks in the context of ensuring public safety, educational tools are actively used.

It should be noted that all Singapore civil servants are required to submit annual declarations of their property, financial assets and debt obligations. The open nature of data on the state of income, commercial interests and financial transactions of officials allows for the necessary level of transparency of the public administration system.

It should be noted that Singapore's legislation defines the receipt of benefits of both material and non-material nature as a corruption crime. At the same time, a number of categories of employees, for example, employed in financial and credit organizations, are required to report the presence of property acquired by illegal means from clients, and failure to comply with this requirement entails a fine of 20 thousand Singapore dollars.

In turn, the financial and credit institutions themselves are charged with identifying "dubious" financial assets and property objects involved in transactions and informing authorized state structures about it. The amount of the fine imposed on violators of this requirement is 10 thousand Singapore dollars [Filippov, 2014: 146].

Foreign legal entities and individuals who have committed corruption offenses, in addition to imposing a large fine on them, are deprived of the right to continue their activities on the territory of Singapore.

In turn, the horizontal model of anti-corruption, also known as the "Swedish" or "European", is focused on the priority of active education of the population on the ideological postulates of intolerance to corruption and building on this basis a set of other measures aimed at countering corruption manifestations in society.

One of the most successful examples of the implementation of this model is the system of anti-corruption practices implemented in the Benelux countries. Thus, every Belgian civil servant has an electronic personal account in which he reflects information about his income, which in turn is checked by authorized bodies for compliance with official data. If a discrepancy is found, an internal audit is carried out, according to the results of which the person guilty of concealing any information about his income is deprived of the opportunity to hold any public office in the future.

For every representative of public authority in Belgium, it is mandatory to follow the norms of the code of ethics of a public official. Decent financial conditions and the possible threat of losing a position are a good safety mechanism that keeps Belgian officials from committing corruption offenses. At the same time, the national anti-corruption strategy is largely focused on finding new ways of legal education of young people in line with the formation of anti-corruption awareness of citizens.

In the Netherlands, along with the impossibility for an employee convicted of committing a corruption offense to hold any public office in the future, he faces the loss of all pension and social benefits due to which he finds himself in a rather difficult life situation [Kislukhin, 2018: 185].

An interesting element of the administrative and legal regulation of combating corruption as a threat to public security in Germany is the maintenance of a register of corrupt legal entities. In case of entering into such a register, a legal entity is deprived of the right to fulfill any government orders, and law enforcement agencies are obliged to monitor all transactions of such a business entity.

Germany also implements a mechanism for systematic rotation of personnel in positions subject to increased corruption risks. The list of such positions is approved by German legislation [Kirakosyan, 2016: 62].

German officials are not restricted in the right to accept gifts, but their value should not exceed the value of a clearly defined monetary equivalent. At the same time, a gifted person is obliged to immediately report such a fact to his management by providing a detailed report. If, in the opinion of the manager, the employee did not have the right to accept a certain gift, the latter is withdrawn into the ownership of the state, and the employee is subject to disciplinary action. In many German federal states, there are local regulations prohibiting civil servants from hiring close relatives (in particular, a similar ban is provided for in Bavaria).

It is also necessary to note the positive experience of the United States of America, which has created an effective system of administrative and legal regulation measures aimed at combating corruption, not only within the borders of the state, but also at the international level. In particular, the latter aspect is regulated by the Law "On Corruption Abroad", adopted in 1977 (Shakirov, 2011: 101). In turn, the anti-corruption norms that are mandatory for civil servants are regulated by the "Principles of Moral Behavior of Officials and Employees" of 1990 and the Act "On Ethics of Behavior of Civil Servants in the USA" of 1978.

In general, the main administrative and legal measures of anti-corruption regulation in accordance with US law are as follows:

· constant monitoring of the mandatory declaration of employee income and expenses for the year;

· prohibiting government employees from receiving valuable gifts;

· the existence of the institution of reporting cases of corruption in public authorities, as well as legislative protection of persons who submitted such a report;

· the activities of a specially appointed employee in each department of the executive power to coordinate and monitor compliance by officials with anti-corruption behavior standards;

· legislative regulation of lobbyists' activities;

· wide involvement of public organizations in anti-corruption activities.

At the same time, in our opinion, from the point of view of ensuring public safety, special attention should be paid to the last of the mentioned aspects. In many states, such an instrument as public (public) anti-corruption control plays a very significant role, and the mechanisms for its implementation are the object of regulatory regulation.

The activity of public control institutions in many countries of the world has become a noticeable factor that can effectively influence the level of manifestation of corruption-causing factors that pose a threat to public safety.

Thus, public associations of the Republic of Belarus are legally entitled to participate in the development and discussion of draft anti-corruption normative legal acts and the activities of anti-corruption commissions established by state organizations, as well as coordination meetings on combating corruption with the right of advisory vote.

Brazil is implementing a program to stimulate public control "A Living View of public Spending", which, based on the mobilization of a wide range of public opinion leaders and ensuring information openness, involves Brazilian society in the process of functioning of anti-corruption mechanisms.

There are a number of anti-corruption public associations in Sweden, in particular the so-called "Anti-Bribery Institute", operating under the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and Industry and contributing to the development of general principles of anti-corruption behavior and the implementation of these principles in the business environment.

Also very interesting is the experience accumulated in Ireland of the activities of public commissions to investigate corruption, formed from the most authoritative judges and lawyers and called "independent tribunals". At the same time, the facts of corruption orders of senior government officials and cases characterized by high social significance fall into their field of attention.

As for the formation of a system of public (public) control in Russian practice, we note that Federal Law No. 212 of July 21, 2014 "On the Basics of public Control in the Russian Federation" defines such forms as monitoring, examination, hearings (discussion), verification (investigation).

At the same time, it should be noted that domestic legislation does not adequately define the functions and powers of public control institutions, the range of issues that are the subject of public control, and the procedures for its implementation. According to M.V. Shediy's quite fair remark, if there are separate institutions of public control in the Russian Federation in the field of combating corruption, there is no integral system of such control [Shediy, 2014: 128].

In this context, it seems necessary to legislatively regulate the order of interaction of public control institutions with state and municipal bodies, as well as the responsibility of the latter for non-assistance or opposition to structures empowered to carry out public anti-corruption control.

Summing up the analysis, I would like to note that the use of foreign experience of administrative and legal regulation both in the field of formation of mechanisms of public (public) anti-corruption control and improvement of anti-corruption mechanisms in general is one of the most important areas of ensuring public safety due to the extremely high danger posed by modern trends in the development of corruption processes for the formation of the environment, characteristic of a healthy society.