The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia as a Subject of Anti-corruption Counteraction: Management Decisions in the National Security System

Sergeeva Anzhelika Anatol'evna PhD in Law Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, St. Petersburg Institute (Branch) All-Russian State University of Justice 199178, Russia, Cankt-Peterburg, g. Saint Petersburg, ul. 10-Ya liniya v.o., 19 lokhi@yandex.ru Other publications by this author     Voskoboinik Igor' Olegovich PhD in Law Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, St. Petersburg Institute (Branch) All-Russian State University of Justice 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, ul. 10th line V.O., 19 lokhi@rambler.ru Gurev Mikhail Sergeevich PhD in Law Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, St. Petersburg Institute (Branch) All-Russian State University of Justice 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg region, Saint Petersburg, ul. 10th line V.O., 19 lokhi@rambler.ru Other publications by this author     Gusenova Patimat Arislanalievna PhD in Law Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, St. Petersburg Institute (Branch) All-Russian State University of Justice 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, ul. 10th line V.O., 19 lokhi@rambler.ru Sokolova Elena Valer'evna PhD in Law Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, St. Petersburg Institute (Branch) All-Russian State University of Justice 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, ul. 10th line V.O., 19 lokhi@rambler.ru Other publications by this author     Martynenko Sergei Borisovich PhD in Law Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, St. Petersburg Institute (Branch) All-Russian State University of Justice 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, ul. 10th line V.O., 19 lokhi@rambler.ru

Ryvkin Stanislav Yur'evich PhD in Law Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, St. Petersburg Institute (Branch) All-Russian State University of Justice 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, ul. 10th line V.O., 19 lokhi@rambler.ru

The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia as a subject of anti-corruption counteraction: management decisions in the national security system

The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia as a subject of combating corruption should be endowed with independence in the formation of an anti-corruption strategy. At the same time , two levels of anti-corruption management decision-making should be distinguished:

- general – covering the entirety of the powers granted by law in the field of combating corruption, aimed at the implementation of strategic documents approved in the state;

- special – providing for the implementation of certain areas of anti-corruption.

The presence of these levels ensures the harmonization of the transition from strategic to operational management. In the field of anti-corruption, this means that the national strategy acquires not only a tactical embodiment, but is also implemented in a timely manner. In this regard, there is a need to create a specialized anti-corruption management system. The provisions of Article 5 of the Federal Law "On Combating Corruption" do not fully satisfy this need, since they contain the organizational foundations of vertical, power-administrative, interaction.

At the general level, anti-corruption management decisions are made that are implemented in the activities of all anti-corruption entities. Taking into account the existing structure of executive authorities in Russia, as well as Part 1 of Article 5 of the Federal Law "On Combating Corruption", anti-corruption management decisions falling within the competence of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia are made by the President of the Russian Federation. The first of them, based on the provisions of the current anti-corruption legislation, researchers rightly call the decision to create specialized anti-corruption units in the personnel services of federal state bodies ^{[1, p. 4-11]}. In the National Anti - Corruption Plan for 2016-2017 , there were three such decisions:

- amendments to departmental anti-corruption plans aimed at achieving concrete results in preventing corruption, minimizing and eliminating the consequences of corruption offenses (paragraph 2);

- adoption of measures to improve the effectiveness of anti-corruption (item 8);

- implementation of a set of measures aimed at identifying and suppressing specific manifestations of corruption (paragraph 12).

In the current National Anti-Corruption Plan for 2021-2024, the priority of implementing such decisions has been fully preserved. It is obvious that two of the three decisions mentioned cover the sphere of activity of all federal executive authorities, and one is addressed directly to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia as a subject of anti-corruption. Accordingly, on the basis of these general management decisions, several special ones should be developed, the execution of which will be assigned to specific divisions of the internal affairs bodies. The subject of these decisions are:

1. The sphere of preventing attempts to steal budget funds aimed at financing federal targeted programs and major investment projects. For the purpose of anti-corruption counteraction, when developing such management decisions, it is necessary to monitor information about already suppressed actions, as well as verify information about existing or terminated legal relations in this area. For example, in July 2016, the contract for the construction of a football stadium in St. Petersburg was terminated. The construction of this structure is timed to coincide with the 2018 FIFA World Cup, was carried out with numerous violations, took on the character of "long-term construction". Expenditures from the federal budget have already amounted to over 34 billion rubles, while in May 2016 the St. Petersburg Construction Committee recommended increasing the cost estimate by another 5 billion rubles. In such circumstances, and taking into account several cases of initiation of criminal cases against entrepreneurs acting as subcontractors, prompt identification of possible corruption-related offenses in the actions of the general contractor is required. 

2. The sphere of preventing attempts to steal funds intended for major repairs of apartment buildings. In this case, the development of specific management decisions should take into account not only the provisions of housing legislation, but also the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which required, when accumulating funds for capital repairs, to use the necessary measures aimed at properly informing citizens, to determine the order of capital repairs based on objective criteria and criteria for assessing the condition of apartment buildings (resolution of April 12 2016 No. 10-P).

3. The scope of detection and disclosure of corruption-related crimes committed in a group manner or caused large (especially large) damage. The relevant management decisions should be based on the provisions of the articles of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation regulating criminal liability for corruption-related crimes and establishing the procedure for the formation of investigative groups. Criminal legal counteraction is reasonably recognized as the most effective of the existing legitimate methods and means of countering corruption ^{[2, pp. 198-204]}. However, to date, bribe-takers predominate among persons convicted of corruption-related crimes (for example, in 2015 their share was 57% in the total structure of persons convicted of such crimes, and in 2021 it reached almost 60% ^[3]). It follows from this that the development of anti-corruption management decisions related to the detection and suppression of crimes should be based on an understanding of the higher public danger of actions committed by officials (for example, when planning the implementation of measures provided for by the National Anti-Corruption Plan, it would be necessary to predict the likely number of cases of detection of bribery).

4. The sphere of countering the provision of "kickbacks" when concluding government contracts. In this case, managerial decision-making is in two planes and affects the activities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia as a state customer, and also implies the identification of facts of illegal activity when concluding contracts by other entities. The problems of qualification of such crimes have already received scientific understanding ^{[4, p. 97-102]}, however, the management mechanism for countering them has not yet been formed.

5. The sphere of combating corruption by officials of state corporations and other enterprises with state participation. In this case, there may be a conflict between civil legislation and legislation on public service, so management decisions should take into account the special status of these legal entities. At the same time, the exercise of control over their activities is regulated by the federal law "On the Protection of the Rights of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs in the Exercise of State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control", adopted in 2008, the content of which is well known. Therefore, the legal basis of anti-corruption management decisions, on the one hand, is complicated by increasing the array of regulatory legal acts, and on the other hand, their development and implementation imply compliance with the requirements of norms, the essence of which does not constitute a separate issue. 

6. The sphere of activity of foreign officials and officials of public international organizations. In this case, it seems that anti-corruption management decisions should be based on the norms of the current legislation regulating the activities of organizations that are foreign agents, as well as the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation regarding the compliance of these norms with the Basic Law.

To a certain extent, the fact that the basis of anti-corruption management decisions, the implementation of which takes place with the participation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia and internal affairs bodies, requires the inclusion of general provisions on interdepartmental anti-corruption, developed for all public authorities and having a standard structure. Such provisions are not normative in nature, but are actively being implemented in the management activities of executive authorities.

For example, the Presidium of the Anti-Corruption Council under the President of the Russian Federation, the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Labor of Russia have developed about ten methodological materials defining the procedure for preventing corruption offenses, the consequences of identifying conflicts of interest, anti-corruption standards of official behavior. On the one hand, their development deserves approval, since it provides the subjects of anti-corruption with additional tools for making intradepartmental management decisions. At the same time, the effectiveness and inconsistency of the anti-corruption activities of state and municipal bodies is subjected to critical analysis ^{[5, p. 3-19]}, which seems quite reasonable.

On the other hand, there is currently a tendency to reproduce them in departmental regulatory legal acts without taking into account the specifics of the anti-corruption activities of the relevant anti-corruption entity. For example, in 2012, the Ministry of Labor of Russia prepared an overview of typical situations of conflict of interest in the civil service and the procedure for their settlement. In the same year, the Department of Service and Personnel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia approved methodological recommendations related to the activities of internal affairs bodies. Unfortunately, the content of these recommendations is almost identical. At the same time, they are not a regulatory legal act. At the same time, the development of methodological materials reflecting the main directions of operational and service activities should become the subject of intradepartmental management decisions.

At a special level, providing for the implementation of certain areas of anti-corruption, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia makes anti-corruption management decisions taking into account the dualistic role associated with participation in anti-corruption activities and the need to identify corruption offenses in its own ranks. Based on this, their legal basis is the provisions of the current legislation on combating corruption, on public service and service in the internal affairs bodies, on the police. These solutions can be divided into the following groups according to the subject of their implementation.

1. Organizational decisions implying the definition of the basics of anti-corruption intradepartmental interaction. 

2. Personnel decisions defining the basis of recruitment of personnel, the development of anti-corruption criteria and standards of official conduct.

3. Methodological solutions defining the basis of interaction of territorial bodies of various levels in the field of anti-corruption.

The integrity of the system of internal affairs bodies, explained by their common tasks and functions assigned to them by the current legislation ^{[6, p. 14-18]}, necessitates the availability of a set of management decisions that take into account organizational, personnel and methodological aspects. In addition, it ensures the efficiency of the hierarchy of internal affairs bodies and facilitates interdepartmental cooperation in the field of anti-corruption.

With the adoption of the Federal Law "On the Fundamentals of the system of crime prevention in the Russian Federation", the legal basis of anti-corruption management decisions can be supplemented and developed. Thus, the legislator fixed the definition of prevention as a set of measures of a social, legal, organizational, informational and other nature aimed at identifying the causes and conditions of committing offenses and providing educational influence on the persons who committed them (paragraph 2 of Article 1). Combating corruption, identifying and eliminating the causes of its occurrence is included in the list of the main directions of prevention offences (clause 12 of Article 6). Taking into account other provisions of this law, attention can be paid to the following norms reflecting the stages of adoption, execution (implementation), publication of the results of execution (report) anti-corruption management decisions:

- assessment and forecasting of criminogenic factors related to corruption manifestations (for example, on the basis of operational and official information on the dynamics of identified cases of police officers inclining to corrupt behavior);

- identification of persons prone to committing offenses (for example, according to the monitoring of information on the inclination of police officers to corrupt behavior, it can be concluded that the most common reason for this is to bring citizens to administrative or criminal responsibility. In this regard, preventive activities aimed at identifying potential bribe-takers become possible);

- the use of special measures for the prevention of offenses (taking into account the legal foundations of anti-corruption, it can be concluded that the most effective of them will be such as legal education, preventive conversation, preventive accounting, announcement of an official warning, introduction of ideas about the elimination of the causes and conditions of the offense).

In accordance with Part 2 of Article 17 of the Federal Law "On the basics of the system of prevention of offenses in the Russian Federation", the internal affairs bodies are authorized to use these forms of preventive action. The relevant anti-corruption management decisions should be taken after the entry into force of the law, designed for quarterly implementation, issued by orders of the heads of territorial internal affairs bodies on the basis of an order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia containing provisions on the application of this law. The structure of such an order should include an analysis of the anti-corruption potential of preventive measures provided for by federal law, determine the procedure for documenting preventive measures carried out, and establish the specifics of intradepartmental information exchange on preventive measures.

It should be noted that the adoption of anti-corruption management decisions should be subject to the general rules of strategic planning in the internal affairs bodies. N.D. Shelyakin, S.G. Minasov rightly refer to them: 1) analysis of the environment (the basis for decision-making); 2) formation of the mission and goals (selection of the necessary management categories); 3) formation of a portfolio of strategies; 4) determination of the growth rates of internal affairs bodies ^{[7, p. 6-7]}. Considering the management mechanism as an integral set of managerial elements through which subjects form a rational management system, R.R. Aliullov points out the need to differentiate law enforcement and control functions of internal affairs bodies ^{[8, p. 16]}. In the field of anti-corruption, this implies the separation of management decisions by law enforcement (aimed at identifying corruption offenses and crimes) and controlling (intended for preventive activities) signs.

In connection with the above, there is a need to develop anti-corruption criteria applicable to management decisions. Such criteria include the established absence of corruption risks in the execution of the decision, a transparent (open) mechanism for its execution, ensuring access of civil society institutions to information about the results of the implementation of the decision. The need for openness of the police and direct dialogue with society, emphasized by some researchers ^{[9, pp. 91-92; 10, pp. 55-59]}, seems indisputable. In this regard, making anti-corruption management decisions as public as possible becomes strategically justified.

In turn, the following positions can be called indicators of the development and implementation of anti-corruption management decisions: 1) the share of employees and civil servants of internal affairs bodies who have undergone anti-corruption training and advanced training; 2) the share of citizens who are aware of the results of combating corruption by the forces of internal affairs bodies; 3) the share of mass media posting materials on implemented anti-corruption management decisions. With the help of these indicators, the effectiveness of anti-corruption management decisions can be properly assessed.

The development and implementation of anti-corruption management decisions is one of the ways to optimize the activities of internal affairs bodies in the field of anti-corruption. An integrated approach requiring a combination of general and special level solutions will increase the efficiency of their implementation.