Tomorrow, the Open Government will hold another review of our initiative to criminalize illicit enrichment by public officials. Remember, the expert group already met on this issue on February 9? Back then, we were warned that we were bringing back a new '37 (a reference to 1937, the height of Stalin-era repression), and were also told that fighting corruption is a sure path to a color revolution. In the end, no decision was made because there was no quorum.
For our part, we approached this as constructively as possible, carefully reviewed all objections of a legal—not political—nature, and drafted a new version of the amendment to the Criminal Code that we are ready to submit to the Open Government.
I won’t burden you with legal technicalities, but in general all the objections came down to “the act itself has not been properly defined.” Here is what the revised text looks like. In substance, it fully matches what we all voted for on the Russian Public Initiative platform (ROI), and in terms of legal drafting it should now satisfy all our critics as well.
“Article 290.1. Illicit Enrichment
The possession, disposal, or use by a public official, outside the performance of official duties, of assets whose value substantially exceeds that official’s lawful income shall be punishable by a fine of up to twice the amount of the illicit enrichment, together with disqualification from holding certain positions or engaging in certain activities for up to three years, or by imprisonment for up to two years with a fine equal to one fifth of the amount of the illicit enrichment.
The same act, when committed by a person holding a state office of the Russian Federation or a state office of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as by the head of a local self-government body, shall be punishable by a fine of up to five times the amount of the illicit enrichment, together with disqualification from holding certain positions or engaging in certain activities for up to three years, or by imprisonment for up to three years with a fine equal to one half of the amount of the illicit enrichment.
The acts provided for in parts one and two of this article, when committed on a large scale, shall be punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, together with disqualification from holding certain positions or engaging in certain activities for up to three years, and a fine equal to twice the amount of the illicit enrichment.
The acts provided for in parts one and two of this article, when committed on an especially large scale, shall be punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years and a fine equal to five times the amount of the illicit enrichment.
Notes.
For the purposes of this article, assets shall mean securities, real estate, vehicles, other property, as well as property-related liabilities.
For the purposes of this article, public officials shall mean persons who, under the legislation of the Russian Federation, are required to submit to the employer’s representative (employer) information on their income, property, and property-related liabilities.
For the purposes of this article, the use of assets shall mean the repeated use, application, and/or deriving of beneficial properties from assets that the public official treats as his or her own.
For the purposes of this article, lawful income shall mean income information about which, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, is submitted by the public official (or a person seeking appointment to a position) to the employer’s representative (employer).
For the purposes of this article, “substantial” shall mean that the value of a public official’s assets exceeds that official’s lawful income by more than 5 million rubles.
For the purposes of this article, illicit enrichment on a large scale shall mean that the value of a public official’s assets exceeds that official’s lawful income by more than 10 million rubles; illicit enrichment on an especially large scale, by more than 30 million rubles.”
Last time, whether I would be allowed into the Open Government meeting was uncertain; this time, as you understand, I definitely won’t be getting in. But we very much hope that the Open Government staff will not once again engage in petty manipulation with access passes, and that the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF) staff responsible for Campaign #20 will be able to attend the meeting.
In this connection, we sent two letters to Mikhail Abyzov. The first demands access for ACF staff, journalists, and independent experts, as well as an online broadcast; the second demands that we be provided with a transcript or audio recording of the February 9 meeting.
In short, we are constructive, positive, backed by 100,000 people who supported the initiative, and we know exactly what needs to be done.