Use the Lexology Navigator tool to compare the answers in this article with those from other jurisdictions.
Trends and climate
Have there been any recent changes in the enforcement of anti-corruption regulations?
Russian corporate bribery investigations
According to information published by the General Prosecutor’s Office, 397 legal entities were held liable for bribery offences in 2016 alone (based on Article 19.28 of the Administrative Offences Code regarding unlawful remuneration on behalf of a legal entity). A similar figure can be expected for 2017, given that 231 legal entities had been punished for bribery offences by September 4 2017.
Most cases – almost all dealing with illegal payments to civil servants or employees of other companies – resulted in a fine. Depending on the bribe sum, the law provides for fines of up to Rb100 million (approximately $1.7m), or even more. However, in the vast majority of the cases only the minimum Rb1 million fine was imposed, meaning that Russian bribery investigations against legal entities focus on small-scale bribery.
The disclosed information also shows that bribery investigations target almost exclusively Russian companies with Russian beneficiaries. For 2016 only two cases against foreign companies (one Kazakh company and one Turkish construction company) and only a few cases against Russian subsidiaries of foreign companies (eg, German and Dutch) were disclosed.
Non-Russian enforcement actions
In 2016 and 2017 the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Department of Justice completed several enforcement actions for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act relating to Russia. Most published cases occurred in the Russian healthcare sector. In contrast to Russian investigations, these actions targeted large-scale bribery and resulted in significant fines.
Other non-Russian law enforcement authorities may investigate bribery and anti-corruption offences related to Russia. For example, in August 2017 Sweden's National Anti-Corruption Unit charged a Russian employee of Bombardier Transportation Sweden and former head of business development at its Moscow office with bribery to win the 2013 tender for modernisation of the rail-signalling systems in Azerbaijan. The employee was accused of giving bribes to an official of Azerbaijan Railways to ensure that the $340 million contract was awarded to a Bombardier-led consortium. In October 2017 the employee was acquitted by the Swedish court; however, the prosecutors appealed the decision. Further, other (German and Swedish) Bombardier senior employees may also face charges.
In addition to law enforcement actions, bribery and corruption offences relating to Russia may have other adverse consequences outside of Russia. Since Bombardier's Azerbaijan contract was partly financed by the World Bank, the World Bank is now conducting an anti-corruption audit into this project. Should the World Bank audit conclude that Bombardier participated in corrupt practices, it may be barred from participating in other World Bank-financed projects.
Inspection of companies
Outside of bribery investigations, during the past year Russian prosecutors have been actively performing inspections of Russian legal entities to check whether they have adopted the anti-corruption measures which must be undertaken by organisations operating in Russia, according to Article 13.3 of the Anti-corruption Law.
Russian law does not specify penalties for non-compliance with the requirements of Article 13.3. Therefore, the prosecutors filed civil law claims “in the interest of an indefinite number of persons” which were processed by the courts. These claims resulted in numerous court orders obliging companies to implement anti-corruption measures within a certain period (usually one month).
Practice shows that Russian subsidiaries of foreign companies are also frequently subject to such checks.
Disclosure of beneficial owners
Amendments to Federal Law 115-FZ on Combatting Money Laundering, which have been effective since December 2016, upped the pressure on Russian legal entities to identify their beneficial owners. For various reasons, these beneficial owners are often concealed by sophisticated cross-border corporate structures.
Each Russian legal entity must now take feasible action – even in difficult circumstances – to identify their Russian or foreign beneficial owners and disclose on request such information to the Russian Federal Financial Monitoring Service or the tax authorities. Shareholders and persons otherwise controlling a legal entity must provide the required information to the legal entity. The beneficial owner data must be verified annually and kept for at least five years. Failure to collect, disclose or provide relevant information may result in administrative fines for legal entities and their officers.
These amendments may simplify know-your-customer due diligence which often fails in practice due to a general reluctance of potential Russian business partners to disclose their beneficial owners.
Are there plans for any changes to the law in this area?
Criminal liability of legal entities
At present, under Russian law only individuals can bear criminal liability, including liability for bribery and corruption (Article 19 of the Criminal Code). Therefore, organisations can be held liable only under the Administrative Offences Code. The State Duma is now considering a draft law extending criminal liability to legal entities (Draft Federal Law 750443-6 (March 23 2015)). However, since the draft was not supported by the government or the Supreme Court, it is not possible to predict if this law will actually enter into force.
Extended whistleblower protection
In February 2017 the Federal Ministry of Labour proposed a draft law amending the Anti-corruption Law. On October 16 2017 the draft law was submitted to the State Duma. The proposed amendments should encourage individuals in Russia to contribute to the prosecution of corruption-related offences in the public and private sectors. For this purpose, protection by the state will be granted to individuals who report corruption offences to their employer, the Public Prosecutor's Office or the police, or those who have otherwise contributed to the counteraction of corruption.
State protection shall be afforded by:
- protection of the whistleblower from unlawful dismissal or any other disadvantages in his or her employment relations;
- a confidentiality regime with respect to the whistleblower’s identity and the reported corruption offence; and
- free legal aid for the whistleblower.
Should the draft law be adopted in its present form, problems could be caused in practice by the proposed confidentiality regime. Under the draft law, the company, its legal advisers and informed third parties must keep the reporting content (ie, details of the corruption case) and the whistleblower’s identity confidential. Within the company, the whistleblower's identity should be disclosed only with the whistleblower's consent. In order to comply with these requirements within the framework of Russian law, many companies would have to significantly amend their existing reporting system on compliance violations, in particular where this system provides for cross-border reporting to external compliance departments.
Which authorities are responsible for investigating bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction?
Bribery and corruption offences under the Administrative Offences Code (committed by legal entities and individuals) and the Criminal Code (committee by individuals) are generally investigated by the Public Prosecutor's Office. The relevant functions of the Public Prosecutor's Office are distributed among:
- the General Prosecutor's Office at the federal level;
- the prosecutor's offices in the 85 so-called ‘subjects of the Russian Federation’ at the regional level; and
- the prosecutor's offices of the districts and cities at the municipal level.
In addition, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation – a federal authority previously part of the of the Public Prosecutor's Office, but since 2011 separate and subordinated directly to the President of the Russian Federation – performs pre-investigative reviews of notifications on offences and preliminary investigations against individuals for bribery and corruption offences under the Criminal Code. The Investigative Committee performs its functions at the federal, regional and municipal levels, through its:
- central office at the federal level;
- investigative departments in the subjects of the Russian Federation; and
- investigative departments of the districts and cities.
In specific sectors, the functions of other law enforcement authorities may overlap with the investigative functions of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Investigative Committee. In particular, violations of antitrust requirements during public procurement processes, especially state tenders, are often accompanied by bribery and corruption offences which are then investigated by the Federal Anti-monopoly Service (FAS). Following the completion by FAS of its own investigations and the imposition of administrative penalties for the violation of antitrust requirements, the matters may then be transferred to the Public Prosecutor's Office for the opening of criminal proceedings.
What are the key legislative and regulatory provisions relating to bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction?
The relevant Russian legislation mainly consists of the following:
- anti-corruption laws – in particular:
- the National Anti-corruption Plan, which is adopted every two years by the president, coordinates efforts to combat corruption in Russia and lists the specific anti-corruption measures to be taken by the Russian state; and
- Federal Law 273-FZ on Combatting Corruption (December 25 2008), which sets out the legal and organisational framework for the prevention and combat of corruption and the mitigation and remediation of the consequences of corruption;
- antitrust regulation – in particular, Federal Law 135-FZ on the Protection of Competition (July 26 2006), of which Article 17 regulates antitrust requirements applicable to public tenders and Article 18 sets out rules for selecting financial organisations;
- public procurement regulation – in particular:
- Federal Law 44-FZ on the Contract System in State and Municipal Procurement of Goods, Works and Services (April 5 2013), which was adopted to prevent corruption and other violations in the area of public procurement and to ensure:
- the efficiency and transparency of the decision-making process;
- equal access of bidders; and
- control over the procurement process; and
- Federal Law 223-FZ on Procurement of Goods, Works and Services by Certain Types of Legal Entities (July 18 2011), which establishes specific procurement procedures for legal entities of the Russian Federations such as state corporations and state companies;
- Federal Law 44-FZ on the Contract System in State and Municipal Procurement of Goods, Works and Services (April 5 2013), which was adopted to prevent corruption and other violations in the area of public procurement and to ensure:
- the Administrative Offences Code, which establishes administrative liability for violations of anti-corruption laws and antitrust and public procurement regulation; and
- the Criminal Code, which establishes criminal liability for violations of anti-corruption laws and antitrust and public procurement regulations.
What international anti-corruption conventions apply in your jurisdiction?
The following conventions apply:
- The United Nations Convention against Corruption of October 31 2003, ratified by Federal Law 40-FZ (March 8 2006, entered into force on March 21 2006).
- The Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption of January 27 1999, ratified by Federal Law 125-FZ (July 25 2006, entered into force on July 28 2006).
- The Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime of November 8 1990, ratified by Federal Law 62-FZ (May 28 2001, entered into force on May 31 2001).
- The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime of November 15 2000, ratified by Federal Law 26-FZ (April 26 2004, entered into force on April 29 2004).
- The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9 1999, ratified by Federal Law 88-FZ (July 10 2002, entered into force on July 13 2002).
- The Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on Financing of Terrorism of May 16 2005, ratified by the Federal Law 183-FZ (July 26 2017, entering into force on August 6 2017).
Specific offences and restrictions
What are the key corruption and bribery offences in your jurisdiction?
The following are the key corruption and bribery offences in Russia:
- Unlawful remuneration on behalf of a legal entity – Article 19.28 of the Administrative Offences Code prohibits the bribery of Russian or foreign civil servants or state officials or executives of commercial or other organisations to induce them to use their authority to act in favour of a legal entity.
- Bribery in commercial organisations – Articles 204 and 204.2 of the Criminal Code prohibits the giving to and taking of bribes by executives of commercial or other organisations in connection with their positions in these organisations.
- Mediation in bribery in commercial organisations – Article 204.1 of the Criminal Code prohibits the direct transfer of bribes to executives of commercial or other organisations on a considerable scale (ie, exceeding Rb25,000, approximately $400) on instructions by the bribe giver or bribe taker, as well as promises and proposals of such transfers.
- Bribe taking by civil servants – Articles 290 and 291.2 of the Criminal Code prohibits the taking of bribes by Russian or foreign civil servants or state officials to induce them to use their authority to act in favour of the bribe giver.
- Bribe giving to civil servants – Articles 291 and 291.2 of the Criminal Code prohibits the giving of bribes to Russian or foreign civil servants or state officials.
- Mediation in bribery of civil servants – Article 291.1 of the Criminal Code prohibits the direct transfer of bribes to Russian or foreign civil servants or state officials on a considerable scale (ie, exceeding Rb25,000, approximately $400) on instructions by the bribe giver or bribe taker, as well as promises and proposals of such transfers.
Are specific restrictions in place regarding the provision of hospitality (eg, gifts, travel expenses, meals and entertainment)? If so, what are the details?
Prohibition of gifts exceeding Rb3,000 in relationships between commercial organisations
Article 575(1) of the Civil Code prohibits any gifts – except for common gifts with a value of up to Rb3,000 (approximately $50) – in relations between commercial organisations. Since under Russian law any benefits transferred to the donee qualify as a gift (Article 572(1) of the Civil Code), this prohibition also extends to travel expenses, meals, entertainment and other hospitality costs.
Transactions performed in violation of Article 575(1) of the Civil Code are generally considered to be void. Thus, the received benefits must theoretically be returned or compensated by the donee (Article 167(2) of the Civil Code). In practice, the prohibition on gifts with a value of more than Rb3,000 is reflected in the Russian companies’ compliance regulations. Violations of these restrictions may then also have adverse labor law consequences for the relevant employees.
Even if the transfer of the gift does not violate Article 575(1) of the Civil Code (ie, the gift is common and its value does not exceed Rb3,000), such transaction may still be subject to liability under the Criminal Code if it was performed with criminal intent.
General prohibition of receipt of gifts by civil servants and state officials
Russian legislation generally prohibits the receipt by Russian civil servants and state officials of any remuneration in connection with the performance of their duties from individuals or legal entities (including gifts, money, loans, services, entertainment costs and travel expenses).
A civil servant is any individual professionally exercising state functions at the federal, regional or municipal level, according to Federal Law 58-FZ on the System of State Service in the Russian Federation, Federal Law 79-FZ on Public Service of the Russian Federation, Federal Law 76-FZ on the Status of Military Personnel and Federal Law 25-FZ on Municipal Service in the Russian Federation. The term ‘state official’ extends to a limited number of individuals who directly exercise state powers at the federal level or the level of the 85 subjects of the Russian Federation.
The general prohibition to accept gifts does not apply to gifts received by Russian civil servants and state officials in connection with protocol events, business trips and other official events. However, gifts received at such occasions are deemed to be state property and subject to transfer to the relevant state body (eg, Article 17(1)(6) of Federal Law 79-FZ on Public Service of the Russian Federation).
General prohibition of receipt of gifts by employees of state corporations
According to Article 349.1 of the Labour Code and Article 2(b) of Order of the Russian Government 841 of August 21 2012, the general prohibition to receive gifts is extended to certain positions in state corporations and state companies.
State corporations and state companies are non-commercial organisations which are set up by the Russian Federation under a federal law (Articles 7.1 and 7.2 of the Law on Non-commercial Organisations). Examples for state corporations include:
- Roscosmos; and
Commercial organisations with a majority participation by the Russian state (eg, Gazprom Public Joint Stock Company and Rosneft Oil Company) do not qualify as state corporations or companies in the meaning of Article 349.1 of the Labour Code. However, they are still subject to the restrictions of Article 575(1) of the Civil Code and potentially to the even stricter requirements under the organisation's internal compliance regulations.
Administrative and criminal liability
The violation of the above-listed restrictions regarding the granting and receiving of gifts does not entail any administrative or criminal liability. Such liability would require the completion of additional elements of an administrative or criminal offence, in particular criminal intent. The scope of the penalties under the Administrative Offences Code and the Criminal Code depends on the amount of the bribe sum.
Best practice in Russia is the adoption by an organisation of internal compliance regulations incorporating:
- the prohibition of granting and receiving gifts exceeding Rb3,000 in relationships between commercial organisations, according to Article 575(1) of the Civil Code; and
- the general prohibition of granting any gifts to Russian civil servants and state officials or employees of state corporations and companies.
The adoption of such internal compliance regulations is one of the anti-corruption measures to be mandatorily undertaken by each organisation operating in Russia, according to Article 13.3 of the Anti-Corruption Law.
What are the rules relating to facilitation payments?
There are no specific rules under Russian law regulating facilitation payments. Such payments are therefore subject to the general rule on the prohibition of gifts whose value exceeds Rb3,000 (approximately $50) in relationships between commercial organisations and the penalties for unlawful remuneration and bribery under the Administrative Offences Code and the Criminal Code.
Scope of liability
Can both individuals and companies be held liable under anti-corruption rules in your jurisdiction?
Under the Administrative Offences Code, both individuals and companies can be held liable for administrative offences (Articles 1.4(1) and 2.10).
Under the Criminal Code, only individuals can bear criminal liability (Article 19). However, a draft law extending criminal liability to legal entities is under consideration by the Russian State Duma.
Can agents or facilitating parties be held liable for bribery offences and if so, under what circumstances?
No specific rules under Russian law regulate the administrative or criminal liability of agents or facilitating parties. These agents and parties are therefore held liable for bribery offences under the Administrative Offences Code (in particular, unlawful remuneration on behalf of a legal entity according to Article 19.28) and the Criminal Code.
Can foreign companies be prosecuted for corruption in your jurisdiction?
Under the Administrative Offences Code, foreign companies bear administrative liability for administrative offences committed in Russia. Administrative offences under Article 19.28 of the Administrative Offences Code (ie, unlawful remuneration on behalf of legal entity) which were committed outside Russia can be prosecuted:
- if they are directed against the interests of Russia; or
- in the cases provided for by international treaties which Russia has signed (Article 1.8(3) of the Administrative Offences Code).
The Strategy of National Security of the Russian Federation (approved by Presidential Decree 683, December 31 2015) defines the national interests only vaguely as the “aggregate of internal and external needs of the Russian state to ensure security and sustained development of its identity, society and nation”. Based on this vague definition, theoretically any foreign bribery offence involving a Russian element may be subject to administrative proceedings in Russia.
However, the risk of ungrounded extraterritorial investigations is limited to a certain extent by the express prohibition of double jeopardy – Russian jurisdiction arises only if the foreign company has not been held liable in a foreign state.
Under the Criminal Code, companies – including foreign companies – cannot bear criminal liability (Article 19). However, the State Duma is considering a draft law to extend criminal liability to legal entities, which would impose criminal liability on foreign companies based on principles identical to those of the Administrative Offences Code.
Whistleblowing and self-reporting
Are whistleblowers protected in your jurisdiction?
At present, Russian law contains only one specific provision on the protection of whistleblowers. Article 9(4) of the Anti-corruption Law states that civil servants or state officials who report on corruption violations will enjoy state protection. However, this protection is afforded only in accordance with the general Russian legal provisions granting protection to participants in criminal cases (in particular, the Criminal Procedure Code, Federal Law 119-FZ on State Protection of Victims, Witnesses and Other Participants in Criminal Proceedings (August 20 2004) and Federal Law 46-FZ on State Protection of Judges, Public Officials of Law Enforcement and Controlling Bodies of (April 20 1995)).
In February 2017 the Federal Ministry of Labour proposed a draft law amending the Anti-corruption Law to extend the whistleblower protection in the public and private sectors. For this purpose, protection by the state will be granted to whistleblowers who report corruption offences to their employer, the Public Prosecutor's Office or the police, or those who have otherwise contributed to the counteraction of corruption. The draft law was submitted to the State Dumaon October 16 2017.
Is it common for leniency to be shown to organisations that self-report and/or cooperate with authorities? If so, what process must be followed?
Under Article 4.2(3) of the Administrative Offences Code, the voluntary disclosure of an offence to the competent law enforcement authority qualifies as an extenuating circumstance. This means that the amount of the fine imposed on an organisation for violation of Article 19.28 of the Administrative Offences Code (unlawful remuneration on behalf of a legal entity) will be reduced. However, the court has sole discretion as to the scope of reduction of the fine.
According to Articles 204 (bribery in a commercial organisation), 204.1 (mediation in bribery in a commercial organisation), 291 (bribe taking by a civil servant) or 291.1 (mediation in bribery of a civil servant) of the Criminal Code, the bribe giver is released from criminal liability if he or she:
- actively enabled the discovery or investigation of the crime;
- was subject to blackmailing by the bribe taker; or
- following commission of the crime, voluntarily informed the competent law enforcement authority of the bribe taking.
Following the adoption of the proposed legislative changes according to which criminal liability is extended to legal entities, organisations that self-report may also benefit from these leniency provisions.
The reporting to non-Russian law enforcement authorities regularly requires the transfer of protected data from Russia to foreign jurisdictions. The collection and cross-border transfer of such data is subject to extensive Russian regulation.
In particular, emails, WhatsApp messages, SMS and other correspondence by Russian employees are protected by the ‘privacy of communication’ principle. Unless the Russian company adopted internal rules on the use of office communication means for business purposes only, the collection and transfer of such data requires prior written consent by the relevant employees.
Further, confidential materials may be protected by the so-called ‘commercial secret regime’ (ie, statutory rules according to which the owner of confidential information can take certain specifically listed measures to achieve protection of the materials as a commercial secret) or otherwise be subject to confidentiality obligations of the transferor. In this case, sufficient confidentiality obligations must be imposed on the third-party recipient to maintain the protection of the materials as confidential following a cross-border data transfer.
The transfer of personal data of Russian employees also requires the relevant employee's written consent to the transfer (which may, by way of precaution, also be reflected in the employment agreement). In case of a cross-border transfer, such a transfer must be specifically allowed by the consent. Since the employee's consent can be difficult to obtain in practice, the relevant data may have to be depersonalised before the transfer. Further, a data transfer agreement must be signed between the employing Russian company and the foreign recipient. In addition, due to Russian data localisation requirements, the primary database for personal data transferred abroad must be set up in Russia and, before the transfer of any new data, be updated accordingly.
On the other hand, Russian law has no general attorney-client privilege. A concept similar to this privilege exists only as ‘advocate secrecy’ in relationships between clients and advocates (ie, lawyers who passed a bar exam to represent clients in criminal and certain civil law court proceedings). Therefore, the protection of the attorney-client privilege does not usually restrict the (cross-border) transfer of data.
Dispute resolution and risk management
Is it possible for anti-corruption cases to be settled before trial by means of plea bargaining or settlement agreements?
Since 2009, Chapter 40.1 of the Criminal Procedural Code has allowed plea bargaining agreements to be entered into in criminal proceedings, including proceedings regarding bribery offences.
Under a plea bargaining agreement, the defendant undertakes to provide information and to cooperate in the investigation of crimes committed by other persons (disclosure of his or her own crimes does not suffice). If the defendant fulfils these obligations and circumstances aggravating his or her liability are not determined, the sentence for his or her own crimes will not exceed half of the maximum punishment provided for such types of crime by the Criminal Code. The court has discretion to show further leniency.
Are any types of payment procedure exempt from liability under the corruption regulations in your jurisdiction?
Russian law does not provide for such concept.
What other defences are available and who can qualify?
Under the Administrative Offences Code, a legal entity will be guilty of an administrative offence if it can be established that it did not take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with the violated regulations and this violation constitutes the relevant administrative offence (Article 2.1 (2)). That means that a legal entity accused of an offence according to Article 19.28 of the Administrative Offences Code (unlawful remuneration on behalf of a legal entity) may claim that it has taken all measures necessary to prevent such bribery committed by its employees or agents.
In particular, the legal entity may arguably claim that it fully complied with its obligations under Article 13.3 of the Anti-corruption Law in order to be exempt from administrative liability.
What compliance procedures and policies can a company put in place to assist in the creation of safe harbours?
Article 13.3 of the Anti-corruption Law obliges organisations to develop and implement measures to prevent corruption. According to the law these measures can include:
- designating departments and officers responsible for preventing bribery and other violations of law;
- cooperating with law enforcement authorities;
- developing and implementing policies and procedures designed to ensure ethical business conduct;
- adopting a code of ethics and professional behaviour for employees;
- identifying and regulating conflicts of interest; and
- preventing the creation of false accounts and the use of forged documents.
The general obligation under the Anti-corruption Law to develop and implement anti-corruption measures is further elaborated by the Methodical Recommendations for the Development and Adoption of Anti-Corruption Measures of the Federal Labour Ministry (November 8 2013). This document lists in detail the specific steps which are recommended to be taken by organisations in order to comply fully with their obligation under the Anti-corruption Law.
The Anti-corruption Law does not provide for penalties where an organisation fails to implement the required anti-corruption measures. However, such failure may lead to liability under the Administrative Offences Code if the organisation is unable to demonstrate that it has taken all measures necessary to prevent bribery committed by its employees or agents.
Following court practice, only very few of the companies prosecuted had implemented the necessary measures and were exempted from liability. However, the relevant decisions give no guidance on the proper implementation of the anti-corruption measures in order to be exempted from liability. That only very few companies succeeded confirms that the prosecutors and courts appear to have fairly strict requirements regarding the sufficiency of a company’s compliance management system.
Record keeping and reporting
Record keeping and accounting
What legislation governs the requirements for record keeping and accounting in your jurisdiction?
General accounting principles are regulated by the Federal Law 402-FZ on Accounting (December 6 2011). The requirements for financial reporting are set out in the Federal Law 129-FZ on State Registration of Legal Entities (August 8 2001). The consolidation of financial reporting is regulated by the Federal Law 208-FZ on Consolidation of Financial Reporting (July 27 2010). The requirements under these federal laws are further specified by:
- regulations on accounting, issued by the Federal Finance Ministry;
- charts of accounts and instructions on their application, issued by the Bank of Russia and the Federal Finance Ministry;
- accounting standards for specific sectors issued by the Bank of Russia;
- main methodical instructions and recommendations issued by the Federal Finance Ministry; and
- summaries of practice of application of legislation, prepared by the Federal Finance Ministry.
What are the requirements for record keeping?
The general accounting requirements are as follows:
- Accounting must be maintained without interruption from the date of the organisation's state registration until the date it ceases its activity due to reorganisation or liquidation.
- Accounting must be maintained according to a general system or a simplified system.
- Maintaining accounting and record keeping must be organised by the organisation's chief executive.
- Accounting must be maintained based on an accounting policy adopted each year.
- All commercial facts must be documented by primary accounting documents on paper or in electronic form.
- Information reflected in the primary accounting documents is subject to timely registration and storage in the accounting registers.
- Assets and liabilities are subject to inventarisation.
- Accounting items are to be recorded in Russian roubles.
What are the requirements for companies regarding disclosure of potential violations of anti-corruption regulations?
Under Russian law, companies are not specifically obliged to disclose potential violations of anti-corruption regulations. However, the voluntary disclosure of such violations may be part of the measures taken by organisations in order to comply with their obligations under the Anti-corruption Law to develop and implement anti-corruption measures.
What penalties are available to the courts for violations of corruption laws by individuals?
- Bribery in a commercial organisation – Article 204 provides for either:
- a penalty of:
- up to Rb2 million (approximately $35,000) to Rb5 million (approximately $85,000);
- two to five years' salary; or
- 50 to 90 times the bribe sum; and
- an occupational ban from certain professions for up to six years; or
- imprisonment from seven to 12 years, a penalty of up to 50 times the bribe sum and an occupational ban from certain professions for up to six years.
- Mediation in bribery in a commercial organisation – Article 204.1 provides for either:
- a penalty of:
- up to Rb1.5 million (approximately $25,000);
- 18 months’ salary; or
- 40 to 70 times the bribe sum; and
- an occupational ban from certain professions for up to six years; or
- imprisonment for up to seven years, a penalty of up to 40 times the bribe sum and an occupational ban from certain professions for up to six years.
- Bribe taking by a civil servant – Article 290 provides for either:
- a penalty of:
- up to Rb3 million (approximately $50,000) to Rb5 million (approximately $85,000);
- three to five years' salary; or
- 80 to 100 times the bribe sum; and
- an occupational ban from certain professions for up to 15 years; or
- imprisonment from eight to 15 years, a penalty of up to 70 times the bribe sum and an occupational ban from certain professions for up to 15 years.
- Bribe giving to a civil servant – Article 291 provides for either:
- a penalty of:
- up to Rb2 million (approximately $35,000) to Rb4 million (approximately $70,000);
- two to four years' salary; or
- 70 to 90 times the bribe sum; and
- an occupational ban from certain professions for up to 10 years; or
- imprisonment from eight to 15 years, a penalty of up to 70 times the bribe sum and an occupational ban from certain professions for up to 10years.
- Mediation in bribery of a civil servant – Article 291.1 provides for either:
- a penalty of:
- up to Rb1.5 million (approximately $25,000) to Rb3 million (approximately $50,000);
- two to three years' salary; or
- 60 to 80 times the bribe sum; and
- an occupational ban from certain professions for up to seven years; or
- imprisonment from seven to 12 years, a penalty of up to 70 times the bribe sum and an occupational ban from certain professions for up to seven years.
Companies or organisations
What penalties are available to the courts for violations of corruption laws by companies or organisations?
A legal entity which commits an offence under Article 19.28 of the Administrative Offences Code (unlawful remuneration on behalf of a legal entity) may face the following penalties:
- Bribery – a penalty of up to three times the bribe sum but not less than Rb1 million (approximately $17,000).
- Large-scale bribery – if the bribe sum exceeds Rb1 million (approximately $17,000), a penalty of up to 30 times the bribe sum but not less than Rb20 million (approximately $350,000).
- Extra-large scale bribery – if the bribe sum exceeds Rb20 million (approximately $350,000), a penalty of up to 100 times the bribe sum but not less than Rb100 million (approximately $1.7 million).