THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT COLLECT THE BRIBE, AS THE ACCUSED HAS ALREADY BEEN FINED

The prosecutor appealed to the court with a demand for the application of the consequences of the invalidity of void transactions in respect of the amounts transferred as bribes and their recovery in favor of the state (case No. 88-KG23-2-K8).

The court of first instance qualified the actions of the convicted person to receive bribes as insignificant transactions committed for a purpose that is obviously contrary to the foundations of law and order and morality, and applied the consequences of their invalidity in the form of a penalty in favor of the state. The appeal and cassation agreed with this conclusion.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the recognition of an antisocial transaction as void entails general consequences in the form of restitution, and the recovery of all received under such a transaction to the income of the Russian Federation is possible only in cases provided for by law. But the courts did not indicate which rule of the law allowed in this case to recover from the convict the amount of an insignificant transaction.

In fact, the prosecutor demanded, in a civil procedure, the execution of confiscation in respect of the convicted person. But the use of coercive measures of a criminal nature in civil proceedings is unacceptable, especially after the sentencing of a convicted person and the imposition of punishment on him. Otherwise, it can lead to double punishment for the same crime. Since the convicted person was sentenced to imprisonment, a fine and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions, and confiscation was not applied to him, it is illegal to satisfy the prosecutor's demand.

The decisions of the lower courts have been canceled, the case has been sent for a new hearing to the first instance.