News
- 09 December 2025, 11:40
- The Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation
- Alexander Vladimirovich, December 9 is International Anti-Corruption Day. Traditionally, this is an occasion to summarize work in this area and outline new plans and priorities. How do you see the role of the prosecutor's office in fighting corruption today?
- The prosecutor's role in fighting corruption is multifaceted. We are entrusted with key areas of anti-corruption work: oversight of federal legislation implementation, litigation, coordinating law enforcement efforts to uncover corruption-related crimes, protecting the rights of participants in criminal proceedings and maintaining state prosecution in such cases, as well as international cooperation, and other areas whose combined implementation achieves the set goals.
It is precisely daily, coordinated teamwork that is the key to success. Populism and artificially inflating statistics are unacceptable here.
The emphasis in oversight should be on preventing violations, starting with bringing order to the legal framework.
At the same time, I can confidently say that federal legislation establishing anti-corruption standards in Russia is among the best in the world. It has passed reviews by various international monitoring bodies and, most importantly, works effectively in practice. However, regional and local regulatory acts, as well as local rulemaking, often need improvement, alignment with federal acts, and the elimination of contradictions and loopholes for dishonest officials.
Annually, about 30-40 thousand illegal regulatory acts in the anti-corruption sphere are amended or revoked based on prosecutors' protests. The vast majority concern the exercise of functions in various bodies and organizations, along with municipal service. The rest relate to state service regulation. Prosecutors are tasked with improving the quality of rulemaking already at the stage of drafting relevant acts.
This year, at our demand, 24 thousand corruption-prone factors have been removed from almost 20 thousand existing and draft norms.
Defects in norms regulating the provision of state and municipal services can lead to mass abuses. Corresponding acts are under close prosecutorial oversight. Violations here most often involve absent or overlapping administrative procedure deadlines, vague grounds for refusing services, and the ability of officials to request additional documents at their discretion.
I additionally emphasize the importance of ensuring the fair exercise of state bodies' permitting powers regarding business, excluding unjustified advantages and preferences.
- Which spheres are most susceptible to corruption? And what is this related to?
- As we know, corrupt individuals have neither honor nor conscience. Their interest is always where the big money is—that is, in the spheres most important for the state: national projects, military needs, infrastructural development of new constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Anti-corruption oversight of expenditures for these purposes is undoubtedly one of our primary tasks.
In under two years, based on our inspection materials, 350 criminal cases have been initiated for various fraudulent activities.
- Since 2017, Russia has maintained an open list of civil servants dismissed due to loss of trust. These are individuals who violated anti-corruption requirements without committing a crime. How often and for what violations do people end up on this list?
- This year alone, on prosecutors' initiative, over 700 persons have been dismissed due to loss of trust. Information about such persons is included in the register mentioned in your question. For now, it serves an informational and educational purpose. But we are already working on normatively establishing negative consequences for those dismissed on this basis—in particular, a prohibition on holding relevant positions for a certain period. And the number of such decisions increases yearly.
Prosecutors are guided by the principle that unintentional, minor infractions, for example, technical errors in filling out income statements, are matters for personnel departments. The focus of oversight has shifted towards identifying gross violations of anti-corruption norms warranting this measure.
The statements themselves are now of little informational value to us, as corruption assets are rarely registered in the declarants' names. Typically, parents, adult children, other relatives, or close associates are used. These cases are known. Therefore, we search deeper, relying on specific information sources that allow us to objectively assess officials' property status and their compliance with anti-corruption standards.
Separately, I note that regarding 200 individuals, the principle of inevitable responsibility for corruption offenses has been implemented under the relatively new prosecutorial powers granted by Article 13.5 of the Federal Law "On Countering Corruption."
The need for such an instrument arises when civil servants, understanding the futility of escaping punishment, prefer to resign before an anti-corruption check by their workplace's HR department is completed. In such cases, the prosecutor completes the check and, if grounds exist, applies to the court.
For example, a Prosecutor General's Office check established that a former deputy director of a state institution concealed her husband's bank accounts, through which she conducted multi-million ruble transactions. Moreover, in a conflict of interest, she awarded large bonuses to her brother, who worked under her. Fearing accountability, she resigned "by mutual agreement." However, a court ruling that came into force, on the prosecutor's claim, changed the reasoning to "loss of trust."
- Since we're talking about the inevitability of punishment for the corrupt officials, what is the trend in corruption crime? How would you characterize the fight against this phenomenon overall?
- Regarding trends, over the past five years, the number of corruption-related crimes has averaged about 35,000 annually, and in this incomplete year, over 36,000 have already been registered. Most involve bribery and commercial bribery, fraud, embezzlement, abuse and excess of authority. About 17,000 people have been criminally charged.
But numbers don't always reflect the true picture. They can only partially indicate the real crime situation and the effectiveness of measures taken. Firstly, due to the high latency of corruption and the impossibility of determining the ratio between hidden and detected acts. Secondly, by showing quantity, they don't reveal the quality of the work, which is far more important. For instance, it's inappropriate to equate crimes involving petty everyday bribes with those committed by organized criminal groups. They differ in scale, consequences, and difficulty of detection.
The increase not only in the total number of registered crimes but also in specific offenses committed by organized groups, on a large and especially large scale, indicates the correct focus of the law enforcement system. In the first half of the year alone, over 670 participants of organized groups or criminal communities ended up on trial.
- What about suppressing bribery? What are the amounts of detected bribes? Besides money, what else do officials take for their services? Are there proven ways to undermine the motivation to give and take bribes?
- In the overall structure of corruption crime, bribery accounts for about 60%. The average bribe amount in detected cases of giving or receiving is about a million rubles.
Of course, bribes are most often given and taken in cash. Cases of bribery with expensive gifts – cars, watches, jewelry – are not uncommon. There have been instances where services were provided as bribes, discounts given, tourist trips paid for, repair work and construction of real estate carried out.
As unusual examples, I can cite bribes in the form of an expensive massage chair, a wine refrigerator, and even an orthopedic mattress. But in general, it's not surprising. The subject of bribery is anything currently in demand.
An effective weapon against the corrupt officials and bribe-takers, besides controlling their property status, is depriving them of the ability to dispose of criminal proceeds. Seizure of property holds an important place among such measures, and improving its application mechanisms was discussed in detail at the meeting of the Prosecutor General's Office held in late November this year.
I am convinced that funds seized, whether from the corrupt or any other criminals, should serve state interests and have a social purpose. At my instruction, a detailed analysis of the fate of property seized as state revenue is currently underway, following which additional measures will be taken to achieve the aforementioned goals.
- Speaking of seizure. It seems the prosecutor's office has significantly stepped up work on turning corrupt property into state revenue. Why is that?
- The anti-corruption engine has clearly set its course, gained the necessary speed, and has no intention of stopping. At the same time, prosecutors' mechanisms for identifying illegally acquired assets are undoubtedly improving.
Specific figures on the number of lawsuits, seized property items, or their value can "fluctuate," which in itself doesn't indicate any intensification or decline. Once we receive a signal about corrupt behavior, we work on it thoroughly, as they say, and to a large extent, quantitative indicators then depend not on prosecutors' efforts and activity, but on the degree of greed and corrupt mindset of the particular individual who came into the prosecutor's field of view during a given period. In general, I repeat, all tasks are set, prosecutors know what to do and how to do it, and work in this direction will continue.
- What other property might become "popular" for recovery in the future, and what new trends are emerging in this area?
- Experience is being actively developed, and prerequisites, including legislative ones, are being created for the seizure of cryptocurrency, securities, and foreign assets.
Incidentally, in late October this year, at the instruction of the President of the Russian Federation, I participated in Vietnam in the signing ceremony of the UN Convention against Cybercrime, and now the possibility is open for other UN member states to join it. This is a truly historic event in international law and the world's first global international treaty on countering the use of information and communication technologies for criminal, including corrupt, purposes.
Moreover, it was developed on the initiative of Russia's Prosecutor General's Office with the Foreign Ministry's assistance.
- Finally, do you plan to change anything in your subordinates' approaches?
- I have already made it clear to my subordinates that they cannot get by with reporting tools. People need not meetings, seminars, and the like, but real results. Not the stir in the media, but specific, tangible outcomes— restored rights, property recovered for the state or returned to rightful owners.
This is precisely the measure of our work on the anti-corruption track.
The Prosecutor General's Office
of the Russian Federation
The Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation
09 December 2025, 11:40
Interview of Alexander Gutsan with TASS News Agency
- Alexander Vladimirovich, December 9 is International Anti-Corruption Day. Traditionally, this is an occasion to summarize work in this area and outline new plans and priorities. How do you see the role of the prosecutor's office in fighting corruption today?
- The prosecutor's role in fighting corruption is multifaceted. We are entrusted with key areas of anti-corruption work: oversight of federal legislation implementation, litigation, coordinating law enforcement efforts to uncover corruption-related crimes, protecting the rights of participants in criminal proceedings and maintaining state prosecution in such cases, as well as international cooperation, and other areas whose combined implementation achieves the set goals.
It is precisely daily, coordinated teamwork that is the key to success. Populism and artificially inflating statistics are unacceptable here.
The emphasis in oversight should be on preventing violations, starting with bringing order to the legal framework.
At the same time, I can confidently say that federal legislation establishing anti-corruption standards in Russia is among the best in the world. It has passed reviews by various international monitoring bodies and, most importantly, works effectively in practice. However, regional and local regulatory acts, as well as local rulemaking, often need improvement, alignment with federal acts, and the elimination of contradictions and loopholes for dishonest officials.
Annually, about 30-40 thousand illegal regulatory acts in the anti-corruption sphere are amended or revoked based on prosecutors' protests. The vast majority concern the exercise of functions in various bodies and organizations, along with municipal service. The rest relate to state service regulation. Prosecutors are tasked with improving the quality of rulemaking already at the stage of drafting relevant acts.
This year, at our demand, 24 thousand corruption-prone factors have been removed from almost 20 thousand existing and draft norms.
Defects in norms regulating the provision of state and municipal services can lead to mass abuses. Corresponding acts are under close prosecutorial oversight. Violations here most often involve absent or overlapping administrative procedure deadlines, vague grounds for refusing services, and the ability of officials to request additional documents at their discretion.
I additionally emphasize the importance of ensuring the fair exercise of state bodies' permitting powers regarding business, excluding unjustified advantages and preferences.
- Which spheres are most susceptible to corruption? And what is this related to?
- As we know, corrupt individuals have neither honor nor conscience. Their interest is always where the big money is—that is, in the spheres most important for the state: national projects, military needs, infrastructural development of new constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Anti-corruption oversight of expenditures for these purposes is undoubtedly one of our primary tasks.
In under two years, based on our inspection materials, 350 criminal cases have been initiated for various fraudulent activities.
- Since 2017, Russia has maintained an open list of civil servants dismissed due to loss of trust. These are individuals who violated anti-corruption requirements without committing a crime. How often and for what violations do people end up on this list?
- This year alone, on prosecutors' initiative, over 700 persons have been dismissed due to loss of trust. Information about such persons is included in the register mentioned in your question. For now, it serves an informational and educational purpose. But we are already working on normatively establishing negative consequences for those dismissed on this basis—in particular, a prohibition on holding relevant positions for a certain period. And the number of such decisions increases yearly.
Prosecutors are guided by the principle that unintentional, minor infractions, for example, technical errors in filling out income statements, are matters for personnel departments. The focus of oversight has shifted towards identifying gross violations of anti-corruption norms warranting this measure.
The statements themselves are now of little informational value to us, as corruption assets are rarely registered in the declarants' names. Typically, parents, adult children, other relatives, or close associates are used. These cases are known. Therefore, we search deeper, relying on specific information sources that allow us to objectively assess officials' property status and their compliance with anti-corruption standards.
Separately, I note that regarding 200 individuals, the principle of inevitable responsibility for corruption offenses has been implemented under the relatively new prosecutorial powers granted by Article 13.5 of the Federal Law "On Countering Corruption."
The need for such an instrument arises when civil servants, understanding the futility of escaping punishment, prefer to resign before an anti-corruption check by their workplace's HR department is completed. In such cases, the prosecutor completes the check and, if grounds exist, applies to the court.
For example, a Prosecutor General's Office check established that a former deputy director of a state institution concealed her husband's bank accounts, through which she conducted multi-million ruble transactions. Moreover, in a conflict of interest, she awarded large bonuses to her brother, who worked under her. Fearing accountability, she resigned "by mutual agreement." However, a court ruling that came into force, on the prosecutor's claim, changed the reasoning to "loss of trust."
- Since we're talking about the inevitability of punishment for the corrupt officials, what is the trend in corruption crime? How would you characterize the fight against this phenomenon overall?
- Regarding trends, over the past five years, the number of corruption-related crimes has averaged about 35,000 annually, and in this incomplete year, over 36,000 have already been registered. Most involve bribery and commercial bribery, fraud, embezzlement, abuse and excess of authority. About 17,000 people have been criminally charged.
But numbers don't always reflect the true picture. They can only partially indicate the real crime situation and the effectiveness of measures taken. Firstly, due to the high latency of corruption and the impossibility of determining the ratio between hidden and detected acts. Secondly, by showing quantity, they don't reveal the quality of the work, which is far more important. For instance, it's inappropriate to equate crimes involving petty everyday bribes with those committed by organized criminal groups. They differ in scale, consequences, and difficulty of detection.
The increase not only in the total number of registered crimes but also in specific offenses committed by organized groups, on a large and especially large scale, indicates the correct focus of the law enforcement system. In the first half of the year alone, over 670 participants of organized groups or criminal communities ended up on trial.
- What about suppressing bribery? What are the amounts of detected bribes? Besides money, what else do officials take for their services? Are there proven ways to undermine the motivation to give and take bribes?
- In the overall structure of corruption crime, bribery accounts for about 60%. The average bribe amount in detected cases of giving or receiving is about a million rubles.
Of course, bribes are most often given and taken in cash. Cases of bribery with expensive gifts – cars, watches, jewelry – are not uncommon. There have been instances where services were provided as bribes, discounts given, tourist trips paid for, repair work and construction of real estate carried out.
As unusual examples, I can cite bribes in the form of an expensive massage chair, a wine refrigerator, and even an orthopedic mattress. But in general, it's not surprising. The subject of bribery is anything currently in demand.
An effective weapon against the corrupt officials and bribe-takers, besides controlling their property status, is depriving them of the ability to dispose of criminal proceeds. Seizure of property holds an important place among such measures, and improving its application mechanisms was discussed in detail at the meeting of the Prosecutor General's Office held in late November this year.
I am convinced that funds seized, whether from the corrupt or any other criminals, should serve state interests and have a social purpose. At my instruction, a detailed analysis of the fate of property seized as state revenue is currently underway, following which additional measures will be taken to achieve the aforementioned goals.
- Speaking of seizure. It seems the prosecutor's office has significantly stepped up work on turning corrupt property into state revenue. Why is that?
- The anti-corruption engine has clearly set its course, gained the necessary speed, and has no intention of stopping. At the same time, prosecutors' mechanisms for identifying illegally acquired assets are undoubtedly improving.
Specific figures on the number of lawsuits, seized property items, or their value can "fluctuate," which in itself doesn't indicate any intensification or decline. Once we receive a signal about corrupt behavior, we work on it thoroughly, as they say, and to a large extent, quantitative indicators then depend not on prosecutors' efforts and activity, but on the degree of greed and corrupt mindset of the particular individual who came into the prosecutor's field of view during a given period. In general, I repeat, all tasks are set, prosecutors know what to do and how to do it, and work in this direction will continue.
- What other property might become "popular" for recovery in the future, and what new trends are emerging in this area?
- Experience is being actively developed, and prerequisites, including legislative ones, are being created for the seizure of cryptocurrency, securities, and foreign assets.
Incidentally, in late October this year, at the instruction of the President of the Russian Federation, I participated in Vietnam in the signing ceremony of the UN Convention against Cybercrime, and now the possibility is open for other UN member states to join it. This is a truly historic event in international law and the world's first global international treaty on countering the use of information and communication technologies for criminal, including corrupt, purposes.
Moreover, it was developed on the initiative of Russia's Prosecutor General's Office with the Foreign Ministry's assistance.
- Finally, do you plan to change anything in your subordinates' approaches?
- I have already made it clear to my subordinates that they cannot get by with reporting tools. People need not meetings, seminars, and the like, but real results. Not the stir in the media, but specific, tangible outcomes— restored rights, property recovered for the state or returned to rightful owners.
This is precisely the measure of our work on the anti-corruption track.
