CC BY
27Зарубежный опыт
5 См.: Эрекаев А. Я. Криминалистическое обеспечение раскрытия и расследования вооруженных разбоев : дис. ... канд. юрид. наук : 12.00.09. М., 2003. С.122-150.
6 См.: Сафин Р.М. Расследование разбойных нападений, сопряженных с убийством, совершаемых организованными группами : дис. ... канд. юрид. наук : 12.00.09. М., 2004. С.129-178.
7 См.: Кайгородова О.С. Расследование грабежей и разбоев, совершенных несовершеннолетними : дис. .канд. юрид. наук : 12.00.09. Тюмень, 2006. С.94-132.
8 См. : Вецкая С . А. Первоначальный этап расследования грабежей и разбоев, совершаемых
группами несовершеннолетних : дис. ... канд. юрид. наук : 12.00.09. Краснодар, 2006. С.154-172.
9 См.: Костров А.И. Тактика допроса // Криминалистика : учебное пособие / A.B. Дулов [и др.] ; под ред. A.B. Дулова. Мн., 1998. Гл. 15. С.306-307.
10 См.: Образцов B.A. Расследование грабежей и разбоев // Справочная книга криминалиста / E.H. Викторов [и др.] ; Генеральная прокуратура РФ, Науч.- исслед. ин-т проблем укрепления законности и правопорядка ; отв. ред. H.A. Селиванов. М., 2000. Гл.16. С.305-306.
Simon GO D DARD ,
Team Leader, Moli-Ru Project (London, Great Britain)
ОПЫТ ВЕЛИКОБРИТАНИИ В БОРЬБЕ С КОРРУПЦИЕЙ
THE UK EXPERIENCE IN COMBATING CORRUPTION
В статье освещается опыт Великобритании в борьбе с коррупцией, а также автор представляет оценку группой государств по борьбе с коррупцией (ГРЕКО) хода исполнения взятых Россией обязательств по противодействию коррупции и рекомендации, выработанные по итогам данной оценки.
The article highlights UK experience in combating corruption with concrete examples. The authoralso presents the evaluationof performance of obligations undertakenby RussianFederation in countering corruption by the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and recommendations having been worked out as the result of the given evaluation.
УДК 3 43.97 %
йш
Ключевые слова: борьба с коррупцией, полиция, ГРЕКО (группа государств по борьбе с коррупцией), оценка обязательств по противодействию коррупции.
Keywords: сombating corruption, the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption (GPECO), UK experience, police.
I would firstly to mention in my presentation to you today about the results of the evaluation of the Russian Federation by the Council of Europe's Group
of States against Corruption, more commonly known as GRECO. Russia joined GRECO on 1 February 2007 and was evaluated during 2008 with the final report being
adopted at the 4081 Plenary Meeting in S trasbourg in December of that year. However, the conclusions of the report are not that outstanding in as much that most of you will know what the problems are and aside from recommending that the Russian Federation implement 26 specific measures inline with the GRECO standards, there is not much in there, in my view anyway, that is new or of any practical help. For example the report states inbar alia :
«Corruption is a widespread systemic phenomenon in the Russian Federation which affects the society as a whole, includingits foundations and more specifically the public administration and the business sector, as well as the public institutions inplace to counteract corruption, such as the law enforcement agencies and the judiciary».
«There is no doubt that the Russian authorities take these problems seriously and consequently, the fight against corruption is recognized as a priority at the highest political leel».
«Moreover, there appears to be a strong consensus among officials for the need to introduce substantial measures against corruption beyond the mere issuing of declarations, programmes and legislation of which there is no lack».
«To this effect, the National Anti Corruption Plan needs to be complemented with a clear andcoherent anti-corruption strategy and a detailed plan of implementation».
«Moreover, the involvement of regional andlocal authorities as well as civil society in the overall coordination of anti-corruption measures needs to be strengthened».
Finally, in accordance with its rules GRECO invites the authorities of the Russian Federation to present a report on the implementation of the recommendations by 30 June 2010. The report is published on the GRECO website: http://www.coe.int/t /dghl/monitoring/greco/default_en.asp and as part of the evaluation process the
Russian authorities are expected to translate the document into the Russian language and to make the translation publicly available.
However instead of forensically dissecting the report andthe processes that produced it I thought I would turn my attention to the United Kingdom because there are two recent cases nowinthe public domain that highlight the fact that even with seemingly difficult to deal with cases, there are methods that canbe utilisedto bringasuccessful conclusion. They both also mimic some of the problems that are experienced here in the Russian Federation. One concerns corruptionininternational trade involvinga potent mix of big business, politics, and the security and intelligence apparatus. The second concerns individual corruption within the police.
Firstly though, let me first put my cards on the table and admit that the UK is not the country it used to be, but we are trying to get better. People aroundthe world and indeed in my own country believe that Britain has become a markedly more corrupt country, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index published by Transparency International in 2009. This follows a number of political scandals and the government's apparent failure in the past to prosecute over alleged bribery. The table is compiledeachyear by the global anti-corruptiongroup, frompolls taken around the world. The results are used to assess how much corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians in 180 countries.
Britain is now classed as the 17th cleanest country in the world, down from joint 16tl in 2008, and our best showing of 10th in 2002. 2009 is our worst performance since the league table was started in 1995. The executive director of Transparency International said it was «probably no surprise» that Britain's reputation had «significantly worsened». He said: «Public confidence in political office has been eroded by the "cash-for-honours" affair and the grudging exposures ofMPs' expenses». Britain, headded, had a «wretched and woeful record» in prosecuting business executives for paying bribes to
- 132 -
№ 1 (5) • 2010
3apy6exHLM ontr
foreign politicians and officials to win contracts. He said this was epitomized by the government's decision to drop the police investigation into allegations that BAE, Britain's biggest arms company, paidbribes to Saudi Arabian royals, and I'll come on to that in more detail now.
The first case I want to mentionis that of the British arms company, BAE Systems. This company has been under investigation by the UK and US authorities for a number of years in connection with arms deal in Africa and the Middle East and this has beenfairly controversial. Indeed, one of the final acts inoffice of the former Prime Minister Tony Blair was to veto a continuance of the investigation into the company's dealings with a member of the Saudi Arabian royal family.
The individual concerned was alleged to have been the middle man in an arms deal to the Saudis that netted him and a number of other members of the ruling family many millions of dollars in corrupt payments. Much of this money was traced to bank accounts in Switzerland and there may be another issue there about that country and its anti money laundering laws, especially in relation to Politically Exposed Persons or PEPs as they known. When the investigators sought access to these accounts the Saudi government threatened to withdraw its cooperation in the war on terror by withholding intelligence and information about Al Qaeda from the UK. The Prime Minister used 'rational security issues' as his reasoning to justify halting the investigation.
However, very recently this investigation has been concluded, and to the view of many people, not very successfully or appropriately. Some commentators have suggested that BAE have got off very lightly because the investigation has ended with an agreement to pay fines in the U.K. and United States totaling nearly GBP 280 million. The U.K. Serious Fraud Office [SFO] claimed the settlement as «a groundbreaking global agreement» and «a pragmatic end», but the deal sparkedfurther controversy as soon as it was announced. The U.K. end
of the deal will see the company plead guilty in court to an offense under section 221 of the Companies Act of 1985 of failing to keep reasonably accurate accounting records in relation to its arms selling activity in Tanzania.
It will pay a fine of up to J30 million - and if the court issues a lower fine it will donate the money «for the benefit of the people of Tanzania». The U.S. part of the settlement, agreed upon with the Department of Justice, is far tougher. If the courts approve, the company will plead guilty to one charge of conspiring to make false statements to the U.S. Government. It will pay a fine of GBP 250 million and make additional commitments concerning its ongoing compliance.
Criminal charges filed by the US Department of Justice said BAE had made false statements about establishing an effective anti-corruption compliance program to ensure conformance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and that it «paid hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed commission payments in violation of U.S. export control law». The UnitedStates' deal covers BAE's activities in several countries, including Saudi Arabia. As already stated, the SFO dropped its own investigation into the company's Saudi Arabian arms deals in 2006 under pressure from the U.K. government, which claimed it would damage the national interest. The SFO tried to reach a plea deal with BAE last year about its other cases but talks broke down and it asked for government permission to push ahead with a prosecution.
Earlier the SFO also announced its first criminal charges following its BAE investigations. These related to Austrian aristocrat Count Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly who was also alleged to be a broker of the deals. But within hours of the settlement being announced, the SFO said it had dropped the charges because they were no longer in the public interest:.
As I have stated, this investigation has been going on for many years and in that time there have been significant developments
within the company that I believe make the deal done recently a good and pragmatic result. BAE has completely changed its board of directors since the dubious activities under investigation came to light. They have also had a very searching review of their compliance and reporting regime and training programmes by a former Lord Chief Justice of Britain, Lord Woolf. All his recommendations have been implemented. To be honest much of this was in response to the criticism leveled at the UK by the OECD who quite plainly stated that we should be more effective in combating corruption, especially in relation to foreign business deals and cases like BAE in particular. In addition, the UK government is pushing through new Bribery legislation that not only brings together all existing anti corruption laws but also creates the new offence of bribery of foreignpublic officials, muchinline with the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The reason the BAE refused to accept the plea deal last year was that the SFO wanted too much money and the company did not believe it could persuade its new shareholders to pay such a price for activities undertaken so long ago. Another pragmatic issue concerns the fact that the company did not admit to any specific corruption offence as to have done so would preclude them from bidding for any further public procurement contracts, which is the lifeblood of their business.
Has justice been done? Transparency International, the anti-corruption lobby group, has welcomed the deal, saying that the Serious Fraud Office and the Department of Justice «should be congratulated for achieving an outcome». But alternatively you could argue that there is no transparency here. It may be fine for the UK - a major British company has been allowed to «draw a line under its past». But what about Britain's international reputation?
In Britain the Banking community, the Serious and Organized Crime Agency [SOCA - The UK Financial Intelligence Unit], and the Security Services now watch intensely for movements of money for terrorism, drugs
and corruption. But corruption money comes a poor third to the other two.
The UK government has demonstrated through the introduction of the new legislation and the new compliance responsibilities it has placed on UK companies doing business abroad, that it takes corruption issues seriously and has brought to an end practices that were commonplace in international business. Anotherinitiativeintroducedrecently is the possibility for companies to self report incidences where they may in the past have been involved in corrupt practices. By doing so they can negotiate with the SFO to resolve the natter voluntarily rather than having it found out and investigated with the possible damage to their reputation and employees.
Whether our European competitors take these matters as seriously, thereby keeping the business playing field level, only time willtell.
My second case concerns police corruption and is a also a fine example of how it can be tackled with decent resources, independent investigators, and a prosecution and judicial system that has integrity.
Recently, Metropolitan Police Commander Ali Dizaei was sentenced to four years for assaulting and falsely arresting a man in a dispute over J600. A Police Commander in London is the equivalent of a senior general of police here inRussia. The court was told that a young web designer was arrested by Dizaei in a row over work on the officer's website. Dizaei, 47, was convicted of both misconduct in a public office and perverting the course of justice. Prosecutor Peter Wright QC said he was guilty of a «wholesale abuse of power» motivated by self-interest and pride. Dizaei was ordered to spend two years in prison and two years on license. Mir. Justice Simon said the sentence included a deterrent element «to send a clear message that police officers of whatever rank are not above the law». The judge told Dizaei: «You knew how the system worked and you thought you would never be discovered. You crossed that line and now stand convicted of these offences».
-234-
№ 1 (5) • 2010
3apy6exHtM ontr
This was the worst kind of police officer and the type of one that some of you may recognise from your own experiences.
For almost a decade, the figure of Commander Dr Ali Dizaei dominated and poisoned race relations within the Metropolitan Police. His public face was that of human rights champion and defender of fellow ethnic-minority officers against prejudiced white colleagues. Under his presidency the National Black Police Association became a useful tool against those who dared cross him.
Dizaei's jailing for corruption, seven years after being cleared of similar charges, closes one of the most trouing episodes in modern police history. Many viewed the Iranian-born officer as «untouchable». Certainly Dizaei himself thought so. SuccessiveMetropolitan Police commissioners, home secretaries and independent police watchdogs were too nervous to take him on because of the race storm he would invoke. Dizaei grew up in Tehran, where his father and grandfather were both senior police commanders. At ten he was sent to boarding school in England, later studied law and in 1986 joined Thames Valley Police.
He was fast-tracked through the junior ranks but his abrasive personality, self-promotion and readiness to find offence were already an issue with colleagues and public alike. In 1999 he applied to become a superintendent in the Metropolitan Police. At this time Britain's biggest force was in turmoil, damned as «institutionally racist» by the Macpherson Report into the bungled investigation of the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence by a gang of white thugs.
The Met needed more senior black officers and Dizaei was accepted even though Deputy Assistant Commissioner Barbara Wilding described him after his interview as the most rude and arrogant man she had ever met. Alas, then Commissioner Sir Paul Condon was in no position to be choosy. Dizaei, with a PhD newly awarded for a thesis «The Thin Black Line» on police racism, was in.
In 1997, while he was still at Thames Valley, a Scotland Yard informant had alleged
that Dizaei was involved in drugs, interfering in court cases for money and consorting with prostitutes. But his reign of corruption has now come to a dramatic end when he was condemned as a «criminal in uniform» and given four years in jail for trying to frame an innocent man.
Following a bust-up in a restaurant, Dizaei, 47, toldcolleagues that anIraqi website designer had assaulted him. It was a pack of lies and after a four-week trial, a jury took just two-and-a-half hours to convict Dizaei of misconduct in a public office and perverting the course of justice. They found he attacked the man, arresting and attempting to frame him for assault. Dizaei, who had been the subject of many corruption allegations during his time in the Met, is the most senior Scotland Yard officer to be jailed since the 1970s. Althoughhe seems certain to appeal against conviction, he faces the sack after more than a decade of running rings around some of the country's most senior police officers and politicians. It is this issue that commentators have focused on and they ignore the fact that police have known about him and tried to do something about himfor a long time. Race issues or not, you of course need evidence to convict and the system up until about 5 years ago when the big corruption investigation in to him was conducted, was very different to what it is now. Then, as a police officer there were two ways of dealing with you -under disciplinary regulations or through the criminal process, you could not do both. Some material that was obtained for the criminal prosecution of Dizaei was dismissed by the court as being inadmissable and this led to his acquittal. This material, if used in disciplinary proceedings would have been subjected to a lower standard of proof and may well have been successful. The situation now is that both processes can be used at the same time allowing material gathered in one to be used in the other but in practice the discipline proceedings await the outcome of the criminal process.
After the verdicts, the chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission,
NickHardwick, said: «Dizaei behavedlike a bully and the only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them». Mr Hardwick, whose organisation was widely praised for pursuing Dizaei, made a thinly-veiled attack on previous Met chiefs who had appeased the corrupt officer over the last decade. He said: «The greatest threat to the reputation of the police service is criminals in uniform like Dizaei. Corruption comes in many forms and remains athreat to thepoliceservice. It requires constant vigilance to fight it».
This is a little harsh in my view because the police chiefs were only implementing the race relations and diversity policies of the government and the various Home Affairs' Secretary of States must also take some responsibility. However, the role of the IPCC was very important in this case because it provided overall independent
supervision of the investigation, that helped both the police and the suspect to the extent that there could be no subsequent allegations that the investigation was either biased or flawed. It is also true tosaythat the vast majority of officers in the Metropolitan Police are honest and trustworthy and they are happy to see him convicted.
Speaking after the trial, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said: «It is extremely disappointing and concerningthat this very seniorofficer has beenfound guilty of abusing his position and power. He has breached that trust and damaged not only his own reputation but that of the entire police service». Breach of trust and damaged reputation always accompanies corruption and they are very hard to regain.
- 136 -
№ 1 (5) • 2010
