Author
Abstract
Introduction. The article examines a number of problems of law enforcement of Article 13.3 of the Federal Law of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption”, which establishes a general obligation of any organizations to develop and take measures to prevent corruption, in terms of the imperfection of the legal structure of securing such an obligation and the measures proposed in this regard, as well as the insufficiency of mechanisms to stimulate organizations to carry out the relevant work. Methodology and materials. The purpose of this study, based on the analysis of a wide range of regulatory material, including current foreign legislation, acts of “soft law”, is to formulate specific proposals for the successful resolution of these problems using the formal legal and comparative legal method, the method of legal modeling. Research results and discussion.As a result of conducting this study, through the prism of the established law enforcement practice, domestic and foreign experience, the author analyzed the problem of the lack of a mechanism for directly securing the legal responsibility of organizations (managers) for failure to take measures to prevent corruption, a differentiated risk-oriented approach in terms of establishing measures to prevent corruption taken by organizations, as well as formalized legal measures to encourage organizations to develop and implement anti-corruption mechanisms in their activities. Conclusions. The conducted study made it possible to formulate and substantiate specific proposals in terms of securing direct legal (administrative) responsibility of organizations for failure to develop and take measures to prevent corruption, categorical differentiation of organizations based on a risk-oriented approach with the establishment of mandatory anti-corruption measures for each of the relevant categories, formulation and securing in the established manner measures of “positive” stimulation (encouragement) of organizations to develop and apply in their activities appropriate measures to prevent corruption, taking into account individual existing judicial practice and the balance of interests of stakeholders.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rnp:teojur:tj2511. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: RANEPA maintainer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aneeeru.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.