On July 7, 2010, the State Duma, in the second and immediately in the third reading, adopted a bill initiated by deputies M. Grishankov and Yu. Zelensky, introducing, in particular, amendments to the Federal Law “On combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and financing terrorism." The vast majority of these amendments relate to Article 6 of the law - “Transactions with funds or other property subject to mandatory control” - in terms of establishing the basis for the formation of a list of individuals and organizations whose monetary and property transactions are subject to mandatory control.
The most fundamental change proposed in the bill is the introduction into the law of a rule on the possibility of excluding from the specified list of organizations and individuals in respect of which there was, but has no longer been, suspicion of involvement in extremist and terrorist activities. The current version of the law does not provide for such a rule at all, which, combined with the absolute secrecy of the list, could and did give rise to illegal conflicts. Thus, in particular, the story of Vladislav Baranov is known, who was wrongfully accused of preparing an assassination attempt on Valentina Matvienko, acquitted by the court, but was refused service by banks. The grounds for exclusion from the “list of terrorists and extremists” mirror the grounds for inclusion in this list (cancellation of a court decision, cancellation of a prosecutor’s decision, termination of a criminal case, etc.).
The second fundamentally important change, in our opinion, is a closed list of articles of the Criminal Code, prosecution under which entails inclusion in the “List”. The current edition of this list does not contain, limiting itself to an abstract mention of “involvement in extremist activities and terrorism” and “crimes of a terrorist nature.” Let us remind you that law enforcement agencies’ understanding of the terms “ crimes of an extremist nature ” and “ crimes of a terrorist nature ” is extremely broad and includes more than three dozen articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The proposed amendments propose to limit ourselves to the following articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation:
However, the list does not include articles of the Criminal Code that punish violent crimes motivated by hatred, even grave and especially grave ones. And this is certainly a shortcoming of the bill.
In addition, the bill provides for partial publication of the “list of terrorists and extremists” included in it on the following grounds:
a decision of a court of the Russian Federation that has entered into legal force on the liquidation or prohibition of the activities of an organization in connection with its involvement in extremist activities or terrorism;
a verdict of a court of the Russian Federation that has entered into legal force finding a person guilty of committing at least one of the crimes provided for in Articles 205, 205-1, 205-2, 206, 208, 211, 220, 221, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 282-1, 282-2 and 360 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;
a decision of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, a subordinate prosecutor or a federal executive body in the field of state registration (its corresponding territorial body) to suspend the activities of an organization in connection with their application to the court with an application to hold the organization accountable for extremist activities;
lists of organizations and individuals associated with terrorist organizations or terrorists compiled by international organizations fighting terrorism or bodies authorized by them and recognized by the Russian Federation;
sentences or decisions of courts and decisions of other competent authorities of foreign states in relation to organizations or individuals carrying out terrorist activities, recognized in the Russian Federation in accordance with international treaties of the Russian Federation and federal laws. Let us note that on the same day, only a few hours earlier, amendments to the same law were adopted in the second reading, of which we are interested in one: the second bill still provides for the possibility of informing a client of a credit institution that he has been denied service under " anti-extremist" grounds. The current edition does not provide this option.
Sources