Tsarist snuffbox

Today, the precious clock on the official’s hand is like the royal snuffbox in the old days. But then no one asked why he was such a difference. And now we have the fight against corruption in social networks. Bloggers are burning with a noble anger and check with a newlywed tax return: what funds did the newlywed acquire an exclusive accessory?

Traditional exclamations are distributed: we demand to ratify the 20th article of the Convention on Corruption! Well, of course, "in any civilized country, he would not have set up in his position after that."

It is a pity to upset these click activists, as those who express their civil position without getting up from a chair, with one click of the mouse. But they break into the open door. Russia ratified the UN Convention against Corruption in 2006, together with Article 20 without any reservations. The main fighter with corruption is to know this, but for some reason he did not know in October last year. Now he has removed the ratification requirement. Now the petition drawn up by him requires the article “illegal enrichment” to the Criminal Code.

The 20th article is by no means an imperative. She does not oblige the country's convention to nothing. It says that the state -participant of the Convention will consider the possibility of recognizing an illegal enrichment of an official by a criminal act, if this person cannot reasonably explain the origin of his income. The article is included in the Convention at the insistence of some countries of the Third World. In "civilized countries" it is practically not used anywhere. The reason is obvious: in all these countries there is a presumption of innocence. No official is obliged to prove that he did not violate the law. There is evidence of guilt - present them to the court. While a person is not convicted, he is innocent: "Not caught - not a thief."

No wonder Article 20 contains a reservation that the criminal prosecution of an official should not contradict the Constitution and the fundamental principles of the country's legal system. The presumption of innocence is enshrined in the Russian Constitution (Article 49) and in the Criminal Procedure Code (Article 14).

Well, then how are they fighting corruption in America? Within the framework of the current legislation, on a common basis. If the official indicated not all his income in his tax return, he will be charged with tax evasion. If there is a suspicion that it extorts bribes or rollbacks, they arrange a provocation and delayed with red -handed. If it turns out that the congressman flew at the expense of any company on Bagama, and then helped this company in receiving a state-owned contract, it will have great troubles.

The principle of the presumption of innocence is too expensive to easily part with it for the punishment of corrupt officials

No one has immunity from criminal prosecution in the United States. In April of this year, federal prosecutors brought criminal charges of corruption to the prominent Senator-Democrat Bob Menendes. The senator flew to Paris, to Palm Beach and to the Dominican resort on a private plane of his friend, who paid for his stay in all these pleasant places, and "forgot" to indicate these income in his declaration. In exchange for these generous offerings, Menendes helped a friend solve delicate problems with the law and helped his business.

There are hard -to -order accusations. For example, Hillary Clinton is accused of the fact that she, when he was by the Secretary, approved a deal, as a result of which Rosatom received control of almost all uranium deposits in the United States. It was as if for this her husband paid half a million dollars as a fee for a lecture in Moscow, and paid the Renaissance Capital bank, which participated in a uranium transaction. But, firstly, Hillary Clinton was only one of the eight members of the office who approved the deal. Secondly, Bill Clinton is a private person and, as such, is free to receive any fees. Ugly, but not punishable.

The principle of the presumption of innocence is too expensive to easily part with it for the punishment of corrupt officials. Dashing the trouble began, and there, even the “queen of evidence” will reach when the accusation will not have to prove anything at all, since the accused himself admitted. Apparently, everyone has already forgotten how, under Andropov, it began, and under Gorbachev the struggle with "universal incomes" continued: they caught motorists who engaged in their free time, and teachers who worked as part -time. This was considered "illegal enrichment", as if people did not work, but stole.

Any law must first be tried on yourself. In Russia, from prison and from Sumy, they are not raped.