Matrix of victim blaming in manifestations of corruption (using the example of bribery)

Farakhiev Dinar Minzeferovich ORCID: 0000-0001-6419-7701 lecturer; Department of Operational Investigative Activities; Kazan Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation 420011, Russia, Republic of Tatarstan, Kazan, Orenburg tract, 128 dfarakhiev@mail.ru

Minzyanova Dilyara Faril'evna ORCID: 0000-0003-1980-7632 PhD in Pedagogy Senior Lecturer; Department of Operational Investigative Activities; Kazan Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation 420011, Russia, Republic of Tatarstan, Kazan, Orenburg tract, 128 Dilyara_444@bk.ru

Introduction

Currently, the problem of studying victims of crime is becoming relevant and popular, namely, the problem of the opinion that the victim of a crime is himself to blame for committing an unlawful act. In turn, according to some authors, victimblaming is: "the phenomenon of abuse towards those who need support and understanding" ^{[1, p. 82]}; the latter consider the features of the psychological component of the victim's accusation (Roberts K. The Psychology of Victim Blaming // The Atlantic. URL: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/10/the-psychology-of-victimblaming/502661/ (date of access: 05/01/2024)).

Focusing attention not only on the perpetrator, but also on the victim is a solution that can increase the effectiveness of preventive measures, which, in turn, is confirmed by the results of practical activities. At the same time, an urgent problem of victimology and victimological prevention itself is the problem of the unlawful imposition of responsibility on the victim, whose action or omission objectively does not prescribe the implementation of the principles of criminal law, or the problem of placing blame on the victim.

In our opinion, taking into account the above, it should be noted that such an assessment determines the borderline state of a thorough criminological analysis between the most complex and profound conclusions. In modern jurisprudence, the problem of victimblaming (victim blaming, victim blaming) is considered as a separate field of scientific knowledge with the same name.

Social judgment is one of the foundations that often determine the stability of the object of judgment – a specific social phenomenon and decision. Bias in judgment does not contribute to the accuracy, objectivity of the analysis, the establishment of directions and measures to solve the problem under study.

Corruption-related crimes, corruption and its individual forms, as well as their persistence, determine attention to the most diverse factors ^{[2, pp. 848-850]}. In addition, in our opinion, there is no need to exclude the potential of criminological interest in bribery in advance.

Taken together, the above determines attention to the matrix of victimblaming in bribery, which allows us to answer the question about the real state of the types of crimes under study and their manifestation in many areas of public life and identify specific elements and possible prospects arising from it.

The very nature of victimblaming is very complex, as it characterizes social, individual, psychological, cultural, moral and other features and (or) processes.

The main part

The phenomenon of victimblaming is paradoxical, since in a situation of violence, the victim himself is responsible for the illegal act, that is, the victim of the crime. Victimblaming manifests itself in various forms (reactions of the public (citizens), relatives, acquaintances, assessments of specialists, etc.) and this is associated with negative consequences, since the person who committed the crime is considered "forced to commit it" and attention from the latter and the crime as a whole is diverted to the most vulnerable participant in the illegal act – the victim. In her research, Emma Richardson notes that the "language of accusation" is often not used in the process of accusing victims, and this dissonance between feelings and behavior characterizes the desire to help (Emma Richardson The Most Dangerous Blame Game: How Victim Blaming Uniquely Harms Fraud Victims. – 2022. URL: https://www.acfe.com/fraud-resources/fraud-examiner-archives/fraud-examiner-article?s=The-Most-Dangerous-Blame-Game (date of request: 05/01/2024)). In addition, in our opinion, the desire to help should not be a contradiction in the framework of criminal proceedings, as well as when using the "language of accusation."

Taking into account the specifics of victimblaming, the following features of the phenomenon under study are highlighted:

Firstly, victimblaming becomes more pronounced when the victim does not comply with socially accepted norms and rules of behavior.

Secondly, the actualization of victimblaming is an indicator of the state of society and its problems ^{[3, p. 465]}.

Thirdly, the phenomenon under study reproduces the hypothesis of "justice", "correctness", as well as the internal willingness of society to counteract injustice.

Fourthly, at the beginning of an unlawful act, there is minimal guilt of the victim, but with a prolonged (ongoing) unlawful act, the victim's guilt increases, as does the level of victimblaming.

The severity of the above patterns depends on the totality of external and internal components (the nature of the phenomenon causing the victim accusation, the environment in which it is considered, etc.).

In our opinion, the need to identify the victimological foundations of bribery is necessary for the effectiveness and rationality of legislative decisions, as well as for the application of meaningful and effective preventive measures.

If the crime is of a "victimless" nature, then the issue of the existence of a rule on criminal liability in general is actualized. Any norm of criminal legislation must be defined and justified, since this increases the quality of the normative legal act, the effectiveness of its use and the entire system of regulatory legal regulation of public relations.

Currently, it is considered very important to distinguish responsibilities, including in various branches of law ^{[4, pp. 88-93]}. The problems of corruption-related crime, in particular bribery, are most painfully felt by society (Who is to blame for corruption? // Public Television of Russia. URL: https://otr-online . ru/programmy/prav-da/kto-vinovat-v-25503.html (date of access: 05/01/2024)). This phenomenon draws attention to all the features and components of bribery, including the actual and potential victim.

In his research, A.V. Mayorov focuses on the importance of victimology in the process of combating crime. In addition, according to the author, the portrait of a victim of a crime is of great importance ^{[5, p. 11-12]}. Taking into account the high level of latency of the types of crimes under investigation, special attention should be paid to the subject most motivated to conceal a criminal offense, that is, the victim. Foreign researchers note a lack of attention to individual problematic issues related to the adoption of a correct behavior model in adolescence, which later becomes socially significant ^{[6, p. 1-12]}. In our opinion, the correct model of behavior is built and formed in childhood, adopted and improved in adolescence, and strengthened in adulthood.

Taking into account the above, one cannot disagree with the authors, who believe that most of the processes that determine the commission of corruption-related crimes, in particular bribery, originate in adolescence ^{[7, p. 20-23]}. In our opinion, this specificity actualizes the issues of victimological prevention and prevention of crimes provided for in Articles 290-291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 06/13/1996 // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 1996. No. 25, article 2954).

A comprehensive analysis of the victimological aspect of bribery helps to identify various problems related to victims. Victimblaming is no exception. In addition, it is necessary to take into account that the identification of potential victims of bribery, their victimological safety, should be one of the main goals of anti-corruption policy ^{[8, p. 258]}.

Crimes provided for in Articles 290-291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 13.06.1996) // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 1996. No. 25, Article 2954), relate to corruption-related crimes, and are perhaps the most visible to society. Among the registered corruption-related crimes, bribery occupies a leading place. Thus, in January – December 2023, 36,407 corruption-related crimes (3%) were registered in the Russian Federation, of which: 20,279 (4%) cases of bribery (The state of crime in the Russian Federation. URL: https://мвд.рф/dejatelnost/statistics (date of access: 04/02/2024)). In addition, the level of latency of the types of crimes under investigation should be taken into account, which indicates the victimological aspect of bribery as an illegal act.

Considering bribery as a crime, we come to the conclusion that a typical approach to various types of activities is to increase the anti-corruption culture and education, the forms of which should be as obvious and understandable as possible, especially for the population, and in particular for students of higher educational institutions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia ^{[9, pp. 83-88]}. In addition, much attention is paid to anti-corruption education and policy, which are aimed at: "popularizing anti-corruption standards and forming an anti-corruption worldview, should be in the nature of correcting mistakes of the past period, eliminating unresolved problems and introducing new ways to implement it, which is associated with a change in the social situation, as well as based on scientific research in the field of corruption prevention." ^{[10, p. 317]}.

It should be borne in mind that the approach we are investigating allows us to consider the chain of connections in full, and is primarily related to the issues of identifying victims of crimes provided for in Articles 290-291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 06/13/1996 // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 1996. No. 25, article 2954).

In jurisprudence, bribery can be considered as a criminal phenomenon consisting of various forms (types), each of which is regulated separately. In our opinion, bribery can be considered in the following ways::

1) the commission by officials of illegal acts within the scope of their official powers in the interests of bribe-givers or other third parties by receiving illegal remuneration in any form;

2) the commission by persons of illegal active actions aimed at providing officials (their relatives or other affiliated persons) with illegal remuneration in any form in order to achieve the desired result;

3) the commission by officials or other persons of illegal active actions aimed at obtaining (transferring) illegal remuneration in any form, in the interests of one and (or) the other party, in order to achieve the desired result by the latter, as a result of which the authority of the authorities is undermined, their normal functioning is disrupted and the official's status is discredited.

As a rule, the authors considering this problem emphasize and justify the high social danger and significant harm caused in the process of committing crimes under Articles 290-291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 06/13/1996 // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 1996. No. 25, article 2954). A characteristic feature of bribery is the fact that the subjects of the crime actively participate in order to extract mutual personal benefits (with the exception of intermediaries, in cases where the intermediary(s) in the bribery does not pursue personal selfish or other interests).

Within the framework of the "criminal – victim" formula, any crime can be considered, characterized by the presence of persons occupying confrontational positions, regardless of the characteristic features of the legal qualification of illegal activities. In our opinion, this formula is quite applicable to crimes provided for in Articles 290-291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 06/13/1996 // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 1996. No. 25, article 2954).

We propose to consider the matrix of victimblaming in bribery in all its forms.

Receiving a bribe (illegal remuneration) and petty bribery.

Within the framework of this manifestation, it is necessary to take into account the following form: "criminal – victim" or "criminal – intermediary – victim". The subjects are: an official – a criminal, a bribe–giver - a criminal and a victim, an intermediary in bribery – a victim (in exceptional cases, the status is not determined).

The most interesting subjects in the studied manifestation are the bribe giver and the intermediary in bribery as victims of crimes. The subjects of illegal activity under study act as victims in situations where an official extorts illegal remuneration for committing acts in favor of a bribe-giver or other third parties, if these acts fall within the official's official powers or if, by virtue of his official position, he may contribute to these acts, as well as for general patronage or connivance in the service. Extortion of illegal remuneration is expressed in the form of a demand to transfer the subject of bribery and in the form of creating deliberate conditions under which a person is forced to transfer the subject of bribery (On judicial practice in cases of bribery and Other corruption crimes: Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 07/09/2013 No. 24 // Reference.-ConsultantPlus legal system (accessed: 05/01/2024)).

At the same time, the commission of crimes provided for in paragraph "b" of Part 5
290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law No. 63-FZ dated 13.06.1996) // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 1996. No. 25, article 2954), is very common in law enforcement and investigative judicial practices. So, for example:

– the traffic police inspector of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Pskov, gr. FIO3, received an illegal reward from gr. P. by extortion for not bringing the latter to administrative responsibility (Verdict of the Pskov City Court of the Pskov region no. 1-213/2018 1-6/2019 dated April 11, 2019 in case No. 1-213/2018. URL: https://sudact.ru/regular/doc/DnmQ049sEFQX / (date of request: 05/01/2024));

– the head of the department of the medical institution, Mr. D., was found guilty of extorting illegal remuneration for organizing the unscheduled hospitalization of Mr. B. and for performing an extraordinary operation (Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatia No. 22-1388/2021 dated 07/22/2021 in case No. 22-1388/2021. URL: https://actofact.ru/case-04OS0000-22-1388-2021-2021-06-29-2-1 / (date of access: 05/01/2024));

– a former employee of the Committee of Hunting and Fisheries was found guilty of extorting illegal remuneration in the form of monetary funds in the amount of 60,000 rubles for not drawing up protocols on an administrative offense (An employee of the hunting committee was sentenced to seven years for extorting a bribe. URL: https://www.vzsar.ru/news/2024/04/12/sotrydnik-ohotnichego-komiteta-prigovoren-k-semi-godam-za-vymogatelstvo-vzyatki.html (date of request: 05/01/2024));

– a criminal case has been initiated against the Deputy General Director of the Zabaikalsky Fund for Capital Repairs of Apartment Buildings, gr. T., on the grounds of corpus delicti provided for in clauses "b" and "c" of Part 5 of Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 06/13/1996 // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 1996. No. 25, article 2954). According to the Regional Investigative Committee of Russia (hereinafter referred to as the SU IC), money was extorted from the chief engineer of V. LLC as a subject of bribery for payment for work performed under contracts concluded with the fund, as well as for the lack of complaints about the quality of repairs performed (the Deputy General Director of the Transbaikalia Capital Repair Fund, accused of extorting bribes, was sent in jail. URL: https://www.chita.ru/text/criminal/2024/05/31/73644650 / (date of access: 05/31/2024)) etc.

Giving a bribe (illegal remuneration) and petty bribery.

Within the framework of this manifestation, it is necessary to take into account the following form: "criminal – victim" or "criminal – intermediary – victim". The subjects are: an official – a criminal and a victim, a bribe–giver - a criminal, an intermediary in bribery – a victim (in exceptional cases, the status is not determined).

Confirmation of the above is a sufficient amount of law enforcement and investigative judicial practices when committing crimes under Articles 291-291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 06/13/1996 // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 1996. No. 25. Art. 2954), criminals and other third parties resort, often needing unjustified solutions to their personal problems, issues and other needs (that is, the initiator and the main criminal from the perspective of victimology will be the bribe giver) ^{[3, p. 468]}. In this manifestation, from a criminological point of view, it is the official who acts as the victim, since the purpose of the bribe giver is to resolve a personal issue (problem) or a question from third parties, or to receive general patronage or connivance in the service, but, in accordance with the legislative position: the official is the subject of the crime, and the bribe giver and the intermediary in bribery They may eventually be released from criminal liability in accordance with the notes to Articles 291 and 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 06/13/1996 // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 1996. No. 25, article 2954).

In addition, it is necessary to take into account the facts of provocations of bribes in law enforcement and investigative judicial practices (Article 304 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). However, provocation of a bribe, being a crime close to bribery, does not correspond to it ^{[11, p. 151]}. In case of provocation of a bribe: an official will also act as a victim, since the bribe giver acts without the latter's consent or leaves him in the dark about his criminal intentions.

At the same time, there are some characteristic features of bribery and its individual varieties in public perception. The identification and identification of those responsible for bribery is the task not only of the preliminary investigation bodies and courts, but also of other bodies and their officials involved in the prevention and prevention of corruption crimes in general.

According to the results of the author's sociological research, it can be concluded that often both the bribe–takers and the bribe–givers and the intermediary in bribery (if any) are found guilty - more than 50%; only the official - the recipient (more than 45%); in exceptional cases (3-5%) the bribe-giver and the intermediary in bribery are found guilty..

If we consider the structure of corruption crime, namely bribery, at the present stage, it can be stated that in most criminal acts, the initiator of bribery is an official, the recipient of the bribe, however, this conclusion must be considered in the context of the issue under study, taking into account the specifics of law enforcement practice and victimological features.

Conclusion

Thus, the above makes it possible to substantiate the hypothesis of victimblaming in bribery and highlight its features.
In the context of the patterns of victimblaming described above, the following can be distinguished::

– victimblaming is more pronounced the more the victim's behavior contradicts the behavior accepted in society; the well-established victimblaming in bribery correlates with one extremely negative assessment by society of all forms of bribery;

– victimblaming reflects the hypothesis of a "just world", well-established victimblaming in bribery correlates with the internal willingness of society to fight injustice;

– the actualization of victimblaming is an indicator of the state of public life and its problems, the characteristics of victimblaming in bribery reflect a problematic state – the normalization of illegal corrupt activities and the subsequent decrease in willingness to resist it;

– victimblaming characterizes the hypothesis of "insensitivity"; in the problem under study, it reflects a person's awareness of the fact of being in a group (environment) where the types of crimes under study may be committed;

– minimal victimblaming, as a rule, is expressed at the beginning of illegal corruption activities, and the prolonged nature of illegal activities increases victimblaming.

The analysis of the victimblaming matrix in bribery allows us to identify the following features of this phenomenon:

– From a social point of view, bribery can be considered a problem of identifying a real victim.;

– public planning and generalization of events is dominated by the view that bribery is an act involving two criminals (the payer and the payee);

– there is a comprehensive assessment of bribery as an unlawful culpable act on the part of the payee and the payer, but not the intermediary in the bribery. In our opinion, from the point of view of victimization of bribery, the role of an intermediary in bribery is very relevant and interesting, since the intermediary, in more than 90% of cases, is the victim of a crime.;

– a paradox is characteristic of bribery: consideration of various forms and manifestations in general, with parallel primary attention to receiving a bribe (illegal remuneration).