Interview, special to Rossiyskaya Gazeta, with Sergey Vadimovich Stepashin, chairman of the Russian Federation Comptroller's Office, conducted by Tatyana Panina on September 24, 2008: "The fight against corruption has no sectors; it is a united national front"

 

The Coordinating Conference of Leaders of the Law Enforcement Organs will meet today at the General Prosecutor's Office; there the first and foremost steps to intensify the battle against corruption are to be considered. Watches will also be synchronized before the definitive polishing of the draft law on countering corruption.

 

Sergey Stepashin, the chairman of the RF Comptroller's Office and the head of the working group of the Council for Countering Corruption, will take part in the conference's work. Just recently the Comptroller's Office was the first of the departments to send its plan for combating corruption to the president's staff. Sergey Stepashin told the Rossiyskaya Gazeta correspondent about this document and the participation of auditors "in the general campaign against the absolute power and abuses of officials."

 

(Stepashin) Corruption, as is commonly known, resounds especially destructively in the financial sphere of the state, damages its security, and hinders economic growth. To the Comptroller's Office as the constitutional organ of state auditing, countering corruption is a direct professional duty. And within the framework of our competence, we operate in the sphere where manifestations of corruption are most common. The most important thing to us is to anticipate, identify, and stop crimes of corruption during the execution of the federal budget and management of state property. It is also extremely important to organize systematic internal work to prevent and prohibit manifestations of corruption. These tasks found reflection in the Comptroller's Office plan of actions to counter corruption.

 

(Panina) What concretely does it envision?

 

(Stepashin) Our plan consists of three parts. The first is focused on preventing corruption inside the Comptroller's Office. We created an anticorruption system inside the control department. A strict one. Regardless of one's position, each person falls under it. Here there is no usurpation or violation of Russian legislation -- everything is according to the law. The second part of the law is the fight against corruption in the finance and budget sphere within the framework of our audits. And third is cooperation with the security structures.

 

As for the substantive part, I would like to draw attention to several features. In realizing our external strategy, we intend to carry out some measures on normative support for countering corruption. Notably, we intend to formulate a concept of a draft law on the state audit that would help improve the principles for the construction and operation of a single state system of control. That includes the task of conducting a regular legal expert study of draft laws that we use to issue findings. Here it is important to ensure that there are no potential risks of corruption. We plan to formulate a system of indicators to evaluate the level of risk of the appearance of corruption in the organs of state and municipal government. During our planned control measures, special attention will be devoted to monitoring budget capital at sites that are subject to risks of corruption. We intend to analyze these risks both in the budget process and during the use of national resources.

 

(Panina) And how will you collaborate with the security structures?

 

(Stepashin) The Comptroller's Office intends to expand the practice of conducting joint control measures with the General Prosecutor's Office. We have already concluded the corresponding agreements with other law enforcement and control organs too. This makes it possible to ensure a comprehensive analysis of the activities of the organizations being audited and to raise effectiveness in cutting short instances of corruption that have been discovered. Together with the General Prosecutor's Office and the FSB (Federal Security Service) of Russia, we plan to develop methods for conducting an audit of the quality of the internal systems of anticorruption control of organizations. We took on the task of developing methods of external evaluation of the quality of the systems of financial control and management of institutional risks of organizations that are recipients of budget capital, as well as those operating in the sphere of the private-state partnership.

 

(Panina) What audits is the Comptroller's Office conducting now?

 

(Stepashin) Regular monitoring is being done of the course of preparations for the Olympic Games in Sochi in 2014 and the implementation of priority national projects. An audit of the effectiveness of management of the federal block of stock in the ZAO (closed-type joint-stock company) Aktsionernaya Kompaniya ALROSA (Joint Stock Company ALROSA (Russia-Sakha diamonds)) was started recently. There is an audit underway of the effectiveness of the use by the Russian Academy of Sciences of federal property and capital obtained from the federal budget.

 

Moreover, recently the country's president instructed us to devote special attention to control of the financing of the construction of the bridge from Vladivostok to Russkiy Island within the framework of preparations for the APEC summit meeting in 2012. As is commonly known, an agreement was reached a few days ago between the Comptroller's Office of Russia and the leadership of South Ossetia that we would monitor expenditures of Russian budget capital in the republic. The most important thing is that the money reaches people and is spent effectively.

 

(Panina) In October a draft law on combating corruption is to be submitted to the State Duma. Do you have concrete proposals?

 

(Stepashin) We do. This is undoubtedly a very important document. The Comptroller's Office proposals are associated with making officials accountable for ineffective use of budget capital. Unfortunately, the law does not envision that now.

 

(Panina) Are you speaking of criminal responsibility?

 

(Stepashin) For now, administrative. It must be stipulated that a person can at least be fired from the job. The money is spent -- supposedly everything went for the work, but nothing was done. The ministries are given millions. But where is the effectiveness? Where is the return?

 

(Panina) Would it all the same perhaps be a good idea to take a harder line and not postpone imposing criminal punishment if the fact of corruption is proven? In China they actually shoot people for that.

 

(Stepashin) We have problems with the birthrate as it is... But to be serious, I am an opponent of capital punishment. Just as I am of keeping people in investigative detention centers for years. My experience of working in the security structures and knowledge of the situation from the inside gives me the right to judge that.

 

As for corruption, here, of course, there should be both administrative and criminal accountability. If the court has declared and proven that a person made his fortune through misappropriation of public funds and the use of his official powers, the question must be raised of confiscation of property. Believe me, I know what I am talking about. It is the most painful punishment. An official who is corrupt on an average scale will very quickly "clean up his act": he will be good and return to his mansion in two or three years. And for big money good conditions in a cell will be created for him too.

 

Look, when a person understands that everything will be taken away from him and he will have nowhere to live and nothing to live on, he will think 10 times before breaking the law. It is true, however, that this step must be approached very precisely.

 

(Panina) What should be prescribed in the law on corruption above all, in your opinion?

 

(Stepashin) A definition of "corruption" must finally be given. The current Criminal Code has essentially no definition of what "corruption" is. This should be clearly prescribed in the new law. The essence of corruption as a social phenomenon is not exhausted by bribery alone. A bribe can be given to a commercial partner or a private auditing company so that it does the audit as"appropriate" and issues a good finding.

 

But corruption is the use of one's official position for selfish purposes in order to obtain some benefit, which is not always reflected in a concrete sum (of money).

 

The second condition that the law on corruption cannot start working without is a definition of the restrictions associated with officials' execution of their duties. They are in the law on state service, prohibiting officials from engaging in a personal business, for example. I think that all these restrictions must also be included in anticorruption legislation.

 

And finally, the third condition is to envision and develop mechanisms that will ensure the openness of all state officials. That is what the European Convention on Combating Corruption, which we ratified, speaks of. It means that officials are legally required to provide information on property -- their own and that of their close relatives -- and its origin. Otherwise look: a person appears to be decent and not corrupt and lives on one salary. But outside the city he has a mansion that costs more than $1 million. It is also important to take into account the practice of applying the law, which undoubtedly will help coordinate the activities of the FSB, the MVD (Ministry of Internal Affairs), and the judicial system.

 

(Panina) Just what is preventing you from imposing order? All you have to do is fly around the Moscow Region in a helicopter to see that such palaces cannot be built on an official's salary.

 

(Stepashin) Obviously that applies to too many people who directly influence and can influence the adoption of decisions. But today the Rubicon has been crossed -- there is the clear-cut political position of the country's president and the chairman of the government. There is the National Plan for Countering Corruption. We will in fact start from that.

 

(Panina) Are you certain that the political decision made will breach the vacuum that exists?

 

(Stepashin) I am certain. But that is only one of the areas of the fight against corruption. Today we have quite a lot of laws that in themselves produce a milieu for corruption. They include all kinds of conciliation procedures. We are accustomed to the idea of a person having to run around and go through a lot of trouble in order to obtain some information. These snarls must be loosened. The process has already begun. There is the president's edict on the notification procedure for starting a new business. Now one does not need to spend a long time going around to officials, and they do not have to be given an incentive not to drag out the matter.

 

All the laws must be simple and clear; then a particular official will not be able to interpret them however he wants. That above all applies to the departments that are associated with property relations, registration services, and officials on the level of local self-government. As is commonly known, there is more corruption in places where people deal with the official directly. And where he has a choice in making the decision. That is why an expert study of all the existing legislation must be conducted on an urgent basis.

 

(Panina) What law alarms you especially?

 

(Stepashin) Law No N94-FZ "On Distribution of Orders for the Delivery of Goods, the Performance of Work, and the Rendering of Services for State and Municipal Needs."

 

In early September we sent the country's president the results of the comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of the operation of the existing system of state purchases that was conducted by the Comptroller's Office. It confirms that system-wide losses and risks of corruption are preserved in this system. Only one of the seven objectives set in the law has been achieved -- raising the transparency of procedures for distributing orders for state needs. This law creates a negative synergy overall in relation to the entire system of state orders. And, you know, it is a matter of very large amounts of money -- about R4 trillion a year. I will cite another example. Since 2005, when this law was adopted, the rise in prices on the state purchases market surpasses those prices that exist on the consumer and corporate markets. The number of participants in bidding has declined by an average of 20%. But then the number of contracts with the only agent has quadrupled.

 

By no means do all officials like our position, and they include those of the antimonopoly service. But we want to refine legislation so that it does a flawless job. In my view, conducting tenders and competitions has been brought to the point of absurdity today. First, they are dragged out. Second, with this law we tied the hands and feet of the budget manager. He is "swaddled" in such away that billions of rubles remain unassimilated until the end of the year. Third, scoundrels began to win the tenders and competitions. They lower the price, they win, and then it turns out that they themselves do not even intend to do anything. They will hire a subcontractor -- and they sell the order for a profit. And what happens? It is virtually impossible to audit this chain. Recently I reported the Comptroller's Office position on the existing system of state orders at the plenary session in the State Duma. Our evaluation was supported by many deputies. I hope that amendments to this law will be ready even before the end of this year.

 

There are also questions for the Forestry Code. I believe that the transfer of forest lands from federal control to regional and especially municipal provided the soil for abuses. Confirmation of that is the recent scandal involving the acquisition of tens of hectares of forested lands in the Moscow Region for a symbolic sum of money.

 

(Panina) Who will check existing legislation for the "corruption virus"? Will a special commission and a working group be created?

 

(Stepashin) We already have the corresponding group in the State Duma. The Comptroller's Office also works with legislation. There is the State and the Law Administration. But there should be a system here. I believe that very soon it will be created and start working. A special working group is working on it.

 

(Panina) But should each new law also go through an expert anticorruption study?

 

(Stepashin) Recently more and more laws are beginning to be sent to the Comptroller's Office for expert study. The deputies must understand and know what they are voting for and see the risks and tight spots in the laws being adopted.

 

(Panina) Sergey Vadimovich, doesn't it actually seem to you that the fight against corruption is the "sector" of other departments rather than of the Comptroller's Office?

 

(Stepashin) The fight against corruption has no "sectors" -- there is a united national front where each department has its own set of tasks. The Comptroller's Office is strong in identifying risks of corruption, recording instances of corruption, and especially preventing these manifestations. The paramount question for us now is the question of the effectiveness of management of financial resources and predicting the risks during the use of budget capital. But the ineffective use of treasury money and corruption are always around. We transfer the materials on the most extensive abuses to the General Prosecutor's Office. Around 200 cases are started every year on the basis of our materials. In 2006-2007, there were 11 officials convicted and more than 30 people brought to administrative responsibility.

 

We conduct the most serious audits jointly with associates of the law enforcement organs. They have the operational support available. We have the opportunity to conduct a financial-budget analysis. Such a tandem seems most effective to me.

 

(Panina) You became head of the working group on raising the professional level of legal personnel and on legal education in the Council for Combating Corruption. Have you been able to accomplish anything already?

 

(Stepashin) We have prepared proposals on preventing legal offenses. That is the first area of our work. The second is related to the activities of the financial-control organs in the fight against corruption. And the third area is legal education. The television legal channel Zakon-TV (Law-TV) is already appearing on NTV+; it broadcasts 16 hours a day. Recently at a meeting with the country's President Dmitriy Anatolyevich Medvedev, we discussed the prospects for development of the legal channel. I think that starting next year we will bring it to a broader audience, perhaps to Russia-wide television. Many people simply do not know their rights, and so they give bribes. Elimination of legal illiteracy is needed -- beginning in school. By the way, we have already begun to issue special booklets for children. We have also opened a network of public reception offices of the Association of Lawyers of Russia, whose cochairman I am. We are conducting free consultations and providing legal support for people who have found themselves in a difficult situation.

 

(Panina) All the same, public opinion polls show that one-third of Russia's citizens are ready to give bribes.

 

(Stepashin) They are not ready to give bribes. They want to resolve their problems more rapidly. That is in fact why we must make sure that it makes no sense to give bribes. An official must have clear-cut rules for each of his actions. People must be freed of the humiliating need to give bribes. And besides that, it harms the economy a great deal, since it affects the investment climate.

 

(Panina) Aren't you afraid that during the fight against corruption, people will start putting pressure on you and throwing out compromising material?

 

(Stepashin) Already from the very first real steps of this fight, the participants in countering corruption, including the Comptroller's Office, have been subjected to a fierce information attack and pressure. We are already experiencing this for ourselves. It is important to be firm and not allow one law enforcement structure to clash with another and not let the fight against corruption be turned into campaigning for show.

 

(Panina) But why did you nonetheless not support the idea of creating a special state organ for combating corruption?

 

(Stepashin) The questionis, for what? We have the Constitution and the law on state service. There is the MVD, the FSB, the General Prosecutor's Office with enormous powers, the Comptroller's Office, the Federal Financial Monitoring Service, Rosfinnadzor (Federal Finance and Budget Oversight Service), and the Ministry of Justice... A new department here will not help. The Council for Countering Corruption has been created and it includes security officials, lawyers, economists, and politicians. The president of the country is the head of it. The Council determines the general policy and areas and coordinates this activity on a national scale. That is optimal. And really, generally speaking the fight against corruption is "field" work. And each department should have its own line of attack.

 

 

Read More about Legal Services from Alinga Consulting Group

Questions? Ask Alinga's Experts!

Source: "Rossiyskaya Gazeta"