Russia ensuring rights of workers at FIFA World Cup construction sites — officialSport May 26, 3:08
Russian emergencies minister arrives in flood-hit southern RussiaWorld May 26, 2:56
NATO to join anti-IS coalition but unlikely to engage in combat — chiefWorld May 26, 0:23
Son of LUKOIL corporation co-owner tops list of Russia's richest legateesBusiness & Economy May 26, 0:23
Russian Foreign Ministry: OPCW not rushing to investigate chemical incident in SyriaRussian Politics & Diplomacy May 25, 21:28
Russia’s legendary barque Kruzenshtern calls at Belgian portSociety & Culture May 25, 20:26
OPEC and non-OPEC countries to develop cooperation outside Vienna agreementBusiness & Economy May 25, 19:44
Russia squared-off with Western media blitz to smear World Cup preparationsSport May 25, 19:35
NATO seeks to continue and expand dialogue with RussiaWorld May 25, 19:01
MOSCOW, February 11, 23:06 /ITAR-TASS/. Russian courts ever more often pass sentences of the deprivation of freedom rather than appoint fines for bribe-taking, Vyacheslav Lebedev, chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, told a conference of chairmen of republican, territorial and regional courts.
He noted that the punishment for small bribes for persons without previous conviction could so far amount only to fines equal to the sum of the bribe. Meanwhile, he recalled that this applied to 95 percent of those accused of bribe-taking and to 97 percent of those accused of giving bribes.
But the fines for bribes were voluntarily paid by only ten percent of those fined, Lebedev said. Because of this, bailiffs petitioned for replacing fines with sentences of the deprivation of freedom, which can only be passed for persistent non-payment of fines.
As the courts had earlier had varying definitions of persistent non-payment of fines, the December 3, 2013 plenary meeting of the Supreme Court gave the definition of persistent non-payment of a fine as not making the payment within 30 days of the sentence coming into effect. The chairman of the Supreme Court pointed out the plenary meeting’s explanatory note also specified that the lack of money for paying the fine was not a legitimate excuse for not paying it.
As a result, the number of satisfied petitions for replacing fines with terms of the deprivation of freedom increased from 21 to 40.5 percent.