Japan to continue talks with Russia on joint economic activity on Kuril IslandsWorld January 23, 8:58
Kazakhstan's Foreign Ministry: Format of Astana talks on Syria still under discussionWorld January 23, 8:18
ARAF to check information from new ARD film on doping in Russian sportSport January 22, 22:47
All countries observe oil output cuts agreement — Russian energy ministerBusiness & Economy January 22, 16:59
Rogozin calls "dangerous incident" UK botched missile launchRussian Politics & Diplomacy January 22, 16:32
Medvedev calls United Russia ruling party, president's main resourceRussian Politics & Diplomacy January 22, 16:27
Mutko calls silly information Infantino asks him not to run for RFU headSport January 22, 16:24
Seven parties to participate in Syrian talksWorld January 22, 9:54
Russia’s Pavlyuchenkova reaches Australian Open quarterfinalsSport January 22, 7:19
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.