Available in Russian
Author: Viktoria Romanyuk
DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2026-2-164-183
Keywords: anti-corruption lawsuit; civil forfeiture; constitutional legal liability; civil liability; measures of state coercion
The author proceeds from the thesis that anti-corruption lawsuit nowadays is becoming the most effective and, at the same time, the least developed legal means of combating corruption offenses and minimizing the impact of such offenses. According to legal scholarship and practical experience, two approaches to determining the legal nature of the so-called civil confiscation are most likely: a measure of civil (including tort) liability or a measure of public (including constitutional) liability. The first approach is primarily supported by disposition of this legal institution in the branch of legislation — its mention in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; the second approach is supported, in particular, by the specifics of the legal relations preceding its application — the violation of anticorruption legislation by a public official. Based on the parameters of this legislative measure, awarded by the court on the anti-corruption claim of the prosecutor against public official (member of his family), it is concluded that the second approach is correct, still also imperfect. To support this, the author cites and analyzes particular points from Resolution No. 49-P of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (October 31, 2024), which calls this measure a “special form of legal state coercion,” as well as its practice in certain other categories of cases. This is not altered by the fact that, according to current legal regulations, the measure in question is implemented in the form of civil claim proceedings. Meanwhile, this conclusion has not only theoretical, but also practical implications, since correct legal qualification of this legal institution significantly affects further normative development as well as application by prosecutor office and courts of its particular structural elements. In particular, this means that constitutional requirements for measures of public liability and public coercion in general (proportionality, legal certainty, presence of guilt, prohibition of retroactive effect, etc.) should also be applied to the legal mechanism under consideration.
About the author: Viktoria Romanyuk – Applicant for the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, North-Western Institute of Management, a branch of the Russian Academy of National Economy and the Civil Service under the President of the Russian Federation; Senior Lecturer at the Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Citation: Romanyuk V. (2026) Pravovaya priroda iz'yatiya v dokhod gosudarstva imushchestva, nazhitogo korruptsionnym putoym: Analiz Postanovleniya Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF ot 31 oktyabrya 2024 goda № 49-P [The legal nature of the seizure of property acquired through corruption by the state. Analysis of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of October 31, 2024, No. 49-P]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 164–183. (In Russian).
References
Blinkova E.V., Kozatskaya V.E. (2011) Obshchaya kharakteristika grazhdansko-pravovoy otvetstvennosti za vred, prichinennyy prestupleniem [General characteristics of civil liability for damage caused by a crime]. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya, no.4, pp.10–14. (In Russian).
Borisova L.V. (2025) Iski prokurorov o vzyskanii v dokhod gosudarstva poluchennogo storonami v rezul'tate soversheniya antisotsial'nykh sdelok: problemy i perspektivy [Prosecutors’ claims for recovery of state revenue received by the parties as a result of anti-social transactions: problems and prospects]. Administrator suda, no.3, pp.25–29. (In Russian).
Brinchuk M.M. (2016) Ekologo-pravovaya otvetstvennost' — samostoyatel'nyy vid otvetstvennosti [Environmental legal responsibility is an independent type of responsibility]. Lex russica, no.6, pp.26–47. (In Russian).
Chukharev M.D. (2022) Konstitutsionno-pravovaya otvetstvennost': starye problemy i novye resheniya [Constitutional law responsibility: old problems and new solutions]. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal'noe parvo, no.11, pp.60–64. (In Russian).
Egorov N.D. (2012) Ponyatie grazhdanskogo prava [The concept of civil law]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava, no.4, pp.42–65. (In Russian).
Gadzhiev G.A. (2001) K voprosu o razgranichenii konstitutsionno-pravovoy i grazhdansko-pravovoy otvetstvennosti [On the distinction between constitutional and civil liability]. In: Avak'yan S.A. (ed.) Konstitutsionno-pravovaya otvetstvennost': problemy Rossii, opyt zarubezhnykh stran, Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, pp.58–63. (In Russian).
Gongalo B.M. (2018) Grazhdanskoe pravo: uchebnik. Tom 1 [Civil law: Textbook. Vol.1], in 2 vols., 3rd edition, revised and expanded, Moscow: Statut. (In Russian).
Il'in A.V. (2024) Prisuzhdenie kompensatsii kak posledstvie prinyatiya Konstitutsionnym Sudom postanovleniya o priznanii normativnogo akta ne sootvetstvuyushchim Konstitutsii [Awarding compensation as a consequence of the Constitutional Court’s decision to declare a regulatory act unconstitutiona]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, no.5, pp.43–62. (In Russian).
Kolosova N.M. (2009) K voprosu o konstitutsionnykh sanktsiyakh [On the issue of constitutional sanctions]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, no.3, pp.12–18. (In Russian).
Kononov K.A. (2020) “Predmet otrasli poluchaet svoe real'noe vyrazhenie v sisteme”: professor E.I.Kozlova o sisteme otrasli konstitutsionnogo prava i ee institutakh [“The subject of the branch finds its real expression in the system”: Professor E.I.Kozlova on the system of constitutional law and its institutions]. Aktual'nye problemy rossiyskogo prava, no.3, pp.26–34. (In Russian).
Mazaev V. (2013) Natsionalizatsiya kak konstitutsionnyy fantom [Nationalization as a constitutional phantom]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no.5, pp.95–105. (In Russian).
Mal'bin D.A. (2025) Kommentariy k postanovleniyu Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF ot 31 oktyabrya 2024 g. №49-P [Commentary on the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated October 31, 2024, No.49-P]. Tsivilist, no.1, pp.5–19. (In Russian).
Mal'bin D.A. (2023) Pravovaya priroda iska ob osvobozhdenii imushchestva ot aresta: kritika ustoyavshikhsya kontseptsiy [The legal nature of a claim for release of property from arrest: a critique of established concepts]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.2, pp.91–101. (In Russian).
Mikhaylova E.V. (2024) Isk kak protsessual'noe sredstvo zashchity prav gosudarstva [A claim as a procedural means of protecting the rights of the state]. Mirovoy sud'ya, no.5, pp.16–20. (In Russian).
Sinitsyn S.A. (2015) Iskovaya zashchita veshchnykh prav v rossiyskom i zarubezhnom grazhdanskom prave: aktual'nye problemy [Legal protection of property rights in Russian and foreign civil law: current issues], Moscow: Infotropik Media. (In Russian).
Sinitsyn S.A., Pozdnysheva E.V. (2015) Grazhdansko-pravovye sanktsii za sovershenie korruptsionnykh pravonarusheniy [Civil penalties for corruption offenses]. Zakonodatel'stvo i ekonomika, no.5, pp.7–10. (In Russian).
Sklovskiy K.I. (2021) Primenenie zakonodatel'stva ob obrashchenii v dokhod gosudarstva imushchestva, poluchennogo v rezul'tate narusheniya zakonodatel'stva o protivodeystvii korruptsii [Application of legislation on the confiscation of property obtained as a result of violations of anti-corruption legislation]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii, no.11, pp.156–186. (In Russian).
Skuratov Yu.I. (2024) Kontseptsiya razdeleniya vlastey (novoe prochtenie) [The concept of separation of powers (a new reading)]. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal'noe parvo, no.9, pp.16–20. (In Russian).
Starilov Yu.N. (2014) Professional'noe “chinovnichestvo” i sluzhebnoe pravo v Rossii: byla li reforma gosudarstvennoy sluzhby i osnovatel'ny li somneniya v sushchestvovanii sluzhebnogo prava? [Professional “officialdom” and service law in Russia: was there a reform of the civil service, and are there any doubts about the existence of service law?]. Administrativnoe pravo i protsess, no.7, pp.8–25. (In Russian).
Trofimova G.A. (2016) Konstitutsionno-pravovaya otvetstvennost' cherez prizmu repressivno-karatel'noy i kompensatsionno-vosstanovitel'noy form otvetstvennosti [Constitutional and legal responsibility through the prism of repressive and punitive forms of responsibility]. Gosudarstvennaya vlast' i mestnoe samoupravlenie, no.3, pp.50–55. (In Russian).
Truntsevskiy Yu.V. (2022) Predposylki sozdaniya spetsializirovannykh antikorruptsionnykh sudov [Prerequisites for the Establishment of Specialized Anti-Corruption Courts]. In: Problemy pravookhranitel'noy deyatel'nosti na sovremennom etape: sbornik trudov Vserossijskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii, Kostroma: Kostromskoy gosudarstvennyy universitet, pp.160–164. (In Russian).
Truntsevskiy Yu.V. (2019) Protivodeystvie korruptsii i ugolovnyy zakon [Anti-corruption and criminal law]. Rossiyskiy sledovatel', no.7, pp.38–42. (In Russian).
Tuzov D.O. (1998) Iski, svyazannye s nedeystvitel'nost'yu sdelok: Teoreticheskiy ocherk [Claims related to the invalidity of transactions: a theoretical essay], Tomsk: Peleng. (In Russian).
Tsirin A.M., Seval'nev V.V. (2024) Osnovnye etapy razvitiya zakonodatel'stva Rossiyskoy Federatsii o protivodeystvii korruptsii [Main stages of development of the Russian Federation’s anti-corruption legislation]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, no.7, pp.137–147. (In Russian).
Vitruk N.V. (2009) Obshchaya teoriya yuridicheskoy otvetstvennosti [General Theory of Legal Responsibility], 2nd edition, revised and expanded, Moscow: NORMA. (In Russian).