Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
A significant proportion of entrepreneurs as well as Russian population in general consider the possibility of criminal prosecution to be one of the main problems that hinders business development in Russia. However, only a small proportion of entrepreneurs are subjected to this type of prosecution. The current study attempts to empirically test the hypothesis about the negative impact of unjustified criminal prosecution on entrepreneurial activity. First, we examine the mechanism of unjustified criminal prosecution of entrepreneurs and then using mixed effects regression modelling on panel data for 2017—2021 assess its impact on the growth rate of the number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The number of appeals reviewed by the Center for Public Procedures “Business against corruption” (CPP “BAC”) is used as an indicator of unjustified criminal prosecution. The results show that each additionally handled appeal reduces the rate of growth in the number of SMEs in the medium term. This relationship is explained via the theory of signals: appeals to the CPP “BAC” serve as indicators of unjustified prosecution problem for entrepreneurs. If this problem persists, a decrease in the growth rates of firms, and an increase in their number in the shadow economy can also be expected.
A significant proportion of entrepreneurs as well as Russian population in general consider the possibility of criminal prosecution to be one of the main problems that hinders business development in Russia. However, only a small proportion of entrepreneurs are subjected to this type of prosecution. The current study attempts to empirically test the hypothesis about the negative impact of unjustified criminal prosecution on entrepreneurial activity. First, we examine the mechanism of unjustified criminal prosecution of entrepreneurs and then using mixed effects regression modelling on panel data for 2017—2021 assess its impact on the growth rate of the number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The number of appeals reviewed by the Center for Public Procedures “Business against corruption” (CPP “BAC”) is used as an indicator of unjustified criminal prosecution. The results show that each additionally handled appeal reduces the rate of growth in the number of SMEs in the medium term. This relationship is explained via the theory of signals: appeals to the CPP “BAC” serve as indicators of unjustified prosecution problem for entrepreneurs. If this problem persists, a decrease in the growth rates of firms, and an increase in their number in the shadow economy can also be expected.
The subject. The study is devoted to the study of corruption aspect of criminal prosecution of entrepreneurs in Russia.The aim of this paper is to identify typical corrupt practices in the criminal prosecution of entrepreneurs, to investigate their causes, as well as to formulate recommendations for minimizing the identified practices of abuse.The methodology. The author analyzes the cases of criminal prosecution of entrepreneurs who have filed appeals to the Center for Public Procedures "Business Against Corruption", the Center "Protection of Business". These public platforms act as filters of appeals for unwarranted criminal prosecution. In case of confirmation of the facts of illegal use of criminal law instruments in relation to an entrepreneur, the appeal with the attached expertise is sent to the Commissioner for the Protection of Entrepreneurs' Rights.The main results, scope of application. To corrupt practices in the field of criminal prosecution of entrepreneurs the author included the following: unreasonable use of preventive measures in the form of detention in contravention of the direct prohibition of pt. 1.1 of the art. 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; ignoring the fact of committing a crime in the field of business and as a consequence qualification of the crime not by special business, but by common crimes; "superficial" preliminary investigation, resulting in criminal proceedings without due cause; ignoring the prejudicial facts established by arbitration courts in criminal proceedings; unreasonable imputing the commission of an intentional act.The reasons for the corrupt practices highlighted and investigated by the author are such factors as the wording of the law and its interpretation, limitations and imprecision of the law, allowing discretion on the part of law enforcers; the established KPIs of law enforcement agencies that encourage "the pursuit of performance" and accusatory bias; declarative ethical standards adopted by public authorities and companies, i.e. the lack of effectively implemented instruments of integrity management; low level of public control over criminal proceedings.In order to minimize the above practices, it is necessary to further improve regulations, to stimulate ethical regulation in organizations; to modernize the metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies, focusing on non-departmental parameters; to significantly increase the role of the institution of business ombudsman as an additional guarantor of legal rights and interests of entrepreneurs, and to actively introduce digitalization tools, in particular, digital records of criminal cases.It is important to emphasize again that the author does not claim to cover all possible corrupt practices in the prosecution of entrepreneurs and their causes. For example, there is a vicious practice of reclassifying a witness in a criminal case after testifying as a suspect and subsequently as a defendant. Further research could look in more detail at each of these corrupt practices, identify and analyze additional practices, as well as explore opportunities for their mitigation. From the point of view of the applied implementation of the results of the study, it seems that they can be useful, on the one hand, to decision makers when improving criminal policy towards entrepreneurs, but also to entrepreneurs themselves to understand the potential criminal law risks that they may face and must minimize.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.