Legal nature of the seizure of property acquired through corruption: Analysis of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Judgment dated on October 31, 2024 No.49-P

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 anti-corruption 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.