Thematic Review of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 14/2026: analysis of legal positions and their primary sources

Paragraph 1 · Proportionality of dismissal for failure to submit an income certificate

The dismissal of a municipal official for failure to submit an income certificate is not automatic: the employer must assess the seriousness of the misconduct and the circumstances in which it was committed. In the case of the official concerned, access to her workplace and to the special software for completing the certificate had been denied, which the court recognized as a circumstance excluding fault.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 45-КГ25-22-К7 (2025): the database contains a ruling involving a virtually identical factual scenario (the employer’s denial of access to the workplace and to the special “Справки БК” software), confirming the same position that automatic dismissal without consideration of proportionality is impermissible.

Paragraph 2 · Failure by a deputy to submit expenditure information — loss of trust

A deputy’s late submission of expenditure information (in connection with a significant acquisition) constitutes an independent ground for loss of trust, regardless of subsequent voluntary performance of the obligation after a prosecutorial inspection.

Primary source in the database: the connector database contains no act of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation addressing specifically a deputy’s failure to submit expenditure information; no separate primary source or related case law concerning this specific ground for loss of trust was found.

Paragraph 3 · Material distortion of a deputy’s property information

The failure to disclose a residential house and a plot of land, together with incomplete reporting of the spouse’s income, was recognized as a serious violation warranting the early termination of the deputy’s mandate as a proportionate measure of liability.

Primary source in the database: the connector database contains no act of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation addressing specifically the materiality of a deputy’s distortion of a declaration concerning real estate; no separate relevant primary source or related case law was found.

Paragraph 4 · Holding multiple offices does not exempt a person from making separate declarations

A deputy simultaneously elected to representative bodies at two levels must comply separately with anti-corruption obligations for each office held; failure to submit a complete certificate for one of them entails loss of trust.

Primary source in the database: based on Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 51-П (2025): no case law directly concerning the simultaneous holding of two representative mandates was found, but the cited resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation examines the status of a representative-body deputy as an independent bearer of anti-corruption obligations, from which a deputy cannot be excluded on the basis of formal status-related circumstances.

Paragraph 5 · Conflict of interest is not limited to close relatives

The dismissal of a penal system employee for failing to take measures to resolve a conflict of interest is lawful even where the employee showed favoritism toward a male and female cousin—relationships not formally classified as close kinship under the statutory list, but in fact creating a personal interest.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 21-КГПР20-2-К5 (2020): a ruling involving an identical factual scenario was found (the head of a Federal Penitentiary Service department and his male and female cousins), articulating the same legal position reproduced in the paragraph of the review.

Paragraph 6 · Conflict of interest involving former spouses holding municipal offices

Divorce does not eliminate the risk of a conflict of interest between former spouses who continue to live together and have children together: the chair of the council of deputies, who voted for the election of her former husband as head of the settlement, was required to file a notification of personal interest.

Primary source in the database: based on Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 51-П (2025): no act specifically concerning former spouses was found in the database, but the resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation articulates the general principle that a deputy’s conflict of interest must be assessed based on the totality of the factual circumstances, rather than solely on formal kinship criteria.

Paragraph 7 · A deputy’s vote in a conflict-of-interest situation and loss of trust

A deputy must declare a conflict of interest regardless of the subsequent decision of the body or commission; failure to do so constitutes a violation in itself and entails early termination of the mandate.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 51-П (2025).

Paragraph 8 · Commission approval for the employment of a former public official

The obligation to obtain the commission’s approval remains in force even if, by the time of dismissal, the position has been removed from the relevant list: the period during which the official actually performed public-administration functions in relation to the employing organization is taken into account.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 58-КГ25-17-К9 (2026).

Paragraph 9 · Prohibition on entrepreneurial activity for a settlement head

The prohibition on entrepreneurial activity for persons holding permanent public offices is intended to prevent conflicts of interest; its violation constitutes grounds for loss of trust regardless of the formal transfer of property to a relative.

Primary source in the database: based on Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 34-П (2012) — the general constitutional-law principle prohibiting the combination of public office with entrepreneurial activity was formulated in relation to the status of a State Duma deputy, but in substance extends to all permanent public offices; no separate act specifically concerning a rural settlement head was found in the database.

Paragraph 10 · An official cannot resign while an anti-corruption investigation is pending

If an official failed to disclose a conflict of interest and submitted inaccurate income information, the representative of the employer must complete the investigation and dismiss the official on the basis of conduct discrediting the official; resignation at the official’s own initiative before completion of the investigation violates the principle that liability must be unavoidable.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 46-КГПР24-5-К6 (2024).

Paragraph 11 · Loss of trust takes precedence over resignation at one’s own request

The principle that liability for anti-corruption offences must be unavoidable precludes resignation at one’s own request where grounds for loss of trust have already been identified—in the case at issue, the deputy and the deputy’s spouse had submitted inaccurate and incomplete income information.

Primary source in the database: based on Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 51-П (2025) — the same resolution articulates the general principle of proportionate and unavoidable liability of persons holding public offices for anti-corruption violations; no separate act specifically addressing the relationship between loss of trust and resignation at one’s own request was found in the database.

Paragraph 12 · A court terminates a mandate on a prosecutor’s claim when the council fails to act

If a representative body refuses to terminate the mandate of a person deriving a personal benefit from their public-law status, the prosecutor may apply directly to the court, which itself decides the issue of loss of trust and is not bound by the inaction or refusal of the local body.

Primary source in the database: No related Constitutional Court/Supreme Court practice specifically concerning the prosecutor’s procedural right to seek termination of powers through the courts when the representative body is inactive was found in the connector database—the separate primary source is absent.

Paragraph 13 · Forfeiture to the revenue of the Russian Federation of property derived from corrupt acts

In addition to the classic discrepancy between expenditure and income, it is sufficient to establish that the property was acquired as a result of specific corrupt acts—in this case, the unlawful business activities of the deputy and governor, in breach of anti-corruption prohibitions, through companies under their control.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 34-П (2012); Constitutional Court Resolution No. 26-П (2016).

Paragraph 14 · Proceeds from the sale of corruptly acquired property are also subject to forfeiture

The subsequent transformation of corrupt proceeds (through reinvestment or sale) into new property does not remove that property from the scope of forfeiture to state revenue—the principle of tracing corrupt proceeds.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Constitutional Court Resolution No. 26-П (2016); Constitutional Court Resolution No. 49-П (2024).

Paragraph 15 · Sham transaction price and the market value of property

If the actual (market) value of the property is substantially higher than the amount stated in the contract, the court may find the price term sham and, when reviewing expenditure, take into account the market valuation rather than the formal transaction amount.

Primary source in the database: , targeted connector searches did not identify separate Supreme Court/Constitutional Court practice concerning the sham nature of the price specifically in the context of anti-corruption expenditure control outside the Review itself: no separate primary source or related case is present in the corpus.

Paragraph 16 · Liability of beneficiaries of corruption

The range of potentially liable persons extends beyond the officeholder: a beneficiary who is an accomplice may also be liable (in this case, the founder of the company who gave the bribe), and the unlawful enrichment received by that person may be recovered from them.

Primary source in the database: based on Supreme Court Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases Ruling No. 39-КГПР25-8-К1 (2026).

Paragraph 17 · Joint and several liability of affiliated controlled persons

Using the example of a federal minister who used foreign companies with nominee shareholders to conceal income from the sale of shares, the case formulates criteria for the joint and several liability of a group of formally independent persons: affiliation, control, and coordinated actions.

Primary source in the database: , targeted connector searches did not identify a separate prior case in the corpus with these facts (affiliated foreign controlled entities and nominee owners)—no primary source or related practice outside the Review was found.

Paragraph 18 · Forfeiture to state revenue of spouses’ income after divorce

Divorce does not terminate the joint and several liability of former spouses for unsubstantiated receipts if the money was credited to their accounts during the marriage while they maintained a common budget—otherwise, divorce would become a means of avoiding anti-corruption recovery.

Primary source in the database: based on Review of Supreme Court practice in prosecutors’ claims for forfeiture of property to the revenue of the Russian Federation, para. 1; Supreme Court Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases Ruling No. 32-КГ17-18 (2017).

Paragraph 19 · Burden of proving the elements of an anti-corruption claim

Even when financial-intelligence information is used extensively, the prosecutor is not relieved of proving the three basic facts comprising the claim: the defendant’s ownership of the property, the time of its acquisition, and the actual excess of its value over the family’s income during the three-year period.

Primary source in the database: based on Supreme Court Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases Ruling No. 47-КГПР22-7-К6 (2022).

Paragraph 20 · Fictitious loan as a means of disguising corrupt proceeds

The courts must establish not only that a loan agreement was concluded, but also that the loan was real—whether the transaction was fictitious and whether the loan was in fact used to acquire the disputed property.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Supreme Court Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases Ruling No. 11-КГПР24-13-К6 (2024).

Paragraph 21 · The three-year period is grounds for review, not automatic forfeiture

Expenditure exceeding income for the three-year period is merely sufficient grounds for review, not an unconditional basis for forfeiting property; the defendant may submit evidence of the lawful origin of the funds regardless of when they were received.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Supreme Court Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases Ruling No. 50-КГ18-29 (2019).

Paragraph 22 · Accounting for the income of cohabiting family members

If the defendant and members of their extended family in fact maintain a common household and share a common budget, their income may be counted as evidence confirming the lawful acquisition of the disputed property, rather than only the income of the controlled person and their spouse.

Primary source in the database: , no separate primary source or related Supreme Court/Constitutional Court practice concerning the accounting for the income of cohabiting members of an extended family could be found in the connector database.

Paragraph 23 · Civil claim instead of an unresolved criminal issue

This is based on the public-law, rather than private-law, nature of the mechanism for forfeiting property to state revenue: if funds misappropriated through fraud were not seized in criminal proceedings, their disposition is determined in a separate civil claim brought by the prosecutor, on the basis that the transaction is void as contrary to the foundations of public order and morality.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Constitutional Court Resolution No. 49-П (2024); Supreme Court Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases Ruling No. 39-КГПР25-5-К1 (2026).

Paragraph 24 · Temporal limits: property acquired before assuming public office

Anti-corruption control applies only to the period during which the person already held a publicly significant office; funds received before their first election to public office are excluded from the scope of control.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Constitutional Court Resolution No. 1-П (2019).

Paragraph 25 · No limitation period for a prosecutor’s anti-corruption claim

In a case concerning recovery of more than 198 million rubles from a former deputy head of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and their spouse, the courts rejected the argument that the limitation period had expired, relying on the Constitutional Court’s position that the legislature has not established a limitation period for such a prosecutor’s claim.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Constitutional Court Resolution No. 49-П (2024).

Paragraph 26 · A court of general jurisdiction hears an anti-corruption claim against a bankrupt defendant

Property obtained as a result of a violation of anti-corruption prohibitions cannot be included in the bankruptcy estate and is subject exclusively to forfeiture to the revenue of the Russian Federation; therefore, the dispute is heard outside the bankruptcy case by a court of general jurisdiction.

Primary source in the database: Targeted searches did not identify directly related practice in the database specifically concerning a prosecutor’s anti-corruption claim against a bankrupt defendant—it appears to be a new procedural clarification formulated for the first time in the Review itself.

Paragraph 27 · The court may refuse to accept a prosecutor’s withdrawal of an anti-corruption claim

After filing a claim for the forfeiture to state revenue of property worth more than 196 million rubles, the prosecutor withdrew the claim; the court refused to accept the withdrawal because it could not be satisfied that it would not leave unprotected the interests of the Russian Federation and of an indeterminate class of persons harmed by corruption.

Primary source in the database: based on Constitutional Court Ruling No. 1836-О-О (2011) — a general procedural principle of heightened judicial scrutiny of a prosecutor’s withdrawal of a claim brought to protect public interests.