On July 12, the State Duma passed the law On Organized Crime and sent it along to the Federation Council for consideration. At the same time, the Duma adopted two laws introducing changes and amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Trials Code connected with the new law. At last, instead of mere words about the need to combat organized crime, we have made a real legal step toward achieving this goal. Finally, years of insistent demands from the public, the legal community, law-enforcement officials and all those who entrusted the state with the obligation of countering organized criminal groups and defending the rights and interests of the entire population have borne fruit.


I will not hide the fact that this first Russian law on organized crime has traversed a difficult road -- which, incidentally, was also the case in many other countries. Attacks on the project began on the very day in June 1993 when a group of legal specialists set to work on the project. Even now, there are some powerful forces opposing it. There are those in the Duma who oppose the law, and there will no doubt also be opponents in the Federation Council. Therefore, although the bill is through the Duma, its uphill struggle is not yet over.


I would like to comment briefly on some of the objections that have been raised to the effect that the new law violates the constitution of the Russian Federation, beginning with the loudest and most general. One deputy from Russia's Choice has made the oft-quoted declaration that this law might create the preconditions for a police state in Russia. It would be hard to think of a more serious accusation or a more absurd statement. Regimes are generally considered "police states" if they use their powers to suppress political opposition. Measures for fighting crime and those for silencing an opposition are, to my mind, very different things. In order to prevent anyone from rejecting this law on political grounds, Article 3 states directly that this law does not affect any properly registered social organizations, assuming that any criminal activity by their members does not stem from the goals and programs of the organizations themselves.


The portions of the law containing the provision that any witness, victim or suspect will be held responsible for knowingly and voluntarily giving false testimony have also drawn criticism. Those who oppose this provision refer to Articles 49 and 51 of the constitution. Article 49 states, in part, that the accused is not obliged to prove his own innocence. Article 51 states that no one can be compelled to testify against himself or a family member.


Clearly these articles are not applicable. The law does not compel a suspect to testify, nor does it prevent him from voluntarily testifying with regard to others involved in a criminal organization. But it does force suspects to think about their responsibility before others, before the investigation and the courts. In doing so, it protects civil rights, including those of other suspects.


The law also devotes considerable attention to the legal battle against the financial base of organized crime in an attempt to oppose the legalization of criminal funds and property. These measures have also drawn heavy criticism.


Article 48 of the law calls for the one-month "administrative detention" of funds or property belonging to individuals or legal entities if there is reason to believe that the property was illegally received or generated. The law also requires those individuals or firms to provide proof that the property was legally received or generated. At the same time, the law includes provisions to protect citizens' constitutional rights. Property can only be frozen with the approval of the prosecutor and it can only be confiscated by a court order. In cases of unwarranted actions, the law provides for compensation for material harm and methods of appealing to a higher prosecutor or court, which is obliged to hear the appeal within five days.


The law's opponents again argue that these provisions violate Articles 49 and 51 of the constitution. However, those articles do not apply to cases of freezing assets. The government, in order to combat crime, protect citizens and defend the country's economic security, will merely be given the power to verify the legality of funds and property, and then only in cases where there is evidence that the property in question was illegally received or acquired. This measure and others relating to checking financial activity and combatting money laundering are fundamentally aimed at fulfilling the demands of the constitution. The government is obliged to confirm that economic activity is legal and fair, and it is obliged to safeguard the country's security and that of its economy. All governments must meet these obligations, and Russia's is no exception.


I think that these remarks are sufficient to show that this law, far from violating the constitution, embodies it. It is worth noting that lately the law's critics have fallen silent as they have turned their attention to the far-reaching and carefully written civil-rights guarantees that the law contains.


Specialists agree that the new law is far more democratic and humane than the legislation currently on the books. And there is nothing surprising about this considering that it was drafted after a careful examination of the actual criminal situation in Russia and the experience of other countries around the world. The law has received support from the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI. Most important, it proceeds from an objective understanding of the very real danger that organized crime poses for Russia and for other countries.





Valery Kolmakov, a deputy from the New Regional Policy faction, is chairman of the State Duma Subcommittee on Crime and Corruption. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.