voprecotestВопросы экономикиVoprosy Ekonomiki0042-8736Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP10.32609/0042-8736-2016-6-91-115voprecotest-207Research ArticleЭМПИРИЧЕСКИЕ ОЦЕНКИ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИХ ЭФФЕКТОВEMPIRICAL ESTIMATES OF THE ECONOMIC EFFECTSЛиберальные реформы уголовного законодательства в сфере экономической деятельности 2009-2012 гг. и судебная практикаThe effects of liberal reforms in Russian criminal law on conviction and sentencing of economic offendersЧетвериковаИ. В.ChetverikovaI.

младший научный сотрудник, Институт проблем правоприменения при Европейском университете в Санкт-Петербурге

ichetverikova@eu.spb.ruЕвропейский университет в Санкт-ПетербургеРоссияInstitute for the Rule of Law; European University at St. PetersburgRussian Federation2016200620160691115Copyright © Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP, 20162016Voprosy Ekonomiki, NPVoprosy Ekonomiki, NPhttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/about/submissions#copyrightNoticehttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/article/view/207

Исследование посвящено эмпирической оценке эффектов либеральных реформ, проведенных в период президентства Д. А. Медведева с целью уменьшить давление на бизнес. С помощью квазиэкспериментального дизайна анализировались данные о подсудимых, дела которых были рассмотрены в 2009-2013 гг. российскими судами. Результаты свидетельствуют об ограниченном воздействии реформ на практику рассмотрения дел. Если применение уголовной репрессии и смягчилось в отношении предпринимателей по сравнению с другими экономически активными обвиняемыми, то благодаря общим реформам уголовного закона, а не специальным нововведениям, которые применяются к обвиняемым с предпринимательским статусом.

During the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev in 2008-2012 the Russian economy still remained highly regulated, so almost every economic activity could be recognized by the enforcement agencies as illegal. Under pressure of business some liberal reforms were launched in the criminal law and criminal procedure law related to economic crimes. The reforms were supposed to protect entrepreneurs from unwarranted prosecution and wrong conviction, and to make punishment less punitive. Using the data on 2 million defendants prosecuted for economic and property crimes in Russian criminal courts in 2009-2013, the paper examines how policy change affected the judicial decision making in criminal cases. Quasi-experimental design is used to test the impact of policy change on conviction and sentencing decisions. The results suggest that sentencing practices became more lenient rather due to the general changes in criminal law than the changes related specifically to economic offenders.

экономические преступленияправа собственностисудебная системареформыeconomic crimescriminal lawjudiciary systemquality of institutionssentencingreformsdifference-in-differencesReferenceshttp://www.cdep.ru/index.php?id=79Alexandrov A. (2012). Doing the separate Criminal Code for entrepreneurs? Ugolovnoe Sudoproizvodstvo, No. 4, pp. 22—29. (In Russian).Александров А. С. (2012). Пишем отдельный УК для предпринимателей? // Уголовное судопроизводство. № 4. С. 22-29Volkov V. (2010). The problem of credible commitment in the sphere of ownership and the Russian way of vertical political integration. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 8, pp. 4—27. (In Russian).Волков В. (2010). Проблема надежных гарантий прав собственности и российский вариант вертикальной политической интеграции // Вопросы экономики. № 8. С. 4-27Volkov V.  V. (2012). Violent entrepreunership, in the XXI century. St. Petersburg: European University at St. Petersburg Publ. (In Russian).Волков В. В. (2012). Силовое предпринимательство, XXI век. СПб.: Изд-во ЕУСПбVolkov V.  V. (2014). The influence of socio-economic status of defendants on court decisions. Zhurnal Sociologii i Socialnoy Antropologii, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 62—85. (In Russian).Волков В. В. (2014). Влияние социального статуса подсудимого на решение суда // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. Т. 17, № 4. C. 62-85Gladkikh V.  I. (2012). On some problems of criminal policy in the area of combating economic crimes. Rossijskaja Yustitsiya, No. 3, pp. 43—47. (In Russian).Гладких В. И. (2012). О некоторых проблемах уголовной политики в сфере противодействия экономической преступности // Российская юстиция. № 3. C. 43-47Golovko L.  V. (2011). Conceptual grounds of criminal policy in the economic area. Zakon, No. 9, pp. 43—56. (In Russian).Головко Л. В. (2011). Концептуальные основы уголовной политики в сфере экономики // Закон. № 9. С. 43-56Esakov G.  A. (2014). Business fraud (Art. 159.4 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation): The enforcement problems. Ugolovnoe Pravo, No. 3, pp. 40—44. (In Russian).Есаков Г. A. (2014). Мошенничество в сфере предпринимательской деятельности (ст. 159.4 УК РФ): проблемы применения нормы // Уголовное право. № 3. С. 40-44Kudrin A., Gurvich E. (2014). A new growth model for the Russian economy. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 12, pp. 4—36. (In Russian).Кудрин А., Гурвич Е. (2014). Новая модель роста для российской экономики // Вопросы экономики. № 12. С. 4-36Moiseeva E.  N. (2014). Working groups in the courts of St. Petersburg. Zhurnal Sociologii i Socialnoy Antropologii. Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 86—100. (In Russian).Моисеева Е. Н. (2014). Рабочие группы в судах Санкт-Петербурга // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. Т. 17, № 4. С. 86-100Paneyakh E. L. (2012). Practical logic of judicial decision making: Discretion under the presure and compromises at defendant’s cost. In: V. V. Volkov (ed.). How do judges decide: Empirical legal studies. Moscow: Statut, pp. 107—127. (In Russian).Панеях Э. Л. (2012). Практическая логика принятия судебных решений: дискреция под давлением и компромиссы за счет подсудимого // Как судьи принимают решения: эмпирические исследования права / Отв. ред. В. В. Волков. М.: Статут. С. 107-127Pozdnjakov M.  L. (2012). Sense and ambiguity of the accusatorial bias. In: V. V. Volkov (ed.). How do judges decide: Empirical legal studies. Moscow: Statut, pp. 54—106. (In Russian).Поздняков М. Л. (2012). Смысл и двусмысленность обвинительного уклона // Как судьи принимают решения: эмпирические исследования права / Отв. ред. В. В. Волков. М.: Статут. C. 54-106Pozdnjakov M.  L. (2015). Court and law enforcement system—the price of the compromise. In: V. V. Volkov (ed.). Accusation and aquital in post-Soviet criminal justice. Moscow: Norma, pp. 104—130. (In Russian).Поздняков М. Л. (2015). Суд и правоохранительная система - цена компромисса // Обвинение и оправдание в постсоветской уголовной юстиции / Отв. ред. В. В. Волков. М.: Норма. С. 104-130Skoblikov P. (2011). Grounds and the effects of the weakening the responsibility for economic crimes in the contemporary Russia. Zakon, No. 9, pp. 96—105. (In Russian).Скобликов П. А. (2011). Основания и последствия ослабления ответственности за экономические преступления в современной России // Закон. № 9. С. 96-105Soloviov I. N. (2014). The humanization of law that provides the responsibility for economic crimes as the lenient amnesty in the economic area. Rossijskij Sledovatel, No. 13, pp. 35—41. (In Russian).Соловьев И. Н. (2014). Гуманизация законодательства, предусматривающего ответственность за совершение экономических преступлений, как «мягкая» амнистия в сфере экономики // Российский следователь. № 13. C. 35-41Sonin K. (2005). Institutional theory of endless redistribution. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 7, pp. 4—18. (In Russian).Сонин К. (2005). Институциональная теория бесконечного передела // Вопросы экономики. № 7. С. 4-18Titaev K. D. (2014). Pretrial detention In Russian criminal justice: Sociological analysis of the probability of pretrial detention and its influence on court decisions. Economicheskaja Sociologia, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 88—118. (In Russian).Титаев К. Д. (2014). Предварительное заключение в российской уголовной юстиции: социологический анализ вероятности предварительного заключения и его влияния на решение суда // Экономическая социология. T. 15, № 3. C. 88-118Chetverikova I. (2014). The impact of family, professional status and gender of defendants on sentencing decisions by Russian judges. Zhurnal Sociologii i Socialnoy Antropologii, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 101—123. (In Russian).Четверикова И. В. (2014). Роль семьи, профеccиональной карьеры и пола подсудимых при вынесении приговоров российскими судьями // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. T. 17, № 4. С. 101-123Anderson J. M., Kling J. R., Stith K. (1999). Measuring interjudge sentencing disparity: Before and after the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 42, No. S1, pp. 271-308.Anderson J. M., Kling J. R., Stith K. (1999). Measuring interjudge sentencing disparity: Before and after the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 42, No. S1, pp. 271-308.Acemoglu D., Johnson S. (2005). Unbundling institutions. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 113, No. 5, pp. 949-995.Acemoglu D., Johnson S. (2005). Unbundling institutions. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 113, No. 5, pp. 949-995.Bertrand M., Duflo E., Mullainathan S. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in- differences estimates? Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 119, No. 1, pp. 249-275.Bertrand M., Duflo E., Mullainathan S. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in- differences estimates? Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 119, No. 1, pp. 249-275.Blackwell B. S., Holleran D., Finn A. M. (2008). The impact of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines on sex differences in sentencing. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 399-418.Blackwell B. S., Holleran D., Finn A. M. (2008). The impact of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines on sex differences in sentencing. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 399-418.Campbell D. T., Stanley J. C. (1967). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for research. Handbook of research on teaching. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Campbell D. T., Stanley J. C. (1967). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for research. Handbook of research on teaching. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Demsetz H. (1967). Toward a Theory of Property Rights. The American Economic Review, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 347-359.Demsetz H. (1967). Toward a Theory of Property Rights. The American Economic Review, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 347-359.Eisenstein J., Jacob H. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal court. Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.Eisenstein J., Jacob H. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal court. Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.Fischman J. B., Schanzenbach M. M. (2012). Racial disparities under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The role of judicial discretion and mandatory minimums. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 729-764.Fischman J. B., Schanzenbach M. M. (2012). Racial disparities under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The role of judicial discretion and mandatory minimums. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 729-764.Helms R., Jacobs D. (2002). The political context of sentencing: An analysis of community and individual determinants. Social Forces, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 577-604.Helms R., Jacobs D. (2002). The political context of sentencing: An analysis of community and individual determinants. Social Forces, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 577-604.Mustard D. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the US federal courts. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 285-314.Mustard D. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the US federal courts. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 285-314.Owens E. G. (2009). More time, less crime? Estimating the incapacitative effect of sentence enhancements. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 551-579.Owens E. G. (2009). More time, less crime? Estimating the incapacitative effect of sentence enhancements. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 551-579.Sacks M., Ackerman A. R. (2012). Pretrial detention and guilty pleas: If they cannot afford bail they must be guilty. Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 265-278.Sacks M., Ackerman A. R. (2012). Pretrial detention and guilty pleas: If they cannot afford bail they must be guilty. Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 265-278.Sacks M., Ackerman A. R. (2014). Bail and sentencing: Does pretrial detention lead to harsher punishment? Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 59-77.Sacks M., Ackerman A. R. (2014). Bail and sentencing: Does pretrial detention lead to harsher punishment? Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 59-77.Spohn C. (2009). How do judges decide? The search for fairness and justice in punishment. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Spohn C. (2009). How do judges decide? The search for fairness and justice in punishment. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Sutherland E. H. (1940). White-collar criminality. American Sociological Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-12.Sutherland E. H. (1940). White-collar criminality. American Sociological Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-12.Sutton J. R. (2013). Symbol and substance: Effects of California’s Three Strikes Law on felony sentencing. Law & Society Review, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 37-72.Sutton J. R. (2013). Symbol and substance: Effects of California’s Three Strikes Law on felony sentencing. Law & Society Review, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 37-72.Ulmer J. T. (2005). The localized uses of Federal Sentencing Guidelines in four U.S. district courts: Evidence of processual order. Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 255-279.Ulmer J. T. (2005). The localized uses of Federal Sentencing Guidelines in four U.S. district courts: Evidence of processual order. Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 255-279.Ulmer J. T., Light M. T., Kramer J. H. (2011). Racial disparity in the wake of the Booker/Fanfan decision: An alternative analysis to the USSC’s 2010 report. Criminology & Public Policy, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 1077-1118.Ulmer J. T., Light M. T., Kramer J. H. (2011). Racial disparity in the wake of the Booker/Fanfan decision: An alternative analysis to the USSC’s 2010 report. Criminology & Public Policy, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 1077-1118.Volkov V. (2014). Socioeconomic status and sentencing disparities: Evidence from Russia’s criminal courts (Preprint No. IRL-01/2014). St. Petersburg: Institute for the Rule of Law, European University at St. Petersburg.Volkov V. (2014). Socioeconomic status and sentencing disparities: Evidence from Russia’s criminal courts (Preprint No. IRL-01/2014). St. Petersburg: Institute for the Rule of Law, European University at St. Petersburg.Wooldredge J., Griffin T., Rauschenberg F. (2005). (Un)anticipated effects of sentencing reform on the disparate treatment of defendants. Law & Society Review, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 835-873.Wooldredge J., Griffin T., Rauschenberg F. (2005). (Un)anticipated effects of sentencing reform on the disparate treatment of defendants. Law & Society Review, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 835-873.Wooldredge J., Griffin T., Rauschenberg F. (2005). (Un)anticipated effects of sentencing reform on the disparate treatment of defendants. Law & Society Review, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 835-873.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.