home-Hats-What is the meaning of the sin “covetousness” and what does Orthodoxy say about it? Is bribery our past or present? Orthodox understanding of extortion.

What is the meaning of the sin “covetousness” and what does Orthodoxy say about it? Is bribery our past or present? Orthodox understanding of extortion.

Which has long gone from the everyday life of the average person. Time moves forward and many words become archaisms that do not take root in the new environment. The funny thing is that the phenomenon denoted by this word continues to exist. It occurs under a different “pseudonym”, more adapted to modern society.

Have you ever heard the word “bribery” and does it mean anything to you? If you haven’t heard, then this is not at all surprising, since it has completely disappeared from the set of words of modern man. If you have ever heard it, then you understand perfectly well what we are talking about.

What is bribery

In order to understand what this word means, you should turn to outdated vocabulary. To do this, just look through the literature of the last century and plunge into the good old times. In the classics this word appears quite often. So, its outdated meaning is bribery. It's funny that such an unpleasant and unreadable word denotes an equally disgusting and undignified process.

Story

History is impossible without a root cause. Bribery is something that has been inherent in people from the very beginning of time, but over the centuries, unfortunately, it has only gained momentum. Of course, the law strictly punished those who took bribes, but even punishment stopped few people. Most often, the punishment was too simple and insufficient to achieve the intended goal - once and for all to discourage a person from taking bribes.

The state apparatus itself dictated such conditions that it was very difficult to resolve many issues without outside help. Naturally, no one was going to provide such help “for thank you.” Moreover, we must not forget the fact that society itself considered honest people who do not take money and conduct business “in accordance with their conscience” as simpletons, fools and idiots. They were used very often, and few people thought they were smart.

This example clearly shows how public opinion influences a specific person. The majority became the same as everyone else, even if this contradicted their life and moral principles. Alas, we perceive the opinion of society as more significant than our own point of view. And only a few could resist universal bribery, but every year there were fewer and fewer such people. Unfortunately, bribery is a phenomenon that, once “stained” with it, is impossible to “clean off” later.

Laws

Criminal law was in force in Rus'. Bribery was believed to be an activity that deserved punishment from the state. Officially, bribery was not encouraged, but was disgraced, but in fact, it was impossible to do without it. Bribery was the performance by an official of a certain duty for outside compensation. The punishment for this action was corporal, but if the bribe was, as they say now, “on an especially large scale,” then the culprit could be sent to Azov for life. This refers to multiple blows with a whip.

If we turn to other nations, their hand was cut off for bribery so that the person would learn a lesson for life. More cruel methods are also known that did not deprive a person of body parts, but the perpetrator was mercilessly tortured. Herodotus wrote that the Persian king Cambyses, having learned that he was dealing with bribed people, ordered his judge's chair to be covered with the skin of the guilty man.

Synonyms of the word

Now we understand what bribery is. The meaning of the word is very close and understandable to everyone who has at least once encountered a similar phenomenon, and this is almost every second person. The vocabulary of our ancestors was quite rich, but not very universal, although this did not spoil it at all. For example, the word “bribery,” which logically should have numerous synonyms, does not have many. Of the outdated words, only “extortion” is a synonym, but it also has a slightly different connotation.

In modern vocabulary there are a lot of synonyms for this word, but most of them relate to obscene language, so we will not remember them. Most of all, the expression “take on the paw” has taken root in society, but, again, it has existed for a long time.

Bribery and extortion

In modern understanding, these two words are considered synonyms, but in reality they are not. In order to understand this, you should delve into the criminal law of Rus', which stated that bribery is the performance of a certain action by an authorized person for a fee, and extortion is a professional crime, that is, the distortion of certain information. It is interesting that extortion and bribery were punished equally.

To summarize, it should be noted that bribery is an unworthy act, and people have understood this since ancient times. The Church has always condemned such actions, equating them with witchcraft and drunkenness. But at the same time, one should understand what kind of mentality developed on the territory of a certain state. It is stupid to condemn a nation of bribe-takers if the state does not provide the opportunity for a fair resolution of cases or, in a more modern version, does not allow fair competition to develop.

Russia's third problem

As you know, Gogol identified the two main troubles of Russia - “fools and roads.” But it seems that these same Russian troubles are much more numerous. And, first of all, one of them includes corruption, which, like an incurable disease, accompanies our state throughout the entire path of its development. At different periods, it caused more or less concern to the state body, more than once brought it to the brink of life and death, but, despite the variety of treatment methods, it never disappeared completely.

Corruption, of which bribery is one of the main components, is condemned throughout the world, but has existed since time immemorial and is not going to disappear. Even in the Old Testament, one of God’s commandments to the people is mentioned: “Do not accept gifts; for gifts make those who see blind and pervert the work of the righteous.” But the nature of people is imperfect; they do not really follow God’s commandments and the norms of the Law in their lives.

Corruption in Rus' developed and strengthened as the state apparatus developed. The state governs its citizens through officials appointed by it, who formally must be guided in their activities by the spirit and letter of the Law. However, as you know, the laws in Russia are “whatever”, and therefore an official can either act or fail to act, or even act contrary to the Law. In the 17th century in Rus', several legal names existed to determine the types of bribes: honors, commemorations and promises. It is curious that “honors” (preliminary “greasing” of an official) and “remembrance” (a gift “at the end”) were considered completely legal things, but for “promises”, that is, for breaking the law for a fee, corporal punishment was imposed. It was for these promises that Prince Alexei Kropotkin and clerk Ivan Semenov suffered in 1654, taking money from merchants whom Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was going to resettle to Moscow. The merchants did not want to go there, and they preferred to give a bribe, not suspecting that the king had already canceled his decision. Nevertheless, the prince demanded 150 rubles from the merchants, and the clerk - 30 rubles and a barrel of wine, for which both were publicly beaten with a whip.

Later, the criminal law of Tsarist Russia divided bribery into two types: bribery and extortion. A bribe given for performing an action within the scope of duties of an official was interpreted as bribery. A bribe for committing an official misconduct or a crime in the sphere of official activity was interpreted as extortion. Moreover, the state and the people themselves have long been quite tolerant of bribery. Even during the times of Ancient Rus', the Byzantine principle began to be practiced for officials - they were not paid salaries, but were allowed to feed themselves from the donations of the people.

In general, this Byzantine principle will then haunt Russia like a ghost throughout its entire development path. He will remind of himself even in socialist times, when large officials seemed to be fed by the people. Their salaries were relatively low, but thanks to special distributors and nomenklatura connections they had the opportunity to ride like cheese in butter. And the current craving of the political elite for exorbitant luxury is also from the “Byzantine opera”.

The most profitable position in Russia in the 16th-17th centuries was the position of governor. In order to prevent the governors from becoming excessively rich, the tsar even limited the period of their powers to two years. And so that during these two years they did not turn into “oligarchs,” their property was checked at the royal outposts when the governors returned after two years from their place of service. The voivode's carts and carts were searched without any embarrassment, and if there was an impression that they were carrying too much goods, the surplus was mercilessly requisitioned for the benefit of the treasury.

The Byzantine path may have been the most acceptable for the young and poor Russian state, but it was by no means the best. The supreme power, without creating a clear mechanism for remunerating the work of officials, shifted the burden of providing for governors and clerks to the townspeople and district people. And thus marked the beginning of rampant Russian corruption and an endless chain of mutual grievances and complaints. The people disliked the officials, and the officials disliked the people. It happened that while in the zemstvo hut one clerk was writing, under the dictation of the warden, a petition against the insatiability of the governor, at the same time in the hut, another clerk was writing, under the dictation of the governor, a complaint against the warlord.

Gradually, with the formation and strengthening of the state apparatus in Russia, the bureaucracy began to strengthen - a special caste of officials who received salaries from the treasury. She absorbed the traditions of past generations of officials, and therefore treated “feeding” as her sacred hereditary right, even despite the salary. However, although the people liked to joke about this, they did not particularly resist. Material gratitude to officials for processing documents or any other work was considered in the order of things. Gifts to them for name days and holidays were also common. It is clear that the line between permitted “honor” and prohibited “promise” was very fluid, which contributed to abuses by officials. It’s not for nothing that many sayings have appeared among the people: “It’s only useful for judges what’s in their pockets,” “Every hooker loves a hot roll,” “The orderly is a prankster: his hands are hooks, his fingers are rakes, the whole lining is one pocket.”

In general, corruption has enriched the Russian language with a large number of sayings, many catchphrases that make up the special terminology of bribery: “lamb in a piece of paper”, “sinless income”, “if you don’t grease, you won’t go”, “bribe”, “hapen zi gevezen” and so on. For example, the expression “stay on your toes” has nothing to do with the detail of a human face. In Rus', “pronosom” or simply “nose” was the name given to a bribe that the applicant brought to a government office hidden under a blanket. If the clerk or judge did not accept the offering, the petitioner left with his “nose” without a slurp.

Failure of Peter the Great

The great reformer Peter I seemed to know how to achieve whatever he set his mind to. He opened a “window to Europe,” built a fleet, defeated the hitherto invincible Swedes, raised industry to an unprecedented level, built Northern Palmyra among the swamps and, finally, Europeanized the country, forcing the people not only to dress, but also to think in a new way. And only he failed to overcome corruption.

Peter’s brother-in-law, Prince B. Kurakin, noted in his notes that “great bribery and state theft” that arose during the reign of Tsarina Natalya Kirillovna, which to this day (written in 1727) continues with multiplication, and it is difficult to remove this ulcer.” What Peter I did not do to eradicate this ulcer. And he set an example for his subjects with his own behavior. Being the autocratic ruler of a huge empire, he ordered an officer's salary to be assigned to himself, on which he lived, sometimes experiencing serious financial difficulties. When, as a result of his remarriage, his salary became chronically insufficient to live on, Colonel Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov asked Alexander Menshikov, who at that time had the highest military rank of Generalissimo, to petition the Senate to confer upon him, the Tsar, the rank of general, who was entitled to a higher salary.

The reformer sovereign wanted officials to follow the example of their tsar - to honestly live on one salary. Therefore, in 1715 he ordered that their salaries be paid from the treasury.

But even to the tsar’s friend Menshikov, not to mention all the other subjects, the sovereign’s example was not a decree. Boyars, nobles, merchants and officials stole and “took on their paws” simply shamelessly. The rampant bribery could not hide from the eye of Peter, and he moved from educational measures to more effective ones - to punishment. Particularly malicious embezzlers were exemplarily executed. In 1721, the Siberian governor, Prince Gagarin, was hanged for bribes under the very windows of the justice college on Vasilievsky Island. And then, in an exemplary manner, it was hung several times in different places in St. Petersburg. A number of other high-ranking officials were also roughly punished. For example, the famous fiscal officer Nesterov, who revealed so many other people’s abuses, was himself caught taking bribes and was executed.

To combat embezzlement locally, Peter I dispatched his commissars to the volosts, but sometimes the royal commissioners themselves turned out to be dishonest. In 1725, commissars Artsibashev, Baranov, and Volotsky were hanged for embezzlement and bribery. They were executed in the volosts where they were engaged in bribery.

Peter I did not put particularly close people on trial for abuses, but he mercilessly personally treated them with a stick. The tsar's favorite Aleksashka Menshikov especially suffered. At first, the sovereign tried to reason with him with words. In 1711, Peter I was informed that Menshikov was engaged in abuses in Poland and he wrote to him: “I earnestly ask that you do not lose your fame and credit with such small profits.” Menshikov drew conclusions. And he no longer began to “get dirty” with small profits, but began to take big. The fortune of the former rootless, poor sergeant of the Preobrazhensky Regiment became one of the largest in the country. He owned multimillion-dollar deposits in foreign banks; he only had jewelry worth one and a half million rubles. It is no coincidence that Menshikov’s embezzlement became the talk of the town, and the palace of Alexander Danilovich in St. Petersburg became a real monument to his theft. The following legend is associated with him:

Once leaving the capital, Tsar Peter instructed Menshikov, as mayor, to supervise the construction of the building of 12 colleges. And so that he would fulfill the order more accurately, he promised to donate to him for personal use all the land that would remain free on the Neva embankment after construction. Arriving at the site allocated for development, mayor Menshikov soon realized that the generous royal gift was a fiction; there was no free space left. And then he, with his characteristic ingenuity, figured out how to carry out the assignment without offending himself. Alexander Danilovich unfolded the drawing, making the long building end up facing the Neva. So construction began. When Peter returned and saw how the foundation had been laid, he furiously dragged Menshikov along the future façade and beat him with a baton at each board. But he kept his royal word and gave the land to “Alexashka.”

The tsar beat his confidant more than once, but Menshikov invariably knew how to find a way to smooth out the sovereign’s anger. Once, when the Tsar was once again complained about the unscrupulous extortions on the part of Menshikov, Peter I in anger beat His Serene Highness with a stick. Alexander Danilovich suffered greatly - the king broke his nose and put a huge flashlight under his eye. And then he kicked me out with the words:

Get out, son of a pike, and may I no longer have your leg!

Menshikov did not dare to disobey, disappeared, but a minute later he entered the office again... in his arms!

One of the most “high-profile” corruption scandals in the Peter the Great era was associated with embezzlement during contracts for the army. Eminent state nobles were involved in it: Alexander Menshikov, Count Apraksin, Chancellor Count Golovkin, St. Petersburg vice-governor Yakov Korsakov, Senator Prince Grigory Volkonsky and Senator Opukhtin. As a result of the investigation, a fine in the amount of 145 thousand rubles was imposed on Menshikov, but the fine was never paid to the treasury.

Peter I tried to build a system of fighting corruption in the state. Reports of “the theft of the treasury” were initially dealt with by the secret office headed by Count P.A. Tolstoy. And she worked conscientiously. The historian Karamzin wrote this: “The secret chancellery worked day and night in Preobrazhenskoye: torture and execution served as a means of our transformation of the state.” But apparently since the time of embezzlement cases there have become so many that they were transferred from the secret office to the general justice system. Neither torture, nor executions, nor public disgrace stopped the bribe-takers.

One of the foreigners who visited Russia during the reign of Peter the Great wrote: “They look at officials here like birds of prey. They think that with their assumption of office they are given the right to suck the people to the bone and base their happiness on the destruction of their well-being.”

Sometimes one gets the impression that Tsar Peter alone fought the battle against the many-headed hydra of corruption and that he was almost the only one who lived exclusively on state salaries. The rest of the nobles and officials were much more tolerant of the problem of bribery. In this regard, one well-known story is very indicative:

Once, at the end of his life, Peter I, infuriated by the general theft of the sovereign's people and desperate to re-educate them, threatened in the Senate to hang any official who stole enough to buy rope. However, the main guardian of the law, Prosecutor General Yaguzhinsky, then cooled the tsar’s righteous anger with the famous phrase: “Does your majesty want to reign alone, without servants and without subjects. We all steal, only one is bigger and more noticeable than the other.”

The daughter of Peter I, Elizabeth, who ascended the throne, was not as zealous as her father about eradicating corruption. And therefore she returned the country to the previous order. The payment of salaries to officials was abolished, but at the same time the death penalty for bribery was abolished. As a result, “feeding from business” again became the only way for honest officials not to die of hunger, and dishonest officials stopped being afraid of anything at all. Theft, bribery and extortion reigned everywhere. And the queen could only state this fact: “The insatiable thirst for self-interest has reached the point that some places established for justice have become marketplaces, covetousness and partiality - the leadership of judges, and indulgence and omission - approval of the lawless.” The Senate tried to do something to limit the rampant corruption, but the effectiveness of its measures was low. For example, he decided to change the governor every five years, but in fact this decision remained only on paper.

Catherine II turned out to be much more faithful to the behests of Peter I. As soon as she ascended the throne, she made it clear to her people that she did not intend to indulge the bribe takers, and the officials - that their tricks would not hide from her eye.

Having learned that in the Novgorod province it was necessary to give a bribe in order to be allowed to swear allegiance to her, the new empress, she was indignant. Not only was the oath mandatory, but also evasion of it was punishable by law. “Our heart shuddered,” Catherine wrote in her decree, “when We heard... that some registrar Yakov Renberg, now swearing poor people to Us in allegiance, took money for this from everyone who swore the oath. We ordered this Renberg to be sent to Siberia for eternity to hard labor and did so only out of mercy, since he should be deprived of life for such a terrible... crime.”

The empress did not introduce the death penalty for covetous people, but she revived the payment of salaries to officials. And she established quite decent maintenance for them, allowing them to live quite decently. In 1763, the annual salary of an average employee was: 100-150 rubles in central and higher institutions, 60 rubles in provincial institutions and 30 rubles in district ones. To determine the purchasing power of this money, we can say that a pound of grain at that time cost 10-15 kopecks.

Catherine II was a wise woman; it was not for nothing that she was nicknamed the Great. But with all her wisdom, Catherine II did not find a recipe for how to solve the problem of theft and bribery of government officials in Russia, which sometimes led to very serious consequences. In any case, the famous poet who “blessed” Pushkin, Gabriel Romanovich Derzhavin, believed that one of the reasons for the Pugachev rebellion was the extortion of landowners and officials. He wrote to the Kazan governor von Brandt: “We must stop the robbery, or, to put it more clearly, the incessant bribery, which is almost completely exhausting people. As far as I could notice, this covetousness produces the most grumbling among the inhabitants, because anyone who has the slightest deal with them robs them. This makes the gullible and unreasonable mob dissatisfied, and, if I dare to speak frankly, this most of all supports the ulcer that is raging in our fatherland.”

Derzhavin knew what he was talking about. He went down in history not only as an outstanding poet, but also as the first Minister of Justice of Russia. For example, it is known that Gavriil Derzhavin supervised the investigation into the case against the banker Sutherland. The banker stole quite a bit. When he discovered a shortage of two million government money, he declared himself bankrupt and then poisoned himself. During the investigation, it became clear that important government dignitaries helped Sutherland spend government money.

However, Catherine II also realistically assessed that many of her officials lived on more than one salary. And so again and again I tried to reassure them and re-educate them. Once, when I got acquainted with the results of the audit of the Belgorod province, I was so outraged that I issued a special decree, which read: “It was repeated many times in printed decrees to the people that bribes and bribery corrupt justice and oppress the needy. This vice, rooted in the people, even upon our accession to the throne, forced us... to announce with a manifesto our obscene admonition to the people, so that those who are still infected with this passion, carrying out justice as the work of God, would refrain from such evil, and in case of them crimes and after our admonition they would no longer expect our pardon...” But, alas, even obscene admonitions did not really help in the fight against corruption.

To be continued.

On August 27, 1760, Elizaveta Petrovna issued a decree prohibiting civil servants from taking bribes. “The insatiable thirst for self-interest has reached the point that some places established for justice have become marketplaces, covetousness and partiality have become the leadership of judges, and indulgence and omission have become the approval of lawless people,” the empress reproached the officials.

The history of bribery is as ancient as the history of human civilization. Bribery has its roots in the deep past. This is evidenced by biblical sayings: “Your princes are lawbreakers and accomplices of thieves; they all love gifts and chase after bribes...”; “Woe to those; who justify the guilty for gifts and deprive the right of the lawful!

Ivan III Vasilievich. Portrait from the "Tsar's Title Book", 17th century

Bribery is mentioned in Russian chronicles of the 13th century. The first legislative restriction of bribery belongs to Ivan III. His grandson Ivan the Terrible introduced the “Charter of Judgment” in 1561, which established sanctions in the form of the death penalty for receiving bribes by judicial officials of the local zemstvo administration. It read: “And the favorite judges will not judge directly, according to promises, but will bring this against them, and the favorite judges in that case will be executed by death, and order their bellies to be taken and given to those people who will inform on them.”

Bribery has its roots in the deep past.


Almost the only anti-bribery popular revolt dates back to the time of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov. It took place in Moscow in 1648 and ended in victory for the Muscovites - although part of the city burned down along with a considerable number of civilians, it should be noted that the tsar handed over two bribe-taking ministers to the crowd - the head of the Zemsky Prikaz, Leonty Pleshcheev, and the head of the Pushkarsky Prikaz, Pyotr Trakhaniotov.

Issues of criminal liability for bribery were reflected in the “Conciliar Code” adopted in 1649. Articles 5 and 7 provided for criminal liability for receiving bribes by judicial officials, and Article 6 expanded the range of subjects subject to liability: “And in the cities, governors and deacons and all officials are subject to the same decree for such untruths.”


Peter I. Mosaic by M. V. Lomonosov, 1754

Under Peter I, bribery and the tsar’s brutal struggle against him flourished. Peter tried with all possible methods and means to restore order in the affairs of the civil service of the empire, influencing bribe-takers, extortionists and extortionists. However, the measures he took did not produce a positive effect. In order to prevent bribery and other selfish abuses of service, he introduced a new procedure for performing civil service for governors who could not hold this position for more than two years. This period could be extended only if there was a written request from city residents that the official continue to perform his duties.

Under Peter I, bribery and the tsar’s brutal struggle with him flourished.


Considering the prevalence of bribery as the most dangerous form of selfish abuse of office, by decree of August 23, 1713, Peter I introduced, along with taking a bribe, criminal liability for giving a bribe: “To prevent such occurrences in the future, I order both those who took the money and those who gave it to be put on the chopping block , and lifted from the scaffold, beat him with a whip without mercy and send him to hard labor in Azov with his wives and children and announce to all cities, villages and volosts: whoever does this in the future will be subject to the death penalty without mercy.”

However, strengthening criminal sanctions for bribery did not lead to significant changes in the activities of government agencies. Bribes continued to be taken and given. Even the introduction in 1713 of a normative act according to which a person who reported a bribery official would receive all the movable and immovable property of this person, and if a worthy citizen did this, then he would also receive the rank of the person, did not become a turning point in the fight against bribery .


Portrait of Catherine II. F. S. Rokotov, 1763

Characterizing the period of the reign of Peter I, Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky pointed out: “Under Peter I, embezzlement and bribery reached proportions never seen before—except only after.”

During the reign of Catherine II, sanctions for bribery were not as severe as under Peter I, although the prevalence of bribery in government bodies at that time was also great. The Empress paid more attention not to tightening measures for committing selfish abuses of service, but to ensuring the principle of the inevitability of punishment for their commission.

Throughout the reign of the Romanov dynasty, corruption remained a significant source of income for both minor government officials and dignitaries. For example, Chancellor Alexei Petrovich Bestuzhev-Ryumin received 7 thousand rubles a year for his service to the Russian Empire, and 12 thousand for his services to the British Crown (as an “agent of influence”).

Nicholas I: “In this country, it seems, only one person does not steal - me”


The tightening and widespread use of punitive measures did not lead to a reduction in the number of bribes, so in Tsarist Russia they began to look for new approaches to combat extortion.

In 1845, Nicholas I approved the “Code on Criminal and Executive Punishments,” which regulated the liability of officials for bribery and extortion. There was, however, a small oddity in this document: it did not give a clear definition of these concepts. Hence the very vague punishments - from a fine to deprivation of office, and for particularly serious violations - arrest, deprivation of property and hard labor.


Code on criminal and executive punishments, 1845

The beginning of the reign of Alexander II was marked by systematic publications of the property status of state officials. Approximately once every 1–2 years, books were published called “List of Civil Officials of Such and Such a Department.” These volumes contained information about the position and service of the official, his salary, awards, penalties, the amount of his property and “his wife’s property” - both inherited and acquired. Books containing information about civil servants were publicly available. Anyone, having such a “List,” could compare what the official declares and the picture of his property status in real life.

In 1866, a new edition of the “Code on Criminal and Correctional Punishments” was published. It provided detailed explanations and comments to articles on bribes and the penalties provided for them.

Alexander III also made his contribution to the fight against bribery. Particularly noteworthy is the tsar’s great contribution to the eradication of abuses on the railways. Alexander decided to abandon the practice of private concessions for the operation of railways. The result of this measure was felt very quickly - the treasury stopped incurring huge losses, the “railway kings”, whose financial interests were closely connected with the activities of major Russian officials, disappeared. New railway lines began to be built with the freed money, and uniform tariffs were introduced for this popular transport.

During the Russo-Japanese War, bribery increased significantly


Under Nicholas II, a new “Criminal Code” was created. Compared to previous legislation of this kind, it was much better developed in relation to the fight against bribery, the growth of which at the beginning of the 20th century was associated with an increase in the number of officials, military orders, various real estate transactions and the exploitation of mineral sites. Corruption increased significantly during the Russo-Japanese War. This forced the tsarist government to take additional measures to strengthen responsibility for accepting bribes in wartime. If officials were caught greedy during this period, then no amnesties were applied to them. They spent their time doing occupational therapy in hard labor from bell to bell. In 1911, the Minister of Justice Ivan Grigorievich Shcheglovitov introduced a bill “On the punishability of larceny.” It considered giving a bribe as an independent crime. However, the tsar did not proceed with this project, since, from his point of view, this document could “make it difficult to fight” corruption.


Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922

The Bolsheviks, having come to power, issued a decree “On Bribery” in May 1918, which provided for a five-year prison term and confiscation of property. At the same time, cases of bribery were transferred to the jurisdiction of revolutionary tribunals, as they were equated with counter-revolutionary activities. The Criminal Code of 1922 provided for execution for this crime. The severity of punishments grew constantly, but the scale of bribery was limited by something else: then “war communism” reigned, there was practically no circulation of money, and the functions of governing bodies were vague, and it often remained unclear to whom exactly the money should be given. “They gave,” by the way, then mainly items made of precious metals and bags of grain, which were used to pay for the opportunity to bring food into the city. Later, under the NEP, the officials controlling entrepreneurs got theirs back, having a blast.

Under Stalin, bribes were taken both in money and in kind


The Soviet history of the fight against bribes differs little from how this evil was fought before. They did not use punishment with rods, but they loved the campaigns. One of the circulars of the People’s Commissariat of Justice of 1927 instructs: “Within a month... everywhere and simultaneously, wherever possible, exclusively cases of bribery should be appointed for hearing, notifying about this in the newspaper, in order to create throughout the republic the impression of a unified, massive and organized judicial punitive campaign.” . Since bribery was considered a bourgeois relic, it was customary to say that as socialism was built, this phenomenon would disappear. But having successfully survived the tsarist and Soviet times, bribery in our country is clearly not going to disappear.

The eighth commandment of God is to avoid committing the sin of covetousness. There are synonyms for this old Russian word: bribery, bribery, bad profit. But it’s still not worth using these words in the same context. There are some differences between bribery and extortion.

Covetousness, meaning of the word

The word covetousness in Orthodoxy means receiving money as a result of growth or with the help of interest. A person who seizes someone else’s property and does not earn his own is considered a robber and can rightfully be called a covetous person. Extortion, what kind of sin this is, is characterized by both the Old and New Testaments and equally prohibit it.

Since the beginning of the Middle Ages, Orthodox preachers have spoken about the wickedness of bribery, regardless of how it manifests itself. But over time, the situation changed somewhat, and everything led to the fact that absolutely the entire Christian economy began to be based on this sin.

Not only the one who gives a bribe, but also the person who takes it can be called covetous. At the same time, the law applies that if the second one did not take it, then the first one would have no one to give the handout to. Therefore, they both equally violate the commandment of the Lord Almighty.

The Apostle Paul, who loves all Christians, categorically insisted on the prohibition of eating with a covetous person at the same table. According to the Church Slavonic dictionary, the word has the following meaning:

  • collecting interest;
  • bribe;
  • extortion;
  • covetousness.

The sin of extortion is very dangerous. If for a drunkard and a fornicator it is enough to retreat from their deeds and repent, then the covetous man, in addition to this, also needs to return everything he acquired through dishonest means. After all, profiting from the grief and difficulties of other people is immoral.

Most often, those who do not believe in God and do not have certain life views and values ​​succumb to sin. They are characterized by greed, envy and greed.

The following violations can be classified as extortion:

  • forgery of documents;
  • use of falsified documentation;
  • resale (speculation);
  • purchasing a previously stolen item at a low price;
  • parasitism;
  • issuing loans at interest;
  • winning the lottery, roulette.

Everything that brings profit to a person without much difficulty deserves to be called the eighth type of ordeal - extortion.

Bribery and extortion, difference

When a person studies the issue of sins and reaches number eight, he often asks what is the difference between bribery and extortion. These two concepts are often used interchangeably. But there is still a fundamental difference between them. It is enough to analyze the components of each word:

  • “bribe” - payment to an official for his direct work;
  • “dashing” - the desire to profit from someone’s grief, demanding that they give up their last.

The main difference between these two words is the moral behavior of the bribe-taker. In the latter case, the human qualities of a Christian and a morally educated person are absent. His main desire is to get as much as possible. At the same time, such a person cares little about the condition and position of his neighbor.

In modern society, these two concepts often replace each other, since bribes have an association with the concept of “bribe.” But it is better to distinguish the above words by meaning and use them correctly. At the same time, it is advisable not to meet with covetous people or those demanding bribes. Whatever the goals and plans of such an assistant, you need to remember that an act of corruption is occurring, and this is punishable not only by the Lord God, but also by law.

Unfortunately, bribery is an integral part of life in the modern world. But this does not save him from sinfulness. Therefore, before giving or taking a bribe, you should think about whether you will have to pay bitterly for it in the future.

The Lord is always with you!



Related publications: