Transparency International Declaration of candidates compared to the new State Duma: lie two-thirds.
Two-thirds of candidates for the newly elected State Duma hide income. These disappointing conclusions arrived Russian center of anti-corruption Research and Initiative Transparency International (TI). The fact that the elections are involved 266 members of the lower house of parliament. TI has compared their returns for 2010, published in May, the State Duma on the site, with information about the property, they are also in September ( that is, four months later ) submitted to the CEC as candidates for deputies.
Analysis of returns gave surprising results. Fully matched income data only every third, or 79 deputies from. But with 17 people the difference exceeds a million rubles. Tellingly, the record for the number of mismatches among the parties was the ...
Here is a list of deputies, impoverished particularly strong:.
Airat Khairullin, ... Co-owner of ... In May, declare it 212 million rubles. income, and in September announced that it has earned for the year only 70 million rubles. The difference - 142 million rubles.
Sergei Petrov, ... Founder of ... In May, showed revenues of 89 million rubles. And in September - only 1.9 million rubles. The difference - 87.1 million rubles.
Gregory Anikeev, ... Not mentioned in the declaration of real estate in Germany (forest and agricultural lands, transportation routes ), while the State Duma on the site, these data were published as a supplement to the basic declaration.
Andrei Lugovoi, the Liberal Democratic Party. Disappeared from the Declaration of a house of 500 square. m.
Some of the servants of the people, on the contrary, suddenly became rich:.
Roman Antonov, ... Revenue grew from three million to 70 million rubles.
Sergey Chizhov, ... Revenue growth - from 1.9 million to 56 million rubles.
TI is going to appeal to the Central Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service (FNS) to conduct a validation of the information on the amount and sources of income submitted by the candidates for the State Duma of the Russian Federation.
Why in the declarations of parliamentarians raskardash, argues Director of the Anti-Corruption Research and Initiative Transparency International Panfilova.
...
- There came a funny story. We did not intend to catch someone, we are just preparing an automated data base for future returns. We needed a technology to compare the declaration of the year. The comparison shows that something is added - property investments.
Comparing the declaration that the deputies filed in April and May, and a declaration that they are filed with the CEC, we would like just to debug the system. We naively believed that the data will be the same: this is not the binomial theorem - to take the declaration, which you filed in April, and take it to the CEC in September. So for us it was a great surprise that the declarations were getting out, ...
...
- Honestly, there is no explanation. Why are these changes can not be explained. On the contrary, can only ask questions. Does this mean that the April - May no one checked the declaration - and the bodies that collect in the Declaration of the State Duma, and the Internal Revenue Service? .
...
- The only version that comes to mind - it is the neglect of social control capabilities. I think none of the deputies, who have different interpretations, does not occur to you that someone might see his declaration, compare, do pay attention to them.
This is very disappointing news for our society. It turns out that for the sake satisfied any requirements prescribed by law - in this case, the law on elections. And, in full confidence that the content of the executed for the sake do not look.
...
- A year ago in the UK there was a scandal when made public a declaration on reimbursements and payments, as well as the income of British MPs. Some deputies showed up costs that they could not substantiate or undeclared income. And the one and the other at the ridiculous level - about 200 pounds. So, these facts have caused heated debate within the British society. Because the problem is not that the deputies lied. They have shown disrespect to the voters - to those whom they call for a vote.
Oddly enough, you see, when the deputies, on the one hand, saying, vote for us, we will do to you to become a well-. And on the other - keep you in complete fools. Apparently, the deputies in the UK, apply to such situations more scrupulously: many of them have gone into retirement.
...
- I am sure no shocks and changes in the last week before the election will not happen. We assume this was a training exercise for the control of our public....
another view.
Dmitry Oreshkin, a political scientist:.
In my opinion, the story of the declarations can draw two conclusions. First, the declaration - a useful thing, they can analyze and compare. I know: the problem of declaring always brings difficulties, frustration and gnashing of teeth of those who submit the declaration. Consequently, it is good thing. In the long term declaration of income - a very useful practice, and it is not surprising that it is so long and so hard to break through in Russia.
In the Yeltsin era was also the practice of declaring - but not for deputies and officers for ... Then, at the beginning of the Putin era, when the next redistribution of property, the practice pushed into the background. The law has not changed, but no longer require the declaration. Now, too, are reluctant to submit the declaration - but still serves. It is important to maintain this practice, it is from year to year will give all the more interesting findings.
Now the output number two... Well, someone rich, someone became poor - in principle, it is possible to explain the causes benign. For example, people invested in securities, and they are six months fell by 40%. It requires a deeper analysis, but in any case, there is reason to question. It is important that someone had an interest in doing it. And this - a big problem.
Interest, as we have seen, there is only a Transparency International - an international organization. Russian organizations, even competing parties, the subject is not trying to affect the. In fact, all of the snout to the feathers. In every party there are one or two members who have a lot of money, and it is unclear how. In large parties, such as ...
Therefore, the de facto exists between the parties, non-aggression pact. Transparency International had violated it - for what she bow. The idea is that a healthy society, such things should be discussed - the prosecutor's office, the political parties in the political struggle.
And how is it with us? . But then it is faced with law enforcement, and safely ignored. This raises the question of sanctions, because sanctions are not the norm, we have no sense. We are on the current situation, we can trace: there will be some steps against members who violate the norm? .
This is - the main thing: the gap between well-meaning rule and everyday legal practice. For example, in the parliamentary elections of 2007, Yuri Luzhkov, leader of ...
At the same time in the election law clearly states: declared to be property, individual or joint. Just together, under the Family Code, is considered marital property. Yuri Mikhailovich forgot to specify in its declaration $ 3.1 billion of his wife, Yelena Baturina (according to the Russian version of Forbes magazine on April 19, 2007 ).
It's not surprising that Luzhkov had forgotten, and that no one recalled. Neither party fellows, nor political opponents. It is amazing that a person can easily ignore the rule of law - and no one asks questions. Medvedev calls it legal nihilism. But if a man took off from the power holder, its starting to shear, and forced to respond to the full extent of the law. It's amazing the hypocrisy.
Therefore, Transparency International - well done. If neither they, nobody in Russia would not make a fuss because of inconsistencies in data declarations. Like, they steal everything, everyone knows it. But in this case named specific people, and there is reason to direct the prosecutor's office or the Duma ethics commission to ask people questions. But, sure, no one will not take advantage of this opportunity....
Discuss.
