Anti‑Corruption Lawsuits Filed by the Prosecutor: Balancing Private and Public Interests

The paper examines the problem of applying general statutes of limitations established by civil legislation to anti‑corruption claims filed by prosecutors. The author identifies a substantial contradiction between the civil law principles of legal certainty and stability of commerce, which underlie the institution of limitation of actions, and the public‑law tasks of combating corruption, ensuring the inevitability of liability, and protecting the foundations of the constitutional order. Opposing scientific positions are considered: from a complete denial of the applicability of limitation of actions to such claims to practical criticism of the consequences of its application. The legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which insists on the mandatory application of general time limits due to the principle of equality of participants in civil transactions, is examined. It is demonstrated that established judicial practice highlights a serious legislative gap that does not take into account the public‑law nature of anticorruption lawsuits. The author argues for the necessity of comprehensive legislative reform, proposing the establishment of a special procedural regime featuring differentiated limitation periods that run from the moment the offense is discovered, as well as the reclassification of such cases to the framework of administrative procedure. 

1. Bochkarev S. A. Institut iskovoy davnosti kak nesbyvshayasya nadezhda korruptsionerov // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2025. — № 4. — S. 104–121.

2. Bochkarev S. A. Korruptsiya vne srokov iskovoy davnosti // Zakonnost. — 2021. — № 2. — S. 8–12.

3. Bochkarev S. A. Subekty grazhdansko-pravovoy otvetstvennosti za korruptsiyu // Zakonnost. — 2021. — № 3. — S. 3–8.

4. Grigoreva N. N., Petushkov D. N. Predmet antikorruptsionnogo iska — denezhnye sredstva, poluchennye v kachestve vzyatki // Zakonnost. — 2021. — № 5. — S. 23–24.

5. Dolgiev A. A. Posrednichestvo v uregulirovanii grazhdansko-pravovykh konfliktov kak sredstvo zashchity gosudarstvennykh interesov (v deyatelnosti mediatorov i notariusov) // Notarialnyy vestnik. — 2025. — № 8. — S. 24–32.

6. Kirillova M. Ya., Krasheninnikov P. V. Sroki v grazhdanskom prave. Iskovaya davnost. — 3 e izd., ispr. i dop. — M.: Statut, 2016. — 80 s.

7. Meyer D. I. Russkoe grazhdanskoe pravo: v 2 ch. Ch. 1. — M.: Statut, 2003.

8. Novitskiy I. B. Izbrannye trudy po grazhdanskomu pravu: v 2 t. T. 1. — M.: Statut, 2006.

9. Rogozhin S. V. Klassifikatsiya srokov zashchity prav i zakonnykh interesov v mekhanizme chastnopravovogo regulirovaniya: nekotorye tendentsii na sovremennom etape // Rossiyskiy sudya. — 2025. — № 2. — S. 7–10.

10. Sinitsyn S. A. Sroki iskovoy davnosti po antikorruptsionnym iskam ob izyatii imushchestva iz chastnoy sobstvennosti: voprosy pravovoy kvalifikatsii // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2025. — № 1. — S. 131–140.

11. Sukhanov E. A. Grazhdanskiy kodeks v poiske balansa chastnykh i publichnykh interesov // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 11, Pravo. — 2019. — № 6. — S. 3–12.

12. Khabrieva T. Ya., Kovler A. I., Kurbanov R. A. Doktrinalnye osnovy praktiki Verkhovnogo Suda RF: monografiya / otv. red. T. Ya. Khabrieva. — M.: Norma, Infra M, 2023. — 384 s.