According to subparagraph 8 of paragraph 2 of Article 235 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, one of the grounds for the forced termination of the right of ownership (seizure of property from the owner) is the appeal by court decision to the income of the Russian Federation of property in respect of which no evidence of its acquisition on legitimate income has been provided in accordance with the legislation on combating corruption.

Based on the provisions of Articles 16 and 17 of the Federal Law No. 230-FZ of December 3, 2012 "On control over the compliance of expenditures of persons holding public office and other persons with their income", if in the course of the relevant control it was revealed that the expenditures of an official, his spouse and minor children did not correspond to their total income for the three preceding years, the prosecutor may file an application with the court to turn the property acquired with funds, the origin of which has not been explained, into the income of the state.

However, in the process of law enforcement, these legislative norms raised a number of questions for the judicial authorities, including the following:

whether in case of revealing the fact of non-compliance of expenses with income all the property of an official or only that part of the property which was acquired with unconfirmed income is subject to seizure;

whether the possibility of seizing the property of not only the official but also members of his family violates the constitutional rights of citizens;

whether it is lawful to take into account only the income received by the official and his or her spouse for the last three years preceding the expenses incurred, without taking into account income previously received, as well as income received in the reporting period;

whether the court may accept evidence of the origin of income additionally submitted by the official during the court hearing;

whether it is possible to seize not only property acquired on unconfirmed income, but also money from its realization to the State.

TheResolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 26-P of November 29, 2016 has streamlined the application of the relevant legislative norms. In particular, the constitutional body points out that, based on the provisions of international documents in the field of combating corruption, the federal legislator has the right to set higher requirements for the reputation of persons holding public office, so that citizens do not have doubts about their moral qualities and, accordingly, about the legality and disinterestedness of their actions as bearers of public authority.

In this regard, the seizure of property acquired with unconfirmed income from both the official and his family members listed in the law, although it is a restriction of the right to property, but as such is aimed at protecting constitutionally significant values and does not violate the requirements of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Confiscation of property in this case is designed to demonstrate to holders of public office the senselessness of acquiring property on illegal income and, accordingly, the futility of corrupt behavior

However, based on a direct reading of the provisions of the Civil Code, in case of failure to provide information confirming the legitimacy of the origin of the income used to purchase the property of an official or members of his/her family, the entire property shall be confiscated, regardless of the fact that part of the costs of its acquisition may have been made from legitimate income. However, in individual cases, especially when the difference between the declared income and the costs of purchasing the property is small, the court may decide to turn it into the income of the state.

With regard to the confirmation of the non-corrupt nature of income, the Constitutional Court specifies that an official, as well as members of his/her family, have the right to prove, both during control measures and in court, by all available means, the legality of the origin of the funds spent on the purchase of property, regardless of when these funds were received, whether they are reflected in the relevant declaration or discovered during control measures.

The reason for checking the constitutionality of the provisions of federal legislation was a request by the Supreme Court of Bashkiria, which was considering a case concerning the recovery of the cost of a vehicle purchased by the spouse of a civil servant, which exceeded the family's income for the three preceding years. The district court refused to accept the civil servant's explanations provided in the course of the control, as well as to take into account the family's income for the six months of the reporting period preceding the purchase, which raised doubts about the observance of the constitutional rights of the civil servant's spouse