Management structures in the state and the criminal world Statement of the problem. Confucius taught that a ruler need not be either a sage or a warrior, but rather use wise men and warriors wisely. In England, regardless of the election results and the coming to power of a new

1.1. The problem of forming a legal paradigm in the modern world The modern world is a complex socio-cultural and political-legal formation, evolving under the influence of multidirectional trends: globalization and localization;

The most numerous and persistent part of professional crime in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century were “thieves”. In this case, the word “thief” indicated not only the criminal specialization of the criminal, but also his belonging to a certain criminal community, according to the laws of which he lived. It should be noted that the “thieves’ community in Russia has had its own special, clearly regulated structure since ancient times. Each “thief” had his own “specialty”, his own special techniques. Each category of “thieves” constituted a separate class in the criminal world.

Professional “thieves” united into real corporations, “thieves’ societies.” Like any other society, they had their own “charter”, their own leaders, held general meetings to resolve controversial and topical issues - “thieves’ meetings”. Each member of this trade union was obliged to be guided by the interests of society and not to violate its laws. The most important thing is that the strength of the organization of professional “thieves” was cemented, as paradoxical as it may sound, by the strength of their morality. They have always had, and still exist, their own, albeit distorted from the point of view of the rest of society, concept of morality.

“Thieves” did not regard their profession as anything immoral, because it was their craft, their way of life. They looked at it from a purely rationalistic standpoint and did not experience any moral suffering after committing the theft. Thieves, swindlers and swindlers, no matter how funny it may seem, are especially concerned about their nobility, which they consider higher than simple everyday honor. Of course, their concept of nobility is conditional.

And therefore, if a pickpocket, a specialist thief, steals a wallet from your pockets, this does not prove that you should be afraid to spend the night in the same room with him so that he does not rob you. Or don’t play cards with him for fear that he won’t pay you, or if he promises you something, he won’t fulfill the promise, thinking that if a person is capable of stealing, then he is already capable of any dishonest act.

Such a view will be narrow, one-sided and incorrect. Otherwise, the criminal world could not exist with the organization it has; there would be no strength and cohesion in it. Young and novice “thieves” were taught the intricacies of their profession by experienced “thieves” who became “professionals” in their field. Training took place both outside and in prison. Studying in prison was less dangerous because students did not face criminal prosecution for doing a task poorly. At the same time, the prison was a unique storehouse of criminal experience, which convicts invariably shared with each other, thus improving their qualifications.

In this regard, in the jargon of criminals, the prison was called an “academy.” The process of introducing young people to join the family of “thieves” was carefully thought out. The training of newcomers was carried out by the most experienced “thief”, called in the jargon of that time “goatman”. Candidates were required to have at least three years of experience. During this time, a person learned the secrets of his craft, was comprehensively studied and tested for compliance with the “thieves” profession and membership in the “thieves” community. After training and testing, “worthy” candidates took an “oath” at a “thieves’ meeting” and became generally recognized “thieves.”

The professional community of “thieves,” well united organizationally and having a strong informal normative basis, took over the reins of government of the prison community from the “tramps.” Along with the power, the “thieves” adopted from the “” the laws by which they lived, significantly improving them with the laws of their “thieves’” community.

One of the main provisions of the “thieves’” code of honor was the prohibition of “thieves” from working. According to the unwritten rules of the “thieves” community, they were obliged to live on the income from their criminal trade and lead an idle lifestyle. A special relationship developed between the “thieves” community and the rest of society. Due to the closed nature and illegality of the “thieves” community, its members were strictly forbidden to participate in public life. In general, all contacts of members of the “thieves’ community” with the other world, with the exception of professional ones, were to be kept to a minimum.

In this way, the “thieves’ community maintained their secrecy and provided protection from outsiders, including law enforcement informants, being initiated into their activities. Most of the unwritten norms of the “thieves’ law” were dictated by considerations of community security. These include the ban on having an official family. As long as the candidate for “thieves” did not abandon his relatives, he was not accepted into the “thieves” community, because maintaining contact with the family could lead to the arrest of the “thief”, and then his accomplices. “Thieves” were prohibited from serving in the army or being members of public organizations. “Thieves’ ethics, on pain of death, forbade failing, betraying, stealing from other “thieves,” beating and insulting, and threatening their fellow men.

Control over compliance with these rules, the admission of a new generation into its ranks, the resolution of conflicts and disputes, the establishment of new laws and the implementation of the functions of the court over “thieves” who violated the “thieves’ code of honor” was assigned to the “thieves’” meeting, to which they were obliged to appear all the “thieves” of the community. The gathering was announced and convened on the initiative of any of them. To resolve particularly important issues that were interregional in nature, or concerning all “thieves” without exception, “thieves’” congresses of representatives of various “thieves’” communities were convened.

Possessing unquestioned authority in the criminal world, the “thieves’ elite” seized power not only in places of deprivation of liberty, but also beyond them. It should be especially noted that the 20s and 30s of the twentieth century. became a key moment in the history of the development of the “thieves” phenomenon. From this period, the criminal craft begins to gradually fade into the background for them. It gives way to their new social function in the criminal community, which can be characterized as criminal management.

Starting from the first half of the 20th century, the word “thief” acquired a double meaning. Traditionally, it was understood as any person who stole something. Professional criminals put a different meaning into it. A “thief” in their concept is, first of all, a full member of the “thieves’” community, living according to its laws and concepts. At that time, any thief was considered “legal.” Only by committing an offense incompatible with the “thieves’ ethics” could he be “grounded” by other thieves and cease to be considered such in the criminal world. So, over time, the word “thief” acquired a terminological meaning. Gradually, the word “thief” took root in the public consciousness as a synonym for the leader of professional crime.

The rest of those convicted of personal theft or theft of state property were contemptuously called “Stalinist thieves.” This is how the “thieves” themselves explained the concept of “Stalin’s thief”: “Stalin’s thief” is someone who steals from hunger, without skill, not like a real person, a real flower, which, as they say, is the underworld.... These are “Stalin’s thieves" - goons, rubbish, naughty people. An honest “thief” wouldn’t even spit on such people...” The high level of self-organization of the “thieves” community was the determining factor that, in the struggle for leadership in prisons between the “zhigans” and “thieves,” the latter won.

At the same time, the “ideological” platform on which the “Zhigans” relied was, in their own way, adopted by the “thieves” and used by them in the ideological justification of the illegal activities of their community, including in places of detention. The “thieves” declared themselves “ideological” criminals, standing on fundamentally different positions with the ideas of the state and society.

Already in the first years of Soviet power, concentration camps began to be created in the country, which were later renamed forced labor camps. Once there, the “thieves,” like other prisoners, were faced with the specifics of camp life. Life in the camp was noticeably different from prison. Freedom of movement, the absence of a fetid bucket, bars, door locks, and the stuffiness of a cramped and dirty cell were compensated by the fact that every day in the camp prisoners had to not only come to work, but to work physically difficult, with the obligatory fulfillment of production standards for everyone. The maintenance of the camp and administration, with a full complement of prisoners, had to be paid for by the labor of prisoners.

An addition to the boiler allowance could only be received by parcel or transfer. But the “thief” had no family and there was no one to expect the parcel from. It was possible to shop at a stall, but this required fulfilling production quotas, and a “thief,” according to the laws of the community, does not have the right to work. It would seem that the situation for the “thieves” is a dead end. However, even in these conditions, the cunning and ingenuity inherent in the “thieves,” as well as their cohesion and authority over other convicts, allow them to survive.

Some earned their living by playing cards and other gambling games. Others began to lure out, and sometimes simply take away food, things and other material assets from the “fraters” in various ways. According to V. Fried, the “thief” in prison had the right to take half of the transfer from the “fraer”. Taking advantage of the weakness of the regime and supervision, as well as the corruption of individual administration employees, the “thieves” and the prisoners led by them entered into a deal with the administration and went to “work” outside the camp at night. Having committed the theft and sold the loot, they returned to the camp in the morning, ensuring a comfortable existence for themselves.

The “thieves” developed a special relationship in the camps with the foremen. In general work, the foreman places people and checks their work. The foreman himself does not physically work, but is officially listed as working. “It’s interesting that most often such foremen come from thieves, that is, lumpen proletarians.” For each shift worked, the foreman draws up a detailed report. The team's nutrition depends on his ability to write a report on the work performed. The foreman could “pull” the standard, that is, bring the work performed to a higher standard.

The foreman had to be able to “...not only give orders at work, but also organize this work, and also get along with the standard setters, the office, various management, give a bribe, and persuade.” Until 1937, the position of foreman was an elective one, and it was often occupied by proteges of “thieves.” Such foremen artificially assigned production norms to idle “thieves”, while taking away standard hours from the rest of the team members. The quality of food (“rations”) of the convict depended on the fulfillment of the norm. The quality of nutrition directly affected life expectancy. In fact, the “thieves”, through the hands of such foremen, robbed other convicts, taking credit for their standard hours and receiving their “rations” for this.

“The brigadier-blatant is the worst thing that could happen to the brigade.” After 1937, the brigadier began to be appointed by the administration. The “thieves,” using various tricks, “pushed” “their” person into this position or, through threats of physical violence, intimidated the foreman so that he would attribute to them a production rate that would allow them to receive food rations of the highest level. It should be said that the “thief” who became a foreman or who worked and fulfilled the orthodox production quota was no longer considered by the “thieves” to be such and was declared a “bitch.”

The conditions of detention in the forced labor camps were such that they allowed the “thieves” not only to gather meetings within the camp, but also to hold general meetings of the “thieves” within the framework of management, which were attended by representatives from all camps. As a rule, official events with the participation of prisoners (congresses of shock labor workers, training courses, etc.) conducted within the management of forced labor camps were used for this.

At such congresses, the “thieves” discussed current issues, developed rules of behavior in the context of changing social relations and actions of the administration, and determined the political strategy of the “thieves” community. The “thieves’ community obliged its members to make every effort to establish orders in the camps that were beneficial to the “thieves.”

If other, non-thieves’ groups of convicts came to power in the camp, the “thieves” of this camp were responsible for the actual loss of power before the “thieves’” meeting. It must be said that the 30s of the 20th century were marked by the period of “the heyday of the thieves’ community” precisely in forced labor camps. At the same time, the word “blatnoy” appeared in prison camp vocabulary, which is synonymous with the word “thief”.

Blatnoy recognizes only the law of thieves and rejects all other laws. He despises all non-thieves, including criminals. All of them are considered as game, which the thieves have an unlimited right to hunt. According to the old tradition, however, a criminal does not attack a lonely woman with a child or, while in prison, will not take away rations (but only rations) from another prisoner, even a fraternity.

At the end of the 40s of the twentieth century, the “thieves’ law” finally ceased to be the “internal” law of the “thieves’” community. The provisions of this law now apply to all convicted persons and are imperative in nature. This is confirmed by the memoirs of the convicted Ilya Mikhailovich Paykov, who served his sentence in one of the Vyatlag camps in the harsh post-war years.

“In 1948, on March 5, an additional decree of the thieves’ law was issued for prisoners held in places of detention in the Soviet Union:

1. Each prisoner is obliged to contribute 25% of his salary to the thieves' fund.
2. Each prisoner receiving parcels and money transfers from relatives is obliged to bring 50% to the thieves.
3. Prisoners who have woolen personal belongings must give them to the thieves upon request.
4. Of the products that are brought into the kitchen for the entire OLP, the manager and cooks are obliged to give the best to the thieves.
5. Incarcerated doctors and paramedics are required to provide medications that contain drugs for thieves.
6. All prisoners must unconditionally comply with any demand of the thieves.
7. In case of disobedience to the thieves’ law, the leaders are sentenced to death.”

It was during this period, as V.M. writes. Anisimkov: “The increase in the number of “authorities” in places of detention has led to the fact that the “general cash desks” have ceased to cope with their functions. As a result, the “thieves” sharply increased the amount of “tribute” collected from prisoners from 1/3 to 2/3 of their earnings.” This law hit most of all the bulk of the prison camp population, which consisted of the so-called “men.” In this regard, in some forced labor camps there were open protests by “men” against “thieves”. Certain groups of “men” took the path of active opposition to the “thieves” and their laws.

Riots and arson began in the camps. The heads of many camp centers began to turn to higher authorities with a request to send them special groups of the most authoritative “thieves” to restore order. However, this seemingly simple and effective way to “calm the zone” using the power resource of the “thieves” was fraught with many dangers.

Firstly, the administration handed over power in the camp to the “thieves”.

Secondly, the authority of the “thieves” and their laws, after this, grew immeasurably. Thirdly, this seemingly mutually beneficial cooperation over time inevitably led to the fact that the “thieves” from the object of management turned into its subject and began to dictate their terms to the administration. Subsequently, such “managerial” practice led to the fact that in places of deprivation of liberty “the authorities were paralyzed for some time, transferring the camp zones entirely under the control of the criminal world.”

So, for example, in one of the camp points of Kargopollaga in March 1954, a “bandit group” was organized. Despite requests from the camp administration to the leadership of the correctional labor camp to provide assistance in eliminating this gang, no measures were taken. As a result, the bandits began to dictate their terms to the camp administration. Under threat of reprisal, they demanded various products from the head of the camp, including for brewing moonshine, and the demands of these bandits were satisfied. This situation in the camp lasted for over three months. The period we describe is also characterized by the fact that, due to the difficult conditions of serving their sentences and targeted repressions, as well as committing acts incompatible with the title of “honest thieves,” many “thieves” could not stand the tests that befell them and betrayed the “thieves’” law, then there is "squeezed together".

« A bitch is a creature despised and hated by legal thieves. He screwed up, that is, he betrayed the thieves’ law and went into the service of the camp authorities: he agreed to be the commandant of the zone, to manage the drill - a high-security barracks, an intra-camp prison; I even agree to become an orderly for the “godfather”, the detective officer.” Despite this, the “bitches” continued to consider themselves “thieves” and adhered to the “thieves’ laws”, with the exception of the ban on cooperation with the camp administration. “Bitches”, according to the “thieves’” law, were subject to extermination, which was carried out in practice. However, due to the massive nature of this phenomenon, zones and even entire departments began to appear, where “bitches” ruled among criminals, who in turn began to exterminate “thieves.” At the same time, the “bitches” pursued the goal “to subordinate the enemy to their idea through terrible torment, force them to abandon their past, and take the side of the “bitches.”

Submitting to the will of the “bitches,” the “thief” shook their hands and sealed his passage by kissing the knife and immediately participating in the burglary of his recent comrades. In this regard, “bitches” become the closest assistants to the camp administration in the fight against “honest thieves.” The Great Patriotic War replenished the number of “bitches” with former “thieves” called up from the camps to the front. The “Thieves' Law” prohibited any cooperation with the state, including military service. The “thieves” who went to the front automatically became “denigrated” in the eyes of their comrades in the camps. In their opinion, they were no different from the “guards” guarding them. After all, both of them took an oath, put on a uniform and served the state with weapons in their hands.

In the early 50s of the 20th century, the war between “bitches” and “thieves,” which went down in the history of the Gulag under the name “bitch war,” went beyond the limits of prisons. For example, in August 1953, in the Chaun-Chukotka Mining Department and Dalstroi camps, when the mass release of prisoners began after the amnesty, a massacre began among those released. According to the recollections of eyewitnesses, “at the end of August, about 20 thieves, armed with knives and pikes, at a certain hour came from different places, up to 80 kilometers away, in cars driven by the same thieves, to the central village of Pevek for the complete physical destruction of the “bitches” living here " It took the intervention of all the armed forces of the village with machine guns to prevent the planned “Bartholomew’s Night” and disperse the arriving bandits.”

As a result of the “bitch war” that lasted in the camps for several years, the “thieves’ community still managed to cope with their opponents, although not without the help of other criminals. Realizing that they could not win this “war” alone, the “thieves” radically changed their policy towards both the administration and the main camp population – the “men”. From now on, the “thieves’ laws” prescribe not to quarrel with the authorities and to protect the “man” from unjust oppression.

Thus, at the “thieves’ meeting” held at the Krasnoarmeysky mine in the village of Pevek, Magadan Region in August 1953, literally the following decisions were made:

1. Gain the trust of your superiors.
2. Guys, don’t squeeze the kitchen. The men, seeing that we are their protection from another world where they press, will stand as a wall for us and any adversity is not terrible for the man.
3. Stop miscreants in the camp and don’t steal in the village.
4. Not a single case of piercing with a fatal outcome.

The adoption of this “law” allowed the “thieves” not only to win over the majority of the camp population, but also to present themselves in the eyes of the administration as champions of discipline and order in the camp. From that moment on, the “men” who supported the “thieves” in the war with the “bitches” became their closest assistants and moved up the hierarchical ladder of the criminal world.
All this, according to eyewitnesses of those events, led to the fact that groups of “thieves” became extremely stronger and organized in the camps. They maintained a stable connection between their “members” not only in the camps, but also in freedom. The criminal infrastructure created by the “thieves” literally permeated the entire penal system of the USSR by the first half of the 50s of the 20th century.

Brutal repressions helped to restrain and even significantly reduce the quantitative composition of the “thieves” community. However, it was impossible to defeat its ideological, moral and moral nature with punitive measures. Nevertheless, the state, in its fight against “thieves” and their laws, continued to rely on forceful methods, up to the physical destruction of the most socially dangerous leaders of the criminal world. For the purpose of self-preservation, many of the “thieves” simply stopped advertising themselves both to the administration and to other convicts as such. Despite this, the core of the “thieves’ community survived and went underground,” and the “thieves’ idea” continued to live and bear fruit in a criminal environment.

The period of relative calm in the activities of “thieves’ groups” in correctional labor institutions lasted until the early 80s of the 20th century. By the beginning of the 80s, in places of deprivation of liberty, among convicts there was an active revival and spread of “thieves’” traditions and customs. The reasons for this were: the decline in social morals of the Soviet state, which was living out its last years; significantly increased level of corruption and organized crime in the economic sphere, gradual liberalization of criminal policy.

“Economic organized crime stimulated criminal crime, when the thieves in law began to shake up the shop stewards, and in some cases consolidate with them.” It was during this period that a stable connection appeared between “thieves”, figures in the shadow economy, government officials and party functionaries. At the same time, in a number of correctional institutions, insufficiently competent and coordinated actions of employees lead to the creation of conditions for the functioning of criminal leaders and groups led by them with a pronounced antisocial orientation.

Their illegal activities are expressed:

- in secret, and in some cases open opposition to the administration of places of deprivation of liberty, its regime and educational measures;
— in propagating the ideology and norms of behavior of the criminal environment; a hostile, conflictual attitude towards the positive part of the convicts, in an effort to subordinate the bulk of criminals to their influence;
- involvement of youth convicts in illegal activities, commission of related crimes and offenses;
- in an effort to improve the conditions for serving a sentence through harassment, extortion, appropriation of the results of someone else’s labor, obtaining prohibited items and substances.

Taking into account the current situation in correctional labor institutions, on September 13, 1983, the legislator supplemented the Criminal Code of the RSFSR with Article 183 “Malicious disobedience to the legal requirements of the administration of correctional labor institutions.” Prosecution under this article was associated with the preliminary bringing of the perpetrator to disciplinary liability within a year in the form of transfer to a cell-type room, solitary confinement. These changes in criminal legislation increased the punitive potential of correctional influence and thereby even more set convicts against the administration of correctional institutions.

The process of democratization of society, the new economic policy of the USSR in the late 80s and early 90s of the 20th century were also reflected in the content of the “thieves’” laws. During this period, community leaders decided to participate in commercial activities, privatize property, rationally use funds from the common fund, and organize commercial banks and financial groups. The admission into the community of persons who, according to their formal criteria, do not meet the title of “thief”, but who can bring material or other benefits to the community, is finally legalized. This is typical for the republics of Transcaucasia and Central Asia. Here, for the first time, cases of acquiring the title of “thief” for money become known. By assigning the highest “thieves” title, “thieves” are guided by considerations of “usefulness” for the criminal environment, pursuing only selfish goals, without taking into account traditional attitudes.

At the same time, the main criterion – devotion to the “thieves’ community” – remains mandatory. The community of “thieves” is becoming more and more closely associated with organized crime in the economic sphere. Economics is very closely related to politics. The interests of the thieves' communities are beginning to be lobbied by corrupt deputies and officials at all levels of legislative and executive power. “Thieves in law,” “guild workers,” and the corrupt bureaucracy found each other in organized crime.” The new "thieves'" law allows you to establish contacts with law enforcement officers. In the criminal environment, “thieves” put forward the slogan: “Do not spare money on bribing law enforcement officials.” Funds from the common fund are increasingly being used for these purposes. “Thieves’ directives (“directive letters”) are sent by prison mail as a program of action for all convicts who support the “thieves” policy. As a rule, such letters are signed not by one, but by a group of “thieves”.

“Thieves,” being active promoters of the “thieves’” ideology, base it on humane goals: fair punishment of the guilty; assistance to persons serving disciplinary sentences in punishment cells and cell-type premises; providing financial assistance to poor and needy convicts and prisoners; resolving conflicts between members of the prison community.

In correctional labor institutions of that period, “thieves” created structural formations called “blat committees” or “fives”.
A.I. Gurov gives the following model of such a “five”:

1. “Thief in Law” is a sole leader surrounded by convicts with different role functions.
2. Custodian of the common fund - he also has proxies responsible for collecting the “common fund” in the units.
3. Bodyguard - a person who ensures the safety of the thief in law and his entire “five”.
4. “Adviser” - a person who is well versed in the internal issues of the penitentiary institution, who helps the thief in law with advice in resolving controversial issues with which “ordinary” convicts approach him.
5. “Apprentice” - a candidate for a “thief in law”, undergoing an internship with the leader on all issues of a thief’s life in case of replacement.”

Another researcher of the criminal environment of that period, N.G. Shurukhnov comes to the conclusion that the thieves in law themselves try not to violate the requirements of the regime for serving their sentences, they make contact with the administration of the penitentiary institution, in some cases they offer it certain services related to the implementation of the production plan, establishing proper order, and preventing serious crimes etc. However, they do this with specific intentions: to have real opportunities to manage a correctional labor institution. At the same time, “thieves in law” are a tough opposition to the administration of places of deprivation of liberty, they have a stable antisocial life attitude, an established worldview, and their own philosophy of life.”

The most significant leading role of thieves is manifested in prison conditions, where they are isolated from the bulk of those convicted for malicious violation of the regime of serving a criminal sentence. Strict isolation, the rigidity of regime regulations, a significant proportion of convicts who have “rich” criminal experience and observe criminal customs and traditions create a special psychological atmosphere in prison, which the “thieves” skillfully use. They organize illegal assistance to persons held in the punishment cell, put forward “fair” demands on the administration to ease the conditions of convicts, take measures to identify secret employees among the convicts and punish persons who have violated the “norms of prison life,” provide assistance to the families of convicts, etc. ..

These actions are immediately advertised through “thieves’ mail” and information about this is communicated to all convicts. Convicts transmitting information from “thieves” are responsible for its delivery and integrity to the fullest extent of “prisoner standards.” To a large extent, in this way, the authority of the “thief” is ensured. In turn, this allows him to act as the “supreme judge” in resolving conflicts that arise between those serving sentences in prison, to manage the environment of convicts and to rally it around him.

In Soviet times, “thieves” laid the foundations and traditions of leadership and management in the criminal world and, first of all, in places of deprivation of liberty. The “thieves” became extremely influential figures in the Soviet criminal environment. The very fact of their stay in places of deprivation of liberty, elevated to a cult, gave them leverage to maintain their own authority, both in freedom and in places of detention. The "thieves" resolved disputes and directed the activities of the underground world, providing governance and order in an environment that most people considered ungovernable.

The development of the “thieves’ community” was greatly influenced by the political, economic and social transformations that took place in our state as a result of the collapse of the USSR. The political chaos that has ensued in the country leads to economic devastation. The consequence of this is an unprecedented “criminal explosion” in society. “Thieves” are sensitive to the current situation in the country and derive considerable benefit from it. Here is a quote from the personal correspondence of the “thieves” of that period: “... The situation today is in our hands... either we break this zone, or let it not exist at all on the thieves’ list. Remember what was said in the Tobolsk prison, we need to take advantage of the situation in the country, they have no time for us now, there are other problems. There is a crisis in the Union.

People rely on people like us to stand in opposition to the government. They are also in the higher apparatus." The legalization of many areas of previously prohibited and therefore underground business leads to the fact that “thieves” are now openly acting as arbitrators in resolving disputes between business entities. “Many businessmen in Moscow and the Moscow region did not see another savior for themselves other than the thief in law Savoska. He ruled with speedy and fair judgment." It is not surprising that the experience and traditions of criminal management accumulated by the thieves were brought into the activities of the new economic and political systems.

Characterizing the current state of activity of “thieves” in the Russian penal system, it should be noted not only their increasing activity, but also the desire to create organized structures of informal power in places of deprivation of liberty. First of all, this should include the institution of “watchers” created and managed by “thieves”. As V.M. writes Anisimkov: “The carriers of the penitentiary subculture and the traditional authorities of the criminal world began to delegate their “rights” to convicts who had been tested in the criminal environment - “supervisors” to carry out subcultural functions in correctional colonies of strict, enhanced and general regime.”

According to some reports, the system of “monitors” of correctional institutions and pre-trial detention centers originated in the Krasnodar Territory in the mid-80s of the twentieth century and turned out to be a very effective management structure. It practically paralyzed the activities of the lower-level administration from among the convicts appointed by the colony leadership. It is enough to note that the team, despite the instructions of the foreman and foreman, did not start work until the “supervisor” duplicated the command. The duties of the “watchers” also include identifying convicts who provide secret assistance to the administration. Each “supervisor” has a whole staff of assistants from among those who adhere to the “thieves’” laws. Being the leaders and ideological inspirers of the organization of power they created, modern “thieves”, through the institution of “overseers,” actively manage the informal processes occurring in correctional institutions. As some researchers of the Russian penal system believe: “... the world of thieves always tries to send a “supervisor” to the zone - its representative, who will, as it were, “legitimately” ensure that prisoners comply with the prison law and “thieves’ orders.”

It should be noted that, being part of modern society, or rather its parallel reality, the community of “thieves” in its development very quickly adapts to any changes occurring in the social and economic life of the state. In this regard, the thieves' law, as well as the norms of positive law, requires constant updating, addition and adjustment in order to adequately influence the dynamically developing multi-colored palette of social relations, including in the criminal environment. It should be emphasized that the content of the “law of thieves’ world” is constantly adapted to the socio-political and socio-economic situation that develops in a given period of historical development of the state and society, as well as to the operating conditions of places of deprivation of liberty. A clear confirmation of this is the fact that until the 70s of the twentieth century, the “thieves’” ideology did not involve extracting economic benefits from money and property obtained by criminal means.

Quite the contrary - part of the stolen goods was supposed to be given “to the common fund”, and the rest was drunk and wasted in style, not forgetting to treat “lucky” to your “homies”. “Rob the rich, but don’t become rich yourself” - this is one of the premises of the “thieves’” ideology of that period. The “thieves” had a moral prohibition on personal enrichment from stolen goods. And even more so, it was not permissible to engage in business, to make money from money, in other words, to “deal with money.” However, having gone through many zones, “covered” stages, BURs, punishment cells and isolation wards, having experienced a lot of hardships and surviving the test of hunger, the “thieves” did not imagine that another time would come and, already in conditions of freedom, they would have to endure a new one that would corrupt them “thieves’ spirit" test of satiety and prosperity, luxury and comfort. Many could not withstand this test. The thirst for profit and the desire to live “beautifully” overpowered the old “thieves’” morality, pushing the romantic image of a “thief without silver” far into the past.

According to operational-search activity, already in the first years of reforms (1988-1990), 20% of “thieves” and other “authorities” of the criminal world invested their funds into cooperative structures. Export-import operations and legal business activities serve as a convenient cover for them to commit large-scale fraud with the appropriation of uncontrollable profits, most of which end up in accounts in foreign banks and contribute to the “laundering” of criminally acquired capital.

The “thieves” clearly realized the fact that being at the pinnacle of power in the modern criminal community is possible only with certain financial resources. From this moment on, engaging in criminal business and laundering the funds received from it become the main activity of the “thieves” community in Russia, including in places of deprivation of liberty. It should be said that some of the most orthodox “thieves” tried to resist the deviation from one of the fundamental principles of “thieves’ law.” “The process of “capitalization” of the criminal world met resistance from adherents of the old thieves’ traditions.” However, this did not have a significant impact on the general trend of the “thieves’ community” gradually entering the structure of the criminal business and occupying leading positions in it.

Currently, “thieves” are seeking to increase their influence on government agencies, including law enforcement agencies and, first of all, correctional institutions of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia. This is mainly due to the fact that “thieves” continue to consider places of deprivation of liberty as their legitimate territory, where they are full-fledged informal owners. For this purpose, significant funds obtained by criminal means are involved. “Thieves” have extensive interregional corrupt connections in freedom and in prison.

They direct their efforts to consolidating the illegal activities of persons in custody and convicts, establishing control over the community of convicts, which largely determines the intensification of opposition to the administration of places of deprivation of liberty. As practice shows, it is these individuals who, in order to weaken the legally established regime for serving a sentence, organize actions of disobedience among convicted and pre-trial prisoners held in places of deprivation of liberty. At the same time, “thieves,” using illegal communication channels, give instructions to the leaders of groups within institutions, who, in turn, through threats of physical violence, force convicts to commit acts of self-harm and refuse to eat. In 2009, such actions were recorded in the institutions of 23 territorial bodies of the Federal Penitentiary Service.

So, for example, under the leadership of the “thief” V.I. Mitina (criminal nickname Motyl), a number of measures were taken to develop “thieves’ traditions and increase the role of “watchers” in prisons in the Ryazan region. At the beginning of February 2005, an attempt by a number of negative convicts to destabilize the situation in Penitentiary No. 1 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Ryazan Region was stopped, to put pressure on the administration through threats and self-harm in order to counteract the legitimate interests of observing the regime of serving the sentence.

During the operational-search activities, the leadership role of V.I. was documented. Mitina in coordinating the illegal actions of convicts, attracting the media, which covered events in a biased manner, organizing the involvement of convicts in writing complaints and statements. The legalization of the results of operational-search activities contributed to the presentation of V.I. Mitin is accused of disorganizing the activities of an institution that ensures isolation from society (Part 3 of Article 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

According to Deputy Director of the Federal Penitentiary Service Vladimir Semenyuk: “There is a feeling that someone is conducting rehearsals to create an unstable situation throughout the country. And there are examples of this. Take the countries of the former Soviet Union. Who's trying to start a riot there? Who was released in Uzbekistan? Bandits to create an unstable situation. And these riots do not happen by chance. In Kursk, for example, at the moment of the hunger strike, buses with false human rights activists, picketers and lawyers appeared immediately near the fence in the colony. This is a planned action, we have talked about this many times. We know who planned it. This is a thief in law nicknamed “Pan” and a number of leaders of the criminal environment.”

In January 2010, an intensification of the activities of criminal structures was noted to destabilize the situation in correctional institutions of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Magadan and Chelyabinsk regions, attracting the attention of human rights organizations. “It is necessary to understand that the organizers of group violations of public order do not sit still in preparing their actions. They are actively looking for new ways and forms of planning and preparation of illegal, as well as criminal manifestations, without hesitation in choosing accomplices, not even disdaining the mechanisms of political provocations. They widely use the capabilities of international telecommunication networks, odious opposition public organizations that harbor intentions of defaming the current institution of power in the country.”

By their essence and purpose, modern “thieves” in one person represent the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the prison world. It should be said that this power extends far beyond the boundaries of correctional institutions and competes not only with the power of the administration of specific institutions of the penal system, but also with higher-level authorities - regional and even federal. A striking example of the manifestation of the activity of “thieves” to actually seize power in the region is a meeting of criminal authorities held openly, in broad daylight, in the capital of the Urals - Yekaterinburg, in the central square of the city.

This gathering was attended not only by the leaders of the criminal world, but also by officials at various levels and even deputies of the local legislative body. The form of the gathering resembled a rally. The organizers importantly took their places on the podium. Immediately, as if out of the ground, a very colorful-looking crowd appeared. Strong guys, shaved heads, leather jackets and tracksuits, gold chains, tattoos, tenacious glances from under their brows. The entourage of the “thieves’ gathering” was very impressive. However, the very content of the speakers’ speech exceeded all the expectations of the inhabitants who happened to find themselves here. Here are just some quotes from the speeches at this meeting-gathering of Yekaterinburg City Duma deputy Alexander Khabarov.

“I tell everyone, these scum, these creatures concern Timur, Avto, Kazaryan. Kazaryan, who made a mess in the early 90s, and then wasn’t here for 12 years. And now again he wants to impose another revolution on this city. Kazaryan will not be here, this creature. Solomy, then there’s Sukhach, Obolensky, what’s his name, Mumrich – these creatures won’t be here. Anyone who incites conflicts and incites ethnic hatred. Our city and region are normal, the city is stable now. Everyone found understanding with each other, thanks to Trofa and Karo. We have normal relations with everyone.

Further in his speech, the deputy - crime boss appointed “watchers” for various districts of the city, determined the main “foreign policy” priorities of the region in relation to the Moscow and allied thieves in law. The prison department of Yekaterinburg was not ignored either, in particular, at the meeting - the issue of the “prisoner” of the Yekaterinburg pre-trial detention center, one of the largest in Russia, was resolved. This is what was said about this: “Transfer the entire speech to the authorities to everyone. Then it’s a matter of Trofa and Karo – they managed to put Dima Gruzin in prison. Our region is international, just like Russia, but Dima Gruzin will not be a prisoner, tell everyone, write to everyone.”

According to analysts, the aggravation of the political situation in the Caucasus, especially in Russian-Georgian relations, affected a criminal society that seemed far from politics. Relations between the so-called Slavic criminal groups and the Caucasian ones immediately tightened. Specialists in the special services do not rule out that Caucasian crime bosses are acting on direct orders from Tbilisi. The goal is to undermine the internal political situation in Russia, take control of as many objects and spheres of life as possible and create a so-called “fifth column” capable of influencing decision-making at a high level, including at the state level.
Modern “thieves” and the communities they lead extend their influence to all spheres of life of society and the state.

Entering into a criminal conspiracy with corrupt officials, they take part in the distribution and redistribution of property and regulation of financial flows. “Thieves” not only “supervise”, but also take an active part in the development of the shadow economy. Some authors estimate the annual income of criminal communities at 100 billion rubles. And the share of the shadow economy is 40% of total national income. Please note that these data were published in 2003; and this is what departmental police science was able to calculate. And how much it failed and what the current state of affairs of the shadow economy is can only be guessed at. One thing is certain: whoever “manages” 40% of the country’s economy gets a real opportunity to manage our state.

And if everyone is involved in the “light” part of the economy, then the “shadow” economy is controlled much more strictly than the legal one. The situation when a significant part of the economy exists in the shadow determines that a corresponding share of politics and power is located in this shadow zone. “Thus, further shadowing of the economy leads to the form of a shadow pseudo-state, which is the formation of a macroeconomic level of a state type, in which the shadowing of public services occurs, covering administrative and economic decision-making; distribution of government positions, privileges and benefits; state pseudo-protection of rights and freedoms, etc.” The shadow pseudo-state is objectively interested in the existence of structures that allow it to manage and control crime. Such a structure is the “thieves’ community of Russia.”

Another important factor that determines the very possibility of the existence of “thieves” with all their moral, legal, organizational and managerial attributes is the fairly high level of corruption of the state bureaucratic apparatus, including in correctional institutions. For example, monitoring of public opinion on the activities of the penal system showed that when asked: “What negative phenomena in correctional institutions cause you concern?” in 1993 – 16.5%; in 2001 – 13.0%; in 2007, 19.5% of penal system employees answered: “facts of corruption among penal system employees.” And this is only the opinion of the employees themselves. Unfortunately, this question, for reasons unknown to us, was not raised either with the convicts or with their relatives.

Although it is already obvious in advance that these figures would be much higher. This is not surprising, considering that according to the international anti-corruption non-governmental organization Transparency International, Russia in 2010 took 154th place in the ranking of 178 countries. Its index was 2.1 points. At the same level as in Russia, corruption in 2010 is in Papua New Guinea, Tajikistan, Congo and Guinea Bissau. In Russia, since 1992, many normative and legal acts have been adopted aimed at combating corruption. The way these laws actually work under the control of officials and deputies is clearly visible in the near Moscow region, where the cost of a poor mansion of the same officials and Duma members is off the charts for a million dollars. According to experts from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 300-350 billion rubles worth of bribes are given and taken in Russia per year. This is only one hundred billion rubles less than the annual budget of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs.

At its core, corruption is a unique invention of the state bureaucracy, which makes it possible to turn an ordinary criminal into a respectable citizen, and from a former criminal authority into a respectable and successful businessman, or even a statesman, dressed in an elegant suit. “In modern society, crime, especially organized and economic crime, could not exist on such a scale if it did not have strong corrupt connections with the political establishment.”

Largely thanks to corruption, “thieves” and other “high-ranking” top managers of the criminal world have the opportunity to avoid criminal punishment or mitigate its consequences as much as possible. According to the chairman of the Anti-Corruption Committee, State Duma deputy G. Gudkov: “It is corruption that turns any law, sometimes a very good one, into a simple piece of paper.” Corruption helps “thieves” influence the activities of individual institutions and their employees in order to establish procedures in them that are beneficial to criminals. Corruption today has merged with organized crime. It is used by the latter and is fueled by it. The existing shadow circulation of financial assets of criminal business allows them to spend these funds in unlimited quantities. They go towards providing technical equipment to organized criminal groups and bribing officials. Taking advantage of the weakness of the current legislation and the widespread practice of dirty electoral technologies, organized crime strives for power. Today, former authorities already lead administrations, are major businessmen and factory owners, says Professor S.N. Emelyanov.

The conducted research allows us, with a fairly high degree of probability, to assume that, having extensive economic and political influence, the “thieves” will try to determine the future development of Russia. A similar opinion is shared by the majority of FSIN employees we surveyed (63.63%). Thus, to the question: “Do you think that the “thieves”, having enormous economic and political influence, will quite possibly determine the future development of Russia?”, we received the following answers: quite likely - 27.85%; they still largely influence the economy and politics - 35.78%. Only 21.11% of surveyed employees consider this unlikely and 20.99% - impossible.

Currently, the “thieves” are making active attempts to control and, if necessary, disrupt the activities of the Russian penal system, including by bribing FSIN employees. This conclusion is confirmed by the results of our research. So, to the question: “Were there any attempts on the part of thieves and other criminal authorities to bribe you?” 41.7% of surveyed employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia responded positively. They were offered as a bribe: money (19.21%); personal services (15.43%); services for the PS in which the employee serves (16.06%). According to the materials of the Internal Security Department of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, in 2010, 326 criminal cases were initiated against employees of the penal system. Among the committed offenses, the first place is taking a bribe, the second is exceeding official powers, and the third is abuse of official powers.

Prison staff mainly received bribes for easing the regime and for preparing materials for parole. Gaining enormous influence and commanding colossal funds and resources allows organized crime to confront criminal justice systems. To be fair, it should be said that in the ranking of officials convicted of bribes compiled by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in 2009, FSIN employees occupy only 5th place (2.5% of those convicted). In first place are police officers (31%), in second are employees of healthcare institutions (20%), in third are teachers (9%), in fourth are municipal employees (9% of convicts).

In order to remove from office employees of the penal system who conscientiously perform their duties, the “thieves” and other managers of the criminal world are working to discredit them. For this purpose, representatives of individual human rights organizations and the media are used. As our research has shown, 36.9% of the surveyed FSIN employees encountered threats and blackmail against them from “thieves” and other criminal authorities.

“Thieves” and authorities are taking measures to influence family members of convicts. Among them, false information is often disseminated about torture, bullying, and murders taking place in places of deprivation of liberty. Relatives of convicts who have fallen under the influence of the criminal world are allocated funds to picket correctional institutions and pre-trial detention centers, and are provided with transportation, hotel accommodations, and alcoholic beverages.

“Thieves” exercise their influence on the Russian prison community through a negatively-minded part of the convicts, the so-called “thieves,” who form the core of the criminal opposition in prisons. These individuals seek to maintain a stable connection with the criminal world at large, including to attract funds, some of which are used to destabilize the situation in correctional institutions and strengthen their influence there. Analyzing the current state of organized crime in places of deprivation of liberty, S.I. Kuzmin concludes that: “It should be recognized that organized criminal groups in places of deprivation of liberty and in freedom are interconnected and, in fact, have subordinated to their influence the entire internal life of places of detention.” In order to attract other convicts to their side, “thieves” and “thieves” use the existing shortcomings in the functioning of the penal system, unite around themselves the dissatisfied, the emotionally unstable, those with a low educational level, increased aggressiveness, and those who have no prospects for parole. ahead of schedule.

The lack of proper preventive work against “thieves” and their associates leads to the fact that this category of people has the opportunity to freely distribute among convicts and persons in custody illegal mail, which indicates the need for direct opposition to the administrations of institutions, active support for “thieves’ traditions” and orders”, the formation of a “common fund”, the establishment of inter-chamber communication by any means, communication with other institutions, with persons in the wild. Also in the “thieves’ correspondence” it is indicated that persons in custody and convicted persons should write as many complaints as possible to the prosecutor’s office, to committees for the protection of human rights, and the media about alleged violations of the law and the rights of prisoners and convicted persons by the administration . This method of putting pressure on the administration of places of deprivation of liberty is used by “thieves” in order to achieve relaxations in the regime of detention and the provision of illegal benefits. When leaders are released from prison, the region’s criminal community provides them with money, vouchers to sanatoriums, etc. as a reward for actively opposing the administration.

“Thieves” and their associates organize the illegal delivery of drugs, alcoholic beverages, prohibited items to places of deprivation of liberty, do everything to destabilize the situation there, to create a situation where any conflict in the relationship between convicts would be resolved by them, and not administration of the institution. “They strive for convicts to live not according to penal legislation, not according to internal regulations, but according to thieves’ norms and customs established by them.” For this purpose, “thieves” and “supervisors”, in some cases, offer the administration their services to restore order among convicts. Our studies of the activity of “thieves” in this regard show that when asked: “How often did the “supervisors,” “policemen,” and “thieves” offer you their services to restore order among the convicts?” 1.83% of employees surveyed answered very often; 6.88% - often; 13.3% - rare; 29% - very rare; 48.99% - never.

Another characteristic feature of the activities of “thieves” and their supporters in places of deprivation of liberty is the irreconcilable struggle with amateur organizations of convicts who participate in maintaining internal law and order. They try in every way to discredit positive-minded convicts, force them to refuse cooperation with the administration and law-abiding behavior, show aggression towards convicts who work conscientiously in production, are members of public organizations, intimidate them and their family members with threats of physical harm and destruction of property and so on. Violence in places of detention has become more severe and uncompromising.

Acts of violence are a habitual behavioral stereotype of “thieves” in relation to positively characterized convicts and the most demanding employees. In this regard, in places of deprivation of liberty there is an increase in grave and especially grave crimes against the individual and the order of management. A negative impact on the activities of correctional institutions is left by the fact that approximately 65% ​​of crimes against life and health are committed in front of witnesses in order to intimidate the majority of convicts. The peculiarity of such crimes is cruelty and cynicism.
Conclusions.

1. A distinctive characteristic of places of deprivation of liberty in Russia in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. was the presence in them of self-government of convicts. This self-government was expressed in the form of a prison community (artel). At the head of the prison community (artel) were the leaders of the criminal community (“tramps”). Starting from 20-30 XX century The “thieves” community occupies a leading place in the prison community. In contrast to the prison community, the “thieves’ community does not lose contact with its members after their release. The “thieves’ community” also exists outside places of deprivation of liberty, unlike many other informal associations of convicts. In terms of the degree of cohesion of its members and their adaptation to life in prison conditions, this community surpasses all other similar communities.

2. The term “thieves” should be understood as a special category of professional criminals, combined into a separate category that has its own quasi-normative basis
community and are top managers of the criminal world, including in prisons.

3. The “thieves” phenomenon has deep historical roots. Being the elite of the criminal world, its most united core, the “thieves” could not help but lead the criminal community of Russia, including in prisons. A high degree of consolidation and significant income from criminal business allowed the “thieves” to lobby their interests in the highest echelons of government.

4. The main goals of the activities of the “thieves’ community” in places of deprivation of liberty are: establishing power over the prison community; weakening or neutralizing the punitive impact of the penal system on its members and those convicted in solidarity with them; formation of the economic basis of the community in the form of a “common fund”.

5. Speaking about the personal qualities of the “thieves”, it should be noted that each of the “thieves” is by nature a leader, capable of rallying and organizing the rest of the convicts. The leadership of “thieves” is generally recognized among the vast majority of criminals. In many ways, this leadership is supported by significant material and monetary resources concentrated in the hands of the “thieves’ community in the form of a “common fund”.

6. The legal basis for the activities of the “thieves’ community” is the “thieves’ law”, which regulates intra-community relations, as well as its interaction with the surrounding society and government structures. The basis of the “thieves’ law” is the “thieves’” ideology. Its main postulate is that all people are prone to certain vices, including illegal enrichment. There are no absolutely sinless people. There are only a few highly moral people. Most people tend to hide their vices, including the passion for illegal gain. By breaking the law, people want society not to know about it, but to still consider them law-abiding and respectable members of it. This, according to the “thieves,” reveals the duplicity of the vast majority of people. Society knows or guesses that most of its members are thieves, but pretends not to notice it. The “thief” does not hide from society that he is a “thief.”

This is where his “honesty” comes into play. Thus, he is an “honest thief,” and not a hypocrite who hides his criminal nature from others. “Having exposed society in hypocrisy, in the fact that it actually, in everyday life, abandoned what it proclaimed in its laws, the prisoners seemed to belittle it and thereby exalt their community. They called him moral, and the society that rejected them called him immoral.” According to the researcher of the “thieves’ subculture” S. Snegov, the basis of this moral position is the motive of self-justification. “Thieves” believe that if all people are vile, then it is right to treat them vilely. This is their psychology.

7. Thieves have a particularly negative attitude towards law enforcement officers who break the law. In this case, the morality of the “thieves” lies in the fact that they consider themselves more moral people than unscrupulous servants of order. The approximate logic of the “thieves” reasoning here is as follows. We are thieves and we talk about it openly. You also steal, lie, fabricate cases, take bribes. Only in secret. Even from each other. Although in reality you are called to fight this. So which of us is more honest, us or you? We “honest thieves” do not hide the fact that we are thieves, and you, hypocritically declaring your fight against crime, are these criminals yourself. We follow our law, but you don’t. Based on this ideology, it is concluded that if society itself is criminal, then the caste of “thieves” should occupy a leading position in it

8. The periods of prosperity and decline of the activities of the criminal community of “thieves” are inversely proportional to the economic and moral crises that our society has experienced. The crises of the Civil War, the Great Patriotic War and the crisis that occurred in the country after the collapse of the USSR caused a decline not only in the economic, but also in the moral standard of living of society. It is during these periods that jumps in crime and an increase in the activity of the community of “thieves” are observed, including in places of detention. Currently, the activity of “thieves”, including in prisons, is on the rise. “Thieves” have numerous supporters, primarily among the most criminalized part of the convicts. Being the de facto leaders of the Russian prison community, the “thieves” control the processes taking place in it through the convicts (“supervisors”) authorized by them.

9. In its structure and method of organization, the “thieves’ community” resembles a Masonic lodge. “Thieves” and active participants in “thieves’ groups” hide their true faces under the guise of law-abiding convicts loyal to the administration of correctional institutions. At the same time, it would be very short-sighted in relation not only to the penal system, but also to the entire society and the state as a whole, to underestimate the role and significance of the “thieves” themselves, their ideology and practical illegal activities. “The main quality of the criminal world is hatred of the state and society, to which it opposes itself.” At its core, the “thieves” community is the antipode of the state and its social institutions. The Russian “thieves” subculture is based on the denial of the state and recognizes only the court of “thieves” according to “concepts”. This reveals the essence of the antagonism between the “thieves” and the administration of correctional institutions.