Corruption in courts: forms that are not always visible

Corruption in the judicial system is not just a bribe in an envelope. It is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that takes dozens of forms. From direct bribery to subtle manipulation of the procedure. From deliberate delay to \"accidental\" errors in favor of one of the parties. Corruption exists where there is power and where there is no control. And courts, as one of the highest powers, are especially vulnerable. In this article, we will discuss the forms in which judicial corruption manifests itself, how it works, and why it is so difficult to eradicate it.

Classical bribery: money for a decision

The most obvious form is direct bribery. A party or intermediary hands over money, valuables, or a promise of a service in exchange for a favorable decision. This can be an acquittal, a reduction in sentence, a refusal to grant a claim, or vice versa, its satisfaction. Such corruption is most often encountered in cases with high stakes: commercial disputes, corruption criminal cases, inheritance conflicts. The bribe can be passed through lawyers, relatives, or even couriers. Sometimes it is disguised as a fee for consultation or a donation.

However, direct bribery is risky. Judges are afraid of operational experiments and criminal responsibility. Therefore, more sophisticated methods are used more often.

Bribery through intermediaries and \"success fees\"

Corruption in courts is often carried out through lawyers and intermediaries. A lawyer may take money from a client, promising to \"resolve the issue\" with the right judge. Part of this money goes to the judge, and part remains with the intermediary. Such schemes are difficult to prove because the parties do not meet directly. The lawyer may claim that he received money for legal services, and the judge may claim that he received nothing.

A separate form is a success fee, when payment depends on the issuance of a certain decision. This creates a conflict of interest and drives the judge to corrupt actions. In some countries, such a form of payment is directly prohibited, but in practice, it is difficult to control.

Informal influence and connections

Corruption does not always imply the transfer of money. Sometimes it is enough to make a \"phone call\" from an influential person. A judge may know that if he issues an unfavorable decision, his career will suffer. The pressure may be indirect, mediated through public opinion, through higher management, through colleagues. This is especially dangerous in cases involving politicians, large businessmen, or law enforcement officers.

Cumulative influence — when several \"recommendations\" create an atmosphere in which a judge cannot allow himself to be independent. He begins to self-censor, thinking: \"If I decide not as such, I will not be understood.\" This is not direct bribery, but it is an even more dangerous form of corruption because it undermines the very idea of justice.

Manipulation of procedural deadlines and procedures

A judge may not issue an incorrect decision, but simply delay the process. This gives one of the parties an advantage: during the delay, circumstances may change, evidence may become outdated, witnesses may disappear. Or, conversely, new, needed evidence may appear for one of the parties. Delay may be agreed with the judge who \"forgets\" about the hearing, \"loses\" documents, or \"does not have time\" to prepare a decision.

The judge may also deliberately allow procedural violations that can then be appealed, leading to a review of the case and additional delays. In some cases, the judge may \"accidentally\" accept inadmissible evidence or, conversely, refuse admissible evidence. This creates grounds for an appeal, which is also corrupt.

Conspiracies between parties and the court

Sometimes corruption is not a one-sided action, but a conspiracy. For example, in civil cases, the parties may agree on a favorable decision, and the judge merely formalizes it. This is especially common in bankruptcy cases, property division, corporate disputes. Such a conspiracy is difficult to detect because the parties do not complain. On the contrary, they are satisfied. And only public interests may suffer.

Another form is the creation of the appearance of competition, when the parties play by the script, and the judge knows in advance what should happen. This makes the court a farce, a profanation of justice.

Corruption in enforcement proceedings

Even if the court issued an honest decision, corruption may arise at the stage of its enforcement. Court bailiffs may delay enforcement, make \"necessary\" decisions on the imposition of arrest, write off debts, destroy property. There are also schemes here: refusal to enforce for \"remuneration\", document forgery, colluding with the debtor. This form often remains in the shadows, but it is this form that makes a judicial decision meaningless if it cannot be enforced.

Corruption as a system, not isolated cases

The most dangerous form of corruption is systemic. When not just one judge takes bribes, but the entire judicial hierarchy operates on the principle of \"us\" and \"others\". When there is an informal tariff for decisions, when a career depends not on professionalism, but on loyalty. In such systems, corruption becomes a way of life, and the fight against it is just a ritual. Judges who try to be honest are subjected to ostracism or even dismissal.

Systemic corruption also includes corruption in the judicial community: when decisions are made collectively to create consistency in practice, but this consistency is dictated not by law, but by agreements. It is difficult to fight against it because it leaves no traces.

Why it is difficult to fight

Corruption in courts is resilient because it is invisible. Bribes are masked, conspiracies do not leave documents, and pressure is not recorded. Judges have immunity, it is difficult to hold them accountable. The victims of corruption often fear to complain because they do not believe that they will be heard. And the system interested in maintaining the status quo hinders investigations.

To fight corruption, not only laws are needed, but also political will, independent media, an active civil society, and, of course, honest judges. But as long as there is money, power, and impunity, corruption will change its forms. And the task of a legal state is to make these forms less attractive and their exposure more effective.

Permanent link to this publication: