Signs of antisocial bargains: theory and practice

The contradictory court practice on prosecutors’ claims shows that there is no unified approach to the qualification of bargains as antisocial. The article substantiates that such transactions may include any actions aimed at the emergence, modification or termination of civil rights and obligations that have signs of crimes. Transactions that violate other important mandatory norms that reflect the foundations of law and order or morality that are entrenched in the Russian public consciousness can also be considered antisocial. In the author’s opinion, the legislator’s refusal to legislate the list of antisocial transactions seems justified, since the courts draw conclusions about the antisocial nature of transactions as a result of analyzing many factual circumstances relevant to the case that cannot be established in any specific norm. The main reason for the problems is the lack of specific goals for the legislator when setting rules regarding antisocial transactions. According to the legislator, only transactions that do not violate the law, but are carried out for purposes contrary to the foundations of law and order and morality, should be considered antisocial. However, an analysis of judicial practice has demonstrated the inconsistency of such a campaign with reality.