Russia has exited the Convention on Criminal Liability for Corruption as a consequence of actions taken by the Council of Europe, according to a message from the French Embassy’s CoE Affairs Group on social media. Diplomats described the Council of Europe’s moves as illegal, which led Moscow to withdraw from the Criminal Law Convention on Anti-Corruption.
The embassy stated that Russia does not plan to participate in activities of the Council of Europe bodies if the rights of Russian representatives are restricted. In response, Moscow signaled that it would continue to challenge other international agreements in the same vein.
On the previous day, President Vladimir Putin submitted a draft to the State Duma seeking repeal of Russia’s Convention on Criminal Liability for Corruption. Anatoly Vyborny, a deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Security and Anti-Corruption, emphasized that scrapping the Council of Europe Convention would not diminish the country’s efforts to fight corruption. Vyborny also noted that the decision to terminate the anti-corruption agreement has been scheduled for consideration by the State Duma Council on January 16.
Analysts tasked with monitoring the situation point out that the move reflects a broader stance by Moscow toward international commitments perceived as biased or restrictive. Observers stress that Russia has long argued for reforms and greater parity in multinational anti-corruption efforts, urging more inclusive and transparent mechanisms that do not place unilateral obligations on the Russian state. The recent development adds to a pattern in which Moscow re-evaluates or withdraws from treaties it views as incompatible with national sovereignty or domestic policy priorities.
Supporters of Russia’s position argue that the withdrawal preserves the country’s ability to design and enforce its own anti-corruption measures without external constraints. Critics caution that such exits could complicate cross-border cooperation on crime prevention and asset recovery, potentially limiting the international community’s capacity to coordinate investigations and share best practices. The current situation is likely to influence ongoing debates about the role of regional and international organizations in setting anti-corruption standards and penalties.
For now, the Russian government maintains that it will continue to engage with international partners through other formats and agreements where allowed, while safeguarding its domestic prerogatives. Observers say Moscow may seek to formalize new arrangements that align with its policy goals, ensuring that anti-corruption efforts remain robust at home even as it redefines its external commitments. The outcome of the Duma’s deliberations will determine the practical steps in implementing the withdrawal and any subsequent reforms to the country’s anti-corruption framework.
Experts remind that the effectiveness of Russia’s domestic anti-corruption drive will depend on the strength and independence of its internal institutions, the efficiency of law enforcement, and the transparency of governance. They also note that public dialogue around transparency and accountability remains essential, and that continued vigilance from civil society can help sustain reforms regardless of shifts in international affiliations. As policy makers weigh the implications, the emphasis remains on maintaining rigorous standards of integrity within the Russian system while navigating the evolving landscape of international cooperation.
In summary, the sequence of events marks a notable shift in Russia’s approach to international anticorruption commitments. The exact consequences for future cooperation with European and global partners will unfold as the State Duma completes its review and as Moscow clarifies its positions on related agreements. Attribution: reports aggregated from official statements and parliamentary briefings, with assessments from regional political observers and security analysts.