In recent years, criminal prosecutions targeting the leadership of Russian universities have sharply increased. According to data from the T-Invariant project, 97 cases against university rectors have been recorded since 2012. In 2025 alone, authorities opened 12 new criminal proceedings and issued 10 verdicts.
Corruption as a Structural Feature
Experts note that higher education institutions are no exception compared to other state-funded sectors. Similar trends can be observed in healthcare and in a range of semi-autonomous non-profit organizations closely tied to government structures, which often rely on substantial state grants and contracts.
Corruption in academia, observers say, is almost inevitable. Universities operate with vast budgets and face strict regulations—particularly in areas of international cooperation. “Auditors will always find something to latch onto,” said one source. Violations can be uncovered in virtually any institution, ranging from bribery for exam results to kickbacks in construction projects or equipment procurement.
Law enforcement agencies reportedly view universities as a “convenient target” for investigations, since corrupt schemes are nearly always present. At the same time, universities remain a vital tool of ideological influence over young people—further increasing their visibility to Russia’s security services. The practice of assigning “curators” from among retired or detached FSB officers to rectorates has existed for years, but their role has grown significantly.
From Corruption Charges to Political Control
Two sources indicated that as early as 2012, the FSB’s Second Service was tasked with strengthening oversight of universities. This pressure intensified after 2020, when the Kremlin commissioned an extensive sociological study of Russian higher education. “The Presidential Administration was unpleasantly surprised by the low level of loyalty among faculty toward the authorities and the president personally. The Kremlin concluded that universities were excessively autonomous and posed a threat to stability,” one source explained. Predictably, the official justification for tightening control was presented as part of the anti-corruption campaign.
Analysts see little chance of this campaign easing anytime soon. Against the backdrop of economic decline and growing budget deficits, the anti-corruption push is only gaining momentum. Security agencies’ main goal, experts suggest, is to create an atmosphere where university leaders remain completely loyal and firmly under state control. At the same time, the system continues to allow “insiders” with strong ties to the security apparatus to retain privileged access to financial flows.
Education-sector insiders believe that the surge in criminal cases is now functioning as a tool of personnel management. “When a rector or vice-rector comes under investigation, their position can be filled by someone whom the security services consider more reliable,” said one of the sources.
