Analyzing Foundations of Imposing a Monetary Penalty on Parties to a Criminal Proceeding

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 682
Author(s):  
Arman SAKHARBAY ◽  
Askar Kadyrovich KALIYEV ◽  
Moldir Saparbekkyzy BAIKOMUROVA
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Regulatory Systems ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Original Approach

The research analyzes the possible application and effectiveness of a monetary penalty as one of the most useful sanctions to maintain the established order of criminal justice, as well as develops constructive proposals to improve the criminal procedure legislation based on the conducted survey. To this end, the authors of the article have studied the criminal procedure legislation of Kazakhstan and legislation on administrative offenses, considered scientific opinions presented in numerous publications on relevant topics and conducted a comparative analysis of regulatory systems in Kazakhstan, Germany, Austria, the USA and the UK. As a result, the authors have established that one of the main reasons hindering the adequate implementation of criminal justice is the violation of obligations to participate in criminal proceedings by persons named in the Criminal Procedure Code of Kazakhstan. To maintain procedural discipline, the court is provided with ample opportunities in the form of coercive measures, including a monetary penalty. The authors have investigated the legal nature of a monetary penalty and compared it with administrative fines. The authors have considered grounds and application procedures for this sanction in the criminal procedure legislation of Kazakhstan and some foreign legal systems. The authors have determined the problems of its implementation caused by the slovenly legislation of a monetary penalty that impedes law enforcement activity. A comprehensive analysis allows developing proposals for improving the use of monetary penalties as measures of coercion for criminal cases heard in the court. If these proposals are enshrined in the existing regulatory framework and put into practice, they will strengthen the discipline of parties to criminal proceedings, ensure the strict observance of criminal proceedings and increase their general effectiveness. Due to its conclusions and proposals, the article demonstrates the novelty of the conducted research, the authors' original approach to the analysis of information and innovative ways to improve the existing legislative framework.

scholarly journals Institute of Returning a Criminal Case to the Prosecutor in the System of Criminally-Remedial Means, Ensuring the Victim's Right to Protection from Crime and Access to Justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 512-526
Author(s):  
Tatyana Ryabinina
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Main Function ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

The article deals with current and controversial issue in the criminal science, specifically the need for the Russian criminal justice process to have an institute to return a criminal case to the procurator at the stage of appointment and preparation of the court hearing. The author emphasizes that during the continuance of RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, a special emphasis was put on it as a guarantee of the delivery of justice and the rights of the participants in the proceedings, that put in place the arrangements necessary for an effective court trial. The goal of modern judicial reform is to establish an independent judiciary whose main function is the delivery of justice which can be implemented in criminal proceedings only in adversary criminal proceedings. Since the beginning of its implementation, attitudes towards the institution of returning a criminal case by a court to a procurator to correct lacunae, loopholes, contradictions, irregularities or flaws in pre-trial proceedings have changed dramatically. It is perceived as an attribute of the courts prosecutorial activities, which is inconsistent with its new role as an independent body to resolve legal disputes between a state and an individual awaiting for a founded and equitable decision from the court. Despite critical rhetoric towards the institution of returning the criminal case to the prosecutor, the author argues that it is necessary due to specific status of the first judicial phase in a staged system of Russian criminal justice process. This institute creates conditions for monitoring and verification activities of judges at this stage, and the corresponding authority of judges to determine the future course of criminal cases brought before the courts. However, the author concludes that the task of rectifying the shortcomings of the prosecution can be addressed at the preliminary hearing introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation to resolve various contentious issues. When it is impossible to remove the obstacles that prevent the court from conducting a trial, the judge may, taking into account the views of the parties, decide to return the case to the prosecutor.

scholarly journals PECULIARITIES OF PROCEDURAL PROCEDURE FOR INITIATING CRIMINAL CASES OF TAX OFFENCES

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-141
Author(s):  
V.Yu. Stelmakh
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Tax Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Second Procedure

The article analyses the peculiarities of the procedural procedure for initiating criminal cases of tax offences. The initiation of criminal proceedings for these crimes is of a public and legal nature, combining two public interests. The first interest is due to the need to initiate criminal proceedings in connection with the detection of a criminal act. The second interest is caused by the task of ensuring full payment of taxes. On this basis, when initiating criminal proceedings for a tax offence, a participant such as a tax authority carrying out certain criminal proceedings appears. The Modern Criminal Procedure Act provides for two procedures for initiating criminal proceedings under the category of offences under consideration. The first procedure applies in cases where the fact of the tax offence is revealed by the tax authority. The application to the preliminary investigation body is preceded by a procedure regulated by tax law to apply to the taxpayer in order to obtain payment of tax from him. Only in case of failure of the taxpayer to comply with this obligation and only after the expiry of certain terms the tax authority transmits the information to the preliminary investigation body. The second procedure is used in cases where the fact of the commission of a tax offence is identified directly by the preliminary investigation body. In this case, the tax authority gives an opinion on the existence in the taxpayer 's actions of the elements of the tax offence and provides calculations on the amount of the shortfall.

scholarly journals Criminal Procedure Code of Russia: Twenty Years Later (2001–2021)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-188
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viktor I. Kachalov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Impact

Introduction. 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, adopted by the State Duma on November 22, 2001 by Federal Law No. 174-FZ. The development of criminal procedure legislation in these years was not always consistent, often characterized by chaotic and hasty measures. Nevertheless, the main factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, as well as the key trends in the legal regulation of criminal procedure legal relations, have remained fairly stable for twenty years. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The object of the study is the norms of criminal procedure law that have emerged and developed during the period of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation since 2001. The methodological basis of the study is the general dialectical method of scientific knowledge, which allowed us to study the subject of the study in relation to other legal phenomena, as well as general scientific methods of knowledge (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, and modelling) and private scientific methods of knowledge (formal legal, historical-legal, and comparative-legal). Results. Among the variety of various factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, there are several main ones: 1. The impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal proceedings. Having ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms in 1998, Russia voluntarily assumed obligations in the field of ensuring citizens rights and freedoms, as well as creating the necessary conditions for their implementation. Among the most important criminal procedure norms and institutions that have emerged in the system of criminal procedure regulation under the influence of the positions of the ECHR, the following are notable: a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, the rights of participants in the verification of a crime report, the disclosure of the testimony of an absent witness at a court session, and alternative preventive measures to detention. 2. Optimisation of procedural resources and improvement of the efficiency of criminal proceedings. From the very beginning of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, there was a special procedure for judicial proceedings, which is a simplified form of consideration of criminal cases, provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In 2009, this procedure was extended to cases with concluded pre-trial cooperation agreements (Chapter 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), and in 2013, the institute of abbreviated inquiry appeared in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Chapter 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). 3. Social demand for increasing the independence of the court, and the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings. Society’s needs to improve the independence of judges, increase public confidence in the court, transparency and quality of justice led to the reform of the jury court in 2016 (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 190-FZ). As a result of the reform, the court with the participation of jurors began to function at the level of district courts, the jurisdiction of criminal cases for jurors was expanded, the number of jurors was reduced from 12 to 8 in regional courts and 6 in district courts. However, practice has shown that sentences handed down by a court on the basis of a verdict rendered by a jury are overturned by higher courts much more often than others due to committed violations, which are associated, among other things, with the inability to ensure the objectivity of jurors. In the context of a request for an independent court, Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the independence of judges (Federal Law of 2 July 2013 N 166-FZ) was adopted. 4. Reducing the degree of criminal repression. In the context of this trend, institutions have emerged in the criminal and criminal procedure laws that regulate new types of exemption from criminal liability. In 2011, Article 281 “Termination of criminal prosecution in connection with compensation for damage” was adopted, concerning a number of criminal cases on tax and other economic crimes (Federal Law of 7 December 2011 N 420). In 2016, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation introduced rules on the termination of a criminal case or criminal prosecution in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine (Federal Law of 3 July 2016 N 323-FZ). 5. Digitalisation of modern society. The rapid development of information technologies and their implementation in all spheres of public life has put on the agenda the question of adapting a rather archaic “paper” criminal process to the needs of today, and the possibilities of using modern information technologies in the process of criminal proceedings. Among the innovations in this area, it should be noted the appearance in the criminal procedure law of Article 1861 “Obtaining information about connections between subscribers and (or) subscriber devices” (Federal Law of 1 July 2010 N 143-FZ), Article 4741 “The procedure for using electronic documents in criminal proceedings” (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 220-FZ), the legal regulation of video-conferencing in criminal proceedings (Federal Law of 20 March 2011 N 39-FZ), and the introduction of audio recording of court sessions (Federal Law of 29 July 2018-FZ N 228-FZ), etс. Currently, the possibilities of further digitalisation of criminal proceedings, and the use of programs based on artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings, ets. are being actively discussed. Discussion and Conclusion. The main factors determining the vector of development of modern criminal justice should, in our opinion, include the impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal justice; optimisation of procedural resources and the need to improve the efficiency of criminal justice, social demands for strengthening the independence of the court, adversarial criminal proceedings; the needs of society to reduce the degree of criminal repression, and digitalisation of modern society.

CONCEPT AND CONTENT OF A RECONCILIATION AGREEMENT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF UKRAINE

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariia Sirotkina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Main Attention ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of

The article is turned out to a scientific search for the concept of "a reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or accused" through the study of the essence of reconciliation and role in criminal proceedings thereof. The author notes that criminal procedural law (until 2012) had been proclaimed another approach to reconciliation between victim and suspect, not involved a dispute procedure as a conflict, the result of which can be reached by compromise and understanding through reconciliation. It is stated that one of the ways to resolve the legal conflict in committing a criminal offense was the opportunity to reach a compromise between the victim and the suspect (the accused) by concluding a reconciliation agreement between them, provided by the Code of Сriminal Procedure of Ukraine (2012). The main attention is placed on the shortcoming of the domestic criminal procedure law which is the lack of the concept of "a reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or the accused", which can be eliminated only through examining the essence or legal nature of reconciliation in criminal proceedings. Taking into consideration the current legislation and modern views on the institution of reconciliation in criminal proceedings, the author's definition of the concept of "a reconciliation agreement" is proposed. Thus, “The conciliation agreement is an agreement in criminal proceedings concluded between the victim and the suspect or the accused person on their own initiative in relation to crimes of minor or medium gravity and in criminal proceedings in the form of private prosecution, the subject of which is the compensation of harm caused by wrongdoing or committing other actions not related to compensation for the damage that the suspect or the accused is obliged to commit in favor of the victim, in exchange for an agreed punishment and sentencing thereof or sentencing thereof and relief from serving a sentence with probation, as well as the statutory consequences of conclusion and approval of the agreement".

Prospects for the Implementation of Special Conciliation Procedures in the Russian Criminal Process

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 99-104
Author(s):  
E. V. Markovicheva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Traditional System ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Legal Method

In the 21st century, the concept of restorative justice has become widespread in criminal proceedings. The introduction of special compromise procedures into the criminal process allows for the restoration of the rights of the victim and reduces the level of repression in the criminal justice system. The traditional system of punishment is considered ineffective, not conducive to the purpose of compensating for harm caused by the crime. Restorative justice enables the accused to compensate for the harm caused by the crime and is oriented not towards their social isolation, but towards further positive socialization. The introduction of the ideas of restorative justice into the Russian criminal process requires the introduction of special conciliation procedures. The purpose of the article is to reveal promising directions for introducing special conciliation procedures into the Russian criminal process. The use of the formal legal method provided an analysis of the norms of criminal procedure legislation and the practice of its application. Comparative legal analysis revealed common features in the development of models of restorative justice in modern states. Conclusions. The introduction of conciliation procedures into the Russian criminal process is in line with the concept of its humanization and reduction of the level of criminal repression. The consolidation of the mediator»s procedural status and the mediation procedure in the criminal procedure legislation will make it possible to put into practice the elements of restorative justice.

scholarly journals The use of digital communication technologies in the context of a pandemic as a way to improve the effectiveness of justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-101
Author(s):  
E. V. Smakhtin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article deals with the peculiarities of the activity of courts in making judicial decisions in the context of a pandemic. First of all, we are talking about the wider use of digital and information technologies in criminal proceedings, which have previously been repeatedly recommended by forensic science for implementation in judicial practice. Some recommendations of criminalistics are currently accepted by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its Decision dated April 08, 2020 № 821 and Review on certain issues of judicial practice related to the application of legislation and measures to counteract the spread of a new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) in the territory of the Russian Federation № 2, which provided appropriate explanations for their use in practice. In particular, we are talking about the possibility of using video conferencing systems for certain categories of criminal cases and materials that are considered urgent, although this is not provided for in criminal procedure legislation. It is concluded that it is necessary to change the current criminal procedure legislation, bring it into line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws and subordinate regulatory legal acts, including orders of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals FEATURES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 875-880
Author(s):  
E.F. Tensina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedural Rights

The article reveals the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, which establishes the freedom to dispose of material and procedural rights. The forms of manifestation of dispositive principles in the material and procedural aspects in the course of criminal proceedings are determined. Taking into account the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, various models of proceedings in criminal cases of a private prosecution and the peculiarities of the implementation of the provisions of the criminal procedure principle of the presumption of innocence are considered. The author critically assesses the legal constructions that allow the application of a special procedure for making a court decision in criminal proceedings of a private prosecution if the accused agrees with the charge brought. In particular, taking into account the provisions of the principle of the presumption of innocence, it is concluded that it is inadmissible to apply Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when considering a criminal case of a private prosecution if it is initiated by filing an application directly with a magistrate in the manner prescribed by Art. 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation or when investigating a criminal case of this category in the form of an abbreviated inquiry, regulated by Ch. 32.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Termination of Criminal Proceedings in Public Criminal Cases by Courts of First Instance Under Art. 24, Para. 1, Item 5 of the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure and Its Compliance with European Union Law

De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Debora Valkova-Terzieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Subject

The subject of this research is a specific prerequisite for the termination of criminal proceedings in public criminal cases, regulated in Article 24, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure. This analysis was necessitated by the fact that the European Union had introduced certain obligations for the Member States.

12. Hearsay in criminal cases

2020 ◽  
pp. 349-411
Author(s):  
Adrian Keane ◽  
Paul McKeown
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter discusses the meaning of hearsay in criminal proceedings and the categories of hearsay admissible by statute in such proceedings. It considers the relationship between the hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as it relates to hearsay; the definition of hearsay and its admissibility under the 2003 Act, including admissibility under an inclusionary discretion (section 114(1)(d)); and safeguards including provisions relating to the capability and credibility of absent witnesses, the power to stop a case and the discretion to exclude. Also considered in this chapter are: expert reports; written statements under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967; and depositions of children and young persons under section 43 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

9. Opinion evidence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
The Uk

This chapter, which focuses on opinion evidence in criminal and civil cases in the UK, explains the rule on the admissibility of opinion, including expert opinion, as well as notice and disclosure in criminal cases under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014. The criteria for the admissibility of expert evidence, the responsibilities of expert witnesses, and the approach of the courts to new areas of expertise are examined in detail. It also considers the presentation of expert evidence, including the use of court-appointed experts, in civil cases under the Civil Procedure Rules, and, finally, examines the ultimate issue rule, which has been abolished by section 33(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1972.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document