scholarly journals Compensation for Damage Caused by a Crime in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-220
Author(s):  
Nguyen Van Tien ◽  
Viktor Victorovich Pushkarev ◽  
Ekaterina Viktorovna Tokareva ◽  
Alexey Vasilyevich Makeev ◽  
Olga Rinatovna Shepeleva

In criminal proceedings of Vietnam, in contrast to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, it is advisable to separate physical, material and moral damage that may be caused by the crime or socially dangerous act prohibited by the criminal law, the rights and legitimate interests of natural or legal persons. The article is devoted to solving the problem of compensation for damage caused by a crime in pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases, based on the study of Russian and Vietnamese criminal procedure legislation, practice, and results of its application. The conclusions are subject to study and implementation in the law.Keywords: Compensation for harm; Investigation; Rights and legitimate interests of participants in criminal proceedings Kompensasi untuk Kerusakan yang Disebabkan oleh Kejahatan di Republik Sosialis Vietnam dan Federasi Rusia Abstrak:Berbeda dengan Kode Acara Pidana Federasi Rusia, lebih baik dalam proses pidana Vietnam untuk memisahkan kerugian fisik, material, dan moral yang disebabkan oleh kejahatan atau tindakan berbahaya secara sosial yang dilarang oleh hukum pidana dari hak dan kepentingan sah orang atau badan hukum. Berdasarkan kajian undang-undang prosedur pidana Rusia dan Vietnam, praktik, dan hasil penerapannya, artikel ini dikhususkan untuk memecahkan masalah kompensasi atas kerusakan yang disebabkan oleh kejahatan dalam proses pra-persidangan dalam kasus pidana. Kesimpulan sedang dipelajari dan akan dimasukkan ke dalam undang-undang.Kata Kunci: Kompensasi untuk kerugian; Penyelidikan; Hak dan kepentingan sah peserta dalam proses pidana Возмещение вреда причиненного преступлением в социалистической республике Вьетнам и Российской Федерации АннотацияСтатья посвящена разрешению проблемы возмещения вреда, причиненного преступлением, в досудебном производстве по уголовным делам, на основе исследования российского и вьетнамского уголовно-процессуального законодательства, практики и результатов его применения. Выводы подлежат изучению и внедрению в законКлючевые Слова: возмещение вреда, расследование, права и законные интересы участников уголовного процесса, следователь, дознаватель

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 71-78
Author(s):  
I. V. Smolkova

The paper is devoted to the analysis of a new ground for recognition of a person as a suspect, introduced under the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, namely, the initiation of a criminal case against the person. The ground under consideration has caused controversial debates among criminal process scholars. The author has carried out a retrospective analysis of the legislative regulation of this ground for giving a person the status of the suspect. The paper evaluates various doctrinal approaches to its merits and disadvantages. The author also demonstartes the need for the new ground for recognition of a person as the suspect in law enforcement on the basis of statistical data, according to which more than half of criminal cases in Russia are initiated against a particular person. The study at question reveals an interconnection between initiation of proceedings upon commission of a crime and a particular person. The conclusion is substantiated that the recognition of a person as a suspect in case of initiation of criminal proceedings against him is aimed at ensuring his right to protection from criminal prosecution. However, the issuance of the order to initiate criminal proceedings against a particular person entails the possibility of implementation of coercive criminal procedural measures against him. It is shown that suspicion forms the substantive basis of recognition of a person as the suspect. The author criticises the approach according to which the issuance of the order to initiate criminal proceedings against a particular person forms an allegation that he has committed an act prohibited under the criminal law. Under this approach the assumption is made that can later be either proven or refuted in the course of further investigation. The author criticises the practice of dividing criminal cases into a judicial perspective and lacking such a perspective, which entails violations of the rights and legitimate interests of individuals suspected in committing crimes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-101
Author(s):  
E. V. Smakhtin

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.


Author(s):  
E.F. Tensina

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.


Author(s):  
V. V. Dubrovin

The establishment of an intentional form of guilt and its specific type is mandatory for the implementation of the provisions of Art. 8 of the Criminal Code. In criminal proceedings in connection with tax evasion, a direct intent should be established in the act of the accused, otherwise the provisions of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 28, 2006 No. 64 “On the practice of criminal law on liability for tax offenses”. One of the proofs of direct intent in the act of the accused may be the decision of the tax authority to prosecute for the tax offense, made according to the results of tax control measures (in-house or on-site tax audits). In the event that it establishes an imprudent form of the taxpayer’s guilt in committing a tax offense, in proving the guilt of the accused in the course of criminal proceedings there may be an intractable contradiction.


Author(s):  
Mariia Aleksandrovna Iurkevich

This article reviews most controversial issues pertaining to legal, organizational and actual possibility of using 3D video modeling in averment on criminal cases. The author analyzes the approach adopted in the US legal system towards application of video models of evidence in judicial proceedings, distinguishing between the main forms of 3D video models that exist in the US criminal procedure. Leaning on the analysis of particular judicial precedents and normative acts that regulate the questions of criminal proceedings in the United States, the author outlines the conditions (rules) for admissibility of 3D evidence. Applicable to the criminal procedure of the Russian Federation, the article formulates the legal framework for using video modeling in criminal proceedings, as well as gives a general description to the system of criminal procedural guarantees that ensure the rights of the individual in the context of using video modeling, and accuracy of information acquired from such evidence. The research employs the general philosophical method of materialistic dialectics, methods of analysis, synthesis, legal experiment, and comparative legal method. The scientific novelty consists in the fact that the author is one of the first to explore the question of using the results of video modeling in criminal proceedings in the Russian Federation. The analysis of the US law enforcement experience on the subject matter is of particular relevance due to accumulation of the vast practical experience in adapting video modeling technology to the needs of criminal justice of the XXI century. The doctrine of the national criminal procedure had not previously to determine the role of 3D video modeling in averment on criminal cases. The author's conclusions on the need to use the results of video modeling, including immersive reality, not only in expert activity, but also in criminal procedure (for example, in the course of hearing of arguments) are aimed at the transformation of criminal proceedings with regards to its optimization via digitalization.


Author(s):  
E. K. Antonovich

The testimony of witnesses represents the type of evidence, without which practically no criminal case can do. It is the significance of this type of evidence that determines the legislative requirements for the regulation of preparation and the procedure for the interrogation of a witness, as well as for the recording of evidence. This is of particular importance both from the standpoint of ensuring the admissibility and reliability of evidence, as well as from the point of view of ensuring the rights and legitimate interests of persons involved in criminal proceedings. The national legislation of modern states creates its own standards for the use of witness testimony in proving criminal cases. With all the variety of approaches, the importance of information technology in the collection, testing and evaluation of witness testimony can be viewed in the following main areas: as a means of fixing an investigative action, as a way of establishing the actual circumstances relevant to the case, as a means of ensuring the production of an investigative action, and as a means of transmitting information. Based on the analysis of the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation and some foreign countries, the paper examines the problems of legislative regulation of the use of digital technologies during the interrogation of witnesses, including remote interrogation and deposition of witness testimony. Special attention is given to distant interrogation at the request of foreign countries.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 129-134
Author(s):  
I.V. Fatyanov ◽  

The article examines the ambiguity in the interpretation of article 76.2 of the Criminal code and article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation to establish terms of compensation for the damage and (or) smoothing caused by the crime harm. The author substantiates the argument about the fallacy of considering this condition only formally, the author focuses on the mandatory establishment in this case of the characteristics of the identity of the guilty person and the measure of public danger of the committed act. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the approach proposed by the author to the study of the problem of establishing such a condition. In particular, the author considers it essential to solve such a problem to study the legal nature of compensation for damage and compensation for damage when a criminal case (criminal prosecution) is terminated on this basis. The author defines the specifics, identifies the main purposes of such a legal phenomenon in the context of a legal problem. The article concludes that if the preliminary investigation body and (or) the court (justice of the peace) the lack of property harmful consequences from the crime, the failure to make reparation is not to be considered as an obstacle to the termination of criminal proceedings on the grounds provided by article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, article 76.2 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. As a conclusion, the scientific work has prepared a specific text of the interpretation of the condition in the relevant explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which will exclude ambiguity on this issue from the law enforcement officer.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-188
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viktor I. Kachalov

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.


Globus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (7(64)) ◽  
pp. 45-46
Author(s):  
M.G. Mkrtychev

This article analyzes the application of the institution of prejudice in criminal proceedings when considering cases of crimes in the field of economic activity. The position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the application of Art. 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The problems of using the institution of prejudice in criminal proceedings in criminal cases on crimes in the sphere of economic activity are considered on practical examples.


Author(s):  
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Popov

This article raises the questions on the improvement of work management in the prosecutorial branches on consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings against actions (or inaction) and decisions of the investigator and the prosecutor. Analysis is conducted on the existing in the prosecutor’s office procedure of pretrial dispute, which legislative consolidation is associated with usage of the term “superior prosecutor”. The subject of this research is the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, executive documents of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation and prosecutor's offices of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as scientific literature on the topic at hand. The conclusion is made that the current legislation and the established law enforcement practice assume on the recurrent appeal on the same instance of violation of law within a single prosecutorial branch, and thus do not effectively protect the rights and legitimate interests of the parties involved in the criminal procedure sphere. For this reason, the author makes recommendations on the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation aimed at adjustment of the procedure of consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings, which would ensure their resolution within the framework of a single prosecutorial branch in a single instance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document