scholarly journals Obtaining Samples for a Comparative Study: Theoretical, Normative and Law Enforcement Problems

2021 ◽  
pp. 17-29
Author(s):  
Elena Zaitseva
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The article analyzes the debatable aspects of the normative regulation of obtaining samples for a comparative study according to the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Attention is paid to the key problems in the regulation of this action, and to the difficulties that law enforcement employees face due to them. The author examines the questions of defining the legal nature of obtaining samples for a comparative study, and the possibility of using the operative search potential instead of the procedural method to obtain comparative samples. While analyzing the problems of setting the limits of compulsion for this action, the author stresses the incorrectness of some wording in the law (Art. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). In the light of ensuring the right of criminally prosecuted persons to defense, the author also presents a critical assessment of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation reflected in the Definition of July 23, 2020 № 1856-0, in the part where obtaining samples for a comparative study is recognized as an action of urgent nature.

scholarly journals TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CONCEPT «PROCEDURAL COSTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS»

Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
S.M. Darovskikh ◽  
◽  
Z.V Makarova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Procedural Costs ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Article 5

The article is devoted to the issues of formulating the definition of such a criminal procedural concept as «procedural costs». Emphasizing the importance both for science and for law enforcement of clarity and clarity when formulating the definition of criminal procedural concepts, the authors point out that the formulation of this concept present in the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is far from being improved. Having studied the opinions on this issue of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, a number of procedural scholars, the authors propose their own version of the definition of the concept of «criminal procedural costs» with its allocation in a separate paragraph of Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Judicial legal positions in the context of conflicts related to the formation of the procedural status of persons against whom acts of criminal prosecution are actually implemented

2019 ◽  
pp. 114-119
Author(s):  
Sergey Grachev
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article considers the grounds for the emergence of the procedural status of a suspect in a criminal case. The rights and obligations of the specified person, including the right to protection are analyzed. Subject to the requirements of the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the conclusion about the necessity of legislative consolidation of the procedural status of the person whose rights and lawful interests are affected carried out in relation to proceedings for verification of a crime report in accordance with article 144 of the Criminal procedure code and equating it to the status of a suspect, since during the pre-investigation check he has the right to protection from the criminal prosecution actually carried out against him.

To the Matter of Procedural and Legal Problems of Detaining a Person on Suspicion of Committing a Crime

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.V. Bolshakov ◽  
◽  
I.D. Nazarov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Moment

The subject of the research within the framework of the article is the criminal procedure institute for the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime. The legal nature of this institution is analyzed, and comments are given on the normative legal acts and judicial practice regulating the issues of detention. The theoretical basis of the research is based on the publications of the last two decades on this problem, in particular, reflecting the discussion of the process scientists S. A. Shafer, S. B. Rossinsky and A. A. Tarasov, the subject of which was the issue of the legal nature of a suspect detention in a criminal case. In the paper, the authors ask the following questions: What is the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation? From what moment does the detained person acquire the status of a suspect? Is it possible to detain a person before initiating a criminal case? The study concludes that a person acquires the actual status of a suspect from the moment of direct detention, that is, before documenting this status and, as a result, before initiating a criminal case. Amendments to the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are proposed, and the authors` versions of the definitions of the concepts «detention of a suspect», «the moment of actual detention» and «pre-trial proceedings» are given.

scholarly journals Legality and Validity of Property Seizure in the Investigation of a Criminal Case

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 118-126
Author(s):  
O. A. Malysheva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Institution ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
First Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
The Russian Federation

The importance of the measure of procedural coercion in the form of seizure of property increases against the background of the high amount of damage caused by crimes, namely about 550 billion rubles annually. This measure of procedural coercion has a high security potential in order not only to satisfy claims in civil lawsuits, but also to recover a fine and other property claims provided for in Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Investigators (interrogators) annually initiate the seizure of property about 40 thousand times. 90% of cases are a success. The application of this measure is accompanied by the restriction of the property rights of both natural and legal persons, including those who are not recognized as a civil defendant in a criminal case, in the first case, and the accused (suspect).The seizure of property in criminal procedure practice is accompanied by the need for the investigator to overcome a number of difficulties, which are caused, firstly, by the intersectoral nature of the regulation of this legal institution; secondly, by the presence of gaps in the regulation of relations arising in connection with the imposition of this arrest; thirdly, by the inconsistency of the objectives of proof to establish the nature and amount of damage caused by a crime and the implementation of security activities in a criminal case. This gives rise to numerous violations of the legality and validity of the seizure of property on the part of not only the investigator, but also the court, despite the expression of a number of positions of the ECHR on this issue, despite the explanations of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.The author concludes that without the release of the investigator as a subject of proof in a criminal case from performing an unusual function — providing compensation for property penalties in a criminal case — it is impossible to achieve the full legality and validity of the seizure of property.

Specifics of some anti-corruption measures in Russia within the framework of public and state security

2020 ◽  
pp. 541-547
Author(s):  
Tatyana Plotnikova ◽  
Andrey Paramonov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
State Security ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Illegal Acts ◽  
The Russian Federation

In the current difficult conditions for the economy of our state, corruption crimes represent a higher level of danger. It is necessary to reform anti-corruption activities in order to increase its effectiveness. One of the radical measures in the field of anti-corruption will be the abolition of the presumption of innocence for corrupt illegal acts. The presumption of inno-cence is a fundamental and irremovable principle of criminal law, which is enshrined in article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Violation of this principle is impossible for criminal proceedings, but modern circumstances require timely, prompt, and sometimes radical so-lutions. It is worth not to neglect the measures of “insuring” on the part of law enforcement agencies, since otherwise it will increase the share of cor-ruption crimes in law enforcement agencies. The content of paragraph 4 of article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is man-datory even if the presumption of innocence for corruption crimes is can-celed: “A conviction cannot be based on assumptions”. At the same time, the principle of differentiation of punishment will be implemented by assigning the term of imprisonment from the minimum to the maximum, depending on the severity of the illegal act.

scholarly journals The subject of judicial control in consideration of complaints: controversial issues of legal regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-109
Author(s):  
El'vira Mirgorodskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The purpose of this study was an attempt to theoretically understand the subject of judicial consideration of complaints against decisions, actions (inaction) of officials carrying out criminal prosecution. The research was carried out on the basis of comparative legal, formal logical, empirical, statistical methods. Judicial statistics for the year 2020 have been provided, and legislation has been studied from a historical and contemporary perspective, taking into account the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The problem is that, in practice, for about 20 years the courts have had difficulties in determining the subject of complaints, since neither in theory nor in practice a consensus has been developed on this issue. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation also does not contain a definition of the concept of «subject matter». The situation is aggravated by the presence of evaluative concepts in the text of the law, leading to a varied understanding of the subject of appeal by the courts, which leads to a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings. In the article, taking into account the analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, legislation and the opinion of scientists, a recommendation was made to amend the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to specify the subject of consideration of complaints in accordance with Art. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in order to eliminate existing contradictions in practice and increase the level of protection of individual rights in pre-trial proceedings.

scholarly journals Grounds for Canceling Seizure in Pre-Trial Criminal Proceedings

2020 ◽  
pp. 228-233
Author(s):  
Boris B. Bulatov ◽  
◽  
Alexander S. Dezhnev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article examines the normative legal basis of the grounds for canceling property seizure in pre-trial criminal proceedings. The problem of the legislator’s usage of evaluative categories in removing investigator’s, interrogator’s or court’s restrictions is also analyzed. The solution of this problem is made dependent on the implementation of public or private interests. Discussing these issues, the authors come to the conclusion that this sphere is neither presented nor analyzed in academic monographic works. This circumstance indicates the novelty of the study owing to the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the issue. The conclusion about the priority of public principles over private interests concerning matters which are not related to civil lawsuits is made on the grounds of empirical data and the analysis of legislative approaches. The contradictions of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation regulating the basis and procedure for canceling property seizure and the laws on bankruptcy are identified. The directions for improving the legal regulation of these issues are presented. The necessity of a multisectoral regulation of some aspects of law enforcement is inferred. The examination of private principles in canceling property seizure is connected with securing a civil lawsuit in criminal proceedings. The authors substantiate the existence of additional opportunities in making decisions in this field via the legal regime. This regime is also used in some other legal acts and may be put into practice in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. However, the imposed restrictions can be canceled on the basis of the decision by a person considering a criminal case. The authors note the incoherence of some provisions of Part 3 and Part 9 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. This incoherence is connected with different approaches to the view on public and private interests in decision making. The authors substantiate the necessity of a legal linking of grounds for canceling property seizure with the decision on imposing this resriction. The conclusion about the comprehensive order of property seizure is made in the final part of the article. It is also stated that this order does not contain distinct criteria of the legality of the decision. Certain parts of the criminal procedure laws should be corrected. Some ways to improve the field of legal regulation concerning the opportunity of canceling seizure are given.

scholarly journals On Criminal Procedure and Criminalistic Measures of Counteracting Crimes Against Legal Entities

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-105
Author(s):  
Olga Aivazova ◽  
Galina Vardanyan ◽  
Irina Smirnova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Entities

The article discusses some aspects of proving in cases of crimes against legal entities. The criminalistic description of the victim represented by a legal entity determines specific details of applying criminalistic and criminal procedure measures aimed at the identification, investigation, detection and prevention of such crimes. Under the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, one of the elements of ordering criminal proceedings is the protection of rights and legal interests of organizations that became victims of crimes. Part 1 of Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation details this guideline for the first time by giving legal entities, viewed as independent subjects of criminal procedure legal relations, the right to be recognized as victims of criminal actions if the crime inflicted damage on their property or business reputation. Nevertheless, the imperfections in the regulation of legal entities’ participation in criminal proceeding, and the insufficient attention to the specifics of realizing their rights and legal interests in comparison with the physical persons of a similar procedural status give rise to numerous problems. The complex of such problems has a negative impact on the effectiveness of investigating this category of crimes and, as a consequence, on the ability of criminal proceedings to produce the intended result. The literal interpretation of Part 1, Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation points out that the consequences of such crimes must include the infliction of two types of damage simultaneously — «to property and to business reputation», which can hardly be considered a good de­finition from the standpoint of juridical technique. Quite naturally, the investigation and court practice shows that law enforcers, while collecting proof on the character and size of damage inflicted on legal entities as a result of a crime, usually limit themselves to proving material damage, and even this damage is not proven in full (the common omission being losses of expected income). As for the damage inflicted on business reputation of a legal entity, its establishment during criminal proceedings is still problematic and, in practice, there is usually a gap in proving it. The authors point out that incomplete character of evidentiary information regarding the infliction of damage on the business reputation of legal entities is inadmissible and present their recommendations for resolving this problem, including the use of specialist knowledge and the improvements in the tactics of specific investigatory actions aimed at obtaining criminalistically relevant information on the case.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document