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.

scholarly journals Restriction of the access to justice for consideration of the criminal procedure dispute in accordance with the Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-69
Author(s):  
Tatiana Topilina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Soviet Space ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

This article analyzes the problems of implementation of the right of access to justice for consideration of the criminal procedure dispute in accordance with the Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The author carefully examines the legislation of the countries of post-Soviet space on filing a complaint against actions (omissions), as well as decisions of the prosecuting agency in pretrial proceedings. The subject of this research is the norms of the Russian and foreign legislation that regulate the right of access to justice in criminal proceedings. The object is the legal relations arising in the context of implementation of the right of access to justice. The article employs the universal systemic method of cognition; comparative-legal, formal-legal, and statistical methods; as well as logical analysis of the normative legal acts. It is indicated that restriction of the access to justice for consideration of the criminal procedure dispute in accordance with the Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is also established by the practice developed in law enforcement for evaluation of the complaint prior to its consideration involving  the parties with the possibility of making a decision on whether to remit or reject the complaint in the absence of legislatively specified grounds, which directly affects the number of addressed complaints. The conclusion is made on the need to specify the grounds for remitting the complaint of an applicant filed in accordance with the Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, for the purpose of excluding the possibility of decision made by the court that is not based on the law on remitting or rejecting the complaint for consideration (the Article 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

scholarly journals Grounds for Involving a Legal Entity as a Civil Defendant in Criminal Cases

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 133-141
Author(s):  
Yu. V. Drazhevskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Insurance Premiums ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Arbitration Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation

The current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation makes it possible to involve a legal entity as a civil defendant only if, in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is liable for harm caused by a crime. This prevents the prosecution in all necessary cases, in particular for tax crimes. This is because in the criminal procedure, property damage caused by tax crimes is made up of taxes, fees, insurance premiums, which are not property damage in civil law due to various objects of legal relations. Therefore, they are not subject to compensation in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, but are collected in accordance with the procedure RF Tax Code and RF APC. At the same time, legal entities being taxpayers who failed to pay taxes are obliged to compensate for the damage caused by a tax crime, constituting the unpaid amount of taxes, fees, insurance premiums. This is to be fulfilled not in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, but in accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Due to the lack of legal grounds for involving a legal entity in criminal proceedings as a civil defendant, in practice, an individual is often involved in this case. It is against him criminal proceedings are being carried out, which subsequently leads to the cancellation of sentences in terms of imposing civil liability on an ineligible person instead of a taxpayer-organization. The paper substantiates the need to include in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation a new basis for involving a legal entity as a civil defendant, namely the existence of an obligation in accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to pay taxes, fees, insurance premiums. This will make it possible to exclude the recovery of property damage for tax crimes from employees of the organization in respect of whom criminal proceedings are being carried out, in the presence of a solvent legal entity-taxpayer.

scholarly journals Analysis of the project “On amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation to provide the victim, suspect, accused with the possibility of reconciliation”

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 362-367
Author(s):  
N.V. Mashinskaya ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The problem of legislative regulation of the procedure for reconciliation of the victim with the suspected, the accused until a certain time was only a subject of discussion in the scientific literature. At the same time the state’s need to find measures that can eliminate the consequences of crimes without the use of ordinary criminal procedures has actualized the work on introducing alternative methods of settling the criminal-legal conflict into criminal proceedings. Given the urgent need to apply this procedure in practice, the Interregional Public Center “Judicial and Legal Reform” has developed and posted on its website a draft federal law “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation to Provide the Victim, Suspect, and Accused with the Possibility of Reconciliation.” To implement the procedure for reconciliation in criminal proceedings, the drafters of the bill propose to include a new chapter in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). The author of the article critically evaluates the attempt due to the inconsistency of a number of novels, their uncertainty and inconsistency with the norms of the criminal procedure law. To eliminate the existing shortcomings, it is proposed to provide a separate article defining the procedural status of the conciliator and to include the specified rule in Ch. 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. As a guarantee of the right of the victim, suspect, accused to reconciliation, the introduction of an appropriate addition to the criminal procedure norms governing the legal status of the named participants in criminal proceedings is considered.

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 The Development of the Legal Position of Legal Entities in Russian Criminal Proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 48-53
Author(s):  
Galina I. Sedova ◽  
◽  
Yulia V. Drazhevskaya ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
State Register ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Legal Entities

The current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, while securing the opportunity for a legal entity to participate in criminal proceedings, does not establish which organizations are to be understood as a “legal entity”. In this regard, this concept in the criminal process is often identified with the civil-legal definition of a legal entity, leaving behind its framework organizations that are not subject to registration in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. Meanwhile, historical analysis indicates that legal entities were participants in criminal procedural relations long before the concept of “legal entity” was consolidated in civil legislation, as well as the establishment of the procedure for their registration. At the same time, starting from the XI century, the possibility of participation of legal entities in the criminal process was determined by criteria that have not lost their relevance at the present time.

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.

SHORTENED TIMELINE OF APPEAL AGAINST INTERIM COURT DECISIONS MADE AT A PRE-TRIAL STAGE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
pp. 38-49
Author(s):  
Polina O. Gertsen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Medical Organization ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article deals with the problem of classifying interim decisions among those that are appealed in a shortened timeline, and determining the list of such decisions, as well as the closely related problem of determining the rules for calculating such a shortened timeline. Currently, the Criminal Procedure law provides for the possibility of appealing a number of interim decisions made at a pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings before the final decision Moreover, for appealing some interim decisions at a pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, a general period of appeal is provided - 10 days from the date of the court decision, or the same period from the date of serving with a copy of the decision the person who is in custody, while for others a shortened timeline is 3 days from the date of the decision. Meanwhile, it follows from the literal interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation that within a shortened three-day period, court decisions on the election of preventive measures in the form of a ban on certain actions, bail, house arrest, detention, the refusal to apply them or extend their application can be appealed. At the same time, such a conclusion is not confirmed either in the positions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or in judicial practice. Based on the analysis of the criminal procedure law, the position of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts of the Russian Federation, scientific literature and practice, several problems are highlighted. Thus, the author states the discrepancy between the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation when it comes to establishing the terms for appealing the court decision on a preventive measure in the form of bail. In addition, there is no single criterion for establishing shortened deadlines for appealing interim decisions, and there-fore, the list of such decisions requires analysis. In addition, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a norm that determines the rules for calculating daily terms. The author formulates several proposals for amendments. It is proposed to determine the criteria for a shortened appeal timeline as the restriction of the constitutional right to liberty and immunity of a person that requires the immediate judicial review of the lawfulness of such a decision. It is also necessary to correct the phrasing of Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which defines the procedure for applying a preventive measure in the form of bail, and establish the rule that appeal against such an interim court decision is filed according to the rules of Chapter 45.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code within ten days. The list of court decisions which must be appealed in a shortened timeline must be expanded by a court decision on putting a suspect or an accused into a medical organization providing medical or psychiatric care in hospital settings for forensic examination, as well as the extension of a person’s stay in a medical organization. In addition, the author has analyzed the approaches to the calculation of daily terms and proposes to amend Part 1 of Article 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation by establishing a single procedure for calculating daily terms, which does not take into account the day that served as a starting point of the term.

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 Recovery of Damages from the Head of an Economic Entity: Legislation of the Russian Federation and Law Enforcement Practice

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 ◽  
pp. 10003
Author(s):  
Y.A. Dorofeeva ◽  
M.N. Zubkova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Historical Method ◽  
Economic Entity ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Entities

A legal entity as a union recognized in law and absent as an independent entity outside the law, exists and carries out its activities through the governing bodies whose composition and competence are always predetermined by the norms of positive law. Undoubtedly, the rights of the governing bodies of a legal entity, as well as the duties of the head of the organization, must be strictly predetermined and have limits defined by law. Failure of this rule would mean the possibility of abuse of the right by the governing bodies of legal entities, their release from the obligation to lead the organization in good faith and reasonably, evasion from the fulfillment of obligations assumed by the legal entity through the sole executive body or another governing body of the organization. In order to prevent harm to the organization and third parties, the governing bodies of the legal entity, the legislator set certain rules for the activities of the governing bodies of the legal entity, as well as the grounds for applying measures of responsibility for violating such rules. The responsibility of the head includes the recovery of damages caused by his fault to a legal entity. The purpose of the study is to analyze the grounds and conditions for recovery of damages caused by the head of the organization in the legislation of the Russian Federation and arbitration practice. The objectives of the study are to determine the grounds for liability of the head of a legal entity in the form of damages, show the genesis of the formation of Russian legislation and the practice of its use by courts on recovering losses of a legal entity from the head of an organization, identify criteria for determining the presence of both good faith and reasonableness in the behavior of managers of legal entities, brought to responsibility in the form of the obligation to pay damages to the organization they lead. In carrying out the study, such methods were used as: general scientific - analysis, synthesis, comparison, generalization, historical method; private-scientific: formal-legal, comparative-legal, allowing to consider the issues of bringing to responsibility in the form of recovery of damages of the head of a legal entity; Formal legal method for determining the content of abstract categories - reasonableness, good faith, permissible behavior, method of system-structural analysis - to study the possibility of applying damages as a form of responsibility for the guilty behavior of a special entity - the head of a legal entity The result of the study is the establishment of the grounds and conditions for applying to the head (former head) of a legal entity responsibility in the form of recovery of damages caused to the organization managed by it, in the legislation of the Russian Federation and judicial practice. The findings and results of the study can be used for further research and as educational material, in legislative work and in law enforcement practice.

The Admissibility of Statements Provided by an Accused Person in the Russian Criminal Procedure

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 1684
Author(s):  
Roman KOSTENKO ◽  
Georgii YURIEV
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Special Significance ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Evidence ◽  
General Characterization ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Admissible Evidence

This article substantiates that compliance with the requirement of admissible evidence acquires special significance for a criminal proceedings, which is proved by the analysis of various sources, including the current edition of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, the article aims to determine the nature of admissible statements of the accused in the Russian criminal procedure as one of the most important types of legal evidence. The authors of the article have obtained crucial results for the study of criminal proceedings, defined the basic requirements that should be met by admissible statements of an accused person, analyzed rules for admitting statements of the accused, performed their general characterization and formulated the main provisions defining the essence of statements provided by the accused in criminal proceedings. The main conclusion reached in this article is that the admissibility of statements provided by the accused should comply with the following basic rules: (1) the rule of appropriate subjects authorized by virtue of the existing Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to carry out procedural actions for collecting (obtaining, recording) evidence; (2) the rule of proper information sources on the facts provided for by the current Criminal Procedure Code; (3) the rule of proper proceedings stipulated by the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation for collecting (receiving, recording) evidence; (4) the rule of the proper procedure provided for by the current Criminal Procedure Code for collecting (receiving, recording) evidence from the viewpoint of its proper obtaining is considered as the need to comply with requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document