scholarly journals Initiation of Criminal Proceedings against a Particular Person as the Ground for Recognizing him as a Suspect (para 1, part 1, art. 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation)

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 71-78
Author(s):  
I. V. Smolkova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Status ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

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
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Socialist Republic ◽  
Moral Damage ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage

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

scholarly journals On the improvement of work management in authorities of the prosecutor's office on consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings against actions (or inaction) and decisions of the investigator and the prosecutor

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Popov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Single Instance ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Work Management

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.

SPECIFIC FEATURES OF PROPERTY INTERESTS PROTECTION OF THE PENAL SYSTEM OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A VICTIM

2021 ◽  
pp. 46-52
Author(s):  
Дмитрий Викторович Кияйкин
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Penal System ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Moment

В статье проведен анализ существующей практики защиты имущественных интересов уголовно-исполнительной системы Российской Федерации при участии в уголовном процессе в качестве представителя потерпевшего, изложены рекомендации по улучшению данной работы с учетом особенностей сложившейся практики. Раскрываются особенности уголовно-процессуальной защиты на основе материалов территориальных органов и анализа дел указанной категории схарактеристикой эффективных решений иимеющихся проблем по защите имущественных интересов уголовно-исполнительной системы (далее - УИС), материалов практики защиты поуказанным вопросам, аналитических и статистических данных за 2018-2020 гг. Обращено внимание, чтона практике имеются сложности с определением размера возмещаемого ущерба и сроков исковой давности, а также с фактическим исполнением судебных решений овзыскании ущерба в связи с финансовой несостоятельностью должников. Важной проблемой по защите имущественных интересов остается отсутствие методики определения размера причиненного репутационного вреда органам иучреждениям уголовно-исполнительной системы Российской Федерации. Обеспечение своевременного допуска представителя органа илиучреждения УИС имеет существенное значение для защиты имущественных интересов, поскольку юридическое лицо получает фактическую возможность по отстаиванию своих законных интересов лишь смомента допуска представителя - физического лица. Автором определены направления работы должностных и иных заинтересованных лиц по реализации защиты имущественных интересов УИС при участии в уголовном процессе в качестве представителя потерпевшего. The article analyzes the existing practice of protecting the property interests of the Penal system of the Russian Federation when participating in criminal proceedings as a representative of the victim, and provides recommendations for improving this work, taking into account the features of the current practice. The article reveals the features of criminal procedure protection based on the materials of territorial bodies and the analysis of cases of this category with the characteristics of effective solutions and existing problems in protecting the property interests of the Penal system (hereinafter the FPS), materials of defense practice on these issues, analytical and statistical data for the period 2018-2020. Attention is drawn to the fact that in practice there are some peculiarities in determining the amount of damage to be compensated and the limitation period. Due to the financial insolvency of debtors in practice, there is a difficulty with the actual execution of court decisions on recovery of damages. An important problem in protecting property interests remains the lack of a methodology for determining the amount of reputational damage caused to the bodies and institutions of the Russian Federation's penal system. Ensuring the timely admission of a representative of a body or institution of a penal system is essential for the protection of property interests, since a legal entity gets the actual opportunity to defend its legitimate interests only from the moment of admission of a representative - an individual. The author defines the directions of work of officials and other interested persons to protect the property interests of the Penal system of the Russian Federation when participating in criminal proceedings as a representative of the victim.

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 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.

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 Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation: evaluation of effectiveness and measures for its improvement

2021 ◽  
pp. 868-877
Author(s):  
Boris Gavrilov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Dialectical Logic ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Historical Comparative

Introduction: the article analyzes provisions of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation and its impact on the implementation of key legal institutions designed to ensure respect for the rights and legitimate interests of criminal proceedings participants by law enforcement and judicial authorities. Purpose: having studied effectiveness of the amendments made in the CPC and conducted statistical analysis of the results of criminal cases investigation, the author presents shortcomings in the legislation identified by the scientific community and law enforcement practice and proposes measures to improve both certain legal norms of the CPC RF and its procedural institutions in order to ensure constitutional provisions on the state protection of human and civil rights and freedoms. Methods: the researcher used historical, comparative legal and empirical methods for describing quality and legality issues in the investigation of criminal cases; theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic. Private scientific and legal technical methods, as well as the method for interpreting specific legal norms were applied. Results: the analysis of development of Russian and foreign criminal procedural legislation and law enforcement practice objectively indicates that the absolute majority of the amendments made to the Code contributed to enhancing performance of pre-trial investigation or initial inquiry bodies in implementing the provisions of Article 6 of the CPC. It stipulates protection of the rights and lawful interests of the persons and organizations, who (which) have suffered from the crimes, as well as their protection from unlawful accusations and conviction, and other restrictions of their rights and freedoms. Betterment of the criminal procedural legislation is also aimed at overcoming formalization of its individual provisions and bureaucratization of actions of the inquirer, investigator, prosecutor’s office and judicial community in the investigation and trial of criminal cases. Conclusions: to adapt the modern Russian criminal process to modern realities (new types of crimes and methods of their commission, increased requirements for ensuring legality in activities of pre-trial investigation bodies, their compliance with procedural deadlines in criminal cases and improving investigation quality) it is necessary to make changes in pre-trial proceedings, in particular, to reorganize procedural rules for commencement of criminal proceedings; bringing investigation terms into line with the provisions of Article 61 of the CPC on a reasonable period of criminal proceedings; differentiating investigation forms, etc. All this is focused on improving effectiveness of the fight against crime and its most dangerous types.

scholarly journals Meaning of the Category “Validity of the Charge” in Criminal Proceedings

2021 ◽  
pp. 218-223
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viкtor I. Kachalov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Simplified Procedure ◽  
Special Order

The aim of the article is to identify the meaning of the category “validity of the charge” in criminal proceedings and the scope of its application. After analyzing the content and legal essence of this category, as well as procedural situations in which it is necessary to establish the validity of the charge, the authors come to the following conclusions. Any coercive measures against suspects and accused persons can be applied only if there are serious grounds to assume that a person is involved in the commission of a crime since the restriction of the most important constitutional rights of citizens who, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, are innocent of committing a crime is possible only in exceptional cases. The validity of the charge (suspicion) assumes that a person is involved in the commission of a crime, as well as the fact of the criminal prosecution of this person. It is established if there is sufficient evidence that a person may have committed a crime (a person was caught committing a crime or immediately after it was committed; the victim or witnesses identified the person as the perpetrator of the crime; obvious traces of the crime were found on the person or their clothing, with them or in their house, etc.). The validity of the charge may be confirmed by a decision to initiate a criminal case and bring a person as an accused, by protocols of detention, interrogations of the accused, the victim, witnesses, and other materials. In the procedural sense, the conditions for establishing the validity of the charge differ significantly. When resolving the issue of the use of detention and other preventive measures, the validity of the charge is established within the framework of a court session in the conditions of adversariality with the participation of the parties. When giving the court permission to conduct investigative and other procedural actions in accordance with Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, to ensure the secrecy of the investigation, the issue is resolved in the absence of adversariality with the possible participation of only the prosecutor, the investigator, and the inquirer. The category “validity of the charge” is significant in legal terms in a criminal case with the special order of proceedings. A prerequisite for the court to consider a criminal case in a simplified procedure is the validity of the charge and its confirmation by the evidence collected in the case. The validity of the charge in the appointment of a trial in the special order provided for by Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is established by the court outside the court session in the absence of the parties. In any of the above situations, the court is responsible for establishing the validity of the charge since failure to establish it means that the decision made is unfounded.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document