scholarly journals The Procedure of Termination of the Criminal Case (Criminal Prosecution) on Rehabilitation Bases in the Russian Federation and Mongolia

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-368
Author(s):  
Petr V. Kozlovskii ◽  
◽  
Ganbold Rentsendorj ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
The Russian Federation

scholarly journals SUBJECTS OF TRANSFER OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION (PROCEEDINGS) WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION. PART I. COURT AND THE PARTICIPANTS FOR THE PROSECUTION

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 11-14
Author(s):  
Kirill K. Klevtsov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Case Material ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
The Russian Federation

In the article the author taking into account doctrinal sources and law enforcement practice, considers the subjects of legal relations (the court and the participants on the part of the prosecution) when sending a criminal case (material for checking a crime report) to a foreign state to resolve the issue of criminal prosecution or initiating a criminal case against a person, not subject to extradition to the Russian Federation. As a result, the author draws appropriate conclusions, both theoretical and applied.

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.

scholarly journals Termination of a criminal case (criminal prosecution) as a result of voluntary compensation for damage caused by a crime in the russian criminal court legal proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3B) ◽  
pp. 645-651
Author(s):  
Artem Igorevich Neryakhin ◽  
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov ◽  
Vasily Dzhonovich Potapov ◽  
Denis N. Stacyuk ◽  
Tatiana Ivanovna Bondar
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage

The authors study the controversial issues of termination of a criminal case (criminal prosecution) on the condition of voluntary compensation for the damage caused by the crime by the suspect (accused) during the preliminary investigation. The thesis is proved that in Russian criminal proceedings the procedure for voluntary compensation for damage caused by a crime is quite clearly regulated, and if the suspect (accused) voluntarily compensated for the property damage caused, then their actions will be evaluated within the current legal framework, when the fact of compensation for damage creates grounds for exemption from criminal liability and termination of the criminal case (criminal prosecution) in accordance with Articles 75, 76, 761, 762 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 25, 251, 28, 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Discretionary Model of Legal Regulation of a Criminal Case and Criminal Prosecution Termination: Pro et Contra

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 214-222
Author(s):  
G. N. Kucherov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Enforcement Officer ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Law Enforcement Officer ◽  
The Law

The paper discusses the issues of choosing the most effective model of criminal proceedings termination, analyzes the proposed in the scientific literature model of refusal of the discretion of the law enforcement officer when making an appropriate procedural decision. The author, based on the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, studies the relationship between the principle of justice and the legality of procedural decisions to terminate a criminal case and criminal prosecution. The author concludes that the discretionary model of legal regulation of a criminal case and criminal prosecution termination is an effective means of achieving the purpose of criminal proceedings, allowing the law enforcement officer to make a fair decision, given the nature, degree of social danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission, information about the identity of the person who committed the crime. Refusal of the discretion of the law enforcement officer in the matter of terminating a criminal case will not only not contribute to the humanization of legislation, but will mark the victory of formalism over justice in criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals Termination of criminal prosecution for full reparation

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Sherstnev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Main Task ◽  
Compensatory Mechanism ◽  
Economic Sphere ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage ◽  
Legal Mechanism

The creation of a special conciliation-compensatory mechanism for resolving criminal law conflicts in the economic sphere is an urgent political and legal problem. Without its permission, it is impossible to establish a new system of legal relations in the economic sphere between the state, the population and business, corresponding to the needs of the socio-economic development of Russia. Formally, such a mechanism is provided for in Article 761 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Under his normal work, the main task would be solved: compensation for damage from economic crimes, restoration of social relations in the economy. In addition, this would be achieved with the maximum saving of forces and means of law enforcement agencies. However, in practice, primarily in the preliminary investigation, this legal mechanism is applied little and does not fulfill its purpose. The article explains the causes of this phenomenon and suggests measures to address them. Part of these measures, legal and technical in nature, is associated with the optimization of the existing model for terminating the criminal in connection with compensation for damage. Among them, it is proposed to refuse such conditions for deciding on the termination of a criminal case (prosecution), such as the primacy, degree of public danger of the crime, the fullness of the consent of a person with a suspicion (accusation) against him and others. However, a much greater effect of the analyzed legal mechanism could be achieved if the preliminary investigation was carried out. The establishment of a judicial procedure for bringing charges, forming the basis of criminal liability and exemption from it in connection with compensation for a crime committed in the economic sphere would make the procedure fair and open, and therefore attractive to all participants in a criminal case.

scholarly journals On the problem of establishing a condition for compensation for damage and making amends for damage when a criminal case (criminal prosecution) is terminated in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 129-134
Author(s):  
I.V. Fatyanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage

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.

scholarly journals The Identification of Close Relatives of the Deceased Suspect or Accused in Criminal Proceedings: the Problems of the Legal Regulation and Interaction

Legal Concept ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 90-99
Author(s):  
Kristina Trifonova ◽  
Mikhail Shmatov ◽  
Vadim Perekrestov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The Body ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Deceased Person ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Close Relatives

Introduction: the termination of a criminal case or refusal to initiate a criminal case on a non-rehabilitative basis, provided for in paragraph 4, part 1, Article 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, will have a certain degree of specificity in the production of procedural actions. A sign of this type of proceedings is the appearance of a special category of subjects of criminal procedural relations – close relatives of the deceased person, who can initiate further investigation of the criminal case and its consideration in court in order to rehabilitate the deceased suspect or accused. These subjects are involved in the plane of legal relations in connection with the presence of their “legitimate interest”, both of a property and non-property nature. A detailed study of the criminal procedure status of a person against whom the criminal prosecution was carried out, but he was not given the status of a suspect or accused, is due to the need to establish the circle of his close relatives. The effectiveness of this activity depends both on the successful interaction of the subject of the investigation with the body of inquiry and other state bodies, and on the legal regulation of the situation in criminal proceedings of close relatives and other interested persons of the deceased. The purpose of the study is to analyze the legal status of the deceased person not only at the stage of procedural verification, but also at the stage of preliminary investigation, as well as to suggest the ways to solve problems, related to the involvement of close relatives and other interested persons of the deceased in the investigation process, including through the use of various forms of interaction of the subject of the investigation with the body of inquiry and the state bodies. Methods: in the course of the study, the general and specific scientific methods were used, namely: comparative research, system analysis and logical-legal. Results: the paper analyzes the current regulatory regulation of the legal status of a deceased person during a procedural check before making a decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case, and provides a comparative legal analysis of similar legal provisions under the legislation of some foreign countries. The problems associated with the moment when it is necessary to obtain the consent of close relatives for making a decision in accordance with paragraph 4 of part 1 of the article are identified. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the directions and conditions of the activity of the investigative body in connection with the adoption of this decision are defined. It is indicated that the circle of related persons whose opinion needs to be clarified is not defined in the law. In this regard, it is proposed to rely on the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and find out the opinion primarily of close relatives, the establishment of which depends on the successful application of various forms of interaction. Conclusions: the legislative recommendations are proposed to improve the legal status of a deceased person who has not yet been given the status of a suspect or accused, but in relation to whom the criminal prosecution was carried out. The paper analyzes in detail the activities of the investigation body to identify close relatives in order to clarify their opinion on the decision made in accordance with paragraph 4, part 1, Article 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The recommendations on the organization of interaction aimed at identifying the specified participants in the criminal process are given.

Constitutional Grounds of Exemption from Criminal Liability

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 76-95
Author(s):  
Yu. E. Pudovochkin ◽  
◽  
N. V. Genrikh ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Methodological Principles

Problem statement. The leading trend in the development of the criminal law branch as a whole and its individual institutions, including the institution of exemption from criminal liability, is the constitutionalization of legal provisions and their enforcement practices. An important role in this process is played by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which by its decisions determines the constitutional foundations of the interpretation and application of criminal provisions. To date, a significant amount of information has been accumulated that defines the initial principles of regulation of legal relations related to exemption from criminal liability. However, highlighted problem is not properly analyzed in modern science. This sets out the need to generalize the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Fede ration and to systematically present its legal positions that identifies the constitutionally significant content of the institution of exemption from liability. Goals and objectives of the study. To generalize, systematize and analyze the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the problems of designing and applying the institution of exemption from criminal liability. Methods. A study of judicial practice is based on the use of classical methodological principles of complexity, comprehensiveness and subsidiarity. The method of system analysis, logical, documentary methods, analysis and synthesis are also applied in this article. Results, brief conclusions. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation legitimizes the institution of exemption from criminal liability, taking into account, inter alia, its following constitutionally significant characteristics: a decision on exemption from liability is not an act that establishes the guilt of the accused; such a decision can only be made with the consent of the person who committed the crime; disagreement of the accused with the possibility of applying other legal consequences of the termination of the criminal case to him, is tantamount to disagreement with the application of the institution of exemption from liability in general; if the accused does not object to the termination of the criminal prosecution, there is no reason to consider his rights and legitimate interests violated by the decision to terminate the criminal case; upon exemption from criminal liability, the state is not entitled to leave the interests of victims of crimes without protection.

scholarly journals The idea of promotional compromise in the termination of criminal persecution and exemption from the criminal responsibility of the minor personnel with the application of forcedive measurement measures

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 168-173
Author(s):  
Alexander G. Markelov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
A Minor

The article proposes an original approach explaining the obvious ideological nature of the existence in the Russian criminal process of an evidentiary compromise with a special procedure for stopping criminal prosecution and exempting a minor from criminal liability using coercive educational measures. The author rightly argues that in modern criminal proceedings there has been created a promising, at the same time, conflict-free criminal procedure form of resolving a criminal case on the merits. In particular, the legislator, with strict and strict observance of the principles of the criminal process, formed a special compromise and at the same time evidentiary procedure for the court to make a final decision on the criminal case in the form of termination of criminal prosecution and exemption from criminal liability of a minor with the use of compulsory educational measures. The work concludes on the unconditional effectiveness of this compromise order, as well as the need to further improve such alternative evidentiary proceedings in order to promptly resolve the criminal case and implement the purpose of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals The Interaction of the Investigator, the Head of the Investigative Body and the Prosecutor in the Initiation and Implementation of Criminal Prosecution

Legal Concept ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 41-48
Author(s):  
Valentina Lazareva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation

Introduction: criminal prosecution is a specific legal concept that means a certain type of law enforcement activity. Having introduced this concept into legal use, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation pointed to the purpose of this activity – the exposure of a suspect accused of committing a crime (Paragraph 56 of Article 5), its compliance with the scheduling criminal proceedings (Part 2 of Article 6), types (Chapter 3) and subjects (Chapter 6). The content of this activity, the methods of its implementation indicate that the criminal prosecution coincides with the procedural activities of the inquirer, investigator and prosecutor, that is, it is carried out through the performance of each of the named persons of their powers. This allows us to put forward and substantiate the thesis that a preliminary investigation is a criminal prosecution carried out in the procedural form of a proceeding or inquiry, that is, an activity aimed at identifying and exposing a person, a suspect, or an accused of committing a crime, whose efficiency depends on a properly organized procedural interaction of the entities carrying out this activity, which together form the prosecutorial power of the state. The purpose of the study: to identify the reasons for the lack of effective cooperation of the criminal prosecution authorities and suggest the ways to eliminate them. The objectives of the study: to characterize the role (function) of the bodies, inquiry, investigation, prosecutor’s office in pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case, to formulate and base the conclusion that pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case are a form of criminal prosecution as a common type of criminal procedural activity for the inquirer, investigator and prosecutor. The dialectical, logical, systematic, structural-functional and other general scientific research methods were used in the preparation of the paper; as well as the comparative-legal, formal-legal and other specific scientific methods. Results: the paper shows that the reform of the preliminary investigation bodies, which resulted in the removal of investigators from administrative subordination to the prosecutor, the redistribution of powers between the prosecutor and the head of the investigative body in favor of the latter, did not lead to the expected increase in the procedural independence and independence of the investigator, but had a negative impact on the level of legality of pre-trial proceedings. The amendments made to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in 2007 and later proved to be insufficiently thought out; they are not logical and do not conform well with other norms of criminal procedure law. The shortcomings of the legal regulation of the procedure for exercising the powers of the head of the investigative body and the prosecutor, their interaction with the investigator and among themselves, were only partially corrected by Law No. 404-F of December 28, 2010. Conclusions: the need to improve the efficiency of interaction of the investigator with the head of the investigative body and the prosecutor requires a serious revision of a number of norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document