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

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.

Download Full-text

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

Siberian Law Herald ◽

10.26516/2071-8136.2021.4.129 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Termination of criminal prosecution for full reparation

Vestnik of the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia ◽

10.35750/2071-8284-2020-1-136-143 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 (1) ◽

pp. 136-143 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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.

Download Full-text

Prosecutor’s Decision as a Cause for Initiating Criminal Proceedings: Problems of Improving the Legislation

Legal Concept ◽

10.15688/lc.jvolsu.2019.4.18 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 131-139

Author(s):

Natalia Solovyova ◽

Altyn Ilyasova

Keyword(s):

Russian Federation ◽

Preliminary Investigation ◽

Criminal Procedure ◽

Criminal Case ◽

Criminal Prosecution ◽

Legal Analysis ◽

Criminal Proceedings ◽

Criminal Procedure Law ◽

The Russian Federation ◽

Compliance With The Law

Introduction: in the paper the authors reveal the essence of one of the causes for initiating a criminal case, the socalled fourth cause with the title “the prosecutor’s decision to send relevant materials to the preliminary investigation body to resolve the issue of criminal prosecution”; actual problems associated with the implementation of the powers of the Prosecutor’s office at the stage of initiating a criminal case; the essence of the supervisory powers of the Prosecutor’s office (Prosecutor) at the stages of criminal proceedings. Addressing this topic is due to the main purpose – the consideration of the concept of “prosecutor’s decision as a cause for initiating a criminal case” in the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, as well as the study of topical problems of implementing the powers of the Prosecutor’s office (prosecutor) when considering the issue of ensuring compliance with the principle of legality at all the stages of criminal proceedings. Methods: the methodological framework for the study was the general scientific method of cognition, including the principle of objectivity, consistency, induction and deduction. In the context of this method and in connection with it, the general logical methods of theoretical analysis and specific scientific methods (comparative law, technical and legal analysis, concretization, interpretation) were used. Results: considering the concept of “prosecutor’s decision as a cause for initiating a criminal case”, the authors drew attention to the role of the prosecutor in making the relevant decision on the activity management of the preliminary investigation body, indicated, that in criminal procedure law of this state the most important function of the Prosecutor’s office (prosecutor) is the supervision over compliance with rule of law by all the bodies and officials, by virtue whereof, in practice, the implementation of two mutually exclusive powers of the Prosecutor’s office (prosecutor) can lead to the imbalance in the full implementation of the principles of criminal procedure at all procedural stages. Conclusions: as a result of the study, the authors come to the conclusion that in order to implement fair justice at the stages of criminal proceedings, it is necessary to make appropriate changes in the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, since the combination in one body of powers to initiate criminal proceedings (in particular, sending a corresponding resolution to the preliminary investigation body to resolve the issue of criminal prosecution) and the powers to supervise over compliance with the law by the preliminary investigation bodies is impossible in practice; it requires additional research and appropriate changes.

Download Full-text

THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: PROBLEMS OF THE OBJECT AND THE OBJECTIVE SIDE

Law Enforcement Review ◽

10.24147/2542-1514.2018.2(2).97-105 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

pp. 97-105

Author(s):

Alexandra Vladimirovna Boyarskaya

Keyword(s):

Russian Federation ◽

Complex Analysis ◽

Preliminary Investigation ◽

Legal Protection ◽

Criminal Procedure ◽

Criminal Code ◽

The Body ◽

Criminal Proceedings ◽

Criminal Procedure Law ◽

The Russian Federation

The subject. The article is devoted to the investigation of the main direct object and the circle of victims are subjected of harm by criminal acts stipulated by pts. 1, 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.The purpose of the paper is to identify does the art. 294 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation meets the other provisions of criminal procedure legislation.The methodology of research includes methods of complex analysis, synthesis, as well as formal-logical, comparative legal and formal-legal methods.Results and scope of application. The content of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the provisions of the criminal procedure law. The discrep-ancy lies in terms of the range of participants in criminal proceedings and the functions performed by them, as well as the actual content and correlation of such stages of criminal proceedings as the initiation of criminal proceedings and preliminary investigation. In addi-tion, the current state of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not take into account the ever-widening differentiation of criminal proceedings.The circle of victims listed in pt. 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be supplemented by such participants in the criminal process as a criminal investi-gator, the head of the investigative body, the head of the inquiry department, the head of the body of inquiry. At the same time, the author supports the position that the criminal-legal protection of the said persons should cover not only their activities at the stage of preliminary investigation, but also of the entire pre-trial proceedings as a whole.The circle of criminal acts provided for in art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Fed-eration, should also be specified with an indication of encroachment in the form of kidnapping, destruction or damage to such a crime as materials of criminal, civil and other cases, as well as material evidence.Conclusions. The content of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the provisions of the criminal procedure law. The author formulates the conclusion that the circle of victims listed in pt. 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code should be broadened and joins the position that the criminal-legal protection of these persons should cover not only their activities at the stage of preliminary investigation, but also of the entire pre-trial proceedings as a whole.

Download Full-text

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

Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta ◽

10.17223/15617793/462/26 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Classification of crimes in designing criminal procedure regulations

Actual Problems of Russian Law ◽

10.17803/1994-1471.2019.99.2.130-137 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 130-137

Author(s):

A. G. Kulev ◽

L. O. Kuleva

Keyword(s):

Russian Federation ◽

Criminal Liability ◽

Great Influence ◽

Criminal Procedure ◽

Criminal Code ◽

Criminal Proceedings ◽

Procedural Code ◽

The Russian Federation ◽

Substantive Law

The rules on categorization of crimes are substantive and legal by their nature. Nevertheless, they have a great influence on the state and development of criminal procedural matter. It is proposed to divide the provisions of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, which reflect the provisions of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, into two groups. The first group includes the norms of criminal proceedings that are a kind of logical continuation of criminal law regulations related to exemption from criminal liability and punishment. The second group consists of strictly procedural rules that are not directly dependent on the substantive law: the composition of the bench, jurisdiction and competence of criminal cases, bail hearing, negotiations control and recording, the return of a criminal case to the prosecutor. Particular attention is given to the possibility for the court to change the classification of crimes. Based on the studied theoretical sources and court practice, the authors make suggestions aimed at improving the existing criminal procedure legislation and optimizing its application in the framework of the issues raised.

Download Full-text

PECULIARITIES OF SUPERVISION OVER THE RECEPTION, REGISTRATION AND AUTHORIZATION OF CRIMES UNDER ARTICLE 145.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION BY THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES

Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Economics and Law ◽

10.35634/2412-9593-2020-30-4-535-540 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 30 (4) ◽

pp. 535-540

Author(s):

M.A. Gabdullina

Keyword(s):

Russian Federation ◽

Criminal Liability ◽

Preliminary Investigation ◽

Criminal Code ◽

Federal Law ◽

Different Types ◽

Complete Failure ◽

Employer Liability ◽

The Russian Federation ◽

The Right

The Constitution of the Russian Federation protects the right to work for remuneration not below the statutory minimum wage. Non-payment of wages is one of the most serious violations of worker's rights. In this regard, the current legislation provides for different types of employer liability for violating these provisions: civil, administrative and criminal. The Federal law “On amendments to article 145.1 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation” dated 23.12.2010 No. 382-FZ tightened criminal liability for non-payment of wages. Thus, in particular, this law introduced criminal liability for partial non-payment of wages, while the former wording of article 145.1 of the Criminal code established liability only for its complete failure. In practice, this norm has not previously been brought to criminal liability for partial non-payment of wages. The paper deals with the issues of powers of the Prosecutor at the stage of reception, registration and resolution of reports on crimes provided for by article 145.1 of the criminal code. The problematic issues arising from the investigative authorities in conducting procedural checks on the specified categories of messages are analyzed. Suggestions on the improvement of criminal-procedural legislation are made.

Download Full-text

Problematic issues of qualifying actions encroaching upon persons executing justice or preliminary investigation

SHS Web of Conferences ◽

10.1051/shsconf/202110802005 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 108 ◽

pp. 02005

Author(s):

Aleksander Nikolayevich Varygin ◽

Irina Alekseyevna Efremova ◽

Vladimir Gennadyevich Gromov ◽

Pavel Anatolyevich Matushkin ◽

Anastasiya Mikhaylovna Shuvalova

Keyword(s):

Russian Federation ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Criminal Liability ◽

Preliminary Investigation ◽

Integrated Approach ◽

Legal Regulation ◽

Criminal Code ◽

Legal Norms ◽

The Russian Federation ◽

Structural Methods

A prerequisite for this research is a high public hazard of violent crimes committed against persons executing justice or preliminary investigation since this shakes the foundation of justice and buttress of state power in general. This suggests the need to research the prevention of such crimes using criminal legal methods. The primary goal of the research lies in the analysis of the modern condition and development of relevant proposals to improve the current criminal law of the Russian Federation in terms of regulation of criminal liability for the discussed criminal offenses, which will have a positive effect on their prevention. Research methods: dialectical method of cognition, as well general scientific (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, logical, systemic-structural methods) and particular methods of cognition (scientifically statistical, formally legal). The novelty is related to an integrated approach to research the problem of prevention of the discussed offenses and proposals developed on this basis to improve the Russian Federation criminal law, which will increase efficiency in the prevention of these offenses. Results: efficiency of preventing such offenses greatly depends on clear legal regulation of legal norms suggesting criminal liability for committing them. There is a pressing need to complement the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with new wordings of these elements of crimes and changes that would allow formulating a definitive norm clearly defining the scope of persons affected and adopting a Plenum Decree at this stage for this category of criminal cases, which would clarify the implementation of evaluative categories of the discussed elements of crimes.

Download Full-text

PROPERTY-RESTORATION LINE IN DEPENALIZATION CRIMINAL POLICYOF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Russian Family Doctor ◽

10.17816/rfd10706 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 17-22

Author(s):

T. R. Sabitov

Keyword(s):

Russian Federation ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Personal Responsibility ◽

Criminal Liability ◽

Criminal Policy ◽

Criminal Code ◽

Monetary Compensation ◽

The Russian Federation ◽

Compensation For Damage

The article analyzes the latest trends in Russian criminal policy related to its property-restoration focus. The author aims to emphasize the fact that criminal policy in Russia has significantly changed in its quality. The new rules on exemption from criminal liability increasingly emphasize receiving monetary compensation as a condition for such exemption. The articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are analyzed: on liability for non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, allowances and other payments; on exemption from criminal liability in connection with compensation for damage; on exemption from criminal liability with a fine; on liability for tax and other crimes. Considering the new criminal law norms on exemption from criminal liability, the author comes to the conclusion that these norms are increasingly contrary to the principle of personal responsibility, since the legislator increasingly proceeds from the task of restoring property interests than from the criterion of the presence or absence of public danger.

Download Full-text