scholarly journals ДЕЯКІ ПРОБЛЕМИ ТИМЧАСОВОГО ВИЛУЧЕННЯ ТА АРЕШТУ МАЙНА ЯК ЗАХОДІВ ЗАБЕЗПЕЧЕННЯ КРИМІНАЛЬНОГО ПРОВАДЖЕННЯ

Author(s):  
І. В. Гловюк

Стаття присвячена дослідженню проблемних питань застосування тимчасового вилу­чення майна та арешту майна як заходів забезпечення кримінального провадження із урахуванням наявної судової практики. Указано та обґрунтовано некоректність норма­тивного визначення тимчасового вилучення майна. Відмічено прогальність нормативного визначення арешту майна в аспекті об'єктів, на які може бути накладено арешт. Сфор­мульовано пропозиції щодо внесення змін та доповнень до ч. 1 ст. 167 КПК щодо ви­значення поняття «тимчасове вилучення майна» та ч. 1 ст. 170 КПК щодо осіб, на майно яких може бути накладено арешт.   The article is dedicated to the research of problematic issues of exercise of temporary seizure of property and arrest of property as means for ensuring criminal proceedings considering relevant judicial practices. Author mentioned and justified his point of view regarding incorrectness of the normative definition of seizure. Author also indicated whitespaces of the regulatory definition of arrest of property in the aspect of objects that may be the subject for the arrest. Proposals for amendments and additions to the part 1 of the Art. 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the definition of «temporary seizure of property» and part 1 of the Art. 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the scope of persons whose property may be arrested have been made.

Author(s):  
Vitaliy Areshonkov

The basic normative legal acts regulating carrying out of researches connected with forensic engineering as a section of forensics are considered. The law regulates the conduct of investigative actions in the detection, recording, seizure and investigation of objects that contain forensically significant information and can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. The basic provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine are considered, which must be observed during conducting of forensic investigations. According to the author, in the draft law "On forensic activity in Ukraine" among the terms that are used in the text of the bill itself and are important for interpretation, namely: "expert institution", "head of expert institution". The head of the expert institution is the subject of the expert activity, but his authority, the amount of work performed, the competence is somewhat different from that of the ordinary expert. Therefore, it is necessary not only to provide the definition of the head of the expert institution, but also to supplement the bill with a separate article, where to state its rights and responsibilities. The following definition of the head of an expert institution is considered appropriate: "a person who performs the function of leadership during the organization and conduct of judicial examination in a subordinate unit". The author does not support the views of some scholars on the need to regulate these examina-tions in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CCP). In our opinion, the types of expertise are of sci-entific rather than procedural importance, so it is not necessary to burden the CCP of Ukraine with unnec-essary provisions.


Author(s):  
Mariia Sirotkina ◽  

The article is turned out to a scientific search for the concept of "a reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or accused" through the study of the essence of reconciliation and role in criminal proceedings thereof. The author notes that criminal procedural law (until 2012) had been proclaimed another approach to reconciliation between victim and suspect, not involved a dispute procedure as a conflict, the result of which can be reached by compromise and understanding through reconciliation. It is stated that one of the ways to resolve the legal conflict in committing a criminal offense was the opportunity to reach a compromise between the victim and the suspect (the accused) by concluding a reconciliation agreement between them, provided by the Code of Сriminal Procedure of Ukraine (2012). The main attention is placed on the shortcoming of the domestic criminal procedure law which is the lack of the concept of "a reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or the accused", which can be eliminated only through examining the essence or legal nature of reconciliation in criminal proceedings. Taking into consideration the current legislation and modern views on the institution of reconciliation in criminal proceedings, the author's definition of the concept of "a reconciliation agreement" is proposed. Thus, “The conciliation agreement is an agreement in criminal proceedings concluded between the victim and the suspect or the accused person on their own initiative in relation to crimes of minor or medium gravity and in criminal proceedings in the form of private prosecution, the subject of which is the compensation of harm caused by wrongdoing or committing other actions not related to compensation for the damage that the suspect or the accused is obliged to commit in favor of the victim, in exchange for an agreed punishment and sentencing thereof or sentencing thereof and relief from serving a sentence with probation, as well as the statutory consequences of conclusion and approval of the agreement".


Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
S.M. Darovskikh ◽  
◽  
Z.V Makarova ◽  

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1(63)) ◽  
pp. 127-133
Author(s):  
Виктор Николаевич ГРИГОРЬЕВ

The purpose of Russian criminal proceedings, which is very important among the modern social and legal institutions, is nevertheless deficient in its legal and regulatory form. It is noted that in the modern situation, some formulations of the purpose of criminal proceedings have come into conflict with the real social and legal reality. Purpose: to resolve contradictions between the formulations of the purpose of criminal proceedings and the actual social and legal reality. Methods: the author uses the methods of dialectical and formal logic, comparison, description, observation, interviewing, experiment, analysis, interpretation. Results: a theoretical basis has been developed for the choice, in the event of a conflict between the formulations of the purpose of criminal proceedings and the actual social and legal situation, of whether to change the normative formulation of the purpose of criminal proceedings or whether to change the procedure itself. In choosing the subject of reform, preference is given to traditional Russian values. Modern trends in Russian criminal proceedings do not fully reflect the needs of civil society in the Russian Federation. It is more accurate to assume that this is the result of a system of departmental and bureaucratic measures to distribute influence and burden. From a humanitarian standpoint, it would be more correct to return the criminal justice system to a state where it will again reflect the lost purpose, in particular, protecting individuals from unlawful accusations. The first step should be to remove from law enforcement officials the obligation to be unilateral in the examination of evidence and to represent only one party – the accusation (Chapter 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), as well as to remove the normative prohibition for the preliminary investigation and inquiry bodies to gather evidence defending the accused (Part 2 article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).


Author(s):  
El'vira Mirgorodskaya

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


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-81
Author(s):  
Željko Mirkov

Although there is no uniform definition of procedural principles in criminal procedure theory, they can be defined as legal rules or guidelines on which the criminal proceedings are based. As such, the principles of criminal procedure law apply to procedural entities and procedural actions. Evidentiary actions, as a type of procedural action, clarify the criminal case that is the subject of the criminal proceedings. The Criminal Procedure Code stipulates several evidentiary actions, one of which is the preliminary hearing of the defendant. The defendant hearing, in which the defendant gives their testimony, is given a great deal of attention because it represents one of the most important pieces of evidence, and the course of evidence presentation is the most significant and crucial issue of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the paper will present a review of the criminal procedure principles related to this evidentiary action, starting from the principle of legality as the main principle, followed by the principles of orality, publicity, immediacy and adversity (party control of facts and means of proof).


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. 350-355
Author(s):  
A. Kalygulova

The article is devoted to the issue of classification of the powers of an investigating judge in criminal proceedings of the Kyrgyz Republic. The relevance and novelty of the study is caused by the introduction of a new procedural figure of the investigating judge, who exercises judicial control in pre-trial proceedings. The powers conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic to an investigating judge are varied in content. In this regard, the issue of the classification of the powers of an investigating judge is relevant. Object of research: the procedural figure of the investigating judge. The subject of the research: the powers of the investigating judge and their division by classification. Thus, the powers of an investigating judge, provided for in Article 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic, cover not only the issues of the existence of grounds for the application and extension of measures to ensure criminal proceedings, authorization of investigative and special investigative actions, as well as the resolution of issues arising between the participants in pre-trial proceedings, including those affecting the scope of proof in criminal cases. A proposal has been made to classify the powers of an investigating judge in criminal proceedings in the Kyrgyz Republic.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 308-315
Author(s):  
K. Smanaliev

The article is devoted to the peculiarities of changes in the model of criminal proceedings in the Kyrgyz Republic and the definition of ‘criminal proceedings’ is given in a new edition. It has been established that pre-trial proceedings as a stage in the criminal process; begins with the registration of statements and messages and is the initial independent stage of the criminal process, manifesting in two forms: investigation and proceedings on misdemeanor cases. It was confirmed that the refusal from the stage of initiating a criminal case was replaced by a new institute of the Unified Register of Crimes and Misdemeanors, which includes a process starting from the moment of electronic registration and a system for recording applications and messages, and ending with the execution of a court sentence. The object of the research is public relations associated with the reform and digitalization of pre-trial proceedings in the Kyrgyz Republic. The subject of the research is the novelties of the criminal procedure legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic regarding pre-trial proceedings. In connection with the latest legislative reforms and digitalization in Kyrgyzstan, a comparative analysis of the state of the criminal procedure legislation of a number of post-Soviet states (Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova) on issues related to the electronic system of the unified register of crimes and misconduct seems relevant to the author.


Author(s):  
Anastasiia Antoniuk ◽  
◽  
Valeriia Rusetska ◽  

This article is devoted to the consideration of theoretical issues related to the introduction in Ukraine of the institution of electronic evidence of criminal proceedings. The article also raises the question of ways to obtain electronic evidence. The article notes that in the modern developed world there are more and more new types of crimes. In this context, we will consider crimes closely related to the use of information technology. Proving such crimes raises some difficulties. To date, it is relevant to consolidate the concept of electronic evidence in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the formation of a methodology for their study. Also, the author of the article notes that among the unresolved and problematic aspects of using electronic evidence in criminal proceedings in Ukraine, scientists distinguish: the lack of a clear procedural procedure for obtaining them in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine; lack of grounds for declaring electronic evidence inadmissible; difficulties in identifying and fixing electronic evidence due to the lack of specialized knowledge among investigators, which necessitates the involvement of specialists for conducting legal proceedings; lack of a developed methodology for studying such evidence; lack of uniform terminology and regulation at the legislative level. It is determined in the article that for the effective implementation of international law in the field of combating cybercrime, it is advisable to substantiate the need for a legislative definition of electronic evidence, sources of their formation, the admissibility of international cooperation through the exchange of electronic evidence, the expediency of using electronic methods of sending requests and responses about their implementation, the possibility application of control information supply for investigation of transnational computer crimes. Based on the above, the author offers his own definition of electronic evidence. It is concluded that it is necessary to legislatively consolidate the term "electronic evidence" and continue to study the category, the importance of developing a methodology for studying electronic evidence, the procedure for collecting and recording them.


Author(s):  
Anna Borovyk ◽  

The article is devoted to the concept of forensic characterization of violent crimes committed on the basis of racial, national and religious intolerance, and its main structural elements that are most important in the detection and investigation of crimes in this category. It is noted that the forensic characterization of crimes is a system of general data, information or information about typical features (structural elements) of a certain type of crime, which are important in the investigation and detection of criminal offenses of a particular type. Among the most important elements that are important during the pre-trial investigation of this category of crimes, we have identified the following: the identity of the offender, with his mental activity, which includes a special motive for committing a criminal offense - intolerance; the person of the victim; the subject of criminal encroachment; the manner of committing the crime in the broadest sense; trace picture. The article reveals the concept of the subject of proof and emphasizes that it fully covers Article 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, concerning the general procedure for proving in the investigation of violent crimes committed on the grounds of racial, national and religious intolerance. Emphasis is placed on the fact that among criminals who commit violent crimes on the grounds of racial, national or religious intolerance, there are minors, which is why, along with the general circumstances covered by Article 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, are subject to the establishment in criminal proceedings of circumstances that relate directly to minors and provided for in Article 485 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The article examines the relationship between the forensic characterization and the subject of evidence, and substantiates that the forensic characterization serves as an information base for the circumstances that are part of the subject of proof.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document