scholarly journals ON THE DEFECTS OF LEGAL REGULATION OF THE CONCEPT OF LIABILITY FOR TAX OFFENCES

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 164-182
Author(s):  
Zhanna A. Nikolaeva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

The author analyzes the content of interrelated tax norms, administrative and criminal laws, which constitute the concept of liability for tax offences. The analysis makes it possible to identify the elements that cause non-compliance with the foundations of legal liability in criminal proceedings: its inevitability, equality of everyone before the law and the court, justice. Representatives of small and medium- sized businesses are placed in unequal, discriminatory circumstances in comparison with large businesses. In addition, the legislation on taxes and fees contains provisions which create obstacles for the operation of criminal and criminal procedure laws. Many instances of tax evasion, the non-payment of fees and/or insurance fees in large and especially large amounts revealed by tax services do not become known to investigative bodies. In this case, the principle of the priority of sectoral legislation ceases to work, since in criminal proceedings the provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation cancel out the effect of the norms which are common to all types of crimes and express the foundations of a particular sector of law. This paper substantiates the need to improve the concept of liability for violations of the legislation on taxes and fees.

scholarly journals International Standards of Preventive Measures and Their Implementations in the Legislation of the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 623-630
Author(s):  
Dmitrii Ivanov ◽  
Michail Kulikov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Selection Of

The goal of this research is to identify problems arising during the implementation of international standards for the selection of preventive measures into Russian criminal procedure legislation. The authors specify the concept of international standards of criminal court proceedings, present the specific features of their incorporation into constitutional norms as well as rules in different branches of law. The importance of preventive measures in the general mechanism of legal regulation is shown. The authors prove the necessity of systemic changes in the part of Russian legislation that deals with the legal regulation of preventive measures with the purpose of creating an integrated mechanism of criminal prosecution and protection against it. Key findings of research include: 1) Russian criminal proceedings, including its part regulating the selection of preventive measures, should fully correspond to international standards; 2) international standards are implemented in Russian criminal procedure legislation both indirectly, though constitutional clauses, and directly, through the improvements in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; 3) preventive measures should only be selected if there are sufficient grounds for them, and these grounds are not the at the discretion of officials involved in criminal proceedings, they are real evidence in the materials of a criminal case that is necessary and sufficient for selecting a specific measure from the measures included in the law; 4) circumstances that are taken into consideration when selecting a preventive measure, if they potentially provide for a stricter measure from their general list, should be explicitly laid down in the law, and contrary to this, the list of circumstances that could improve the position of a person is not exhaustive; 5) to give a person an opportunity to defend their position, the possibility of selecting the preventive measure of detention is only feasible for the accused, and should be excluded for the suspect; 6) since the proper behavior of a person, from the position of the prosecution, is to give testimony that proves their involvement in a crime, the corresponding indication that this is necessary to ensure such behavior should be removed from the law when selecting the preventive measure of recognizance not to leave; 7) the supervision of the command staff of a military base over military personnel should not be substituted with an actual deprivation or limitation of the freedom of movement within the territory of the base; 8) when there are no grounds for selecting detention, the court should have a possibility to select any other preventive measure from those included in the law. From the methodological standpoint, this research is an analysis of international normative legal acts and generally recognized principles and norms of international law regulating preventive measures as well as the problems of their implementation in Russian criminal proceedings. The following methods were used: comparative legal, historic legal, sociological, interpretation of law norms, a number of logical methods. The obtained data was used to formulate key conclusions, which made it possible to correctly use a number of terms, and determine the necessity of a systemic improvement of Russian legislation through the introduction of mechanisms that ensure the rights, liberties and lawful interests of a person when selecting a preventive measure.

scholarly journals The subject of judicial control in consideration of complaints: controversial issues of legal regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-109
Author(s):  
El'vira Mirgorodskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

scholarly journals To the admissibility of the civil law exemption of property from arrest, imposed in the criminal proceedings: domestic and foreign experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-200
Author(s):  
Natalia Kashtanova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Judicial Protection

The subject of paper deals with the legal nature of measures of criminal procedural compulsionin the form of seizure of property.Methodological basis of the article is based on general scientific dialectical methods of cognitionof objective reality of the legal processes and phenomena that allowed us to conduct anobjective assessment of the state of legislation and law enforcement practice in the proceduralaspects of the cancellation of the seizure of property in criminal proceedings of Russia.The results and scope of it’s application. It is submitted that the cancellation of the seizureof the property (or the individual limit) is allowed only on the grounds and in the mannerprescribed by the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation. However, the studyfound serious contradictions in the application of the relevant law. In particular, cases inwhich the question of exemption of property from arrest (exclusion from the inventory),imposed in the criminal case was resolved in a civil procedure that, in the opinion of theauthor of the publication, is extremely unacceptable.On the stated issues topics analyzes opinions of scientists who say that the dispute aboutthe release of impounded property may be allowed in civil proceedings, including pendingresolution of the criminal case on the merits. The author strongly disagrees with this positionand supports those experts who argue that the filing of a claim for exemption of propertyfrom arrest (exclusion from the inventory) the reviewed judicial act of imposing of arrestwithout recognition per se invalid. In this regard, the author cites the legal position ofthe constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, from which clearly follows that of theright of everyone to judicial protection does not imply the possibility of choice of the citizenat its discretion, techniques and procedures of judicial protection, since the features of suchjudicial protection is defined in specific Federal laws.The author analyzes and appreciates Kazakhstan's experience of legal regulation of the permissibilityof filing a civil claim for exemption of property from seizure imposed in criminalproceedings. The author notes that the new civil procedural legislation of the Republic ofKazakhstan, which came into force from 01 January 2016, clearly captures that considerationin the civil proceedings are not subject to claims for exemption of property from seizureby the criminal prosecution body.Conclusions. Necessity of amendment to article 422 of the Civil Procedure Code of Russia:this article should not apply to cases of application of measures of criminal procedural compulsionin the form of seizure of property. Among other things, the author proposed additionsto part 9 of article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia.

scholarly journals The role of international bodies and organizations in the development of legal framework for application of video conferencing in criminal proceedings of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
pp. 31-41
Author(s):  
Mariia Aleksandrovna Iurkevich
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Video Conferencing ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Short Period ◽  
The Russian Federation

Legal regulation of the use of video technologies in the Russian criminal procedure is conducted on the international and domestic levels. However, based on the primacy of international law recognized by the Russian Federation, the marker is the position of international community that is reflected in the normative legal acts of its special bodies, as well as on the doctrinal level. This article carries out the chronological analysis of the acts issued by international bodies and organizations pertaining to the use video conferencing in criminal proceedings. The subject of this research is the acts of international bodies and organizations that underlie the development of the national legal framework for the use of video conferencing in the Russian Federation. The analysis of normative acts that regulate the use of video conferencing in the Russian criminal procedure demonstrate that for the most part this question is being addressed in the international agreements ratified by the Russian Federation, rather than in the national legislation (considering the provisions of the Part 3 of the Article 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). Leaning on the acquired results, the author concludes that such tendency can be explained by a number of circumstances, namely lag in the rates of digitalization compared to the leading European practices, insignificant period of approbation of the results of using video technologies, as well as relatively short period of intensive implementation of such technologies due to the amendments in criminal procedure policy of the country, which now requires exhaustive normative regulation. The author believes that it is more appropriate to begin the analysis of normative acts that determine the legal framework for application of video conferencing in criminal proceedings of the Russian Federation with the general principles and norms of international law and international agreements, since their role in intensification of the process of digital transformation of criminal procedure in Russia cannot be overestimated.

scholarly journals Grounds for Canceling Seizure in Pre-Trial Criminal Proceedings

2020 ◽  
pp. 228-233
Author(s):  
Boris B. Bulatov ◽  
◽  
Alexander S. Dezhnev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article examines the normative legal basis of the grounds for canceling property seizure in pre-trial criminal proceedings. The problem of the legislator’s usage of evaluative categories in removing investigator’s, interrogator’s or court’s restrictions is also analyzed. The solution of this problem is made dependent on the implementation of public or private interests. Discussing these issues, the authors come to the conclusion that this sphere is neither presented nor analyzed in academic monographic works. This circumstance indicates the novelty of the study owing to the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the issue. The conclusion about the priority of public principles over private interests concerning matters which are not related to civil lawsuits is made on the grounds of empirical data and the analysis of legislative approaches. The contradictions of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation regulating the basis and procedure for canceling property seizure and the laws on bankruptcy are identified. The directions for improving the legal regulation of these issues are presented. The necessity of a multisectoral regulation of some aspects of law enforcement is inferred. The examination of private principles in canceling property seizure is connected with securing a civil lawsuit in criminal proceedings. The authors substantiate the existence of additional opportunities in making decisions in this field via the legal regime. This regime is also used in some other legal acts and may be put into practice in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. However, the imposed restrictions can be canceled on the basis of the decision by a person considering a criminal case. The authors note the incoherence of some provisions of Part 3 and Part 9 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. This incoherence is connected with different approaches to the view on public and private interests in decision making. The authors substantiate the necessity of a legal linking of grounds for canceling property seizure with the decision on imposing this resriction. The conclusion about the comprehensive order of property seizure is made in the final part of the article. It is also stated that this order does not contain distinct criteria of the legality of the decision. Certain parts of the criminal procedure laws should be corrected. Some ways to improve the field of legal regulation concerning the opportunity of canceling seizure are given.

scholarly journals IMPROVEMENT OF GUARANTEES FOR THE SUPPORT OF the RIGHTS of MINORs IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURES BY IMPLEMENTing the IDEAS OF JUVENILE JUSTICE: LEGAL ASPECTS

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-203
Author(s):  
I. V. Revina ◽  
N. V. Petrov
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
The Russian Federation

Russia's accession to the Council of Europe and the signing of relevant international agreements contributed to the development of regulations on the rights of a child and branching juvenile law in the Russian legal system. Meanwhile, it should be pointed out that processes of legal regulation in the field of the formation of the legislative basis of juvenile law are in some way incomplete, which is the result of the imperfection of the existing legal acts affecting the rights and interests of minors. The issue of the expediency of creating juvenile justice in Russia is being discussed for a long time in the legal papers and at the legislative level. The provision on the formation of juvenile justice was included in the 1991 Concept of Judicial Reform in the Russian Federation. Later, different authors worked out several draft Laws on Juvenile Justice. At parliamentary hearings in the State Duma, the prospects of creating juvenile courts in the system of courts of general jurisdiction were considered. Meanwhile, such close attention to the indicated problem does not have a significant impact on the increasing child and adolescent crime in the country. The plurality of the above-mentioned legal problems and their multifaceted nature necessitate improvement of justice in relation to minors. This raises a number of theoretical, legal, practical and ethical issues that require studying and adopting relevant decisions at the legislative level. Therefore, studies that allow analyzing the current Russian criminal procedure legislation from the point of view of the possibility of functioning of juvenile justice on its basis relying on international legal standards are really urgent. The criminal procedure legislation in the Russian Federation as a whole is focused on continuous improvement in the context of ensuring the maximum number of procedural guarantees of the legality of criminal proceedings, as well as observance of human rights with the application of their minimum restrictions, including in relation to such category of persons involved in criminal proceedings as minors. In this article, the authors consider the institution of juvenile justice as an additional guarantee of securing the rights of minors in criminal proceedings in Russia, propose the ways to address current and debatable aspects of this problem. The paper analyzes the current criminal procedural legislation, decisions of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation as well as the judgements of the courts in specific cases concerning the problems of the study. In the study of individual topics of the issue, scientific literature as well as statistical data have been used. The conclusions and proposals made in the work are aimed at improving the current legislation of the Russian Federation and law enforcement practice, and can also be used in the educational process.

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 Classification of Measures of Restriction: From a “Mixed” Criterion to a Connection with the Object of Restriction

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 154-165
Author(s):  
E. V. Mandzhieva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

Achieving the aims of criminal proceedings is impossible without coercion, which significantly restricts human rights and freedoms, including constitutional ones, and, therefore, it is permissible only if there are grounds and in the manner prescribed by the criminal procedure legislation. The grounds, conditions and procedure for applying measures of restriction in criminal proceedings largely depend on the correct systematization of criminal procedure legislation, which may be the basis for a systematic interpretation of the text of the law. Combining other measures of procedural coercion in Ch. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not have clear criteria, which is fraught with the erroneous use of procedural coercion against participants in criminal proceedings. The purpose of the paper is to assess the directions of possible improvement of the legislation regarding the systematization of procedural coercion measures. Measures of procedural coercion should be structured and systematized in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on clear and uniform grounds, including coercive measures, which are not measures of restriction. Currently, there are no such grounds in relation to other measures of procedural coercion, united in Ch. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which impedes their reasonable application. The contents of Ch. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation should be revised taking into account logical and legal ties. As a result of the research the author developed the ideas on logical connections as one of the main bases for the classification of the norms governing the use of procedural coercion, affecting its legality and validity.

scholarly journals Criminal Procedure Code of Russia: Twenty Years Later (2001–2021)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-188
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viktor I. Kachalov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Impact

Introduction. 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, adopted by the State Duma on November 22, 2001 by Federal Law No. 174-FZ. The development of criminal procedure legislation in these years was not always consistent, often characterized by chaotic and hasty measures. Nevertheless, the main factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, as well as the key trends in the legal regulation of criminal procedure legal relations, have remained fairly stable for twenty years. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The object of the study is the norms of criminal procedure law that have emerged and developed during the period of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation since 2001. The methodological basis of the study is the general dialectical method of scientific knowledge, which allowed us to study the subject of the study in relation to other legal phenomena, as well as general scientific methods of knowledge (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, and modelling) and private scientific methods of knowledge (formal legal, historical-legal, and comparative-legal). Results. Among the variety of various factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, there are several main ones: 1. The impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal proceedings. Having ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms in 1998, Russia voluntarily assumed obligations in the field of ensuring citizens rights and freedoms, as well as creating the necessary conditions for their implementation. Among the most important criminal procedure norms and institutions that have emerged in the system of criminal procedure regulation under the influence of the positions of the ECHR, the following are notable: a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, the rights of participants in the verification of a crime report, the disclosure of the testimony of an absent witness at a court session, and alternative preventive measures to detention. 2. Optimisation of procedural resources and improvement of the efficiency of criminal proceedings. From the very beginning of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, there was a special procedure for judicial proceedings, which is a simplified form of consideration of criminal cases, provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In 2009, this procedure was extended to cases with concluded pre-trial cooperation agreements (Chapter 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), and in 2013, the institute of abbreviated inquiry appeared in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Chapter 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). 3. Social demand for increasing the independence of the court, and the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings. Society’s needs to improve the independence of judges, increase public confidence in the court, transparency and quality of justice led to the reform of the jury court in 2016 (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 190-FZ). As a result of the reform, the court with the participation of jurors began to function at the level of district courts, the jurisdiction of criminal cases for jurors was expanded, the number of jurors was reduced from 12 to 8 in regional courts and 6 in district courts. However, practice has shown that sentences handed down by a court on the basis of a verdict rendered by a jury are overturned by higher courts much more often than others due to committed violations, which are associated, among other things, with the inability to ensure the objectivity of jurors. In the context of a request for an independent court, Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the independence of judges (Federal Law of 2 July 2013 N 166-FZ) was adopted. 4. Reducing the degree of criminal repression. In the context of this trend, institutions have emerged in the criminal and criminal procedure laws that regulate new types of exemption from criminal liability. In 2011, Article 281 “Termination of criminal prosecution in connection with compensation for damage” was adopted, concerning a number of criminal cases on tax and other economic crimes (Federal Law of 7 December 2011 N 420). In 2016, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation introduced rules on the termination of a criminal case or criminal prosecution in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine (Federal Law of 3 July 2016 N 323-FZ). 5. Digitalisation of modern society. The rapid development of information technologies and their implementation in all spheres of public life has put on the agenda the question of adapting a rather archaic “paper” criminal process to the needs of today, and the possibilities of using modern information technologies in the process of criminal proceedings. Among the innovations in this area, it should be noted the appearance in the criminal procedure law of Article 1861 “Obtaining information about connections between subscribers and (or) subscriber devices” (Federal Law of 1 July 2010 N 143-FZ), Article 4741 “The procedure for using electronic documents in criminal proceedings” (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 220-FZ), the legal regulation of video-conferencing in criminal proceedings (Federal Law of 20 March 2011 N 39-FZ), and the introduction of audio recording of court sessions (Federal Law of 29 July 2018-FZ N 228-FZ), etс. Currently, the possibilities of further digitalisation of criminal proceedings, and the use of programs based on artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings, ets. are being actively discussed. Discussion and Conclusion. The main factors determining the vector of development of modern criminal justice should, in our opinion, include the impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal justice; optimisation of procedural resources and the need to improve the efficiency of criminal justice, social demands for strengthening the independence of the court, adversarial criminal proceedings; the needs of society to reduce the degree of criminal repression, and digitalisation of modern society.

scholarly journals Problems of legal regulation of the stage of exciting a criminal case

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 116-120
Author(s):  
M.A. Mityukova ◽  
◽  
N.A. Shishkina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation

The lack of sufficient legal regulation of criminal procedural activity at the stage of initiating a criminal case causes the constant appeal of theorists and practitioners to the study of this stage. At the same time, the legislator has not yet made the necessary changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. This study analyzes the methods of verifying reports of a crime, in particular, the problems of proper process fixing of received objects and documents when using such methods of collecting evidence as reclamation and presentation. Based on the analysis of theoretical provisions and investigative practice, problems are posed and conclusions are drawn about the need to fix the possibility of seizure in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when checking a crime report. The issues of the legal status of participants in the stage of initiating a criminal case at the stage of receiving and registering reports of a crime, during the production of investigative actions are also studied. Conclusions are drawn about the need to make changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation aimed at consolidating the legal status of the applicant, the victim, eyewitnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document