scholarly journals DEBATABLE QUESTIONS OF PRODUCTION ON APPLICATION OF COMPULSORY OBSERVATION AND TREATMENT BY A PSYCHIATRIST IN OUTPATIENT CONDITIONS

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 686-691
Author(s):  
L.G. Tatyanina ◽  
E.F. Tensina
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
Stationary Conditions ◽  
The Russian Federation

The use of compulsory observation and treatment by a psychiatrist according to the current legislation is carried out along with the imposition of punishment in relation to persons with mental disorders of a non-psychotic level. In relation to persons who do not need to apply coercive measures of a medical nature in stationary conditions, but who have mental disorders of a psychotic level, the legislator does not consider the possibility of coercive observation and treatment by a psychiatrist in accordance with Chapter 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, while there are no grounds for terminating the criminal case against these persons. According to the authors, it is necessary to expand the list of grounds for applying coercive measures of a medical nature in the form of coercive observation and treatment by a psychiatrist, and also establish the production procedure determined by Chapter 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, for persons recognized as insane, but not in need of coercive medical measures in stationary conditions.

To the Matter of Procedural and Legal Problems of Detaining a Person on Suspicion of Committing a Crime

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.V. Bolshakov ◽  
◽  
I.D. Nazarov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Moment

The subject of the research within the framework of the article is the criminal procedure institute for the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime. The legal nature of this institution is analyzed, and comments are given on the normative legal acts and judicial practice regulating the issues of detention. The theoretical basis of the research is based on the publications of the last two decades on this problem, in particular, reflecting the discussion of the process scientists S. A. Shafer, S. B. Rossinsky and A. A. Tarasov, the subject of which was the issue of the legal nature of a suspect detention in a criminal case. In the paper, the authors ask the following questions: What is the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation? From what moment does the detained person acquire the status of a suspect? Is it possible to detain a person before initiating a criminal case? The study concludes that a person acquires the actual status of a suspect from the moment of direct detention, that is, before documenting this status and, as a result, before initiating a criminal case. Amendments to the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are proposed, and the authors` versions of the definitions of the concepts «detention of a suspect», «the moment of actual detention» and «pre-trial proceedings» are given.

scholarly journals Problems of Implementing the Criminal Procedure Policy in Crime Prevention

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-408
Author(s):  
Igor Antonov ◽  
Igor Alekseev
Keyword(s):  
Crime Prevention ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Social Conflicts ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Theory Of Law

The authors use a communicative approach to the theory of law in their analysis of criminal procedure policy and its role in crime prevention. This approach allowed them to determine the content of criminal procedure work that lies outside the scope of criminal law. This content is its ability to regulate social conflicts of criminal law character. Within this framework, the criminal procedure is viewed as a platform for resolving social conflicts, the sides use it to resolve a conflict between them in socially acceptable ways in the process of communication. The involvement of the aggrieved party in the process of communication in connection with the crime intensifies the correctional impact of the criminal process and its significance for crime prevention. The authors suggest using simplified measures of criminal procedure law for reforming this process and basing it on the procedure of terminating a criminal case with the imposition of a court fine as a measure of criminal law influence. They suggest using the same approach when terminating a criminal case due to the reconciliation of the sides, with one exception: during the reconciliation of the sides, only grounds provided for in Art. 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be proven. If they are established, the investigator is obliged to petition to the court and the court, having established their validity, should decide to terminate the criminal case.

scholarly journals Legality and Validity of Property Seizure in the Investigation of a Criminal Case

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 118-126
Author(s):  
O. A. Malysheva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Institution ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
First Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
The Russian Federation

The importance of the measure of procedural coercion in the form of seizure of property increases against the background of the high amount of damage caused by crimes, namely about 550 billion rubles annually. This measure of procedural coercion has a high security potential in order not only to satisfy claims in civil lawsuits, but also to recover a fine and other property claims provided for in Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Investigators (interrogators) annually initiate the seizure of property about 40 thousand times. 90% of cases are a success. The application of this measure is accompanied by the restriction of the property rights of both natural and legal persons, including those who are not recognized as a civil defendant in a criminal case, in the first case, and the accused (suspect).The seizure of property in criminal procedure practice is accompanied by the need for the investigator to overcome a number of difficulties, which are caused, firstly, by the intersectoral nature of the regulation of this legal institution; secondly, by the presence of gaps in the regulation of relations arising in connection with the imposition of this arrest; thirdly, by the inconsistency of the objectives of proof to establish the nature and amount of damage caused by a crime and the implementation of security activities in a criminal case. This gives rise to numerous violations of the legality and validity of the seizure of property on the part of not only the investigator, but also the court, despite the expression of a number of positions of the ECHR on this issue, despite the explanations of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.The author concludes that without the release of the investigator as a subject of proof in a criminal case from performing an unusual function — providing compensation for property penalties in a criminal case — it is impossible to achieve the full legality and validity of the seizure of property.

scholarly journals FEATURES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 875-880
Author(s):  
E.F. Tensina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedural Rights

The article reveals the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, which establishes the freedom to dispose of material and procedural rights. The forms of manifestation of dispositive principles in the material and procedural aspects in the course of criminal proceedings are determined. Taking into account the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, various models of proceedings in criminal cases of a private prosecution and the peculiarities of the implementation of the provisions of the criminal procedure principle of the presumption of innocence are considered. The author critically assesses the legal constructions that allow the application of a special procedure for making a court decision in criminal proceedings of a private prosecution if the accused agrees with the charge brought. In particular, taking into account the provisions of the principle of the presumption of innocence, it is concluded that it is inadmissible to apply Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when considering a criminal case of a private prosecution if it is initiated by filing an application directly with a magistrate in the manner prescribed by Art. 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation or when investigating a criminal case of this category in the form of an abbreviated inquiry, regulated by Ch. 32.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

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 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 failure by the court to take measures to return the criminal case to the prosecutor in accordance with art. 237 of the code of criminal procedure of the Russian federation as an unconditional basis for canceling the sentence

2020 ◽  
pp. 237-244
Author(s):  
E. A. Perova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Unconditional Basis ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

Part 2 of Article 389.17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation establishes a list of unconditionally significant violations of the norms of the criminal procedure law, the identification of which in a case entails the cancellation or change of the sentence in every case without exception. The range of these violations was determined by the legislator during the development of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in 2001, and has not changed since then. However, the rules, violation of which can affect the quality of the sentence and lead to its cancellation in each case, have changed more than once. Including the norms governing the institution of returning the case to the prosecutor in accordance with Art. 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and determining the significance of this institution for the issuance of a legal, reasonable and fair sentence. In this regard, this article discusses the feasibility of expanding the list of unconditional grounds for canceling a sentence by including a violation associated with the failure of the court to take measures to return the criminal case to the prosecutor in accordance with Art. 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, if there are grounds for that.

scholarly journals Relevant issues of conducting verification of reports on illegal banking operations

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Anisya Aleksandrovna Dementyeva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Legitimate Business ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Major Attention ◽  
Banking Operations

This article is dedicated to the issues of conducting audit pursuant to the Article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on report of crimes established by the Article 172 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Methodological framework for this research consists of dialectical, logical, and formal-legal methods; the normative framework is comprised of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, criminal and criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, local normative acts that regulate the conduct of audit initiating at the stage of initiating a criminal case. Major attention is turned to the theoretical and applied issues associated with the initiation of criminal cases stipulated by the Article 172 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Analysis is conducted on the peculiarities of seizure of objects and documents on this category of crime; as well as on the goals, tasks, methods of seizure, and admissible procedural actions. The author examines the questions of admissibility of evidence received at the state of opening a criminal case, their role in subsequent stages of criminal proceedings. Assessment is given to the existing theoretical and practical views on the possibility of instituting a search and seizure prior to opening a criminal case. The author analyzes case law on the topic, and concludes on the need for further amendments. The importance of observing the rights and legitimate interests of individuals and companies in the course of pre-trial proceedings pertinent to the reports of illegal banking operations is substantiated. The author also indicates that arbitrary interference of law enforcement agencies in legitimate business activity is unacceptable.  

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document