scholarly journals Termination of criminal prosecution for full reparation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article examines the ambiguity in the interpretation of article 76.2 of the Criminal code and article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation to establish terms of compensation for the damage and (or) smoothing caused by the crime harm. The author substantiates the argument about the fallacy of considering this condition only formally, the author focuses on the mandatory establishment in this case of the characteristics of the identity of the guilty person and the measure of public danger of the committed act. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the approach proposed by the author to the study of the problem of establishing such a condition. In particular, the author considers it essential to solve such a problem to study the legal nature of compensation for damage and compensation for damage when a criminal case (criminal prosecution) is terminated on this basis. The author defines the specifics, identifies the main purposes of such a legal phenomenon in the context of a legal problem. The article concludes that if the preliminary investigation body and (or) the court (justice of the peace) the lack of property harmful consequences from the crime, the failure to make reparation is not to be considered as an obstacle to the termination of criminal proceedings on the grounds provided by article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, article 76.2 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. As a conclusion, the scientific work has prepared a specific text of the interpretation of the condition in the relevant explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which will exclude ambiguity on this issue from the law enforcement officer.

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

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

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

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

Legal Concept ◽  
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.

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

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

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

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

2021 ◽  
pp. 218-223
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viкtor I. Kachalov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Simplified Procedure ◽  
Special Order

The aim of the article is to identify the meaning of the category “validity of the charge” in criminal proceedings and the scope of its application. After analyzing the content and legal essence of this category, as well as procedural situations in which it is necessary to establish the validity of the charge, the authors come to the following conclusions. Any coercive measures against suspects and accused persons can be applied only if there are serious grounds to assume that a person is involved in the commission of a crime since the restriction of the most important constitutional rights of citizens who, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, are innocent of committing a crime is possible only in exceptional cases. The validity of the charge (suspicion) assumes that a person is involved in the commission of a crime, as well as the fact of the criminal prosecution of this person. It is established if there is sufficient evidence that a person may have committed a crime (a person was caught committing a crime or immediately after it was committed; the victim or witnesses identified the person as the perpetrator of the crime; obvious traces of the crime were found on the person or their clothing, with them or in their house, etc.). The validity of the charge may be confirmed by a decision to initiate a criminal case and bring a person as an accused, by protocols of detention, interrogations of the accused, the victim, witnesses, and other materials. In the procedural sense, the conditions for establishing the validity of the charge differ significantly. When resolving the issue of the use of detention and other preventive measures, the validity of the charge is established within the framework of a court session in the conditions of adversariality with the participation of the parties. When giving the court permission to conduct investigative and other procedural actions in accordance with Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, to ensure the secrecy of the investigation, the issue is resolved in the absence of adversariality with the possible participation of only the prosecutor, the investigator, and the inquirer. The category “validity of the charge” is significant in legal terms in a criminal case with the special order of proceedings. A prerequisite for the court to consider a criminal case in a simplified procedure is the validity of the charge and its confirmation by the evidence collected in the case. The validity of the charge in the appointment of a trial in the special order provided for by Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is established by the court outside the court session in the absence of the parties. In any of the above situations, the court is responsible for establishing the validity of the charge since failure to establish it means that the decision made is unfounded.

scholarly journals 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 ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF CRIMES: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 162-165
Author(s):  
E.V. Christinina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Electronic Evidence ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Investigation Process

The scientific article is devoted to important issues related to the peculiarities of legal regulation of electronic media used as evidence in the investigation of a criminal case. The object of research of the scientific article is the law enforcement activity of the preliminary investigation bodies on the use of electronic evidence in the investigation of crimes. The article pays special attention to the purpose and production of individual investigative actions, during which electronic evidence is collected and evaluated. The subject of research in the scientific article is a set of norms established by the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation and the opinions of procedural scientists regarding the use of electronic evidence in the investigation of crimes. The article analyzes the experience of foreign countries in the use of electronic evidence in the investigation process. The conclusion about the necessity and importance of using electronic evidence in a criminal case is summarized.

Evidencial Significance Evaluation of the Preinvestigation Check Materials by the Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 74-80
Author(s):  
M. S. Shalumov
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Points Of View

The article provides a comparative analysis of the previously existing criminal procedural rules and norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which regulate the procedure for conducting pre-investigation checks, the possibility of conducting investigative and other procedural actions during such checks, their list and content, the grounds and procedure for the court to recognize the results of these actions as evidence for criminal the case, the points of view of various scholars are given, including the author himself, as well as the legal positions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding the procedural statue of the explanations and other materials obtained during the preliminary investigation related to the assessment of the evidentiary value of the materials collected by the investigator, the preliminary investigator before the initiation of the criminal case, and presented as evidence in the course of the trial, the conditions are revealed under which these materials can be recognized as evidence in a criminal case.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document