scholarly journals A FEW REMARKS REGARDING EVIDENCE FROM THE INTERROGATION OF A WITNESS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUBJECT OF A COMMUNITY INTERVIEW CONDUCTED IN A CRIMINAL CASE (ARTICLES 214 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)

Probacja ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 35-56
Author(s):  
Piotr Rogoziński
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Documentary Evidence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Subject

The author discusses the role of documentary evidence in the form of the background survey in criminal proceedings. He also examines the possibilities and scope of verification of its content by interviewing as witnesses the person who conducted the evidence and the persons who provided information as part of the background survey. He emphasizes that it is justified in this case – in the context of the principle expressed in Art. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – different approach to admitting and taking evidence from the testimonies of witnesses on the circumstances covered by the background survey. The article attempts to select typical cases in which it would be advisable to admit evidence from the testimonies of witnesses for the circumstances identified through the background survey.

THE PLACE AND THE ROLE OF A PERSON WHO CONCLUDED A PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT IN THE SYSTEM OF THE PARTIES TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
pp. 42-47
Author(s):  
A. V. Orlov ◽  
◽  
K. P. Fedyakin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Practical Interest ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Current Configuration ◽  
The Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
History Of

The issues of specifying the procedural status of a person who concluded a pre-trial cooperation agreement are currently of research and practical interest. The divergence in settling some procedural aspects (starting with identifying the place and the role of the considered participant in the criminal proceedings and finishing with the feasibility of using the received information in evidence) brings to nothing the possibility of active participation of this person in the criminal case consideration. The authors attempt to analyze the most acute problems of determining the procedural status of the named subject of criminal proceedings to identify possible directions to improve criminal procedure law. To achieve target goals, the authors both analyzed the provisions of current criminal procedure legislation and considered the most interesting suggestions of scientists-processualists and practitioners on the improvement of legislative formulations describing the status of a person concluded a pre-trial cooperation agreement. Apart from this, the authors considered the history of the origin of this subject in the current national criminal procedure, showed the inconsistency of this figure in the current configuration of competitive criminal procedure. The authors propose introducing amendments to the texts of Articles 5, 74 of the RF Code of Criminal Procedure and discuss the necessity of moving Article 56.1 of the RF Code of Criminal Procedure to another chapter of the Code. Otherwise, according to the authors’ opinion, the participation of persons who concluded a pre-trial cooperation agreement in the criminal procedure will still rouse the censure of practitioners and face just criticism of the scientists-processualists.

scholarly journals Kedudukan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 Dalam Mengatasi Kendala Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Korporasi (The Role Of Regulation Of The Supreme Court Number 13 Year 2016 In Overcoming Obstacles Of Corporate Criminal Infringement)

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Corporate Crime ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Corruption Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Subject

The prevention of corporate crime in Indonesia is constrained due to unclear management of corporate crime. In order to overcome the imperfection of such arrangements, the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Regulation No.13 of 2016 on the Procedures for Corruption Case Handling by Corporations. There are questions that arise, what are the obstacles faced by Law Enforcement in an effort to overcome corporate crime and how the role of Perma No. 13 of 2016 in overcoming the obstacles to overcome the criminal act of the corporation? Normative legal research method is used to answer the problem. Normatively, from various laws governing the corruption of the subject of crime, there is no detailed formulation of corporate handling procedures so that law enforcers experience difficulties in conducting the criminal proceedings against the corporation. Article 79 of the Law on the Supreme Court provides the legal basis that if there is a legal deficiency in the course of the judiciary in any case, the Supreme Court has the authority to enact legislation to fill such shortcomings or vacancies. Perma No.13 of 2016 can be used as a guide for Law Enforcement to overcome technical obstacles of corporation criminal procedure law. Nevertheless, Perma has limitation so that required update of corporation criminal procedure in RKUHAP. AbstrakPenanggulangan tindak pidana korporasi di Indonesia mengalami kendala akibat tidak jelasnya pengaturan penanganan tindak pidana korporasi. Dalam rangka mengatasi ketidaksempurnaan pengaturan tersebut, Mahkamah Agung menerbitkan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung No.13 Tahun 2016 tentang Tata Cara Penanganan Perkara Tindak Pidana Oleh Korporasi. Ada pertanyaan yang mengemuka yaitu apa saja kendala yang dihadapi Penegak Hukum dalam upaya menanggulangi tindak pidana korporasi dan bagaimana peran Perma Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 dalam mengatasi kendala penanggulangan tindak pidana korporasi tersebut? Metode penelitian hukum normatif digunakan untuk menjawab permasalahan tersebut. Secara normatif, dari berbagai peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengatur korporasi subjek tindak pidana, tidak dirumuskan detail tata cara penanganan korporasi sehingga penegak hukum mengalami kendala dalam melakukan proses pemidanaan terhadap korporasi. Pasal 79 Undang-Undang tentang Mahkamah Agung memberikan dasar hukum bahwa apabila dalam jalannya peradilan terdapat kekurangan atau kekosongan hukum dalam suatu hal, Mahkamah Agung memiliki wewenang membuat peraturan untuk mengisi kekurangan atau kekosongan tersebut. Perma No. 13 Tahun 2016 dapat dijadikan pedoman bagi Penegak Hukum untuk mengatasi kendala teknis hukum acara pidana korporasi. Namun, Perma tersebut memiliki keterbatasan sehingga diperlukan pembaruan hukum acara pidana korporasi dalam RKUHAP.

On the Role of the Prosecutor in Initiating a Criminal Case and Initiating Criminal Prosecution

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 85-94
Author(s):  
Т. Yu. Vilkova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Prosecution ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Special Competence ◽  
State Body

The paper shows that the consolidation of the functions of the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation at the constitutional level leads to the need to return to the question of the effectiveness and sufficiency of the prosecutor’s powers to independently initiate a criminal case, initiate criminal prosecution, and bring charges. The modern models of granting various subjects the authority to initiate and carry out criminal prosecution, to bring charges in criminal procedural comparative studies are identified and analyzed. They are: 1) a system of public prosecution, or a monocratic model, in which criminal prosecution is initiated exclusively by the decision of state bodies with appropriate special competence, primarily the prosecutor’s office (prosecutor’s monopoly); 2) an ex officio prosecution system, or a polycratic model, when the subject of criminal prosecution is any of the state bodies authorized to conduct proceedings in a case, there is no monopoly of one state body or official to initiate criminal prosecution; 3) a private prosecution system, when the subject of criminal prosecution is either the victim or his legal successors; 4) a “people’s” system charges, in which any private person has the right to initiate criminal prosecution, regardless of whether he is a victim or not. The conclusion is substantiated that Russia belongs to the states in which the polycratic ex officio model is combined with private prosecution in certain categories of cases, while, unlike most other states, the prosecutor is not among the officials authorized to initiate criminal proceedings and/or criminal prosecution. It is shown that the lack of powers of the prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings hinders the achievement of the purpose of criminal proceedings. It is concluded that it is necessary to return to the prosecutor the authority to initiate a criminal case independently.

scholarly journals Subject and limits of examination evidence in the proceedings of the criminal case in the court of first instance

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 186-195
Author(s):  
Ilya N. Yefimovykh
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Special Order

The article analyzes the norms of the criminal procedure law, the opinions of scientists, judicial practice materials related to the examination of evidence in criminal proceedings in the court of first instance, on the basis of which the author proposed definitions of the notions subject of examination evidence and limits of examination evidence they were compared with the concepts of subject of proof and limits of proof. The study used such research methods as logical, system-structural, statistical. As a result of a study of specific court decisions in criminal cases, differences in the understanding of evidence and the examination of evidence were revealed. A distinction has been made between the subject and the object of the study of evidence at the court hearing. The question of determining the subject matter and the limits of the examination of evidence was analyzed, including with regard to the consideration of the criminal case in a special order of judicial decision of the court, with the consent of the accused with the accusation. The rationale for the view that the examination of evidence takes place during the examination of a criminal case under a special court procedure is given, the circumstances that can be established during the court session, namely, the circumstances that may lead to exemption from punishment, as well as the postponement are analyzed. serving the sentence. These circumstances, if any, are mandatory to be established in court proceedings through the examination of evidence. According to the results of the analysis, proposed measures to improve the norms of the criminal procedure law governing the consideration of the criminal case in a special order of the trial. The question of the scope of the examination of evidence was considered in conjunction with the norms of the criminal procedure law, which established the grounds for the return of the criminal case to the prosecutor.

scholarly journals Digitalization of the decision-making process in criminal proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 01026
Author(s):  
Nadezhda Muratova ◽  
Natalya Solovyeva ◽  
Vladimir Shinkaruk ◽  
Victor Rudkovskiy ◽  
Pavel Fantrov
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Access ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Mathematical Methods ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Procedural Decisions

The law enforcement behavior of the subject of decision-making in criminal proceedings has developed a certain algorithm in the system of criminal procedure law. Many probabilistic bases existing in the Russian legislation for making procedural decisions, rating expectations of the variable outcome of a procedural decision in a criminal case - all this provides for the need to introduce mathematical methods for researching the actual circumstances of a criminal case, their classification structure and logical justification. The purpose of the research is to identify the features of digitalization of the decision-making process in criminal proceedings. The research used a system of scientific methods, which is based on the principle of consistency, an institutional approach and sociological methods, which made it possible to evaluate the institutional basis for the introduction of mathematical and information and communication methods in the decision-making process in criminal proceedings. In the context of this problem, the authors pay special attention to the blockchain technology, this is a continuous sequential chain of blocks built according to certain rules, containing information, access to which excludes data theft, fraud, violation of property rights, and invasion of the system of making criminal procedural decisions. In the course of the research, they show the main institutional directions in the process of algorithmization of criminal procedure decisions. The article concludes that by applying a universal mathematical language in describing legal phenomena, quantitative values and statistical indicators, the subject of law is able to calculate the optimal correct decision in specific conditions in a criminal case.

CONCEPT AND CONTENT OF A RECONCILIATION AGREEMENT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF UKRAINE

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariia Sirotkina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Main Attention ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of

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".

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 Referring a Case to the Highest Division of the Supreme Court in the Criminal Procedure Legislation of Ukraine and European Countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-165
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uniform Law ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Court Practice

The article aims to examine one of the elements of the formal mechanism of maintaining court practice unity in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries – referring a case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Similar to the Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation, the grounds for referring a criminal case and the procedure of its application are provided in the legislation of Estonia, Italy and Lithuania. At the same time, the Ukrainian legislator has established a number of special features, however, the wording of the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is not perfect. The article provides answers to such questions as how forceful the provisions of criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine are, to what extent of effectiveness the Supreme Court exercises its legal authority regarding the unity of court practice in criminal proceedings, and whether the controversies in legal positions of the structural divisions of the Supreme Court have been successfully avoided. In order to achieve the stated aims, parts 2 and 3 are devoted to the examination of the grounds for referring a case in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries. Part 4 outlines the shortcomings of the content of some articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine concerning the procedure of the referral of a criminal case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Part 5 provides the analysis of the validity of decisions made by the boards of judges at the Supreme Court on the referral of criminal proceedings to its higher judicial divisions – the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. On the basis of the study of the judgements of boards, the judicial chambers of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in part 6 the question is answered on whether the Supreme Court of Ukraine managed to perform its duty on the assurance of court practice unity in such an area as criminal proceedings. Keywords: exclusive legal problem, development of law, formation of uniform law enforcement practice, the Supreme Court, criminal proceedings, Ukraine.

scholarly journals Prohibition of interrogation of notaries as witnesses in criminal proceedings

1970 ◽  
pp. 345-349
Author(s):  
Ulyana Polyak
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Notary Public ◽  
Made In

The current criminal procedure law of Ukraine stipulates that a witness is obliged to give a true testimony during pre-trial investigation and trial, however, the legislator made an exception for this by specifying the categories of persons who have been granted immunity from immunity, ie they are released by law. testify. The article deals with the problems of law and practice regarding the prohibition of the interrogation of a notary as a witness in criminal proceedings and the release of him from the obligation to keep the notarial secret by the person who entrusted him with the information which is the subject of this secret. The notion of notarial secrecy is proposed to be changed, since the subject of this secrecy is not only information that became known to the notary public from the interested person, but also those information that the notary received from other sources in the performance of their professional duties, as well as the procedural activity of the notary himself, is aimed at achieving a certain legal result. The proposal made in the legal literature to supplement the CPC of Ukraine with the provisions that a notary is subject to interrogation as a witness on information that constitutes a notarial secret, if the notarial acts were declared illegal in accordance with the procedure established by law The proposal to increase the list of persons who are not subject to interrogation as witnesses about the information constituting a notarial secret is substantiated, this clause is proposed to be supplemented by provisions that, apart from the notary, are not notarized, other notarials, notaries as well as the persons mentioned in Part 3 of Art. 8 of the Law of Ukraine "On Notary". Amendments to the current CPC of Ukraine by the amendments proposed in this publication will significantly improve the law prohibiting the interrogation of a notary as a witness in criminal proceedings, as well as improve certain theoretical provisions of the institute of witness immunity in criminal proceedings.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document