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 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 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 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 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 THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: PROBLEMS OF THE OBJECT AND THE OBJECTIVE SIDE

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Alexandra Vladimirovna Boyarskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Complex Analysis ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Body ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

The subject. The article is devoted to the investigation of the main direct object and the circle of victims are subjected of harm by criminal acts stipulated by pts. 1, 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.The purpose of the paper is to identify does the art. 294 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation meets the other provisions of criminal procedure legislation.The methodology of research includes methods of complex analysis, synthesis, as well as formal-logical, comparative legal and formal-legal methods.Results and scope of application. The content of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the provisions of the criminal procedure law. The discrep-ancy lies in terms of the range of participants in criminal proceedings and the functions performed by them, as well as the actual content and correlation of such stages of criminal proceedings as the initiation of criminal proceedings and preliminary investigation. In addi-tion, the current state of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not take into account the ever-widening differentiation of criminal proceedings.The circle of victims listed in pt. 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be supplemented by such participants in the criminal process as a criminal investi-gator, the head of the investigative body, the head of the inquiry department, the head of the body of inquiry. At the same time, the author supports the position that the criminal-legal protection of the said persons should cover not only their activities at the stage of preliminary investigation, but also of the entire pre-trial proceedings as a whole.The circle of criminal acts provided for in art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Fed-eration, should also be specified with an indication of encroachment in the form of kidnapping, destruction or damage to such a crime as materials of criminal, civil and other cases, as well as material evidence.Conclusions. The content of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the provisions of the criminal procedure law. The author formulates the conclusion that the circle of victims listed in pt. 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code should be broadened and joins the position that the criminal-legal protection of these persons should cover not only their activities at the stage of preliminary investigation, but also of the entire pre-trial proceedings as a whole.

scholarly journals ON SOME COMMENTS ON THE NORMATIVE FORMULATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1(63)) ◽  
pp. 127-133
Author(s):  
Виктор Николаевич ГРИГОРЬЕВ
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Law Enforcement Officials ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document