Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 70
2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 70 (2021), 902-914
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Recibido el 22/07/2021 Aceptado el 15/08/2021
Seizure of property: development
of legislation and improvement of law
enforcement practice
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3970.55
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov *
Igor Alekseevich Antonov **
Elena Nikolaevna Кleshchina ***
Lenar Vazyhovich Satdinov ****
Elena Vladimirovna Blinova *****
Abstract
Questionable questions are studied on the annulment of the
measure of procedural coercion applied in the form of seizure
of property in the event of termination of a criminal proceeding
(criminal prosecution) with voluntary compensation for damages
caused by a crime. The authors propose to specify the cases in
which it is possible to cancel the seizure of property, that is, in case of
expiration of the period of detention imposed on the property established
by the court, or refusal of extension, as well as in cases of termination of
the criminal case (criminal proceedings) and the refusal of the plainti of
the declared civil claim. Attention is also given to the issues of seizure of
property to compensate for moral damage caused by a crime. Based on
the results of the consideration of this issue, it is concluded that the use
of a measure of procedural coercion in the form of a seizure of property is
possible not only for the purpose of compensating for property damage but
also to create legal guarantees. Guarantee compensation for moral damage
caused by a crime, as specic additions to the current criminal procedure
law in Russia are justied.
Keywords: criminal proceedings; material evidence; conscation of
property; procedural guarantees; measures of procedural
coercion.
* Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Aairs of the
Russian Federation (MGIMO-University), Moscow, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
2023-3771. Email: dmitriy.a.ivanov@bk.ru
** St. Petersburg Academy of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg,
Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5432-1112. Email: igor.aantonov@yandex.ru
*** Kutan Moscow State Law University (MSAL), Moscow, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-
0001-8838-4544. Email: kleshchina.e.n@mail.ru
**** Academy of management of the Ministry of internal Aairs of Russia, Moscow, Russia. ORCID ID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9933-3451. Email: satdinov.lenar@yandex.ru
***** Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Aairs of Russia named by V.Ya. Kikot, Moscow,
Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2554-0372. Email: e.v_blinova@mail.ru
903
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 902-914
Incautación de bienes: desarrollo de legislación y
mejora de la práctica de aplicación de la ley
Resumen
Se estudian cuestiones discutibles sobre la anulación de la medida de
coacción procesal aplicada en forma de embargo de bienes en los supuestos
de terminación de un proceso penal (persecución penal) con indemnización
voluntaria por los daños ocasionados por un delito. Los autores proponen
especicar los casos en los que es posible cancelar la incautación de bienes,
es decir, en caso de expiración del plazo de detención impuesto sobre los
bienes establecido por el tribunal, o denegación de prórroga, así como en
los casos de terminación de la causa penal (proceso penal) y la negativa del
demandante de la demanda civil declarada. También se presta atención a
las cuestiones de la incautación de bienes para compensar el daño moral
causado por un delito. Con base en los resultados de la consideración
de este tema, se llega a la conclusión de que el uso de una medida de
coerción procesal en forma de embargo de propiedad es posible no solo
con el propósito de indemnizar por daños a la propiedad sino también para
crear garantías legales. Garantizar una indemnización por el daño moral
causado por un delito, ya que se justican adiciones especícas a la actual
ley procesal penal en Rusia.
Palabras Clave: procedimientos criminales; evidencia material;
conscación de propiedad; garantías procesales;
medidas de coacción procesal.
Introduction
Multifaceted and consistent activities aimed at ensuring compensation
for the harm caused by the crime are carried out constantly and
systematically at all stages of the preliminary investigation. Currently, the
importance of the activities of the preliminary investigation bodies in this
process is signicantly increasing, since it is in pre-trial proceedings that
there are signicant opportunities to establish the actual amount of harm
caused by a crime and the production of a complex, both organizational
measures and procedural actions aimed at ensuring the claims of persons,
victims of crimes and compensation for harm.
An eective procedural way of securing a civil claim in criminal
proceedings is the use of such a preventive measure of procedural
compulsion as the seizure of property.
Monitoring of problematic issues arising both in theory and in law
enforcement practice has shown the timeliness and relevance of studying
904
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov, Igor Alekseevich Antonov, Elena Nikolaevna Кleshchina,
Lenar Vazyhovich Satdinov y Elena Vladimirovna Blinova
Seizure of property: development of legislation and improvement of law enforcement practice
the grounds for the application and cancellation of procedural coercion
measures in the form of seizure of property.
The seizure of property is a measure of procedural compulsion applied,
as follows from Art. 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian
Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Criminal Procedure of
the Russian Federation), for the following purposes:
1. ensuring the execution of the sentence in terms of a civil claim for
compensation for property and compensation for moral damage
caused by a crime.
2. ensuring the execution of the sentence in terms of the collection of a
ne and other property penalties.
3. ensuring the execution of the sentence in terms of the possible
conscation of property obtained by criminal means, specied in
paragraphs. “A”, “b” Part 1 of Art. 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation (in criminal cases on crimes under investigation
by investigators of the internal aairs bodies, for example, provided
for in paragraph “g” of part 2 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation, articles 186, 241 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation).
4. ensuring the execution of the sentence in terms of the possible
conscation of tools, equipment or other means of committing a
crime (clause “d”, part 1 of article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation).
The basis for the application of this measure of procedural coercion is
the availability of sucient and reliable data that the suspect (accused) can
hide or subject to alienation, destruction of property that could potentially
become the subject of arrest.
Directly to ensure the satisfaction of the claims of the victim (civil
plainti), the investigator, the inquirer may apply to the court with a
petition to seize the property of the accused or persons who are legally
liable for their actions, or other persons who have property acquired by
criminal means ...
At the same time, imposing, in order to ensure the execution of a
sentence in terms of a civil lawsuit, arrest of the property of a person who is
legally nancially liable to a civil plainti, involves the involvement of this
person as a civil defendant in a criminal case in accordance with Art. 54 of
the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. It is not allowed to
seize the property of such a person if, by virtue of an agreement or law, it
should bear material responsibility for the failure of the suspect (accused)
to fulll his obligations arising from grounds other than causing harm.
905
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 902-914
Of practical importance is the sequence of seizure of property, provided
for in Part 3 of Art. 69, art. 94 of the Federal Law “On Enforcement
Proceedings”:
Stage I - cash and other valuables in rubles, including those on accounts
(except for loan, collateral, nominal, trading and clearing accounts),
in deposits or in custody in banks and other credit institutions.
Stage II - funds in foreign currency, including those on accounts (except
for ship, pledge, nominal, trading and clearing accounts), in deposits
or in custody in banks and other credit institutions.
III stage - precious metals (gold, silver, platinum, palladium), including
those in accounts, in deposits or in storage in banks and other credit
institutions (can be in the form of ingots, commemorative and
investment coins, as well as impersonal metal accounts);
IV - other movable property (things - objects of the material world);
V - real estate (for example, residential and non-residential premises,
construction in progress, land plots, aircraft, and sea vessels,
including small vessels, subject to state registration).
The above sequence of seizure of property is applied only when seizure
is imposed to secure: a civil claim, as well as a court verdict in terms of
collecting a ne and other property penalties.
Priority does not apply in the case of conscation of property obtained
because of the commission of a crime, as well as funds, equipment and
instruments of the commission of a crime.
1. Materials and methods
The basis of the research methodology was the dialectical method. Thus,
in the course of the conducted research, the validity of the cancellation
of the applied measure of procedural coercion in the form of seizure of
property in cases of termination of a criminal case (criminal prosecution)
with voluntary compensation for damage caused by a crime was proved.
The method of analysis made it possible to study individual parts of
the object of research, and in particular, to identify existing problems of
applying and canceling the measure of procedural coercion in the form of
seizure of property.
The method of the systematic approach allowed us to consider the
procedural order when canceling the measure of procedural coercion in
the form of seizure of property in cases of termination of a criminal case
(criminal prosecution) with voluntary compensation for damage caused by
906
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov, Igor Alekseevich Antonov, Elena Nikolaevna Кleshchina,
Lenar Vazyhovich Satdinov y Elena Vladimirovna Blinova
Seizure of property: development of legislation and improvement of law enforcement practice
a crime. The comparative legal method allowed us to study the domestic
and international legislation regulating the procedural order for revoking
the measure of procedural coercion in the form of seizure of property, as
well as to identify similarities and dierences.
Via the use of methods of analysis and synthesis, the statistical indicators
of the cancellation of the seizure of property in cases of termination of a
criminal case (criminal prosecution) with voluntary compensation for
damage caused by a crime are studied and analyzed.
Using the concrete sociological method of research, the real results
of empirical research are obtained, their analysis, systematization, and
generalization are carried out. The use of the formal legal method allowed
us to characterize the existing situation associated with a number of
problems that arise in the practical sphere of the activities of state bodies
and ocials, during the application and cancellation of the measure of
procedural coercion in the form of seizure of property.
As a result of the application of this methodology, methods have
been developed for the subsequent modernization of the application and
cancellation of the measure of procedural coercion in the form of seizure
of property.
2. Result analysis
The seizure of property is a measure of procedural coercion applied,
as follows from Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian
Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Criminal Procedure of the
Russian Federation), for the following purposes:
1. ensuring the execution of a sentence in terms of a civil claim for
compensation for property and compensation for moral damage
caused by a crime.
2. ensuring the execution of the sentence in terms of collecting nes
and other property penalties.
3. ensuring the execution of the sentence in terms of possible
conscation of property obtained by criminal means, specied in
paragraphs “a”, “b” of Part 1 of Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code
of the Russian Federation (in criminal cases of crimes under
investigation by investigators of internal aairs bodies, for example,
provided for in paragraphs “d” of Part 2 of Article 111 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 186, 241 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation);
907
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 902-914
4. ensuring the execution of the sentence in terms of possible
conscation of tools, equipment, or other means of committing a
crime (item “d” of Part 1 of Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation).
At the same time, the following goals require special explanation: 1) the
purpose of ensuring the execution of the sentence in terms of collecting
other property penalties; 2) the purpose of securing the sentence in terms of
possible conscation of property (Ukhanova, 2017; Rekunkov and Orlova,
1981).
Other property penalties include:
• monetary penalty that may be imposed by the court on the guarantor
in case of violation by the suspect (accused) of the preventive measure
provided for in Article 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
the Russian Federation, as well as on the person who was placed
under the supervision of a minor, in case of violation by the latter
of the preventive measure provided for in Article 105 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
• procedural costs (Part 2 of Article 131 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure of the Russian Federation), according to Paragraph 13
of Part 1 of Article 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the
Russian Federation.
In regard to securing a sentence in terms of possible conscation
of property, it should be claried that according to Article 104.3 of the
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, for compensation for damage
caused by a crime, the court may levy a penalty on the property subject to
conscation according to Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation (obtained as a result of the commission of a crime, as well as
tools, equipment or means of committing a crime).
In this regard, the arrest may be imposed on property obtained as a
result of the commission of a crime, as well as on tools, equipment, and
means of committing a crime, which are subject to conscation, according
to paragraph “a”, “b”, “d” of Part 1 of Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation. Subsequently (at the judicial stages), a civil claim
can be satised at the expense of this property, so special attention should
be paid to the seizure of property for the purpose of its conscation.
Tools, equipment, or other means of committing a crime belonging to
the suspect (accused) can also be arrested, especially since with their direct
help, the person was able to achieve the set criminal goal and cause this or
that type of harm.
It should also be claried that in cases where the investigator has
established property subject to conscation, the seizure of property can
908
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov, Igor Alekseevich Antonov, Elena Nikolaevna Кleshchina,
Lenar Vazyhovich Satdinov y Elena Vladimirovna Blinova
Seizure of property: development of legislation and improvement of law enforcement practice
be carried out in cases that do not tolerate delay, in accordance with the
procedure provided for in Part 5 of Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure
Code of the Russian Federation (except for non-cash funds, securities
and precious metals held in accounts or deposits with banks and other
credit organizations, in respect of which the arrest is made only by a court
decision, according to the Federal Law “On Banks and Banking Activities”)
(Pushkarev et al., 2020).
Of practical importance is the order of seizure of property, provided
for in Part 3 of Article 69, Article 94 of the Federal Law “On Enforcement
Proceedings”:
Stage I – cash and other valuables in rubles, including those held in
accounts (except for loan, collateral, nominal, trading, and clearing
accounts), in deposits or in custody with banks and other credit
organizations.
Stage II – funds in foreign currency, including those held in accounts
(except for court, collateral, nominal, trading, and clearing accounts),
in deposits or in custody with banks and other credit organizations.
Stage III – precious metals (gold, silver, platinum, palladium), including
those held in accounts, deposits or in storage in banks and other
credit organizations (can be in the form of bullion, commemorative,
and investment coins, as well as depersonalized metal accounts).
Stage IV – other movable property (things – objects of the material
world).
Stage V – immovable property (for example, residential and non-
residential premises, objects of unnished construction, land plots,
aircraft, and sea vessels, including small vessels subject to state
registration).
The above-mentioned order of seizure of property is applied only in the
case of seizure for the purpose of securing: a civil claim, as well as a court
verdict regarding the recovery of nes and other property penalties.
Priority does not apply in the case of conscation of property obtained
as a result of the commission of a crime, as well as funds, equipment, and
instruments of the commission of a crime.
It seems appropriate to further clarify that one of the objectives of
this study is the need to study the issues of ensuring compensation for
damage caused by a crime. At the same time, the procedural order for the
cancellation of the seizure of property, due to the termination of a criminal
case (criminal prosecution) with voluntary compensation to the suspects
(accused) for the damage caused, is also of scientic interest.
909
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 902-914
It is proved that in the framework of pre-trial proceedings in criminal
cases, the investigator, the inquirer must explain to the suspect (accused)
the positive consequences associated with compensation for the harm
caused to them or other compensation for it.
In cases where if the suspect (accused) voluntarily compensated or
otherwise made amends for the harm caused by the crime, then their
actions will be evaluated not only personally by the victim, but also within
the framework of the current law, namely:
• rstly, the fact of compensation for damage creates grounds for
exemption from criminal liability and termination of a 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 Code of the Russian Federation (Pushkarev et
al., 2021).
• secondly, the fact of compensation or other indemnication for
the property damage caused is a circumstance that mitigates the
punishment of the suspect (accused).
It should be noted that this type of activity of the investigator, the
inquirer has a positive eect on the decision of the suspect (accused)
on voluntary compensation for property damage, which is most often
expressed in the form of restoration of damaged property, provision of new
property to replace the destroyed (stolen), payment of compensation in
monetary terms. At the same time, the desire or refusal of the suspect to
compensate for the harm caused by him, the investigator, the inquirer must
necessarily record in their testimony when drawing up the protocol of the
interrogation.
The relevance of the issue under consideration is also conrmed by
the experience of practical activity. So, in the Investigative Department at
the Department of Internal Aairs of the Pskov region, in order to ensure
compensation for property damage caused to the state, the property was
seized – a car owned by A., accused of committing a crime under Part
1 of Article 198 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. During
the preliminary investigation, the accused partially compensated for the
property damage caused by him to the State. By the time of the end of the
preliminary investigation, the accused fully compensated for the damage
caused, repented of what he had done, and in this regard, the arrest on the
property was canceled by the court. The criminal prosecution against the
accused was terminated by the investigator in accordance with Article 28
of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection
with active repentance on the basis of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation.
910
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov, Igor Alekseevich Antonov, Elena Nikolaevna Кleshchina,
Lenar Vazyhovich Satdinov y Elena Vladimirovna Blinova
Seizure of property: development of legislation and improvement of law enforcement practice
The experience of the post-Soviet countries allows us to conclude that
the seizure of property is canceled in the event of a decision to terminate
a criminal case (Article 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the
Republic of Azerbaijan and Article 295 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
of the Republic of Uzbekistan). Moreover, such grounds for termination
of a criminal case as a reconciliation of the parties in the case of voluntary
compensation for harm are also present in the criminal procedure laws
of these Republics (Article 39.1.9 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the
Republic of Azerbaijan and Article 84 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the
Republic of Uzbekistan).
The Russian legislator constructed the rule on the possibility of revoking
the seizure of property more broadly, stating in Part 9 of Article 115 of the
Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation that the seizure of
property is canceled in cases where there is no need to apply this measure
of procedural coercion. This interpretation, in our opinion, does not detail
specic cases when an investigator or inquirer may decide to cancel the
seizure of property. In this connection, the rst sentence of part nine of
Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, should
be worded as follows: “The seizure of property is canceled on the basis of
a decision, a determination of the person or body in which the criminal
case is being conducted, when the application of this measure is no longer
necessary, in the event of the expiration of the term of the arrest imposed
on the property, or refusal to extend it, as well as in cases of termination of
the criminal case and refusal of the plainti from the declared civil claim”.
Regarding the cancellation of the seizure of property in cases of refusal
of the civil plainti from the claim, this clarication seems logical and
justied, since the seizure of property is one of the ways to secure a civil
claim. In this connection, the fact of refusal of the declared civil claim
established during the preliminary investigation automatically eliminates
the need for further action of the specied measure of procedural coercion.
Continuing to investigate further the issues of seizure of property, the
authors note that another unresolved issue at present is the controversy
over the possibility and necessity of applying this measure of procedural
coercion in order to compensate for non-pecuniary damage.
In this connection, the historical retrospect presented by V. Sluchevsky
(1913) shows that:
Any person whose interests and rights depend on the recognition of the fact of
a crime committed, can be allowed to participate in the case as a civil plainti and
that even moral damage can serve as the basis for this claim... (1913: 135).
Later, in the Soviet criminal process, during the period of the birth of the
institution of seizure of property, the opinion also prevailed that its use is
possible only to compensate for property damage. This is also evidenced by
911
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 902-914
some positions of process scientists of that era. In particular, as noted at the
time, for the seizure of property, it is required that in a criminal case there
is sucient evidence that as a result of the crime, the victim was caused one
or another type of harm (Bozhiev, 1989; Mariupolskiy, 1970).
Today, a similar position is defended by many authors (Belyatskin,
1996; Gritsenko, 2005; Krivoshchekov and Buldakova, 2014; Yutkina and
Rostovshchikova, 2012). It seems appropriate to support the position of
the authors who advocate the possibility of seizure of property in order
to compensate for non-pecuniary damage. As an additional argument, we
note that in order to compensate for non-pecuniary damage, as well as
other types of it, a statement of a civil claim, its justication and subsequent
consideration are required. All this requires the application of interim
measures, one of which (almost the most important) is exactly what the
seizure of property is.
From a literal understanding of the provisions of the current criminal
procedure law, it follows that Part 1 of Article 44 of the Criminal Procedure
Code of the Russian Federation allows the inclusion of compensation for
non-pecuniary damage in claims since the seizure of property can also
be carried out in order to ensure the execution of a sentence in this part.
Since the amount of compensation is most often set arbitrarily by the civil
plainti (for example, an evaluation criterion), when applying this coercive
measure, one should focus on the number of penalties based on judicial
practice in cases of a similar category.
Moreover, it should be especially noted that we are talking here about
causing moral harm, meaning, of course, harm to business reputation,
since the arguments about a unied approach to these concepts in the
framework of criminal proceedings were formulated by us earlier (Ivanov
and Krupenin, 2008; Ivanov, 2015).
Thus, the seizure of property should be imposed not only for the purpose
of compensation for property damage but also to create legal guarantees to
ensure compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by a crime.
Conclusions
Knowledge of the procedural conditions of the procedure for seizing
property, as well as the timely application of this measure of procedural
coercion will create the necessary prerequisites for the real provision of
compensation for property damage caused by a crime.
The seizure of property as a measure of procedural coercion is of
a preventive and, at the same time, security nature, which consists in
suppressing the intent of the suspect (accused) aimed at concealing, selling
912
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov, Igor Alekseevich Antonov, Elena Nikolaevna Кleshchina,
Lenar Vazyhovich Satdinov y Elena Vladimirovna Blinova
Seizure of property: development of legislation and improvement of law enforcement practice
or other legal alienation of property, funds, securities, and other valuables
in order to avoid seizure the specied objects to ensure compensation for
property damage caused by the crime.
In order to increase the eciency of solving the problems of identifying
property, which can be seized by the courts in order to secure a civil claim,
other property penalties or possible conscation in criminal cases, it
seems expedient to further improve law enforcement practice and norms
of criminal and criminal procedural legislation. In particular, taking into
account the emerging investigative and judicial practice, it is possible
to introduce into Part 3 of Art. 1041 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation, amendments that provide for the possibility of conscation of
property owned by the relatives of the accused (suspect) or other persons
who have been seized by the court, if it is proved that it was acquired with
funds, the appearance of which is due to criminal activity, regardless of
whether they are aware whether they are about the presence of a causal
relationship between the acquired property and the fact of the crime.
The actual basis for the seizure of property is a set of evidence indicating
that a crime has inicted certain harm or the possibility of applying
property penalties. From the literal understanding of the provisions of the
current criminal procedure law, it follows that Part 1 of Art. 44 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation allows the inclusion of
compensation for moral damage in claims, since the seizure of property can
be carried out in order to ensure the execution of the sentence in this part.
Since the amount of compensation is most often set by the civil plainti
arbitrarily (for example, an assessment criterion), then when applying this
coercive measure, one should focus on the number of penalties based on
judicial practice in cases of a similar category.
The conclusion was argued and proved that the seizure of property can
be imposed not only in order to compensate for property damage, but also
to create legal guarantees for ensuring compensation for moral damage
caused by a crime. Based on this, the authors propose to amend Art. 1601
of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, stating it as
follows: “Having established that the committed crime caused property
and moral damage, the investigator, the interrogating ocer are obliged
to take measures to establish the property of the suspect, the accused or
persons who, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation,
are responsible for the harm caused the suspect, the accused, the cost of
which ensures compensation for the property and moral damage caused,
and for the seizure of this property”.
913
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 902-914
Bibliographic References
BELYATSKIN, Semen Abramovich. 1996. Compensation for moral (non-
property) harm. Yurid. byuro “Gorodets”. Moscow, Russia.
BOZHIEV, Vyacheslav Petrovich. 1989. “Civil suit in criminal procedure” In:
Course of the Soviet criminal procedure: general part. Jurid. lit. Moscow,
Russia.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE AZERBAIJAN REPUBLIC.
2000. Available online. In: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/
ELECTRONIC/64892/92594/F1457735324/AZE64892.pdf. Date of
consultation: 09/02/2021.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO.
174-FZ OF DECEMBER 18. 2001. Available online. In: https://www.
wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ru/ru065en.pdf. Date of consultation:
09/02/2021.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN.
1995. Available online. In: http://www.vertic.org/media/National%20
Legislation/Uzbekistan/UZ_Criminal_Procedure_Code.pdf. Date of
consultation: 09/02/2021.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. 2001.
Available online. In: https://www.legislationline.org/documents/
id/21464. Date of consultation: 09/02/2021.
FEDERAL LAW OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION OF OCTOBER 2, NO. 229-
FZ. 2007. Available online. In: https://cis-legislation.com/document.
fwx?rgn=18794. Date of consultation: 09/02/2021.
GRITSENKO, Ekaterina Nikolaevna. 2005. Moral harm as a consequence of
crimes against life and health: Diss. ... Cand. jurid. sciences. Peoples’
Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University). Moscow, Russia.
IVANOV, Dmitry Aleksandrovich. 2015. “On the issue of compensation for
moral harm to a legal entity that has suered from a crime (in comparison
with the experience of post-Soviet countries” In: International criminal
law and international justice. No. 2, pр. 15-19.
IVANOV, Dmitry Aleksandrovich; KRUPENIN, G.R. 2008. “Compensation for
damage to business reputation to legal entities, victims of crimes” In:
Russian investigator. No. 24, pр. 5-7.
KRIVOSHCHEKOV, N.V.; BULDAKOVA, V.K. 2014. “Seizure of property as the
main measure to ensure compensation for harm caused by a crime” In:
Legal Science and Law Enforcement Practice. Vol. 1, No. 27, pр. 88-97.
914
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov, Igor Alekseevich Antonov, Elena Nikolaevna Кleshchina,
Lenar Vazyhovich Satdinov y Elena Vladimirovna Blinova
Seizure of property: development of legislation and improvement of law enforcement practice
MARIUPOLSKIY, L.A. 1970. “Production of inquiry and preliminary
investigation (investigative actions)” In: Criminal procedure. Jurid. lit.
Moscow, Russia.
PUSHKAREV, Viktor Victorovich; BOZIEV, Taulan Osmanovich; ESINA, Alla
Sergeevna; ZHAMKOVA, Olga Evgenievna; CHASOVNIKOVA, Olga
Georgievna. 2020. “Criminal prosecution for crimes committed in the
banking industry” In: Laplage em Revista. Vol. 6, No. Extra C, pp. 244-
248.
PUSHKAREV, Viktor Victorovich; GAEVOY, Alexander Ivanovich;
KOLCHURIN, Andrei Gennadievich; BUKHAROV, Nikolay Nikolaevich;
PCHOLOVSKY, Nikolay Kazimirovich. 2021. “Ensuring the principle
of adversarial parties by the investigator at the end of the criminal
prosecution” In: Laplage em Revista. Vol. 7, no. Extra A, pp. 304-310.
REKUNKOV, Aleksandr Mikhailovich; ORLOVA, A.K. (Eds.). 1981.
Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR. Jurid. lit.
Moscow, Russia.
SLUCHEVSKY, Vladimir Konstantinovich. 1913. Textbook of the Russian
criminal process. Judicial system-legal proceedings. St. Petersburg,
Russian Empire.
UKHANOVA, N.V. 2017. “Some problems of seizure of property and
compensation for harm caused by a crime in the course of an inquiry” In:
Scientic portal of the Ministry of Internal Aairs of Russia, Vol. 2, No.
38, pp. 33-37.
YUTKINA, Svetlana Mikhailovna; ROSTOVSHCHIKOVA, Olga Vasilievna.
2012. “On the seizure of property as a measure of criminal procedural
compulsion: history, theory, practice” In: Bulletin of the Volgograd
Academy of the Ministry of Internal Aairs of Russia. Vol. 4, No. 23, pр.
146-150.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en octubre de 2021, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.39 Nº 70
