Suchergebnisse

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 plaintiff 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 specific additions to the current criminal procedure law in Russia are justified.

Using the analytical method, the article discusses issues related to compensation for property damage, moral damage and damage to business reputation caused by a criminal act. To understand the essence of property damage, the following signs of property subject to criminal usurpation are distinguished: physical, legal, and economic. This classification of the attributes of the property makes it possible to determine its legal understanding to create the conditions for compensation for material damage caused by a crime. The hypothesis that corporate reputation is an integral element of a concept such as "moral damage caused by a crime" has been demonstrated. This makes it possible to express the idea of the need to unify the understanding of the essence of moral damage and the possibility of including in its content the damage to the business reputation, as well as a unified approach to the procedure for its compensation in case of a criminal offense. It is concluded that the damage to the business reputation and the moral damage are the same in their essence and content, therefore, when compensating for the damage caused to the business reputation, the rules on compensation for moral damage apply.