The authors pay close attention to the problems of ensuring the rights and legitimate interests of legal entities, victims of crimes, in pre-trial proceedings on criminal cases in the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The authors emphasize the relevance of this topic by noting that the presence of these problems in criminal proceedings in both Russia and Vietnam requires rethinking approaches to creating a unified model for regulating this area of activity. The purpose of this study is to develop theoretical provisions concerning the activities of officials and law enforcement agencies engaged in criminal proceedings to ensure the rights and legitimate interests of legal entities that have been victims of crimes, and to develop proposals on this basis aimed at improving legislation and law enforcement practice. The analysis of the current criminal procedure legislation of the SRV and Russia on ensuring the rights and legitimate interests of legal entities that have suffered from crimes will allow us to use the experience of regulating public relations in this area in subsequent legislative activities, as well as to identify the most optimal ways to improve the criminal procedure legislation of the SRV and Russia.
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.
The authors analyze the historical prerequisites for the consolidation of legal provisions governing the conceptual foundations of the legal institution of compensation for detriment caused by crime in Russian legislation. While positively assessing the current regulation of the issues of compensation for detriment caused crime in the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), the authors propose to supplement the norms of the criminal procedure law with the concept of "detriment caused by crime". In conclusion, the authors formulated the elemental composition of the legal institution of compensation for detriment caused by crime, which includes the object, subjects, procedural order of compensation for detriment, procedural and judicial control, as well as prosecutor's supervision over the activities of the head of the investigative body, head of the inquiry body, head of the inquiry unit, the investigator and the inquiry officer to ensure compensation for detriment caused by criminal offense.
The authors consider the theoretical provisions and analyze practical examples of the activities of the investigative bodies to seize property in pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases. The relevance of this topic is determined by the fact that one of the priority activities of the preliminary investigation bodies at present is to ensure the rights and legitimate interests of citizens against criminal encroachments. The possibility of compensation to victims of harm caused by a crime in criminal procedure law is a guarantee of protection of these rights and contributes to the implementation of the purpose of criminal proceedings. Based on the results obtained, the authors conclude that it is necessary to further improve the law enforcement practice and the norms of criminal and criminal-procedure legislation in order to improve the efficiency of solving problems of identifying property that can be seized. In this connection, it is proposed to amend Part 3 of Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing for the possibility of confiscation of property, regardless of the awareness of the causal relationship between the committed act and the presence of money or other property.Keywords: Criminal proceedings; Measures of procedural coercion; Investigator; Inquirer; Civil claim Penyitaan Properti sebagai Cara untuk Memastikan Kompensasi atas Kerusakan yang Disebabkan oleh Kejahatan: Teori dan Praktik AbstrakPenulis mempertimbangkan ketentuan teoritis dan menganalisis contoh praktis dari kegiatan badan investigasi untuk menyita properti dalam proses pra-persidangan dalam kasus pidana. Relevansi topik ini ditentukan oleh fakta bahwa salah satu kegiatan prioritas badan investigasi pendahuluan saat ini adalah memastikan hak dan kepentingan sah warga negara terhadap perambahan kriminal. Kemungkinan pemberian ganti rugi kepada korban kerugian yang diakibatkan oleh suatu tindak pidana dalam hukum acara pidana merupakan jaminan perlindungan terhadap hak-hak tersebut dan turut menunjang terlaksananya tujuan proses pidana. Berdasarkan hasil yang diperoleh, penulis menyimpulkan bahwa perlu lebih meningkatkan praktik penegakan hukum dan norma-norma peraturan perundang-undangan pidana dan acara pidana untuk meningkatkan efisiensi penyelesaian masalah identifikasi harta benda yang dapat disita. Sehubungan dengan itu, diusulkan untuk mengubah Bagian 3 Pasal 104.1 KUHP Federasi Rusia, yang mengatur kemungkinan penyitaan properti, terlepas dari kesadaran akan hubungan sebab akibat antara tindakan yang dilakukan dan adanya uang atau properti lainnya.Kata Kunci: Proses pidana; Tindakan paksaan prosedural; Peneliti; Penanya; Klaim sipil. Наложение ареста на имущество в целях обеспечения возмещения вреда, причиненного преступлением: теория и практика АннотацияАвторами рассматриваются теоретические положения и анализируются практические примеры деятельности органов расследования по наложению ареста на имущество в досудебном производстве по уголовным делам. Актуальность данной темы определяется тем, что одним из приоритетных направлений деятельности органов предварительного следствия в настоящее время является обеспечение прав и законных интересов граждан от преступных посягательств. Возможность возмещения потерпевшим вреда, причиненного преступлением, в уголовно-процессуальном праве является гарантией защиты данных прав и способствует реализации назначения уголовного судопроизводства. На основе полученных результатов авторы приходят к выводу о необходимости дальнейшего совершенствования правоприменительной практики и норм уголовного и уголовно-процессуального законодательства в целях повышения эффективности решения задач по установлению имущества, на которое может быть наложен арест. В связи с чем предлагают внести в ч. 3 ст. 104.1 УК РФ изменения, предусматривающие возможность конфискации имущества, вне зависимости от осведомленности о причинно-следственной связи между совершенным деянием и наличием денег или иного имущества.Ключевые слова: Ключевые слова: уголовное судопроизводство, меры процессуального принуждения, следователь, дознаватель, гражданский иск
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.
