On the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on seizure of property

The article deals with the situation when the court makes a decision to declare the debtor bankrupt and to open bankruptcy proceedings, and, on this basis, in accordance with Art. 126 of the Federal Law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" the previous seizure of the debtor's property is removed. The question of whether the effect of the above rule applies to the case of seizure of property in the course of criminal proceedings finds a positive response in the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of January 31, 2011 No. 1-P. This means that the court's decision to declare the debtor bankrupt and to open bankruptcy proceedings automatically entails withdrawal of seizure of property of the debtor imposed in criminal proceedings. It is proved that the position of the Constitutional Court on the situation is inaccurate. It is based on the basically correct statement that the substitution of private dispute resolution mechanisms of ownership by means of criminal proceedings, aimed at achieving public-law purposes of criminal proceedings, should not be allowed. However, the Constitutional Court does not take into account the fact that arrest of property in a criminal case may be applied not only for the protection of the subjective civil rights of individuals, victims of a crime, but also for public law purposes, including ensuring the preservation of property related to real evidence in a criminal case when arrest is a form of storage (Art. 1, Art. 82 of the RF Code of Criminal Procedure). In these cases, arrest can not be canceled at the opening of bankruptcy proceedings, until the criminal case is solved. In its judgment of October 21, 2014 No. 25-P, the Constitutional Court clarified its position, acknowledging the diversity goals of seizure of property, including the storage of evidence. However, legal positions given in the resolution are enough only for a doctrinal conclusion that the arrest imposed in a criminal case on money, valuables and other property obtained through the commission of crimes on the basis of recognized evidence, and because of this they issued special storage conditions, is the arrest that cannot be automatically "removed" from the debtor's property in the event of a court decision on the opening of bankruptcy proceedings. This doctrinal position is opposed to the legal position of the Constitutional Court's decision of January 31, 2011 No. 1-P that Part 3 of Art. 115 of the RF Code of Criminal Procedure in conjunction with Paragraph 9, Part 1, Art. 126 of the Federal Law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" does not imply the preservation of the arrest of the debtor's property previously imposed in criminal proceedings after the opening of bankruptcy proceedings. On this basis, it is proposed to clarify the appropriate legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

Keywords

Authors

References