Ensuring Property Rights of Participants in Criminal Proceedings in the Imposition of Arrest on Property: Problems and Solutions

The object of the study is the modern theoretical and legal problems of ensuring the rights of “third parties” in criminal proceedings in the case of the application of the seizure of property. The author aims to: 1) identify problems of legal regulation of the procedural status of persons whose property may be seized; 2) determine the criteria for the validity of the seizure of property in general and its individual types, in particular (for example, the seizure of shares); 3) propose ways to solve the problems of protecting the rights of persons who are not official participants in criminal proceedings, whose property has been seized. The research is based on the study of scientific sources, the legislative basis of criminal proceedings, subordinate and related official documents (resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, statistical data, published judicial practice). Generalization, synthesis, abstraction, various types of analysis (systems, structural-functional, formal-logical, formal-legal and comparative-legal), legal modeling, legal-sociological and legal statistics methods were used. The authors make the following conclusions: (1) the coincidence in the main parameters of the procedure for the imposition of arrest on property and investigative actions testifies to the complex nature of the former, its fulfillment of a double task: the formation of evidence and the provision of possible property penalties; (2) the restriction of the constitutional right of ownership when seizing the property of one person affects (directly, indirectly, impliedly, potentially) the rights and legitimate interests of a wider range of persons, including legal ones. Economic relations in such conditions become unstable, and economic entities suffer excessive (and unjustified) losses. The authors propose to draw the legislator's attention to the need to regulate the procedural potential of persons (so-called “third parties”) whose rights and legitimate interests may be affected by the seizure of the property of other persons; (3) the procedure for the imposition of arrest on property presupposes the existence of sufficient grounds. The category is evaluative, it acquires a large share of subjectivity, which allows suggesting the expediency of changing it to the “presence of sufficient evidence confirming the fact of obtaining property by criminal means”.

Keywords

Authors

References