On Criminal Procedure and Criminalistic Measures of Counteracting Crimes Against Legal Entities

Olga Aivazova,Galina Vardanyan,Irina Smirnova

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17150/2500-4255.2021.15(1).98-105

2021-03-09

Russian Journal of Criminology

Abstract:The article discusses some aspects of proving in cases of crimes against legal entities. The criminalistic description of the victim represented by a legal entity determines specific details of applying criminalistic and criminal procedure measures aimed at the identification, investigation, detection and prevention of such crimes. Under the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, one of the elements of ordering criminal proceedings is the protection of rights and legal interests of organizations that became victims of crimes. Part 1 of Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation details this guideline for the first time by giving legal entities, viewed as independent subjects of criminal procedure legal relations, the right to be recognized as victims of criminal actions if the crime inflicted damage on their property or business reputation. Nevertheless, the imperfections in the regulation of legal entities’ participation in criminal proceeding, and the insufficient attention to the specifics of realizing their rights and legal interests in comparison with the physical persons of a similar procedural status give rise to numerous problems. The complex of such problems has a negative impact on the effectiveness of investigating this category of crimes and, as a consequence, on the ability of criminal proceedings to produce the intended result. The literal interpretation of Part 1, Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation points out that the consequences of such crimes must include the infliction of two types of damage simultaneously — «to property and to business reputation», which can hardly be considered a good de­finition from the standpoint of juridical technique. Quite naturally, the investigation and court practice shows that law enforcers, while collecting proof on the character and size of damage inflicted on legal entities as a result of a crime, usually limit themselves to proving material damage, and even this damage is not proven in full (the common omission being losses of expected income). As for the damage inflicted on business reputation of a legal entity, its establishment during criminal proceedings is still problematic and, in practice, there is usually a gap in proving it. The authors point out that incomplete character of evidentiary information regarding the infliction of damage on the business reputation of legal entities is inadmissible and present their recommendations for resolving this problem, including the use of specialist knowledge and the improvements in the tactics of specific investigatory actions aimed at obtaining criminalistically relevant information on the case.