Property Seizure Effectiveness in the Context of Official Statistics

In 2003, the legislator decided to exclude the seizure of property from the realm of criminal law, which scientists assessed rather critically. Almost two decades later, despite the problems in the field of combating acquisitive crime, there have been no adjustments to this decision in essence. The paper determines the preventive potential of property seizure as a measure of punishment (in the form in which it existed before the exclusion) based on the analysis of data from the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the period from 2004 to 2020. This data includes the number of those convicted of crimes subject to seizure until 2003, as well as the proportion of convicts on these offenses in comparison with the bodies of crimes without classifying elements. The study resulted in that the hypothesis that property seizure, as an independent type of punishment, was effective, its abolition led to a significant loss of the preventive potential of the sanction, and imposition of a punishment that did not correspond to the nature and degree of social danger did not find its confirmation. Consequently, the argument that property seizure had a significant preventive potential that was lost after the 2003 legislative adjustment, at least in relation to crimes against property and banditry, is quite debatable. The effectiveness of this measure of punishment was significantly reduced by its additional and optional nature. It seems justified to correct the criminal law in terms of the introduction of imprisonment as the main punishment for bribery.

1. Bekkaria Ch. O prestupleniyakh i nakazaniyakh. — M. : Infra M, 2004. — 184 s.

2. Boskholov S. S. Borba s korruptsiey: mify i realnost, nadezhdy i perspektivy // Vserossiyskiy kriminologicheskiy zhurnal. — 2010. — № 2. — S. 51–64.

3. Boskholov S. S., Maksimov S. V. Ugolovno-pravovaya politika: opyt, problemy i puti sovershenstvovaniya // Prolog: zhurnal o prave. — 2018. — № 3. — S. 8–18.

4. Boskholov S. S. Rossiyskiy liberalizm i problemy antikorruptsionnoy ugolovnoy politiki // Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. — 2014. — № 3. — S. 31–43.

5. Boskholov S. S., Tatarnikov V. G. Paradoksy zakonodatelnogo regulirovaniya ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti za prestupleniya korruptsionnoy napravlennosti // Prolog: zhurnal o prave. — 2021. — № 1 (29). — S. 66–78. — DOI: 10.21639/2313-6715.2021.1.7.

6. Gaydashov A. V., Tolstova I. A. O nekotorykh voprosakh, svyazannykh s ugolovno-pravovoy otvetstvennostyu predstaviteley gosudarstva za prestupleniya (pravonarusheniya) korruptsionnoy napravlennosti // Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. — 2021. — № 1 (65). — S. 109–117.

7. Golik Yu. V., Korobeev A. I. Zigzagi ugolovno-pravovoy politiki Rossii: iz ognya da v polymya // Obshchestvo i pravo. — 2017. — № 3. — S. 17–21.

8. Golik Yu. V., Korobeev A. I. Reforma ugolovnogo zakonodatelstva Rossii: byt ili ne byt // Lex russica. — 2014. — № 12. — S. 1399–1410.

9. Kireeva Zh. B., Kudryashov K. V., Sankova A. A. Konfiskatsiya imushchestva: aktualnye problemy sovershenstvovaniya antikorruptsionnogo zakonodatelstva // Yurist-Pravoved. — 2020. — № 2 (93). — S. 63–67.

10. Kuznetsov V. I. Transformirovanie sistemy ugolovnykh nakazaniy kak metod sovershenstvovaniya ugolovnoispolnitelnoy sistemy Rossiyskoy Federatsii // Vestnik Permskogo instituta FSIN Rossii. — 2022. — № 1 (44). — S. 57–63. — DOI: 10.34988/2226-2326.2022.44.1.007.

11. Luneev V. V. Istoki i poroki rossiyskogo ugolovnogo zakonotvorchestva. — M., 2014.

12. Luneev V. V. O kriminologo-analiticheskom i sistemnom podkhode k zakonotvorchestvu // Kriminologiya: vchera, segodnya, zavtra. — 2014. — № 4. — S. 14–25.

13. Luneev V. V. Sootnoshenie kriminalnykh realiy s teoriey prava v Rossii // Prolog: zhurnal o prave. — 2014. — T. 2. — № 4. — S. 45–52.

14. Naumov A. V. Otkrytoe pismo professora A. V. Naumova akademiku V. N. Kudryavtsevu // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2006. — № 4. — S. 135–138.

15. Nomokonov V. A. Antikriminalnaya politika: ot liberalizatsii k radikalizatsii? // Vestnik Kazanskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii. — 2014. — № 1. — S. 32–36.

16. Nomokonov V. A. Antikorruptsionnaya politika: problemy formirovaniya i realizatsii // Tamozhennaya politika Rossii na Dalnem Vostoke. — 2010. — № 4. — S. 39–53.

17. Nomokonov V. A. Nekotorye problemy optimizatsii borby s prestupnostyu v Rossii // Obshchestvo & chelovek. — 2001. — № 1. — S. 55–60.

18. Nomokonov V. A. Problemy formirovaniya antikorruptsionnoy politiki v Rossii // Tamozhennaya politika Rossii na Dalnem Vostoke. — 2007. — № 4. — S. 39–52.

19. Pobegaylo E. F. Kriminologicheskaya obosnovannost sovremennoy ugolovnoy politiki: problemnye voprosy i puti ikh resheniya // Sovremennoe sostoyanie i puti razvitiya ugolovnogo prava Rossiyskoy Federatsii: nauchnye i uchebno-metodicheskie aspekty: materialy Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii, posvyashchennoy pamyati professorov kafedry ugolovnogo prava V. A. Eleonskogo i N. A. Ogurtsova / pod red. V. F. Lapshina. — Ryazan, 2016. — S. 10–19.

20. Pobegaylo E. F. Tendentsii sovremennoy prestupnosti i krizis rossiyskoy ugolovnoy politiki // Publichnoe i chastnoe pravo. — 2011. — № 4. — S. 47–66.

21. Podroykina I. A. K voprosu o printsipakh ugolovnogo nakazaniya // Nauka i obrazovanie: khozyaystvo i ekonomika; predprinimatelstvo; pravo i upravlenie. — 2014. — № 12. — S. 74–77.

22. Ratnikov G. V. Strategiya i politika protivodeystviya korruptsii // Gosudarstvennaya granitsa, organizovannaya prestupnost, zakon i bezopasnost Rossii. — M., 2006. — 342 s.

23. Sapronova T. P. O dopolnitelnom zakonodatelnom regulirovanii antikorruptsionnoy politiki v Rossii // Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya «Pravo». — 2022. — № 1 (69). — S. 79–82. — DOI: 10.26456/vtpravo/2022.1.079.

24. Tatarnikov V. G., Boskholov S. S. O konfiskatsii imushchestva kak mere ugolovnogo nakazaniya // Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta. — 2014. — № 5. — S. 286–293.

25. Shcherbakov A. A., Podroykina I. A. Konfiskatsiya imushchestva kak inaya mera ugolovno-pravovogo kharaktera // Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk. — 2018. — № 10 2. — S. 169–172.

26. Amusa O. K. Non Conviction Based Criminal Forfeiture and Right to Own Property in Nigeria. Enhancing the Benefits and Engaging the Problems // SSRN Electronic Journal. — September 16, 2008.

27. Bartels L. Unexplained Wealth Laws in Australia // Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. — 2010. — No. 395.

28. Borgers M. J., Moors H. Targeting the Proceeds of Crime: Bottlenecks in International Cooperation // European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. — 2007. — P. 1–22.

29. Borgers M. J. International Cooperation in Confiscation Matters and Dutch Legislation: Points of Attention for Effective Cooperation in the European Union // SSRN Electronic Journal. — September 22, 2005.

30. Clarke B. A Man’s Home is His Castle — Or is it? How to Take Houses from People Without Convicting Them of Anything: The Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA) // Criminal Law Journal. — 2004. — Vol. 28. — P. 263.

31. Ivory R. The Right to a Fair Trial and International Cooperation in Criminal Matters: Article 6 ECHR and the Recovery of Assets in Grand Corruption Cases // Utrecht Law Review. — September 2013. — Vol. 9. — No. 4. — P. 147–164.

32. King C., Walker C. Counter Terrorism Financing: A Redundant Fragmentation? // New Journal of European Criminal Law. — 2015. — Vol. 6. — Iss. 3.

33. Monti A. Illegitimate Appropriation or Just Punishment? — The Confiscation of Property in Ancien Régime Criminal Law and Doctrine. Property rights and their violations. Expropriations and confiscations, 16th– 20th Centuries / L. Lorenzetti, M. Barbot, L. Mocarelli (eds). Bern: Peter Lang, 2012 // Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2049799.

34. Young S. N. M. Policing and Prosecution of Money Laundering (May 1, 2018) // Research Handbook on Transnational Crime / V. Mitsilegas, S. Hufnagel & A. Moiseienko (eds). Edward Elgar, 2018. University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2018/019.