Disputable Issues of a Plea Agreement Conclusion

The paper considers debatable issues that arise in the course of procedure under Ch. 40.1 of the Criminal effectiveness of the investigation of crimes that are difficult to prove. The main attention is given to the problem of determining the moment from which it is possible to conclude a plea agreement. According to the author, if the provision of information about the possibility of concluding such an agreement does not depend on the status of the person at the current moment of the proceedings (suspected or accused), then the very conclusion of a plea agreement should be possible only after the preliminary investigation conducted under the general rules and without any exceptions in the evidentiary activity and after justified charges are brought. At the same time, the charges brought against the person in the event of a plea agreement must remain unchanged. The author answers the question whether the confession of guilt by the accused is a prerequisite for concluding a plea agreement, or whether it is only necessary to obtain his consent with the prosecution, as provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. It is concludes that since the confession of guilt by the accused is an integral part of the consent with the charges, both an confession of guilt and an agreement with the accusation should be mandatory conditions of a plea agreement. A plea agreement is a deal between the prosecution and the defense, which must be concluded strictly after the charges are brought. It is necessary to amend the current structure of the criminal procedure rules by excluding such a potential participant in the conclusion of a plea agreement as a suspect from Ch. 40.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

1. Abshilava G. V. Soglasitelnye protsedury v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve Rossiyskoy Federatsii: avtoref. dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — M., 2012. — 55 s.

2. Aleksandrov A. S. Podkhod k preodoleniyu protivorechiya v zakone, reglamentiruyushchego zaklyuchenie i realizatsiyu dosudebnogo soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve po ugolovnomu delu // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2011. — № 1. — S. 54–58.

3. Aleksandrov A. S., Aleksandrova I. A. Soglashenie o dosudebnom sotrudnichestve so sledstviem: pravovaya sushchnost i voprosy tolkovaniya norm, vkhodyashchikh v glavu 40.1 UPK RF // Ugolovnyy protsess. — 2009. — № 8. — S. 3–12.

4. Vdovtsev P. V. Vozmozhno li zaklyuchit dosudebnoe soglashenie o sotrudnichestve s podozrevaemym, obvinyaemym, sovershivshim prestuplenie edinolichno (v otsutstvie souchastnikov)? // Rossiyskiy sledovatel. — 2017. — № 10. — S. 15–17.

5. Vdovtsev P. V., Karkoshko Yu. S. K voprosu o predmete dosudebnogo soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve // Rossiyskiy sledovatel. — 2015. — № 11. — S. 16–18.

6. Grankin K. B., Miltova E. V. Problemy primeneniya norm UPK RF, reguliruyushchikh dosudebnoe soglashenie o sotrudnichestve // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2010. — № 3. — S. 76–79.

7. Gribunov O. P. Taktika deyatelnosti sledovatelya pri rassmotrenii khodataystva podozrevaemogo ili obvinyaemogo o zaklyuchenii dosudebnogo soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve // Vestnik Kaliningradskogo filiala Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta MVD Rossii. — 2017. — № 2 (48). — S. 34–36.

8. Dikarev I. S. Spornye voprosy organizatsii dosudebnogo proizvodstva po ugolovnym delam // Rossiyskaya yustitsiya. — 2016. — № 5. — S. 27–30.

9. Kornakova S. V. Ugolovno-protsessualnoe dokazyvanie kak protsess poznaniya // Izvestiya Irkutskoy gosudarstvennoy ekonomicheskoy akademii. — 2006. — № 6. — S. 110–112.

10. Kornakova S. V., Shcherbakov V. A. Osobyy poryadok sudebnogo razbiratelstva pri soglasii obvinyaemogo s predyavlennym obvineniem: garantii spravedlivosti postanovleniya prigovora // Sibirskie ugolovnoprotsessualnye i kriminalisticheskie chteniya. — 2017. — № 4 (18). — S. 58–65.

11. Kornakova S. V., Shcherbakov V. A. Problemy realizatsii printsipa spravedlivosti v rossiyskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. — M.: Yurlitinform, 2019. — 144 s.

12. Mishchenko E. V., Kornakova S. V., Mishin V. V. Obosnovannost i motivirovannost primeneniya osobogo poryadka prinyatiya sudebnogo resheniya pri zaklyuchenii dosudebnogo soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve // Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravookhranitelnaya praktika. — 2021. — № 2 (56). — S. 48–49.

13. Ozhegov S. I. Slovar russkogo yazyka: 70 000 slov / pod red. N. Yu. Shvedovoy. — 22-e izd., ster. — M.: Russkiy yazyk, 1990. — 921 s.

14. Pogodin S. B. Nekotorye aktualnye problemy primeneniya osobogo poryadka sudebnogo razbiratelstva v sostyazatelnom ugolovnom protsesse // Rossiyskaya yustitsiya. — 2009. — № 9. — S. 61–64.

15. Smirnov A. B. Osobyy poryadok prinyatiya sudebnogo resheniya pri zaklyuchenii dosudebnogo soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve // Ugolovnyy protsess. — 2009. — № 10. — S. 5–14.

16. Smolkova I. V. Priznanie obvinyaemym svoey viny: dokazatelstvennoe i pravovoe znachenie. — M.: Yurlitinform, 2017. — 432 s.

17. Tisen O. N. Teoreticheskie i prakticheskie problemy instituta dosudebnogo soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve v rossiyskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve: dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — Orenburg, 2017. — 487 s.

18. Tuzov A. G., Kulikov A. S. Dosudebnoe soglashenie o sotrudnichestve. Chto uchest zashchite // Ugolovnyy protsess. — 2020. — № 11. — S. 70–75.

19. Fedoseeva E. L. Uslovie, vliyayushchee na formu sudebnogo razbiratelstva i naznachenie nakazaniya v dosudebnom soglashenii // Vestnik Uralskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii. — 2018. — № 1. — S. 3–6.

20. Edilova P. V. Nekotorye problemnye aspekty zaklyucheniya dosudebnogo soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatelstve. — 2016. — № 5. — S. 180–185.