Confiscation of Property: Russian and Foreign Law Enforcement Experience

The paper examines the prospects for increasing the effectiveness of this measure. The study utilizes the data on the use of confiscation of property as another measure of criminal law in Russia, as well as foreign experience in the use of confiscation of property. The author notes the alarming fact that Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is applied in 60% of cases for crimes related to violation of the rules for handling narcotic drugs, psychotropic and potent substances; given the frequency of application of the measure under study, the absence of a significant desired effect is indicated. It is noted that the confiscation of property actually performs only a «protective» function and neglects the potential preventive component. There are several shortcomings pointed out in the paper. Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation specifies a closed list of crimes. The legislation restricts the possibility of confiscating property transferred by a convicted person to another person; it is only possible if the person knew that it was obtained as a result of criminal acts; the burden of proof of the illegality of the acquisition of property is placed on government bodies. The obstacles to the return of confiscation of property to the number of punishments are examined separately. These include the experience of using confiscation as another measure of a criminal legal nature that has developed over the past few years. Some more are the possibility of confiscating property for the benefit of the state in a civil-legal manner; the negative historical experience of using confiscation of property; the absence of clearly reliable and recognized data characterizing the preventive potential of confiscation as a punishment (especially in the context of the possibility of using confiscation of property as a punishment exclusively to the guilty person). Some attention is given to the issue of positive and negative features of the regulation of confiscation of property in sectoral legislation, as well as aspects of shifting the burden of proof of the legality of the acquisition of property.

1. Boskholov S. S. Rossiyskiy liberalizm i problemy antikorruptsionnoy ugolovnoy politiki // Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava RAN. — 2014. — № 3. — S. 31–43.

2. Vakutin A. A., Karpova O. V. Problemy ispolneniya konfiskatsii imushchestva // Vestnik Belgorodskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii imeni I.D. Putilina. — 2022. — № 3. — S. 19–23.

3. Gorbachev I. S. Evolyutsiya zakonodatelnoy reglamentatsii konfiskatsii imushchestva v otechestvennoy pravovoy sisteme // Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya «Gumanitarnye i obshchestvennye nauki». — 2022. — T. 6. — № 3 (23). — S. 255–262. — DOI: 10.21603/2542-1840-2022-6-3-255-262.

4. Zemlyukov S. V. Institut konfiskatsii imushchestva trebuet sovershenstvovaniya // Izvestiya Altayskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. — 2016. — № 3 (91). — S. 76–79. — DOI: 10.14258/izvasu(2016)3-14.

5. Karpov K. N., Beketov A. O. Realizatsiya konstitutsionnykh printsipov ravenstva i spravedlivosti pri konfiskatsii denezhnykh sredstv ili inogo imushchestva vzamen predmeta, podlezhashchego konfiskatsii // Nauchnyy vestnik Omskoy akademii MVD Rossii. — 2023. — T. 29. — № 3 (90). — S. 189–194. — DOI: 10.24412/1999-625X-2023-390-189-194.

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

7. Laptev D. B., Fedorov A. A. Sovershenstvovanie instituta konfiskatsii imushchestva na osnove opyta zarubezhnykh stran // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. — 2022. — № 477. — S. 239–245. — DOI: 10.17223/15617793/477/27.

8. Maslov V. A. Effektivnost konfiskatsii imushchestva v kontekste ofitsialnoy statistiki // Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. — 2022. — T. 17. — № 12. — S. 175–190. — DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2022.145.12.175-190.

9. Sklovskiy K. I. Primenenie zakonodatelstva ob obrashchenii v dokhod gosudarstva imushchestva, poluchennogo v rezultate narusheniya zakonodatelstva o protivodeystvii korruptsii // Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. — 2021. — № 11. — S. 156–186.

10. Allena M. Anti-Mafia Confiscation Against Corruption: The New Frontier of Human Rights (May 15, 2019) // 1(1) Italian Journal of Public Law (220) 196–222 (2019). — Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper 3388398, May 2019. — DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3388398.

11. Amusa O. K. Non Conviction Based Criminal Forfeiture and Right to Own Property in Nigeria: Enhancing the Benefits and Engaging the Problems (September 16, 2008). — DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1268806.

12. Bogdan C. Natura juridică a măsurii confiscării în procesul penal (The Legal Nature of the Confidence Measure in the Criminal Process) (July 1, 2015). — P. 89–134. — DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3337733.

13. Buscaglia E. The Paradox of Expected Punishment: Legal and Economic Factors Determining Success and Failure in the Fight Against Organized Crime (2008) // Review of Law and Economics. — 2008. — Vol. 3. — P. 1–25.

14. 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) (March 2, 2004) // Criminal Law Journal. — 2004. — Vol. 28. — P. 263–286.

15. Faure M. G. Criminal Liability for Oil Pollution Damage: An Economic Analysis (April 15, 2011) // Maritime Pollution Liability and Policy — China, Europe and the US / M. G. Faure, Han Lixin, Shan Hongjun (eds). — Kluwer Law International, Alphen a/d Rijn, 2010. — Chapter 10. — P. 161–192.

16. Fisher K. R. In Rem Alternatives to Extradition for Money Laundering // Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review. — 2003. — Vol. 25.

17. Godinho J. A. F. Do crime de «riqueza injustificada» (Artigo 28.° da Lei n.° 11/2003, de 28 de Julho) (The Crime of Illicit Enrichment (Article 28 of Law 11/2003, of July 28) (2007)) // Boletim da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Macau. — 2007. — Vol. 11. — No. 24.

18. King C., Walker C. Counter Terrorism Financing: A Redundant Fragmentation? (November 1, 2015) // New Journal of European Criminal Law. — 2015. — Vol. 6. — Iss. 3.

19. King C. Civil Forfeiture and Article 6 of the ECHR: Due Process Implications for England and Wales and Ireland (March 15, 2013). (2014) 34(3) Legal Studies. — P. 371–394.

20. Vítor S. C. Extended Confiscation in the Brazilian Criminal Procedure: an Analysis of its Evidentiary Rules // Journal volume & issue. — 2021. — Vol. 22. — No. 2. — P. 782–814. — DOI: 10.12957/redp.2021.52607.