Criminal Law Norma on the Legalization of Property Acquired by a Person as a Result of Committing a Crime (Article 174.1 of the Russian Criminal Code): A Tool in the Fight Against Crime or a «Club» in the Hands of Law Enforcement?

The paper analyzes the judicial and investigative practice of applying Article 174.1, which was absent from the original version of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as its prospects. Among the circumstances casting doubt on such prospects, the author highlights the very procedure of introducing Article 174.1 into the Criminal Code, which lacked any justification for its necessity in addition to Article 174, which establishes liability for the legalization (laundering) of funds or other property acquired by other persons through criminal means. The motives of the federal law drafters that supplemented the Criminal Code in 2001 with the analyzed article remain unclear, as do the goals of this addition.

The above-mentioned circumstances should include the inexplicable removal, after 12 years of practical application, of the exhaustive list of crimes from the original wording of Part 1 of Article 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which were not considered predicate offenses. The result of these experiments — first introducing and then repeatedly amending Article 174.1—has been its controversial or unjustified application. Despite multiple rulings by higher courts overturning unlawful verdicts of lower courts, Article 174.1 of the Criminal Code remains a kind of «club» in the hands of investigative bodies and prosecutors, and no individual who has committed a profit-driven or property-related crime is immune from its use. This conclusion is illustrated by an analysis of materials from two criminal cases for which the author provided expert opinions as a specialist.

 The author concludes that to ensure the rule of law, to prevent unjustified criminal prosecution, including of entrepreneurs, and to eliminate controversial procedural decisions by law enforcement and judicial bodies, Article 174.1 of the Criminal Code should be repealed. An alternative solution could be restoring the version of the article that was in force before 2013. 

1. Bazhutov S. A. Problemy pravoprimeneniya po delam o legalizatsii prestupnykh dokhodov: analiz sudebnoy praktiki i voprosy tolkovaniya // Zakonnost. — 2020. — № 12. — S. 3–8.

2. Zhadyaeva M. A., Yanina I. Yu. Sovremennoe sostoyanie sostava legalizatsii (otmyvaniya) denezhnykh sredstv, poluchennykh prestupnym putem // Rossiyskiy sledovatel. — 2022. — № 7. — S. 35–38.

3. Zinchenko P. I. Zashchita prav vladeltsev bankovskikh schetov v ramkakh ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva: otdelnye voprosy teorii i praktiki // Bankovskoe pravo. — 2019. — № 6. — S. 23–28.

4. Kochoi S. M. Ugolovnyy kodeks RF: novyy etap pospeshnykh izmeneniy // Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. — 2024. — T. 19. — № 11. — S. 96–105.

5. Razinkov D. V. Nekotorye problemnye voprosy reglamentatsii otvetstvennosti za legalizatsiyu denezhnykh sredstv ili inogo imushchestva, poluchennykh prestupnym putem // Modern Science. — 2021. — № 2 1. — S. 182–186.

6. Ugolovno-protsessualnyy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii. Glavy 1–32.1: postateynyy nauchno-prakticheskiy kommentariy / E. K. Antonovich, E. A. Artamonova, D. P. Velikiy [i dr.]; otv. red. L. A. Voskobitova. — M.: Redaktsiya «Rossiyskoy gazety», 2015. — 912 s.

7. Khomich O. V. Legalizatsiya (otmyvanie) prestupnykh dokhodov: ugolovno-pravovoe i sravnitelno-pravovoe issledovanie: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — M., 2019. — 24 s.