Rights of victims in a criminal case
If a person is killed as a result of a crime, one of the close relatives of the deceased is recognized as the victim. But, if several close relatives of the deceased insist on recognition as victims, then they can also be recognized as victims. Distant relatives, close friends or representatives of the team in which the deceased worked or studied cannot be victims.
According to Part 1 of Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, a victim in a criminal case is any individual to whom physical, property, or moral harm has been caused by a crime, as well as a legal entity if the crime causes damage to its property and business reputation.
Thus, if you have suffered from a crime, then you are a victim in a criminal case that may be initiated based on your application.
The decision to recognize a victim as a victim is formalized by a resolution of the inquiry officer, investigator or court.
This decision must be made as soon as factual evidence is discovered that a person has become a victim of a criminal act (action or inaction) provided for by criminal law, but not earlier than the initiation of a criminal case.
If a person died as a result of a crime, then one of the close relatives of the deceased is recognized as the victim. But, if several close relatives of the deceased insist on recognition as victims, then they can also be recognized as victims. Distant relatives, close friends or representatives of the team in which the deceased worked or studied cannot be victims.
When the victim in a criminal case is a minor or a person who, due to his physical or mental disabilities, cannot exercise the rights granted to him by law, then his interests in the case must be protected by his representatives or legal representatives.
If a legal entity is recognized as a victim, its rights are also exercised by a representative on the basis of a power of attorney issued to it in accordance with the rules of Article 185-189 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
What documents can a victim receive?
Lawyer Antonov A.P.
Clause 13, Part 2, Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation states that the victim has the right “to receive copies of decisions to initiate a criminal case, to recognize him as a victim, to refuse to select a preventive measure in relation to the accused in the form of detention, to terminate a criminal case, to suspend criminal proceedings, forwarding a criminal case to jurisdiction, scheduling a preliminary hearing, court hearing, receiving copies of the verdict of the court of first instance, decisions of the courts of appeal and cassation. Upon application, the victim has the right to receive copies of other procedural documents affecting his interests.”
The victim not only has the right to receive if the investigator (inquiry officer, etc.), the court provided him with a copy of the document referred to in paragraph 13 of Part 2 of Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, he has the right to demand that a corresponding copy be provided to him. That is why, in order to bring uniformity to the legislator’s use of terms of the same name, in the analyzed places of Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation it is proposed to use not the concept of “receive”, but the phrase “demand provision and receive”. At least for the time being, this broad interpretation of the concept of “receive” should be recommended. Only in this way can one come to an unambiguous interpretation of the right granted to the victim. The proposed interpretation will fully comply with that laid down in paragraph 13 of Part 2 of Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is the legislator's idea and will be an additional obstacle to the investigator (investigator, etc.) ignoring the requirements of the second sentence of paragraph 13 of part 2 of Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
The legislator has not regulated the procedure for the victim to receive copies of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13 of Part 2 of Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Accordingly, no matter how it was carried out (as long as no prohibition provided for by law was violated), its results cannot be recognized as carried out in violation of the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Despite this circumstance, we still dare to recommend that the law enforcement officer extend the general requirements of the procedural form to the procedure for obtaining copies of these documents by the victim. We also believe that when the victim exercises the powers in question that belong to him, the principles of the criminal process must be observed.
The procedure for obtaining a copy of the resolution to terminate a criminal case is to some extent regulated by Part 4 of Art. 213 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. It imposes on the investigator (inquiry officer, etc.) the obligation to hand over or send to the victim a copy of the decision to terminate the criminal case, while explaining the latter’s right to file a claim in civil proceedings if the criminal case is terminated on the grounds provided for in clauses 2 - 6 h 1 tbsp. 24, art. 25, paragraph 2 - 6 part 1 art. 27 or art. 28 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The procedure for the victim to receive a copy of the verdict of the first court, and, accordingly, the appellate instance (Part 1 of Article 389.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) is to a certain extent regulated by Art. 312 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Based on its content, a copy of such a verdict is handed over to the victim if there is a corresponding request within 5 days from the date of proclamation of the verdict.
Receiving copies specified in clause 13, part 2, art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, procedural documents must be recorded in the materials of the criminal case. The fact that the victim has received, at the request of a procedural document affecting his interests, is recorded not only by the decision to satisfy the request. We would recommend drawing up an additional document in which the victim would certify with his signature the fact that his request was, in fact, fulfilled. While on the ground, negligent investigators (interrogators, etc.), under the auspices of their leaders, have learned to make decisions to satisfy the petition, but in fact do nothing in the direction of the victim’s request.
Sincerely, lawyer Anatoly Antonov, managing partner of the law firm Antonov and Partners.
Still have questions for your lawyer?
Ask them right now here, or call us by phone in Moscow +7 (499) 288-34-32 or in Samara +7 (846) 212-99-71 (24 hours a day), or come to our office for a consultation (by pre-registration)!
Victim status
First of all, we should proceed from the fact that the legal status of the victim is a complex category, including from the point of view of its structure. The variety of criminal legal relations, and the diverse range of rights and obligations of these subjects arising in connection with this, are the basis for differentiating the legal status of victims within the framework of criminal proceedings. This makes it possible to separate, first of all, the victim from other participants in the process, as well as to highlight a number of features of his status within the specific case under investigation, which makes it possible to determine its specificity and focus.
Rules of law regulating the status of the victim
The norms that directly define and disclose the legal status of the victim of a crime are enshrined in the framework of the Criminal and Criminal Procedure legislation. To obtain the status of a victim, it is necessary to comply with such grounds as the actual infliction of harm and its legal registration as such. It should be noted that the legal status of a person as a victim is established based on his actual situation and is only procedurally formalized by a resolution, but is not formed by it. So, according to Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, a victim is recognized as an individual who has suffered physical, moral or property damage in connection with a crime committed. A legal entity may also be considered a victim in the event that a crime has caused property damage to it or damage to its business reputation.
Analysis of the legal status of the victim
We will analyze the legal status of the victim, and also consider the inaccuracies of modern criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation arising in connection with the assignment of the corresponding status. The determination of the rights and obligations that the victim is entitled to is regulated directly within the framework of criminal procedural relations. Particular attention, as one of the current issues in the science of criminal procedure law, should be paid to the moment a person acquires the legal status of a victim. In criminal procedural law, as independent norms, a dual construction of the definition of the concept of “victim” is formed. Thus, the material aspect determines the victim from the moment of the occurrence of the relevant event that served as the reason for criminal prosecution as such. That is, the “victim” appears as a participant in criminal proceedings due to the very fact of causing certain harm to the person concerned. And from the point of view of directly procedural norms, the victim within the framework of a criminal procedural relationship appears as a full participant from the moment of formalization of the corresponding power-administrative decision of the authorized body or official on granting the person the corresponding status.
Lawyer summoned for questioning due to witness's statement about pressure
On February 8, the Council of the Pskov Region Bar Association considered the appeal of lawyer Natalia Leonova to summon her for questioning as a witness in a criminal case in which she acts as a defense attorney. The reason for calling for questioning was the statement of witness D., who reported pressure on her from the lawyer.
As Natalia Leonova told AG, she is defending citizen M. in a criminal case under paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Art. 132 of the Criminal Code. After she learned that there was a witness in the case - D., she called the senior investigator of the investigation department for the city of Pskov of the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Pskov Region, Dmitry Andreev, and asked to interrogate the girl, which he did.
However, later, on February 1, Dmitry Andreev sent Natalia Leonova a summons to summon her for questioning on February 5 as a witness in the same case (available to “AG”). The lawyer said that on February 5 she met with Dmitry Andreev in the corridor of the investigation department. Having invited her to the office, he explained: the interrogation needed to be carried out in connection with D.’s message that the lawyer had put pressure on her and told her what exactly she should tell the investigator. Natalia Leonova replied that she would not give any testimony, citing attorney-client privilege and Art. 450 Code of Criminal Procedure. In addition, she noted that the interrogation must be agreed upon with the leadership of the chamber.
After this, Natalia Leonova sent an appeal to the Council of the Administration of the Pskov Region (available to the editors), in which she described the situation and emphasized that the information about her putting pressure on D. was not true. Natalia Leonova asked the Chamber Council to clarify whether she could give explanations as a witness in a criminal case and whether there would be a violation of lawyer’s ethics on her part.
On February 8, at a meeting, the Council of the Administration of the Pskov Region (an extract from the minutes is available from “AG”) indicated that, in accordance with clause 2, part 3, art. 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a lawyer, defender of a suspect or accused is not subject to questioning as a witness about circumstances that became known to him in connection with an application to him for legal assistance or in connection with its provision, except in cases where a lawyer, defense attorney applies for questioning as a witness suspect, accused with the consent and in the interests of the suspect, accused. It is noted that this norm corresponds to clause 2 of Art. 8 of the Law on Advocacy.
It is noted that provided for in paragraph 2 of part 3 of Art. 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the release of the defense attorney from the obligation to testify about circumstances that became known to him or were entrusted to him in connection with his professional activities serves to ensure the interests of the accused and is a guarantee of the defense attorney’s unhindered performance of the functions assigned to him. This is the meaning and purpose of this norm. It is noted that this understanding of lawyer immunity follows from the legal position of the Constitutional Court, formulated in the Determination of July 6, 2000 No. 128-O.
It is indicated that in relation to the persons specified in Part 1 of Art. 447 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including lawyers, a special procedure for criminal proceedings is applied, and permission to carry out investigative actions carried out only on the basis of a court decision can be given only taking into account the provisions of Part 5 of Art. 450, art. 450.1 Code of Criminal Procedure.
In addition, the Council of the AP PO, when making its decision, took into account the information that became known to Natalia Leonova on the eve of the meeting: witness D., through her mother, contacted the lawyer and admitted that she had slandered her, being afraid of the threats of the investigator who was present at her interrogation. In this regard, D. appealed to the prosecutor's office of the Pskov region on February 7. In her complaint (available to AG), the girl indicated that in January, while giving testimony to Dmitry Andreev, investigator Imam Mamaev entered the office. After listening to her answers, he began to talk to D. in a raised voice and insult her. He threatened to send D. to a mental hospital or to a pre-trial detention center for giving false testimony, which is why she got scared and said that Natalia Ivanovna had given her instructions on how to answer during interrogation.
Thus, the Chamber Council decided that calling Natalia Leonova for questioning is illegal and contrary to the requirements of the current legislation. In addition, it was decided to inform the FPA, the prosecutor of the Pskov region Sergei Belov and the head of the Investigative Directorate of the RF Investigative Committee for the Pskov region, Pyotr Krupena, about the current situation.
In a commentary to AG, Natalia Leonova indicated that they probably wanted to interrogate her in order to remove her from participating in the case as a defense lawyer. She noted that Imam Mamaev is not an investigator in this case at all - he simply entered the office and began to insult the girl. However, according to the defense lawyer, she has just entered into the case and does not fully know all the circumstances. Natalia Leonova noted that the claims against D. arose simply because investigator Mamaev did not like what she said. She added that D. sent a complaint not only to the prosecutor’s office, but also to the investigative committee, and the complaints have already been registered.
“If we don’t defend the truth now, then this will be a precedent and they will remove unnecessary lawyers who really protect people. If we don't defend our position, there will be no need for lawyers. This is not the first time lawyers have been recused,” Natalia Leonova pointed out. She added that D. apologized to her and said that she had no way out.
President of the AP PA Alexey Gerasimov, in a commentary to AG, said that the chamber had already contacted both the prosecutor and the head of the regional Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation so that an investigation could be carried out against investigator Dmitry Andreev.
“I think that we should inform the FPA about every such case, especially since no such attempts have been made over the past few years. There were attempts to simply question the lawyer as a witness, but, as a rule, the investigator contacted the Bar Association, we gave explanations that the lawyer could not be questioned, and that was the end of it. And here the situation is unusual in that, firstly, the investigator himself provoked the situation, and secondly, the position of the chief of the investigator was such that we can accept anything, and the lawyer can still be interrogated,” noted Alexey Gerasimov.
He indicated that he had already had a personal meeting with the head of the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Pskov Region, who promised to look into this situation. “We decided that we will not dwell on this and will take all possible measures to prevent violations of the procedural rights of both the lawyer and her client, who may be left without protection if the lawyer is interrogated,” noted Alexey Gerasimov.
10 ADVOCATE NEWSPAPER TOPIC: status of the victim criminal procedural law
Recognition as a victim
On some problems of investigative practice in the light of current legislation regulating the participation of the victim in criminal proceedings
Valery Sarkisov K.Yu.N., ATTORNEY OF MOSCOW APARTMENT OFFICE, LAW OFFICE "COURT LAWYER"
One of the main purposes of criminal proceedings is to protect the rights and legitimate interests of individuals and organizations that have suffered from crimes, which is enshrined in Art. 6 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. This provision is indisputable and reflects the essence of the criminal process, however, when implementing it in practice, problems arise that are not always resolved in the same way in similar criminal cases. Let us outline the main and most relevant of them at the stage of preliminary investigation. Ending. Beginning in "AG" No. 9 (266). THE NECESSITY OF INTERROGATION AS A CONDITION FOR RECOGNITION AS A VICTIM Despite the absence in the law of requirements for the interrogation of a person who has been harmed by a crime before making a decision on recognition as a victim, in practice a rule has been developed and strictly observed according to which interrogation before recognition as a victim is necessary, and the procedure itself is face-to-face in nature . Meanwhile, the current Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation allows a decision to be made as a victim without preliminary interrogation; In contrast to the procedure for bringing an accused as an accused, which consists of issuing a decision to bring as an accused and filing charges, the law does not link the fact of familiarization with the decision to recognize a victim as a victim of a person who has been harmed by a crime with the implementation of the legal consequences of this procedural decision. Despite this, investigative practice in most cases follows the path of requiring face-to-face recognition by the victim with mandatory preliminary interrogation, which does not comply with the requirements of the law and leads to unreasonable restrictions on the victims’ exercise of their rights. EXAMPLE Thus, on September 5, 2016, the Investigative Directorate of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Eastern Administrative District of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Moscow initiated a criminal case at the request of the General Director of Uzory CJSC against unidentified persons regarding the theft of a controlling stake in the organization. A criminal case was initiated based on the results of a pre-investigation check, the actual duration of which was more than three months, while simultaneously with the statement of the commission of a crime, the management of the organization applied to the Moscow Arbitration Court with an application to invalidate the Minutes of the shareholders meeting on the change of management of the organization, carried out by persons who took over the organization. During the consideration of the arbitration dispute, the judge requested from the plaintiffs a ruling on recognition as victims in a criminal case. However, due to the absence of the company’s leaders in Russia at that time, the investigator refused to make a decision to recognize the company as a victim until representatives of the organization appeared for questioning. As a result, the Arbitration Court rejected the claims, which would not have happened if the investigation authorities had not linked, in violation of the requirements of the law, the possibility of making a decision on recognition as a victim with the need for preliminary interrogation of the victim (his representatives). NUMBER OF RECOGNIZED VICTIMS This problem is related to the investigation of criminal cases involving crimes against the person, the consequence of which was the death of the victim. Despite the fact that a crime, for example, murder, can cause harm to several persons - close relatives (close persons), and in their absence - other relatives of the murdered person, investigators decide to recognize one of the relatives as a victim, which, in my opinion, entails to limit the procedural rights of other persons - close relatives (close persons), and in their absence - relatives of the murdered person. At the same time, the investigative bodies are guided by both established practice in this regard and considerations of saving procedural time and costs associated with ensuring the participation of additional persons in the case, and the explanations of Resolution No. 17, according to paragraph 5 of which in criminal cases of this kind it is subject to recognition as a victim one of the close relatives (close persons), and in their absence - one of the relatives. In fairness, it must be admitted that when investigating crimes related to the death of a victim, in some cases there are cases of recognition of more than one victim, but only when persons file appropriate petitions. EXAMPLE Thus, in the proceedings of the Butyrsky MSO of the State Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in Moscow there was a criminal case initiated under Part 1 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation upon the discovery of the corpse of a minor citizen N. with signs of violent death. The day after the initiation of the criminal case, immediately after the identification of the corpse, the mother of the murdered citizen N. was recognized as the victim in the case; At the same time, despite the fact that his father, who lived with the murdered man during his lifetime, was also interrogated as a witness in the case, the decision to recognize the latter as a victim was not made by the investigator. A month after the initiation of the criminal case, the father of the murdered man filed a petition to recognize him as a victim in the criminal case, which was granted by the investigator. After the criminal case was sent to the court, the investigator’s decisions to recognize both the mother and father of the murdered victim as victims were recognized as legal; the court did not make a decision about the error of the investigation’s position in this regard. *** It should be noted that the legal justification in cases similar to the above is the explanation of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, according to which, if a crime affects the rights and legitimate interests of several close relatives and (or) close persons, and in their absence - relatives and they apply to be recognized as victims, these persons are recognized as victims on the basis of a reasoned court decision. RECOGNITION AS A VICTIM OF UNFINISHED CRIMES, AS WELL AS FOR FORMAL CRIMES This problem is related to the legislative definition of the concept of victim, enshrined in Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The absence of harm in an attempt to commit a crime, as well as according to the formal elements of the crime, gives the investigative authorities the right to refuse in such cases to issue a decision on recognition as a victim. In practice, there are completely opposite decisions in cases that are similar to each other, but practice often follows the path of recognition as victims based on incomplete and formal cases, even in the absence of harm caused by the crime. EXAMPLE So, on November 29, 2022, the 4th department of the SCh Investigative Directorate of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Central Administrative District of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Moscow opened a criminal case under Part 3 of Art. 30 and part 4 art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the fact of attempted theft of property of OJSC “TorgovyDomS” by forging the organization’s bills of exchange. Despite the fact that the crime was stopped and the crime did not directly cause harm to the organization, on February 20, 2022, after interrogating a representative of OJSC “Trading House S”, it was recognized as a victim in a criminal case. At the same time, in a criminal case initiated by the 1st department of the same IC of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Central Administrative District of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Moscow under Part 3 of Art. 30 and part 3 of Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regarding the attempted theft of funds from Amir OJSC from a bank account in a banking institution on a large scale, the investigator refused to satisfy the petition of representatives of the society to recognize him as a victim on the grounds that the crime was not brought to an end, therefore, the damage there was no harm to society. *** In order to establish a unified approach to solving this problem of recognizing victims in incomplete cases, it is often proposed to supplement Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation with a provision on the need to recognize victims in incomplete and formal cases even in the absence of harm. The proposed option seems correct both from the point of view of the inadmissibility of diminishing the rights of victims, and from the position of the theory of law, according to which anyone, even an unfinished or formal composition, has socially dangerous consequences; in these cases, the harm does not appear in the forms specified in Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, but in the form of harm to certain types of social relations. It should also be noted that in the above-mentioned Resolution No. 17, in relation to resolving issues of recognition as victims in unfinished compositions by the highest court, the courts are asked to find out in each case what exactly the harm was caused; In this case, one should proceed from the fact that the possibility of causing moral harm to the victim during an attempt or preparation to commit a crime directed against a specific person cannot be excluded. DETERMINING THE HARM CAUSED BY A CRIME In this case, the problem is connected both with the specification in the resolution www.yourpress.ru No. 9 (266) MAY 2022 11 MORE NEWS ON advgazeta.ru criminal procedure law on the recognition of the harm caused by the victim, and with the possibility of the investigation bodies determining moral damage, as well as damage to the business reputation of the organization in the absence of other damage. The fact is that in the absence of property or physical harm, the investigator and interrogators often cannot decide on the issue of moral harm or damage to business reputation. I believe that in such cases it is more advisable, if there is doubt, to recognize a person or organization as a victim, so as not to limit the procedural rights of these persons. As for the specification of the harm caused by the crime, in practice, investigators and interrogators often in the decision on recognition as a victim, pointing out that the crime caused harm to the victim, do not explain how exactly this harm manifested itself. EXAMPLE Thus, in the above criminal case, initiated on November 29, 2022 by the 4th department of the Investigative Committee of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Central Administrative District of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Moscow under Part 3 of Art. 30 and part 4 art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regarding the attempted theft of property of OJSC “Trading House S” by forging the organization’s bills of exchange, the investigator, in the resolution recognizing the company as a victim, reprinted verbatim the plot from the resolution to initiate a criminal case, citing which he indicated that the organization had suffered property damage and damage to business reputation, without specifying what exactly this damage was expressed in. *** A similar approach, in which the type of harm is indicated, but does not explain what exactly the harm caused by the crime was, can be seen in the analysis of the overwhelming majority of decisions on recognition as victims made by investigators of internal affairs bodies. At the same time, it should be recognized that, if in criminal cases investigated by investigators from units of the Investigative Committee of Russia, such gaps are found less frequently, then investigators from the FSB of the Russian Federation almost always indicate in the decisions issued on recognition as victims what kind of harm was caused and in what way. - ny crime. I believe that the failure of investigators to indicate in the decisions on recognizing victims what exactly the harm caused by the crime was expressed in does not correspond to the current standards; for example, in relation to decisions on recognizing a person as a victim, taken by the courts, in the above-mentioned Resolution No. 17, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation requires that court decisions on recognizing a person as a victim indicate which of the actions imputed to the defendant and what kind of harm was caused in that case. including in case of simultaneous infliction of several types of damage (property, physical, moral, damage to business reputation). DETERMINING THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HARM AND CRIME According to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, a necessary condition for recognition as a victim is the presence of harm caused by the crime. In practice, harm includes only that harm that is in a causal connection with the crime committed and acts as a socially dangerous consequence of the crime. Meanwhile, as a result of committing a crime, a person or organization may be harmed by the crime not directly, but indirectly. Thus, committing an attempted theft of an organization’s property due to the suppression of illegal activities may not cause harm in the form of loss of property, but the organization may incur costs associated with the crime committed indirectly, for example, due to the need to attract lawyers to represent the interests of the organization in during criminal proceedings. It should also be noted the difficulties in determining by the investigator both the fact itself and the amount of lost profits as a consequence and, accordingly, the harm caused by the crime. In most cases, expenses incurred by a person related to the crime committed indirectly, as well as lost profits, are in practice not considered as harm caused by the crime, which does not deprive a citizen or organization of the opportunity to apply for compensation. such expenses and lost profits by filing a civil lawsuit. Often, an error in establishing a causal connection between harm and a crime leads to the fact that a person who is not actually one is recognized as a victim, and the actual victim is, as a result, limited in the exercise of his procedural rights; in such situations, the victim, as a rule, is the person who has grounds for filing a civil claim in a criminal case. EXAMPLE So, on February 10, 2022, the Investigative Directorate of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Central Administrative District of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Moscow opened a criminal case under Part 4 of Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regarding the theft of funds held in the accounts of citizens G., K., P., M. and other persons with whom The bank entered into term deposit agreements. A criminal case was initiated based on the results of checking the report of a crime contained in a statement submitted by bank representatives to the police. Therefore, even before the initiation of a criminal case, the bank, in order to maintain its business reputation and the trust of the population, fully compensated the stolen funds to the citizens specified in the Resolution on initiating a criminal case. Due to the fact that the bank ultimately suffered damage as a result of the crime committed, the investigator decided to recognize Lanta-Bank JSCB as the victim. Meanwhile, the intent of the persons who committed the crimes was aimed at stealing the funds of citizens who were harmed by the crime. In such circumstances, it was necessary to recognize the citizens whose funds were stolen from deposits as victims in the case, and the bank, which compensated the citizens for the damage caused by the crimes, had the right to file a civil claim and was subject to recognition in the case as a civil claim. - tsa. At the investigation stage, none of the participants in the process indicated the need to correct the mistake; the lawyers of the accused decided to file a motion about this in court. Currently, the criminal case has been sent for consideration on the merits to the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow. It should be noted that the mistake made in determining the victim resulted in a violation of the procedural rights of persons whose harm was directly caused by the crime. *** In the light of the example given from practice, it seems advisable to also proceed, when resolving such problematic situations, from the rule of the relationship between the victim and the civil plaintiff in criminal proceedings, both general and private: any victim is potentially a civil plaintiff, but not every civil plaintiff is a victim in a criminal case. The main criterion for distinguishing between these two procedural statuses is the presence of a causal connection between the crime and the harm caused to the person. CONCLUSIONS Thus, summing up all of the above, we can conclude that, despite the existing system of norms regulating the recognition of victims in criminal proceedings, at the investigation stage there are a number of problems, the practical solution of which often leads to violations of the rights of victims and difficulties in implementing one of the main purposes of criminal proceedings. To solve these problems, it seems necessary to make clarifying changes to the definition of a victim and to the procedure for recognition as a victim itself. Before making changes, it is advisable to interpret all doubts when making decisions on recognition as a victim at the stage of preliminary investigation in favor of the victim, especially since the court has the right, when considering a criminal case, to correct the mistake of the investigative bodies and recognize the decision on recognition as a victim erroneous (see paragraph 4 of Resolution No. 17). Lawyers can only appeal the illegal and unfounded decisions of investigators and interrogators to refuse recognition as a victim in accordance with Art. 124 and 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, and if the complaints are refused, additionally apply for recognition as a victim when considering a criminal case in court. In this case, to justify your position, you should refer to both the above-mentioned Resolution No. 17 and the provisions enshrined in Art. 52 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948, the declaration of the basic principles of justice for victims of crime and abuse of power of November 29, 1985, as well as in the recovery of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe “On the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation the victim in the framework of criminal law and the process ”, which contain the basic norms for the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of the victim in criminal proceedings. A crime with regard to the specification of harm, in practice the “consequences of the consequences caused and the inquiry officers are often in the decree on recognition by the victims, indicating a crime of harm to the victim, do not indicate what exactly this damage has manifested itself. In the electronic issue No. 10 (267) on www.advgazeta.ru the following comments are posted for the article by V. Sarkisov: 1) Nikonov M. The position of senior ships. On the rights of victims; 2) D. D. Institute of the victim in the criminal process. Assessment of the decisions of some of the implementation of the rights of the victim in criminal proceedings; 3) Karakasian A. be guided by basic norms. On ensuring the rights of the victim in the pre -trial stages of the criminal process. From the editor of the editorial office www.yourpress.ru
