Confessions under pressure: can you defend yourself in 2022?

Types of liability for lies

You can divide all information that does not correspond to reality into two conditional groups:

1. False reporting of a crime or offense - that is, a written statement, a phone call, an appeal on the official website of a law enforcement agency, etc. In such situations, the person involved in the unreasonable call is held accountable.
2. False testimony during questioning during court proceedings (both criminal and civil), as well as when participating in the stage of preliminary investigation (inquiry). At the same time, the law lists the status of those persons who can be involved: these are witnesses, specialists, experts, translators, and also victims.

Depending on the circumstances, administrative proceedings or criminal proceedings may be initiated.

Let's look at various life situations using examples.

False incident reporting

In what cases does administrative liability arise?

First of all, those who call the police for a fictitious reason are attracted. Thus, Article 19.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for punishment from one to one and a half thousand rubles for a knowingly false call:

• Ambulance;
• firefighters;
• other specialized city services.

It is difficult to say with what intention people call the special services for no reason. Most often this is done by teenagers who have fun in this way. Let us remind you that a person who has reached the age of 16 may be held liable for any administrative offense. Until the age of 16, a teenager is not held accountable, but may well be registered with the PDN.

As with any other offense, for liability to be established, the guilt of the offender must be established, which is not always possible.

Example No. 1 . The police department received a report of hooliganism by a drunk company in the courtyard of a residential building. Having arrived at the scene, the duty team did not find the hooligans, and when interviewing citizens living in this yard, it became clear that the call was false. The phone number from which the call was made was used to identify a man who contacted the police. He admitted that he had deceived the duty officer; there was no hooliganism. At the same time, he explained his actions by saying that he repeatedly called the police because of two people who constantly relieved themselves in the arch of the house, but since the police did not come to any of the 12 calls about this fact, he decided to report others that were not true , information about a more serious violation. In this case, the court considered the evidence provided insufficient to establish the guilt of the citizen who called the police out of despair.

Based on practice, persons who clearly and without any worthy reason called the police or other services are brought to administrative liability.

Example No. 2 . College students decided to make a joke and made a call 01, reporting a fire in a private house. After the firefighters arrived, the police were immediately called to draw up a report under Art. 19.13 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, since the call was determined to be false. The callers made excuses for a long time, saying that the fire seemed to them because a fire was burning in a neighboring area (the neighbor actually burned garbage). After a thorough check, it was determined that it was impossible to confuse the fire with a fire on the roof of a residential building (this is what was reported to operator 01), the students’ actions were recognized as intentional, and they were held liable in the form of a fine of 1,000 rubles each.

Usually pranksters call the police, fire department, and less often an ambulance. Other specialized organizations whose intentional challenge falls under Article 19.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation include road, gas, energy services, etc. For example, there are false calls about the smell of gas in a house, about a supposedly collapsed sidewalk where a car landed, about a broken electrical wire, etc. Such information is subject to immediate verification according to the internal instructions of each government agency. By misinforming service dispatchers, such calls disrupt the work of departments as a whole: working time is wasted on imaginary incidents, while at this time others may need real help.

Criminal liability

According to Art. 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation attracts those who reported a crime that actually did not happen. For such actions the legislator provided:

• fine up to 120,000 rubles , compulsory work up to 480 hours, correctional labor up to 2 years, imprisonment up to 2 years;
• a fine of up to 300,000 rubles or 3 years of imprisonment in the case where a serious or especially serious crime was reported.
  Example No. 3 . Nosov E.N., who divorced his wife on her initiative, decided to take revenge on her and called the police. He reported that Nosova K.T. mocks their common son, beats him, keeps him at home for many months, does not take him to the clinic, that is, thereby committing several acts directed against the child’s health. During the verification of the oral statement of Nosov E.N. it was found that the information received by the police was untrue - Nosova does an excellent job raising her son, devotes a lot of time to his development, takes the child to the sports section, school, etc. Against Nosov E.N. a criminal case was initiated for false accusations of committing a serious crime; following the results of the consideration of the case in court, he was given a suspended prison sentence. The ex-wife managed to recover compensation for moral damage in the amount of 50,000 rubles from the convicted person.
• imprisonment for up to 6 years if artificial creation of evidence of guilt is proven.
  It should be noted that it is in this form that this corpus delicti is less common in practice compared to the “simple” corpus delicti, since it is more difficult to collect evidence. Example No. 4 . Rektov R.P. filed a complaint with the police about his car being stolen. At the same time, he explained that he was beaten by two unknown persons, pushed out of the car and drove off in an unknown direction. During the check, it was established that at 14:15 (the time that the applicant indicated as the time of the theft), he was seen by a neighbor in the entrance, he was sitting in a cafe with a woman and having lunch, and there were no bruises on his face. Subsequently, a friend of the applicant was interrogated, who admitted that, at Rektov’s request, he struck him in the face with minor force and took the car into his garage for storage. Thus, Rektov was sentenced to 1 year of imprisonment under Part 3 of Art. 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (it was established that the motive for the crime was obtaining insurance), including for the creation of artificial evidence.

A separate article of the Russian Criminal Code provides for punishment for false reporting of a terrorist attack. So, in accordance with Art. 207 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the guilty person may be sentenced to up to 5 years in prison .

As a result of a false call to the police, ambulance or other special services, damage is caused to the state, which is recovered from the culprit. The most significant material damage can be caused when responding to a fraudulent report of an act of terrorism, since rapid response teams, dog handlers, explosives experts, and experts are involved, whose presence at the scene of such types of cases is strictly necessary. The departure of all the listed employees could cost the state up to 50,000 rubles, if you count the participation of each of them. The courts recover the wasted amount from the troublemaker, who is previously found guilty under Art. 207 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In some cases, damages are calculated during the preliminary investigation and are recovered from the perpetrator simultaneously with the sentencing.

False testimony

The rules for prosecution for knowingly giving false testimony are as follows.

Administrative punishment

Administrative punishment in the form of a fine of 1000-1500 rubles awaits those who give false testimony in an administrative case, or as part of initiated enforcement proceedings (Article 17.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

What does this look like in practice?

Example No. 5 . The magistrate considered the issue of bringing to administrative responsibility the driver who refused to undergo examination. Driver Antonov E.R. was brought to justice under Art. 12.26 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and when considering the material in court, witnesses A.A. Raketov. and Mostovoy K.E. gave false testimony. Moreover, immediately before the interview, they were explained their rights and obligations, including the obligation to tell the truth. Witnesses reported that Antonov E.R. was sober, and no one suggested that he undergo a medical examination to determine his blood alcohol content. After viewing the surveillance video, which recorded Antonov’s unsteady gait getting out of the car, a bottle of vodka in his hand, and the actions of the inspector inviting him to take a breathalyzer test, administrative proceedings were initiated against the false witnesses, who were subsequently fined by the court in the amount of 1,000 rubles each.

It is important to know that administrative liability for giving false testimony is possible only if Part 5 of Art. 25.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which stipulates a mandatory warning about liability for lies. If there is no mark that the witness was warned about this, then there will be no administrative offense. In relation to our example, if Raketov and Mostovoy had not been warned about such liability before giving evidence, then the administrative materials under Art. 17.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation could not be initiated.

At the stage of enforcement proceedings, holding persons accountable for knowingly false information is quite rare in practice. First of all, such situations may arise during the identification of sources of income and property of debtors. For example, when an accountant at the debtor’s place of business provides information in a survey report about a deliberately underestimated average salary, an outsider reports that the item to be collected belongs to him and not to the debtor, etc.

According to Art. 17.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, not only witnesses, but also:

• victim;
• specialist;
• expert;
• translator.

At the same time, the legislator gives only the witness and the victim the right not to testify against themselves or their loved ones (spouses, children, parents, etc.). This does not mean that, using family ties, you can freely and with impunity tell lies. But if the person being interrogated keeps silent about some facts concerning himself or, for example, a brother or sister, then no one will be able to hold him accountable for this.

Criminal liability

Criminal liability for giving false testimony is provided for in Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Under this provision, those who lie during an investigation or in court in a criminal (civil) case may be punished.

It is no secret that many witnesses and victims in a court hearing change their testimony in favor of the defendant. The reasons for this may be different, but most often, as the end of the trial approaches and the final decision (that is, the sentence) is made, the victim feels sorry for the defendant, they often reconcile, and the victim is compensated for the harm by the relatives.

In accordance with Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, punishment can be in the form of:

• fine up to 80,000 rubles;
• compulsory work for up to 480 hours;
• correctional labor for up to 2 years;
• up to 5 years of imprisonment (if the testimony does not correspond to reality relates to charges of a serious or especially serious crime).

In practice, there are cases when the applicant’s actions consist of reporting false information about an allegedly committed crime, and subsequently he also gives false testimony in a criminal case.

Example No. 6 . Frolov R.Sh., who has hostile relations with neighbors in the area, set fire to his own barn, after which he reported on “02” about the arson allegedly by other persons. In his statement, Frolov R.Sh. indicated that the day before he saw his neighbor P.A. Lednev. I brought three cans of gasoline to my home. A fire-technical examination showed the consistency of the substance, the remains of which were found at the scene of the incident, with samples of gasoline seized from Lednev’s house. Both during the investigation and in court, Frolov conveyed untrue information that he personally saw Lednev located near his barn a few minutes before the arson. The deception was revealed when a witness was found who saw R.Sh. Frolov splashing some liquid on his barn, and a few minutes later there was already a flame. Additionally, two witnesses confirmed Lednev’s presence at the time of the fire in the theater, and a ticket was presented. Frolov was convicted of knowingly falsely reporting a crime under Art. 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as for giving false testimony under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The Court of Appeal considered this to be incorrect and left only Art. 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since it covers the crime of giving untruthful testimony.

Thus, if a person makes a false call about a crime, and then gives false testimony in the same case, liability for the call is sufficient; no additional qualifications are required.

Let us recall that according to Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, not only witnesses, but also specialists, experts, translators can be involved if they provide the court (investigation) with knowingly false information that they should have provided by the nature of their activity. The liability of these persons also occurs only if they were warned of the possible consequences in the form of criminal prosecution.

Refusal to testify

The similarity between perjury and refusal to testify is that giving false information can be expressed in the form of inaction, such as failure to report any information. Both crimes are committed with intent, as a result, the normal work of law enforcement agencies or the court is disrupted, and it can be difficult to classify them correctly. In judicial practice, 2 situations related to these crimes most often occur:

1. When considering a case in court, a witness or victim refuses his testimony, which was recorded during the preliminary investigation. If at the same time they give altered testimony, this is already regarded as perjury; if not, it is considered a refusal.
2. The witness reports that he knows nothing about the crime. If in fact he has the information, then there is perjury, not refusal to testify. In the case where he really does not have any information, criminal liability does not arise at all.

These related crimes are rarely part of another, so it is still possible to distinguish between them.

False testimony in civil law

According to Art. 70 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, a witness in civil proceedings is also obliged to give only truthful testimony, otherwise liability may be applied under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, it is in civil proceedings that a witness is extremely rarely liable before the law for giving knowingly false testimony; such cases are isolated. This is partly explained by the fact that many civil law norms already contain possible consequences in the event of deception by one of the parties to the contract (failure to provide truthful information about the product, concealment of the expiration date, silence about the fact that the subject of the contract is pledged to third parties, etc. ).

Thus, in civil law, one of the parties to a contract communicates false information about the subject of the transaction. If such a fact is established, in accordance with Art. 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, any transaction is subject to cancellation as invalid; the claim of the injured party in such cases is always satisfied.

Example No. 7 . Kulikov E.N. applied to the court to invalidate the purchase and sale transaction of an apartment that he wanted to purchase from an acquaintance D.L. Pytalov. After Kulikov E.N. gave the money to the seller, the contract was transferred to Rosreestr for registration of rights, which was not done. The reason for the refusal to register was that the apartment was secured by a credit institution, which Pytalov did not inform Kulikov about when drawing up the contract, although he was aware of it. At the court hearing in the civil case, Pytalov confessed that he actually knew that the apartment was listed as collateral for another obligation, but hoped that he would reissue the loan and remove the apartment from the status of collateral while the documents were being considered Rosreestrom. The claim of the injured party was satisfied, and the transaction was declared invalid.

Civil legislation separately provides for the rules for terminating insurance contracts. Thus, Article 944 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation states that the policyholder is obliged to provide information about himself that is important for determining the period of the possible occurrence of an insured event. In other words, if the policyholder is silent about a certain circumstance that would affect the terms of the contract, or provides false information, the insurance payment may not be made at all.

Most often, citizens enter into liability insurance contracts for credit obligations. So, if, when concluding such an agreement, a citizen does not disclose (which is also considered fraud) information about his serious illness, then when an insured event occurs (for example, the death of the borrower), the insurance company will sue, proving the deliberate failure to disclose important information to it. If it is reliably established that the person suffering from the disease concealed his diagnosis, the court will be on the side of the insurer.

Example No. 8 . Zherdin N.G. I bought furniture for my apartment on credit, and the obligation was subject to compulsory insurance (as often happens now). When concluding the contract, Zherdin did not inform the policyholder of his diagnosis, which he had been given for several years - systemic lupus, a disease of the immune system, due to which death can occur at any time. When Zherdin N.G. died, the cause of death was established - the diagnosis was made, the disease progressed rapidly. Since the illness was not reported on time, in court the representative of the insurance company easily obtained termination of the contract; the insurance premium was not paid.

Covering up crimes

When knowingly false information is provided to shield the perpetrators, perjury coincides with the characteristics of concealing a crime, the responsibility for which is determined by Article 316 of the Criminal Code. An important feature here is that concealment should not be promised to the perpetrator in advance, as well as giving false testimony. Both crimes are intentional in nature, however, concealment is distinguished by the commission of active actions; perjury can be expressed in the failure to report important information.

If the witness promised in advance to provide false information to hide the culprit, then there is complicity in aiding and abetting, which is qualified under the Special Part of the Criminal Code.

Thus, perjury often overlaps with other crimes. Correct determination of the characteristics and signs of the committed act will allow you to avoid mistakes in establishing guilt and imposing punishment. This is of great importance, since in practice the courts are more sensitive to the fact of reporting false information than to related crimes.

Problems in practice

In practice, many nuances arise that are ambiguously perceived by the courts. For example, how can a person who incriminates himself be held accountable for perjury? Often, there may be an agreement among convicted persons to “take everything upon themselves,” and then during the proceedings, a witness may not only provide false information, but also incriminate himself.

Example No. 9 . Krylov A.P. was prosecuted for theft, the witness in the case was E.A. Ivanov, who, as follows from the case materials, was not involved in the commission of the crime and did not know the intentions of A.P. Krylov. At the court hearing, Ivanov changed his testimony, saying that it was he who committed the theft, and A.P. Krylov. he felt sorry for him and confessed to something he had not done.

In this case, Krylov A.P. was nevertheless convicted as charged, since Ivanov’s testimony was regarded by the court as untrue. The evidence obtained in the case, in addition to the testimony of witnesses and the confession, confirmed Krylov’s guilt. The court had to watch the presented video recording from the supermarket, which clearly shows that it was Krylov who committed the crime alone. It turns out that Ivanov wanted to make his friend’s life easier by providing information that did not correspond to reality.

In the above example, Ivanov was held liable for falsely reporting a crime, but this is not the practice in all regions. Many judges believe that liability can only arise when the information (slip) concerns third parties. If there is self-incrimination, even if it does not correspond to reality, there can be no responsibility.

We assume that each specific situation has its own characteristics that must be taken into account in the aggregate, focusing on those facts that have become known to the court in the case as a whole.

Falsification of evidence

Crimes related to giving false testimony include falsifying evidence; they are most similar to each other. Both acts have the same goal and result - they provide law enforcement or judicial authorities with obviously unreliable evidence. They are committed both within the framework of criminal and administrative proceedings.

The main difference between crimes is the list of persons who can commit them. Witnesses and victims give deliberately unreliable testimony, and in addition to them, persons involved in the investigation of the case can also falsify evidence. This is an investigator, an investigator, a defense attorney and even a prosecutor.

When there is no responsibility

1. Conscious delusion. We have noted previously that the primary basis for legal prosecution for perjury is the establishment of guilt. Therefore, if a person was in good faith mistaken about any of the facts that he reported, there will be no crime in his actions.

Example No. 10 . In the case of P.R. Lebedev, accused of insult, witness K.A. Motin, who was present during the conflict between the victim and the defendant, was interrogated. Motin explained to the court that he had not heard any offensive phrases from P.R. Lebedev. Due to the fact that two other persons present in the same place gave different testimony (they heard insults pronounced quite loudly), in relation to Motin K.A. a criminal case was initiated for giving knowingly false explanations under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Contrary to the prosecution's arguments, Motin K.A. was acquitted, while the court indicated that Motin K.A. explained the contradictions by saying that he was not attentive enough to what was happening between Lebedev P.R. and the victims, because at that time he received a phone call and he turned all his attention to the telephone conversation. Thus, a conscientious error of the witness Motin K.A. was established, which excludes criminal liability for his explanations that do not correspond to reality.

2. A special condition, the fulfillment of which guarantees the release from liability of the victim, witness, translator, expert, specialist. This condition is contained in the note to Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: if, before the verdict (decision) of the court, the listed persons confess to the falsity of their testimony (conclusion, translation), there can be no criminal prosecution.

Example No. 11 . Kolosov A.M. caused bodily harm to his child, witness A.R. Mironov, who was a friend of the defendant, testified in the case. Mironov A.R. said at the trial that he never knew that Kolosov A.M. Raises the child strictly and with beatings. After interrogation of Mironov A.R. The trial had not yet been completed; it was planned to study the case materials and interrogate other persons. At one of the subsequent court hearings Mironov A.R. came again and explained that earlier he deliberately did not voice Lebedev’s cruel methods of raising his son. He also said that while at home, he thought about the situation for a long time and decided to tell the truth. According to the note to the article, Mironov cannot become an accused in the case of giving deliberately false testimony, since he confessed to everything earlier than the final decision in the case.

3. Lies as a way to evade responsibility. A line of defense built on distortion of circumstances in favor of the defendant cannot be a criminal offense. This rule is enshrined in Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which the investigator is obliged to explain to each accused. This provision states that no one is obliged to testify against himself. This rule, in essence, provides the opportunity for defendants, suspects, and accused to legally lie to the investigation and the court.