logo
This is an empty menu. Please make sure your menu has items.
Business Duty Officer

В Думу внесены поправки в УПК, regulating the procedure for the detention of entrepreneurs

В Думу внесены поправки в УПК, regulating the procedure for the detention of entrepreneurs

The amendments introduced to the State Duma have undergone a number of changes and differ from the draft law, previously developed by the Ministry of Justice of Russia.

According to one lawyer, bill made more logical, than before, however, if the amendment is adopted, they are unlikely to be able to radically reform the law enforcement practice. Another felt, what st. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure should be changed so, so that a preventive measure in the form of detention for crimes, provided for by Art.. 159-160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in principle could not be applied to entrepreneurs, regardless of the so-called entrepreneurial or non-entrepreneurial nature of the actions. The FPA of the Russian Federation called the bill important and useful, but belated.
The government submitted to the deputies a bill on amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (draft law no 253849-8), persons extending guarantees, suspects (accused) in committing crimes in the sphere of entrepreneurial and other economic activities. As AG wrote, the draft document was developed by the Ministry of Justice in August, however, the version submitted to the Duma differs from the original.

In particular, from the text of the draft law submitted to the State Duma, proposals for changes to h. 2 Art. 37, p. 3 h. 2 Art. 38, h. 2 Art. 91 Code of Criminal Procedure, in accordance with which it was necessary for the investigator to obtain the consent of the prosecutor to initiate a petition before the court for the election of a measure of restraint in the form of guards against persons, suspects (accused) in committing crimes in the sphere of entrepreneurial and other economic activities.

Now the amendments are proposed to be set out in a new edition of Art.. 99 "Circumstances, measures of restraint taken into account when choosing a preventive measure” of the Code of Criminal Procedure by supplementing it with a rule on, that when choosing a preventive measure against a suspect/accused, specified in h. 1.1 Art. 108 "Detention" of the Code, the possibility of choosing such a measure is necessarily considered, enabling them to continue their business activities and (or) management for the above purposes of their property, with the exception of confiscated or arrested property, as well as activities for the exercise of authority to manage the organization or in connection with the implementation by a commercial organization of entrepreneurial or other economic activities.

Earlier, the Ministry of Justice of Russia proposed to change the wording of h. 1.1 Art. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure and supplement it with. 1.2 and h. 1.3, however, the draft submitted to the Duma provides only a new version of part. 1.1 this article. So, detention as a measure of restraint can be applied to a suspect or accused of committing crimes, stipulated h. 1-4th century. 159, Art. 159.1–159.3, 159.5, 159.6, 160, 165 and 201 CC RF, if these crimes are committed by an individual entrepreneur in connection with his entrepreneurial activities or the management of his property, used for business purposes, or if these crimes are committed by a member of the management body of a commercial organization in connection with the exercise by him of powers to manage the organization or in connection with the commercial organization's entrepreneurial or other economic activities, and also h. 5-7th century. 159, Art. 171, 171.1, 171.3–172.3, 173.1–174.1, 176–178, 180, 181, 183, 185-185.4 and 190-199.4 CC. Offered, that placement in a pre-trial detention center in these cases will become possible only if one of the following circumstances exists: the suspect or the accused does not have a permanent or temporary place of residence on the territory of the Russian Federation; they violated the previously chosen measure of restraint; he hid from the preliminary investigation authorities or from the court.

The projected h. 3.1 Art. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure - this norm regulates the content of the resolution on the initiation of a petition for the election of detention as a measure of restraint in relation to business entities and members of the management bodies of commercial organizations. The materials attached to this resolution must contain specific information, confirming, that the act was not committed in connection with the suspect's (accused) entrepreneurial activity and (or) management of his property, used for business purposes, or not in connection with the exercise of his powers to manage this organization or not in connection with the commercial organization's entrepreneurial or other economic activities.

The draft law submitted to the State Duma also proposes to supplement Art.. 109 Code of Criminal Procedure with a new part 2.1 About, that if it is impossible to complete the preliminary investigation within a period of up to two months and if there are no grounds for changing or canceling the preventive measure against the suspect or the accused, specified in h. 1.1 Art. 108 Code, the period of detention may be extended up to 6 Months. The Ministry of Justice has previously proposed, that the period of detention of business entities and members of the management bodies of commercial organizations in criminal cases on crimes, listed in h. 1.1 Art. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure, over 6 months can be extended to a year only if the case is particularly complex. At the same time, there must be grounds for choosing this measure of restraint by the judge at the request of the investigator., submitted with the consent of the head of the relevant investigative body for the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, other equivalent head of an investigative body and prosecutor of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or equivalent military prosecutor.

The proposal to supplement Art.. 109 CPC part 3.1 About, that the period of detention is over 12 months for entrepreneurs, accused of committing particularly serious crimes, listed in h. 1.1 Art. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure, may be extended up to 18 months only in exceptional cases. At the same time, the amendments provide for the addition of this article of the Code with a part 8.4, according to which the need for further investigative actions cannot be the only and sufficient grounds for extending the period of detention.

bill h. 4 Art. 162 The Code of Criminal Procedure is supplemented by an indication that, that in criminal cases on crimes against suspects or accused, specified in h. 1.1 Art. 108 Code, for whom a measure of restraint in the form of detention was chosen, period of preliminary investigation, established h. 1 this article, may be extended up to three months only by the head of the investigative body for the constituent entity of the Russian Federation and other equivalent head of the investigative body, as well as their deputies.

Corresponding changes will appear in Art.. 223 of the Code regarding the powers of prosecutors of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and military prosecutors regarding the extension of the period of inquiry.

A lawyer, Member of the General Council of Business Russia, Head of the Expert Center for Criminal Law Policy and Enforcement of Judicial Acts, Ekaterina Avdeeva, member of the Expert Advisory Board of the Federation Council Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Building, believes, that the presented version of the amendments actually legislatively fixes the displayed changes, introduced by the Decrees of the Plenum of the Supreme Court dated 24 May 2016 y. № 23 and by 11 June 2020 y. № 7 in Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces No. 41 from 19 December 2013 y. “On the practice of application by courts of legislation on preventive measures in the form of detention, house arrest, bail and prohibition of certain actions".

According to the lawyer, The Expert Center for Criminal Law Policy and Enforcement of Judicial Acts proposed such changes. "Wherein, despite the positive direction of the bill, he is unlikely to be able to fundamentally reform law enforcement practice. This is due to the lack of information criteria, confirming, that the act was not committed in connection with the commission by an individual entrepreneur or a member of the management body of a commercial organization of a crime in the field of entrepreneurial activity. We saw, that the decision of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces, containing such a requirement, did not lead to a significant improvement in the situation. As a result of the unreasonable application of an excessive measure of restraint for a specific situation in the form of detention, the normal economic activity of enterprises is paralyzed. This sets off a chain reaction of negative consequences., which do not pass for business without a trace, often lead to the bankruptcy of the company, Consequently, job loss for employees. This also affects the budget.”, - Ekaterina Avdeeva is convinced.

She also noted, that the situation has improved in recent years, Increasingly, a measure of restraint is being chosen against entrepreneurs, non-custodial, but the results are not yet satisfactory.. “The introduction of the norm due to the lack of criteria and even the very definition of the scope of entrepreneurial activity for the criminal process will most likely develop differently. At the same time, the new draft law is more logical., than presented in the summer 2022 Mr., since the original version assumed the allocation of a new part in Art.. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the Ministry of Justice proposed to protect businessmen from electing against them a measure of restraint in the form of detention for a number of offenses of minor gravity. This suggestion was not feasible due to the fact, what's at o'clock. 1 Art. 108 The Code of Criminal Procedure already directly indicates the choice of a measure of restraint in the form of detention only in relation to those suspected or accused of crimes., which are punishable by imprisonment for more than three years, i.e. for crimes, относимые в соответствии со ст. 15 УК РФ к категории не ниже средней тяжести», - says the lawyer.

Ekaterina Avdeeva added, что сокращение сроков расследования преступления в сфере предпринимательской деятельности не должно влиять на качество расследования. «Важна полнота расследования, которую по предпринимательским составам нередко невозможно обеспечить без соответствующих экспертиз, а также возможность в этот период вести предпринимательскую деятельность. Здесь важно, чтобы производство следственных и иных процессуальных действий не могло выступать в качестве единственного и достаточного основания для продления сроков содержания под стражей, в том числе регламентированных ст. 217–220, что и должно быть отображено в ч. 8.4 Art. 109 CC RF. Undoubtedly, огорчает, что Минюст так и не провел мероприятий по обсуждению законодательных инициатив с привлечением институтов защиты прав субъектов предпринимательской деятельности, law enforcement, деловых объединений», – заметила эксперт.

Старший партнер АБ ZKS Андрей Гривцов скептически оценил реальную возможность поправок повлиять на правоприменительную практику по избранию меры пресечения в виде заключения под стражу в отношении предпринимателей. «Такие поправки, безусловно носящие либеральную направленность и вводимые в уголовно-процессуальное законодательство с целью усилить судебный, ведомственный контроль и прокурорский надзор за расследованием уголовных дел в отношении предпринимателей, принимаются практически ежегодно. Закон с каждой поправкой все более усложняется, дополняется очередными повторами о недопустимости заключения под стражу подозреваемых, обвиняемых в совершении преступлений в сфере предпринимательской деятельности. Все эти поправки радуют адвокатский глаз и позволяют на них ссылаться при рассмотрении соответствующих ходатайств следователей. Однако на практике все упирается в голословные доводы следователя, прокурора и суда о том, что инкриминируемое преступление, предусмотренное ст. 159-160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, не относится к деяниям в сфере предпринимательской деятельности, поскольку речь идет о корыстном деянии, направленном на личное обогащение», – заметил он.

According to the lawyer, все доводы со ссылками на УПК и положения гражданского законодательства о том, что деяние совершено в рамках предпринимательской деятельности, субъектом такой деятельности, занимающим официальную управленческую должность в коммерческой организации, тотально игнорируются. «Уверен, что и с этими формально позитивными поправками практика поступит таким же образом. Рецепт один – изменения в ст. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure, согласно которым мера пресечения в виде заключения под стражу по делам о преступлениях, provided for by Art.. 159–160 УК, в принципе не может применяться, regardless of the so-called entrepreneurial or non-entrepreneurial nature of the actions. Оговорка может быть одна, которая применяется по ряду других дел о преступлениях экономической направленности: за исключением случаев, когда лицо скрылось, нарушило ранее избранную меру пресечения, не имеет постоянного или временного места жительства на территории РФ. Жизнь показывает, что с точки зрения реальной либерализации работают лишь законодательные изменения, которые устанавливают тотальный запрет на применение меры пресечения по отдельным категориям дел и не дают правоприменителю возможности выбора», – убежден Андрей Гривцов.

Советник Федеральной палаты адвокатов Нвер Гаспарян полагает, что законопроект является важным и полезным, but belated, так как он должен был вноситься примерно десять лет назад: «Сложно представить, сколько предпринимателей пострадало от разрушительных действий правоохранителей, привыкших для успешного расследования сначала добиваться избрания заключения под стражу, а затем выяснять действительные обстоятельства уголовного дела».

According to him, принципиальных отличий во внесенном в Госдуму РФ законопроекте от того, что ранее предлагался Минюстом, не имеется. «В случае принятия поправок можно предположить, что процент избраний меры пресечения в виде заключения под стражу в отношении обвиняемых, specified in h. 1 Art. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure, снизится. Let me remind you, what in 2020 y. он был 57%, and in 2021 y. – 71%. Такой сдержанный оптимизм основан на запрете заключения под стражу для такой категории лиц, предусмотренном в ч. 1 Art. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure, обязанности суда рассматривать возможность иной меры пресечения, позволяющей продолжить осуществление предпринимательской деятельности (h. 1.3 Art. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure), обязанности следователя указывать в приложенных материалах конкретные сведения, confirming, что инкриминируемое обвиняемому деяние совершено не в связи с осуществлением им предпринимательской деятельности (h. 3.1 Art. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure), а также на обязанности вышестоящих следственных руководителей и прокуроров осуществлять более строгий контроль и надзор за действиями следователя при продлении сроков содержания под стражей», – полагает советник ФПА.

По словам Нвера Гаспаряна, слабым утешением является ч. 8.4 Art. 108 УПК о том, что необходимость дальнейшего производства следственных действий не может служить единственным и достаточным основанием для продления срока содержания под стражей, поскольку аналогичная норма, имеющаяся в Постановлении Пленума ВС РФ № 41 from 19 December 2013 y. “On the practice of application by courts of legislation on preventive measures in the form of detention, house arrest, залога и запрета определенных действий» мало кого удерживала от продления сроков содержания под стражей. «Казалось бы, предлагаемые изменения должны успокоить предпринимателей и стать гарантией от их неосновательного заключения под стражу и разорения их бизнеса. Однако следует иметь в виду, что при наличии особого желания следователя и прокурора и при равнодушном отношении суда принимаемые поправки могут и не сыграть никакой роли, because, как пишет Галина Петунина-Волковская, “привычка – сильная штука, над нами берет часто верх, она утешенье и мука, а иногда просто смех”», he concluded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Other news

Share this info. Choose a social media!

pro bono consultation