Incautación de bienes: Oposición a la investigación de delitos y a la ejecución de la sentencia

Autores/as

  • Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO-University). Moscow (Russian Federation) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2023-3771
  • Inna Valerievna Tishutina Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation named by V.YA. Kikot. Moscow (Russian Federation) https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2445-0877
  • Yulia Lvovna Dyablova Tula State University. Tula (Russian Federation) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9981-1879
  • Valeriia Valerievna Artemova Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation named by V.YA. Kikot. Moscow (Russian Federation) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4040-7599
  • Sergey Alexandrovich Khmelev Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation named by V.YA. Kikot. Moscow (Russian Federation) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7671-8743

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17981/juridcuc.18.1.2022.09

Palabras clave:

incautación de bienes, medidas de coerción procesal, oposición a la investigación de delitos, oposición a la ejecución de la sentencia

Resumen

Los autores estudian las cuestiones procesales, organizativas y tácticas relacionadas con la incautación de bienes para superar la oposición a la investigación y la ejecución de la sentencia. La relevancia de este artículo se confirma por el hecho de que en las últimas décadas, el sistema de formas y métodos de dicha oposición a favor de los sospechosos, acusados y otras personas tiende a expandirse, y cualquier laguna en la regulación procesal o en el apoyo organizativo y táctico para la investigación de los delitos se utiliza con fines delictivos. Además, los autores, considerando la incautación de bienes como un medio para superar la oposición a la investigación y ejecución de la sentencia, ofrecen recomendaciones destinadas a minimizarla. El artículo afirma que el fundamento de la incautación de bienes implica un conjunto de pruebas conducentes a indicar que un delito ha causado un daño determinado, o que un sospechoso o acusado ha cometido un acto que prevé la posibilidad de aplicación de sanciones patrimoniales. A partir de los resultados obtenidos, los autores concluyen que la incautación de bienes tiene un carácter preventivo y cautelar, que consiste en suprimir la intención del sospechoso (acusado) dirigida a ocultar, vender o enajenar ilegalmente bienes, dinero, valores y otros objetos de valor con el fin de evitar la incautación de estos objetos.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO-University). Moscow (Russian Federation)

Doctor of Law, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO-University) (Moscow, Russian Federation). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2023-
3771

Inna Valerievna Tishutina, Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation named by V.YA. Kikot. Moscow (Russian Federation)

Doctor of Law, Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia named by V.Ya. Kikot (Moscow, Russian Federation). https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2445-0877

Yulia Lvovna Dyablova, Tula State University. Tula (Russian Federation)

Ph.D. in Law, Institute of Law and Management, Tula State University (Tula, Russian Federation). https:// orcid.org/0000-0002-9981-1879

Valeriia Valerievna Artemova, Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation named by V.YA. Kikot. Moscow (Russian Federation)

Ph.D. in Law, Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia named by V.Ya. Kikot (Moscow, Russian Federation). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4040-7599

Sergey Alexandrovich Khmelev, Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation named by V.YA. Kikot. Moscow (Russian Federation)

Ph.D. in Law, Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia named by V.Ya. Kikot (Moscow, Russian Federation). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7671-8743

Citas

Arshba, G. V. (2004). Seizure of property: Training manual. [Dissertation]. Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, Moscow. Available: https://lawtheses.com/nalozhenie-aresta-na-imuschestvo-v-ugolovnom-sudoproizvodstve

Basedeo, V. (2009). The Constitutional Validity of Search and Seizure Powers in South African Criminal Procedure. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 12(4), 306–331. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2009/v12i4a2747

Buldakova, V. K. (2015). The role of the investigator (interrogator) in ensuring compensation for harm caused by the crime. Bulletin of the Tyumen Institute for Advanced Studies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 1(4), 79–85. Available from https://mvd.ru/upload/site151/doc/arhiv/Vestnik_TIPK_MVD14_2015.pdf

Björn, G. [Ed.] (2012). Criminal Procedure Code of the Federal Republic of Germany. 2 ed. Moscow: Prospect.

Ionov, V. A. (2010). Seizure of property in the course of preliminary investigation in criminal cases of economic crimes. [Thesis degree]. Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, Novgorod, Russia. Available: https://www.iuaj.net/node/385

Ivanov, A. N. & Lapin, E. S. (2007). Seizure of property in criminal proceedings. Moscow: Yurlitinform.

Kelly, B. D. (2015). Further Results Concerning the Effects of Asset Forfeiture on Policing. Social Science Research Network. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2647629

Kochan, D. J. (1998). Reforming Property Forfeiture Laws to Protect Citizens’ Rights: Why and How to Curtail Abuses of Laws that Permit Private Property Seizures. [Research Paper No. 08-04]. Orange: Mackinac Center for Public Policy Report/Chapman University Law. Available: https://ssrn.com/abstract=928737

Kokoreva, L. V. & Lavrova, O. N. (2016). Seizure of property. The procedure for assessing the property located in the home of the suspect, the accused, immediately at the time of the investigative action: guidelines. Staroteryaevo: Moscow Regional Branch of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia named after V.Ya.

Kovriga, Z. F. & Lyutikov, N. E. (1975). Criminal procedural compulsion. Voronezh: Voronezh State University.

Nguyen, V. T., Pushkarev, V. V., Tokareva, E. V., Makeev, A. V. & Shepeleva, O. R. (2021). Compensation for Damage Caused by a Crime in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Russian Federation. Jurnal Cita Hukum-Indonesian Law Journal, 9(2), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.15408/jch.v9i2.21738

Pushkarev, V. V., Artemova, V. V., Ermakov, S. V., Alimamedov, E. N. & Popenkov, A. V. (2020). Criminal prosecution of persons, who committed criminal, acts using the сryptocurrency in the Russian Federation. Revista San Gregorio, 42, 330–335. Available: https://revista.sangregorio.edu.ec/index.php/REVISTASANGREGORIO/article/view/1566

Pushkarev, V. V., Poselskaya, L. N., Skachko, A. V., Tarasov, A. V. & Mutalieva, L. S. (2021). Criminal Prosecution of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in The Banking Sector. Cuestiones Políticas, 39(69), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3969.25

Pustovaya, I. N. (2012). Seizure of property as a means of securing a civil claim. Socium and Power, 6(38), 72–76. Available from http://siv74.ru/images/downloads/arhiv-nomerov/2012/6_2012.pdf

Republic of Azerbaijan. (July 14, 2000). Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic. [Law No. 907-IQ]. Available: https://www.legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/43/Azerbaijan/show

Republic of Kazakhstan. (July 4, 2014). Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. [Law No. 231-V]. Available: https://www.legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/21/Italy/show

R. F. State Duma. (November 22, 2001). The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. [УПК РФ]. No. 174-FZ. Available: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/901802257

R. F. State Duma. (June 13, 1996). The Criminal Code of The Russian Federation. [УК РФ]. No. 63-FZ. Available: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/9017477

R.F. Ministry of Internal Affairs. Department of Internal Affairs for Central Administrative District. Investigation Department. (2018). Materials of the criminal. [Case No. 267912].

R.F. Ministry of Internal Affairs. Department of Internal Affairs for Central Administrative District. Investigation Department. (2017). Materials of the criminal. [Case No. 362927].

R. F. Ministry of Internal Affairs. Department of Internal Affairs for Central Administrative District. Investigation Department. (2014). Materials of the criminal. [Case No. 749254].

Tutynin, I. B. (2005). Seizure of property as a measure of criminal procedural compulsion. [Dissertation thesis]. Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia. Available: https://www.dissercat.com/content/nalozhenie-aresta-na-imushchestvo-kak-mera-ugolovno-protsessualnogo-prinuzhdeniya

Vdovtsev, P. V. & Karkoshko, Yu. S. (2015). Seizure of property in criminal cases in the light of the positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Investigation of crimes: problems and solutions, 1(7), 69–70. Available: http://www.unity-dana.ru/magazines/rassledovanie-prestupleniy-problemy-i-puti-ikh-resheniya-sbornik-nauchno-prakticheskikh-trudov/

Yutkina, S. M. & Rostovshchikova, O. V. (2012). On the seizure of property as a measure of criminal procedural compulsion: history, theory, practice. Bulletin of the Volgograd Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 4(23), 144–156. Available: http://va-mvd.ru/vestnik/arhiv/23.pdf

Publicado

2022-01-15

Cómo citar

Ivanov, D. A., Tishutina, I. V., Dyablova, Y. L., Artemova, V. V., & Khmelev, S. A. (2022). Incautación de bienes: Oposición a la investigación de delitos y a la ejecución de la sentencia. JURÍDICAS CUC, 18(1), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.17981/juridcuc.18.1.2022.09