Criminal policies on confiscation of cryptocurrency in Russia, the EU, and the US

In the article the modern criminal law policy is viewed as a multidimensional socio–legal phenomenon. The author distinguishes several levels of legal policy: theoretical, directive, legislative, institutional and enforcing. The article shows that the modern stage of development of criminal law policy is characterized by strengthening of negative tendencies at all levels of development, formation, organization and implementation of criminal policy. As a result, in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation inoperative statutes and double regulations appeared, the inclusion of which in the criminal law creates confusion and leads to difficulties in law enforcement practice. Casuistry of criminal law policy is evident not only in norms of the Special part of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation, but also in the requirements of the Special part that violates the consistency of the criminal law, reduces the quality of legal rules and the effective protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens by criminal law means. In general criminal policy of Russia at the present stage has the reflective nature, because forms, means and methods of combating crime are determined spontaneously, under the pressure of circumstances, indicating a lack of scientifically proved criminal law policy.

The subject of the study is the criminal policy in the context of contradictions in the functioning of the courts.The purpose of the study is to investigate, which contradictions of criminal policy are generated by a multi-level system of courts, and which mechanisms for overcoming them in order to optimize criminal policy could be found out.The methodology. In modern conditions of diversification of methodological approaches to organizing and conducting political-legal research, it is important not to discard, but to rethink and rediscover the epistemological possibilities of the methods of classical science, especially the method of dialectical analysis.The main results and scope of the study. The use of the category "dialectical contradiction" for the purpose of studying the problems of the functioning of the courts in terms of the interpretation and application of criminal law provisions opens up new possibilities in the study of criminal and judicial policy, as well as determining the prospects for its development. In the study, the law enforcement contradictions of criminal policy refer to the relations between courts of various types and levels that develop in the course of their functioning and reflect the opposite approaches of law enforcement bodies to the interpretation and application of criminal legislation. Considering the level and type of legal proceedings, these contradictions can be summarized in the following groups: (a) between national and international courts; (b) between superior courts of the national legal system; (c) between the courts of various instances of the system of courts of general jurisdiction.The contradictions between national and international courts, emerging in the field of protection of human rights and freedoms, are an objective source of development of judicial practice and policy. The resolution of these contradictions is based on the consensus of various courts and compromise. If the position of the European Court of Human Rights does not contradict the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the state adjusts its legal practice in the direction set by the authoritative international instance by means of: (a) direct application of national legislation with due regard for the ECHR’s legal positions; (b) the application of national legislation in its constitutional interpretation by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which does not differ from the decisions and positions of the ECHR; (c) amending national legal acts in pursuance of ECHR judgments. In exceptional cases, when the position of the European Court touches upon issues of the country's constitutional identity, the contradiction between the international and national legal order is resolved by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the basis of the priority of constitutional norms.At the level of the superior national courts the contradictions are represented by the differing positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the assessment and interpretation of criminal law provisions. Such contradictions can be thought of as latent until they are not revealed in constitutional proceedings. The identification and resolution of these contradictions is the most important direction of legal policy in the country; it reflects the consistent solution of the aim of constitutionalization of the criminal law.At the level of the system of courts of general jurisdiction, the concept of "contradiction" can only be applied to those differing approaches of the courts to solving criminal cases that do not go beyond the rule of law. Contradictions arise only when, having correctly established the factual circumstances of the case, the courts disagree in the choice of the legal provision to be applied, although any such choice can be explained and motivated. These contradictions may or may not be related to the quality of criminal legislation. Therefore, the mechanism for their resolution includes not only law revision. It is important to use the capabilities of the judicial system itself to develop a consensual understanding of the textual content of the criminal law and the rules for its application.Conclusions. Overcoming the contradictions of the judicial criminal policy is possible only in the process of communication and dialogue between the courts of different levels on the basis of differentiation of jurisdiction, respect for authority and independence.

The article aims at describing and analyzing drug policy and drug control in relation to Nordic criminal policy and criminal law policy. The background of the analysis is a remarkable inconsistency between, on the one hand, Nordic criminal policy in general and, on the other hand, drug control policy. The general criminal policy requires rationality and humanism, accentuating the importance of limiting penal solutions to cases where this is ultimo ratio. A limited use of imprisonment and a low incarceration rate have long been considered to be essential goals in themselves. But for drug policy we can observe a quite opposite attitude. Drugs must be strongly combated, and the means are primarily penal. The core questions to be examined in this article are how this inconsistency has come about and what the consequences of these two opposite attitudes are. The article begins with a description of how the drug policy has developed. Use of drugs was for a long time defined as an individual, medicinal or social problem. But since the beginning of the 1960s, drug use has been considered to be a crime problem, often as the most serious one. Afterwards a short description will be given of how penal legislation, rules of criminal procedure, and crime control have changed in order to achieve a more effective combat of drug crimes. Finally the present situation is described and analyzed from the perspective of whether it can be considered as a sound drug policy, a sound criminal policy, and sound criminal law policy to use imprisonment as extensively as it is done in the area of drug control. Is it rational and is it just to fill the prisons with drug offenders to the extent it is presently done?

The author examines the influence of criminal policy on the formation of criminal proceedings measures of protection or rights and interests of citizens in the fight against crime. The leading role of criminal policy in the formation and imple-menting of the criminal proceedings policy is shown in the article. On the basis of the juridical content of the lawful politics the author is coming to the conclusion that one can judge about the content of the criminal proceedings policy of the state using the legislatively formulated principles of criminal proceedings. Such policy shows the attitude of the state power to the fight against criminal violations of the interests of individual, society and state, to the proceedings methods and measures of such fight and also to the guarantees against unfounded prosecution and conviction of citizens. First of all the implementation of the criminal proceedings policy depends on the level of the lawful awareness of the law enforcement recipients.

The trend of industrial development in todays’ life has, unfortunately, led to irreversible environmental damages which mainly caused by human being. As such, a large number of legislators around the globe are trying to execute effective criminal policies to control and manage these damages. In spite of politicians’ attempts in preventing ecological damages, their criminal policies are sometimes influenced by general population, which we called it “populism in criminal policy”. Populist policies are normally emotional, incompetent, and unprofessional. They also have a great impact on inflation in criminal policies. Criminal populist policies are not designed to discover the root of crime. If fact, these policies tries to reject the elitist policies in order to content public interest by decisive and rapid responses. Taking the above into account, this article aims to investigate the populist policies in criminal environmental policy in Europe and Iran in order to demonstrate that these policies are not always designed to follow the primary goals of penal policy.

Ideological trends in the criminal policy of the Nordic countries since the 1960s are analysed. Although criminal policy in these countries is not unified, one can argue for the existence of a 'Scandinavian criminal policy' characterized by several common features concerning historical tradition, intensive cooperation and a similar approach to crime prevention and control. The following trends and characteristics are examined in some detail: the cycle from criticism of the treatment ideology to a reappraisal of the role of the criminal justice system and the function of penal sanctions; the differentiation of criminal policy strategies (e.g. social and situational crime prevention, cost-benefit thinking, criminal law policy, sanctions policy). Discernible tendencies towards more unified or, at least, more harmonized criminal policies on the international and European level are also examined. Active participation in this developmental process is encouraged to ensure that the fundamental principles of Scandinavian criminal policy are properly utilized.

Criminal policy may be assessed in a framework that is defined by the logical basic elements of crime. These are the motivated and able offender, the victim or target, and control. It is only in certain combinations of these three elements that a crime can take place, and criminal policy addresses one or several of these elements. The objectives of criminal policy are defined being fourfold: 1) to minimise tha social costs of crime; 2) to minimise the costs of crime control; 3) to distribute these costs; and 4) to do this in a fair manner. It is such considerations that are to be accounted for if knowledge-based criminal policy is to be defined and implemented. In real-life terms, this is rarely being done comprehensively. Criminal policy is, in contrast, often simplistically understood as „fighting crime“, i.e. in terms of warfare. Today, criminal policy requires careful consideration in particular because both crimes and their environment are undergoing rapid change. This puts decision-making in a particularly demanding situation and accentuates the need for valid knowledge of the situation. Therefore, there is great need of updated research on old and new forms of crime, and such research should address all central elements of crime. The near future of criminal policy is much influenced by financial crisis. This creates high demands for a more consciously knowledge-based and better quality crime control. The near future may see both positive and negative developments, the negative ones being more likely if criminal policy is not made in a responsible and comprehensive manner. The alternative of a „positive“ criminal policy is suggested as a utopian but achievable goal. Key Words: crime, criminal policy, future

Introduction. The article attempts to determine the factors that influenced the decriminalization of modern criminal law policy in taxation and its degree of influence on the state of tax discipline and tax security in general. The article analyzes the impact of changes in criminal legislation, the need for which was indicated in the Messages of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly in 2023 and 2024 on the financial security of the state in two aspects: 1) the hierarchical relationship between criminal policy and criminal policy in taxation; 2) the relationship between criminal policy in taxation and fiscal policy. Particular attention is paid to the impact of changes in certain norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on tax crimes in the direction of decriminalization of legislation on tax crime indicators.Materials and methods. When writing the article, general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, logical method) and private legal methods (legal modeling, legal forecasting, legal statistics) were used.Research results. Analysis of recent changes in criminal legislation made it possible to clarify the significance of current criminal legal policy in the tax sphere, as well as in the structure of national security and financial stability of the state.Discussion and conclusion. Criminal legal policy in taxation is a dynamic phenomenon based on: 1) the organic application of the “criminalization decriminalization” approach in combination with other coercive measures provided for by tax and administrative legislation; 2) identifying the causesand patterns underlying criminal acts. Tax security, ensured by effective tax control and enforcement in the tax sphere, makes it possible to mitigate criminal legal policies in taxation. The main factors influencing criminal tax policy include the parameters of budget and tax policy, the efficiency of tax administration, including digitalization.The article analyzes the hierarchical relationship between the concepts of "criminal policy" "criminal policy in the field of ensuring national security" – "criminal policy in the field of ensuring economic security" – "criminal policy in ensuring financial security" – "criminal policy in the financial and budgetary sphere" "criminal policy in taxation". The factors that influenced the decriminalization of criminal law policy in taxation, such as the parameters and directions of budget and tax policy, the level of tax administration, have been identified.

Scandinavian countries, individually and collectively, have offered a progressive perspective on crime problems. Discontent with a treatment/punishment dichotomy current policy is one of prevention oriented rationality which focuses both on offenders and criminogenic social conditions. The system's response has moral and ethical implications for crime control, important in itself for crime prevention. The thrust is toward a criminal policy that relies on alternative responses external to the criminal justice system and that de-emphasizes the repressive nature of sanctions. Ask anyone, lay person or professional, where the most progressive, innovative, and humane criminal justice policy is and the answer will most likely be Scandinavia. There is a mystique about Scandinavia that pervades the academic and popular press regarding correctional methods and philosophies. For decades Scandinavian criminal justice policy has been a source of comparison, information, and direction. In 1966, Norvall Morris wrote an...

The authors turn to the study of such a concept as "criminal policy", applying this term to the field of education. It is noted that criminal policy is a multifaceted phenomenon that should be considered from different points of view. Firstly, criminal policy is the proclaimed state policy (doctrine) of combating crime, which is reflected in the current regulatory legal acts of the state. Secondly, criminal policy is a scientific doctrine (theory), which is a set of legal, sociological, political, economic, ideological and other knowledge about countering criminally punishable acts. Thirdly, criminal policy is a special type of activity aimed at actively countering crime and other criminogenic antisocial manifestations. The authors identify the following levels of implementation of criminal policy in the fi eld of education: federal, regional and local. According to the researchers the criminal policy in the fi eld of education consists of several directions: the legislative direction, which improves the criminal and criminal-judicial legislation defi ning persons guilty of committing crimes in the fi eld of education, as well as determining the procedure for their punishment; the criminal-executive direction, which is associated with the execution of court convictions and the re-socialization of persons who have served their sentences; and the preventive direction, which is focused on taking measures to prevent crimes committed in the educational environment. In conclusion it is concluded that the criminal policy in the fi eld of education should be understood as the activity of the state aimed at maintaining the eff ective functioning of the institute of education by improving criminal, penal enforcement and criminal procedure legislation, clarifying the procedure for applying established norms and ensuring their high-quality and eff ective execution, carried out at the federal, regional and local levels by methods, means and in the forms of, correlated with the administrative and economic resources of the state and the infl uence on the internal policy of the state of the world community.

There is no such thing as Islamic political philosophy; however, multiple political philosophies can be described as Islamic (i.e., attributed to Islam). Some concepts, including Islamic political philosophy, are inherently meaningless and lack theoretical coherence, just as terms like Eastern or Western political philosophy lack a consistent scientific foundation. When addressing topics such as indigenous criminal policy, indigenous criminology, or indigenous philosophy from a non-ideological perspective that focuses on the ontology and essence of scientific and philosophical concepts, these concepts cannot be granted an independent identity. Science, meta-science, and philosophy possess a singular, systematic essence that remains unchanged across time and geography; classifying them based on these variables constitutes a methodological error. However, examining these concepts from different perspectives—including religious, political, or specific theoretical viewpoints—can yield varying interpretations. In the field of criminal policy, if regional interpretations of Islamic political philosophy are taken as the interpretive standard, then criminal policy as a scientific discipline becomes distorted. This leads to the emergence of concepts such as "Islamic criminal policy" or "religious criminal policy," which lack genuine scientific foundations. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this article demonstrates that attempts to prove the existence of an Islamic criminal policy or an independent Islamic political philosophy distinct from universal scientific foundations are epistemologically flawed and futile. Furthermore, the incorporation of specific Islamic doctrines into criminal policy has resulted in the emergence of deviant criminal policies that not only fail to contribute to the scientific advancement of the field but also exacerbate its deviation. Thus, this article concludes that criminal policy should be based on scientific and methodological principles, and efforts to link it to Islamic political philosophy lack theoretical and practical justification.

The policy-making process in the field of criminal law is a highly complex process. Most governments have reacted to criminal phenomena based on their own interests. The response to criminal events is closely related to the culture and norms prevailing in each country. Criminal policy, which essentially examines the reactions of governing bodies to criminal phenomena, can contribute to the objectives of criminal law, namely the rehabilitation and education of criminals and the provision of justice in society. This research raises questions about what criminal policy is, which pillars it is based on, and which model of criminal policy can be suitable for addressing criminal events. The assumption is that criminal policy refers to the government or governing body's response to criminal phenomena. The pillars of criminal policy include legislative criminal policy, judicial criminal policy, executive criminal policy, and participatory criminal policy, and the best model of criminal policy is the liberal model. The main objective of this research is to achieve a unified and accepted concept of criminal policy, and its secondary objectives involve identifying the pillars and models of criminal policy. In this study, the analytical-descriptive method is employed, and library resources, scientific articles, and reputable journals are utilized. The most significant obstacle faced in this research is the lack of resources in the field of criminal policy in Afghanistan.

This study identifies the existing capacities and challenges within Iran’s criminal policy regarding the prevention of criminal activities related to virtual currencies. In this regard, legislative criminal policy—emphasizing the development of comprehensive and transparent regulations; judicial criminal policy—focusing on specialized judicial training and the establishment of dedicated branches; executive criminal policy—highlighting the supervision of law enforcement and financial institutions; and participatory criminal policy—promoting cooperation among the public, media, and private sector are examined. Furthermore, types of prevention, including social, situational, and criminal prevention, are analyzed within the framework of these four policy areas, and effective, integrated solutions are proposed to enhance the efficiency of the preventive system. The present study employs a descriptive–analytical research method. First, by using library resources and legal documents, the theoretical foundations and the current legal status are reviewed. Then, through comparative and critical analysis, the strengths and weaknesses of Iran’s criminal policy in addressing cryptocurrency-related crimes are identified. Finally, targeted corrective and preventive recommendations are presented. The findings reveal that Iran’s criminal policy in the field of virtual currencies lacks the necessary coherence and comprehensiveness and remains predominantly reactive rather than preventive. The novelty of this study lies in presenting a four-pronged prevention model—legislative, judicial, executive, and participatory—which integrates all dimensions of prevention while considering the specific characteristics and risks associated with financial technologies. This model can serve as a practical framework for reforming Iran’s criminal policy and transitioning toward an efficient, coordinated, and future-oriented preventive system against crimes related to virtual currencies.

The subject of this study is to examine the Iranian criminal policy approach to drug crimes in different aspects of legislative, judicial and executive matters. One of the major issues studied in medical law, crimes and drug offenses, peripheral issues, and its effects and outcomes. Countering and rational prevention of drug crimes is not possible without understanding and understanding the concept of criminal policy and their types. One of the dimensions of this policy is the formulation of criminal law and support for community health and the fight against high-risk behaviors against the health of the community. Instead of trying to eliminate the disadvantages of the criminal policy of drug crimes, Iran's criminal policy, more than anything else, seeks to eliminate the goals of the criminal policy of drug crime. Finding the causes and causes of drug production, distribution, import and export disturbances, relying on criminal policy related to drug crimes in the criminal justice system, changing the police force structure and forming a special drug police crime is one of the objectives of this research. The findings of this study indicate that Iran's criminal policy is low in drug offenses and its shortcomings. It also states that the Iranian criminal policy approach to combating drug offenses is a punishable, degrading and preventive approach while criminal policy must first and foremost be designed and planned for the long term.

This article examines Iran's criminal policy regarding economic crimes. The present research was conducted using a descriptive and analytical method. The expansion of economic crimes has hindered the government’s achievement of national objectives in the domain of economic security. Iran’s economic environment, due to numerous vulnerabilities, creates a more conducive ground for committing economic crimes compared to advanced economic systems. However, Iran’s criminal policy, especially its penal policy, lacks specific measures to address this category of crimes. Due to the absence of a structured penal policy, the generalization of economic crime instances, insufficient coverage of economic crimes, and the lack of specific criteria to distinguish these crimes from other offenses, this concept benefits actual economic criminals more than it does the legal system and society’s citizens. Findings indicate that Iran's criminal policy regarding economic crimes faces numerous challenges. Among the most fundamental challenges and ambiguities are the lack of a comprehensive and precise definition of the concept and purpose of economic crimes, the breadth of cases due to leniency in judicial approaches, the flawed adoption of penal policies and the degree of their appropriateness and effectiveness, the absence of a clear definition of economic crimes, multiple legislative bodies in the field of economic crimes, pluralism in judicial criminal policy, populist penal approaches in dealing with economic crimes, the absence of a cohesive and unified criminal policy, and the security-oriented nature of criminal policy in economic crimes. These are among the current challenges and issues in Iran's criminal policy regarding economic crimes.