Resisting Detection of Crimes Related to Narcotics, Psychotropic, Virulent and Poisonous Substances: the Concept and Essence

Abstract

The article is devoted to the issues related to an essence of resisting crime detection in general, and resisting investigation of crimes related to trafficking narcotic, psychotropic, virulent substances in particular. According to statistics for six months of the current year the number of crimes of this type amounted to 76.1% of the total number of all recorded crimes. Meanwhile, detection of such crimes committed by organized criminal groups decreased by 11.6% 2Ъ . This fact proves that participants of organized criminal activities are intensively resisting detection of crimes committed by them and related to trafficking narcotic, psychotropic, virulent substances. For successful detection and investigation of crimes at issue it is necessary to define the concept of resisting detection of a crime that remains ambiguous in criminalistical literature. In this regard, the problems discussed in this article are urgent. The author analyzes the views of eminent forensic scientists, such as V. P. Lavrov, A.F. Volynskiy, I.V. Tishutina, 5.V Dubrovin, and comes to the conclusion that until criminal proceedings are initiated, resistance to detection does not take place because a criminal case has not yet been instituted. The conduct of persons interested in preventing their criminal activities from being detected, resist to crime detection carried out by law enforcement authorities. Also, the author considers that counteraction to investigation of crimes does not end with the end of the preliminary investigation. On the contrary, such counteraction strengthens and continues until sentencing. Nevertheless, participants of organized criminal groups start to counteract to investigation from the very beginning of their criminal activities exercising it discreetly: disguise their illegal activities as legal; observe secrecy, etc. But in this case they oppose the activities of law enforcement agencies to detect offenses. When criminal proceedings are initiated against participants of organized criminal groups, counteraction takes a different form in order to prevent prosecution of a perpetrator. It may involve perjury, blackmailing and intimidating of both witnesses and investigators, threats against them till physical elimination, using corrupt ties to put pressure on an investigator, etc. Thus, counteracting crime detection amounts to an integral part of counteracting carried out by participants of organized criminal groups against law enforcement agencies dealing with crime investigation, because their leaders eventually try to prevent identification of the extent of their criminal activities and their revelations. That is the essence of counteracting investigation. To conclude, the author gives definitions of the crimes in question.