The paper examines the prospects for increasing the effectiveness of this measure. The study utilizes the data on the use of confiscation of property as another measure of criminal law in Russia, as well as foreign experience in the use of confiscation of property. The author notes the alarming fact that Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is applied in 60% of cases for crimes related to violation of the rules for handling narcotic drugs, psychotropic and potent substances; given the frequency of application of the measure under study, the absence of a significant desired effect is indicated. It is noted that the confiscation of property actually performs only a «protective» function and neglects the potential preventive component. There are several shortcomings pointed out in the paper. Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation specifies a closed list of crimes. The legislation restricts the possibility of confiscating property transferred by a convicted person to another person; it is only possible if the person knew that it was obtained as a result of criminal acts; the burden of proof of the illegality of the acquisition of property is placed on government bodies. The obstacles to the return of confiscation of property to the number of punishments are examined separately. These include the experience of using confiscation as another measure of a criminal legal nature that has developed over the past few years. Some more are the possibility of confiscating property for the benefit of the state in a civil-legal manner; the negative historical experience of using confiscation of property; the absence of clearly reliable and recognized data characterizing the preventive potential of confiscation as a punishment (especially in the context of the possibility of using confiscation of property as a punishment exclusively to the guilty person). Some attention is given to the issue of positive and negative features of the regulation of confiscation of property in sectoral legislation, as well as aspects of shifting the burden of proof of the legality of the acquisition of property.
Read full abstract