Review

The article deals with the problem of the concept of «property arrest in criminal proceedings» relevant to modern science of the criminal process and law enforcement practice. The correctness of its definition is important, since it enables the law-enforcement person to understand the essence of the legal phenomenon, to lawfully apply the rule of law, to motivate the criminal procedural decision, to ensure observance of human rights and freedoms, etc.

The purpose of the article is to analyze proposed by the legislator in Part 1 of Art. 170 CPC of Ukraine the concept of «property arrest» everywhere in the prism of the achievement of domestic science in the formation of the concepts of law and on the basis of defects found in the construction of the concept under consideration, the development of his author’s scientific definition.

The author, having regard to the logic and the theory of law, critically analyzed the notion of «property arrest», which was given by the legislator in Part 1 of Art. 170 CPC. It is concluded that when considering the standards of evidence contained in the CPC as a hierarchical structure between the components of which there is a logical connection and which create a consistent system of the validity of knowledge in criminal proceedings, critics may be criticized for developing standards for the proof of a «set of grounds» and «Reasonable suspicion», set forth by the legislator in reverse order. In addition, the standard «reasonable suspicion» is proposed to apply to the arrest of property.

It is concluded that «sufficient grounds to consider» and «reasonable suspicion» are standards of proof that, as a result of the targeted activity of the prosecution party (as well as in cases provided for by the CPC of the civil plaintiff), should ensure the level of conviction that will facilitate the formation of an investigator judge or the court of confidence in the need for the arrest of property.

Based on the analysis carried out, the author’s definition of the concept of «property arrest», under which the author understands the temporary, to the cancellation under the established procedure of the CPC, the deprivation of the right of alienation, disposition and (or) use of property for which there are sufficient grounds, is imposed upon the decision of the investigating judge or court to consider that it is or can be a real proof, to be subject to special confiscation from a suspect, accused, convicted, third party, confiscation in a legal entity for the purpose of securing a civil claim, recovery from the legal entity of the unlawful gain received, possible confiscation of property, in the presence of a reasonable suspicion that the non-application of this measure will result in the concealment, disappearance, loss, damage, destruction, use, transformation, movement, sale, transfer of property.

References

1. 1. Uholovno-protsessualnyi kodeks Hruzyy [Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia] ot 09.10.2009 hoda
2. data zvernennia 14.08.2018 (in Russian).
3. Busel V T (red), Velykyi tlumachnyi slovnyk suchasnoi ukrainskoi movy [Great explanatory dictionary of modern Ukrainian language] (Irpin, Perun 2004) 1440 (in Ukranian).
4. Verkhohliad-Herasymenko O V, Zabezpechennia mainovykh prav osoby pry zastosuvanni zakhodiv kryminalno-protsesualnoho prymusu: monohrafiia [Provision of property rights of a person in the application of measures of criminal-procedural coercion: a monograph] (Kharkiv, Yurait 2012) 216 (in Ukranian).
5. Zherebkyn V E, Lohycheskyi analyz poniatyi prava [Logical analysis of the concepts of law] (Kyiv, Vyshcha shk. 1976) 150 (in Russian).
6. Pavlyshyn A A, Sliusarchuk Kh R, Standarty dokazuvannia u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Standards of Proof in Criminal Proceedings] (Lviv, Vyd-vo TzOV «Kolir PRO» 2018) 292 (in Russian).
7. Marchuk N O, Kasko V V, Kuibida R O, Khavroniuk M I, ta in, Nastilna knyha profesiinoho suddi (kryminalne provadzhennia) [Professional Judge’s Table Book (Criminal Proceedings)] (Kyiv, «Art-Dyzain» 2015) 248 (in Ukranian).
8. Harris, O’Boyle, Warbrick Law of the European Convention on Human Rights 3rd Edition (Оxford university press 2014) 1006 (in Ukranian).
9. Budylyn S L, ’Vnutrennee ubezhdenye yly balans veroiatnostei? Standarty dokazyvanyia v Rossyy y za rubezhom [Internal belief or balance of probabilities? Standards of evidence in Russia and abroad] (2014) 3 Vestnyk Vyssheho Arbytrazhnoho Suda RF 25–57; № 4 34–67 (in Russian).
10. Butenko S Yu, ’Pidstavy pozbavlennia osoby svobody pid chas dosudovoho slidstva i sudu u praktytsi Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny [The grounds for deprivation of liberty during pre-trial investigation and trial in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights] (2011) 2 Pravnychyi chasopys Donetskoho universytetu 90–97 (in Ukranian).
11. Vapniarchuk V, ’Standart kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia [Standard of criminal procedural proof] (2015) 1(80) Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy 100–112 (in Ukranian).
12. Drapkyn L Ya, ’Standarty dokazannosty y problema dostovernosty ynformatsyy po uholovnym delam [Standards of Evidence and the Problem of Reliability of Information in Criminal Cases] (1995) 4 Rossyiskyi yurydycheskyi zhurnal 98–108 (in Russian).
13. Kaplina O V, ’Pidozra u kryminalnomu provadzhenni: poniattia, oznaky, sutnist [Suspicion in criminal proceedings: concept, features, essence] (2013) 1 Yurydychnyi chasopys Natsionalnoi akademii vnutrishnikh sprav 238–242 (in Ukranian).