Confiscation of property for committing crimes against the security of the state
Authors:   Association of Lawyers of Russia, Dolgiev Magomed M. ,   APC Dolakovsky
Published: December 2024

In this article, the author examines the latest changes in criminal and criminal procedure legislation in terms of clarifying responsibility for crimes against the security of the Russian Federation, strengthening responsibility for such actions committed for selfish motives or for hire, as well as motivated by hatred or enmity. The mechanism of confiscation of money, valuables and other property introduced in order to suppress the financing of these crimes is analyzed. Despite the justification for the confiscation of property by the need to protect the security of the state, this decision, as set out in the Federal Law, is rather politically motivated rather than based on legal necessity, since the mechanisms for the seizure of money, valuables and other property, as well as tools and means of committing a crime, have long been regulated and do not raise questions from law enforcement officers. The methodological basis of the research is the application of general and special scientific methods of cognition, including historical and formal legal ones. The author concludes that the confiscation of the property of persons who committed crimes against the security of the Russian Federation is a categorical act of demonstrating the negative attitude of the state authorities towards the subject of the crime and the desire to maximize his responsibility. However, the desire to show political will can have negative consequences for the doctrine of law and the legal system as a whole. The institution of confiscation of property does not imply a formal (unsubstantiated) decision on the confiscation of any property indicated by the preliminary investigation body or the prosecutor, but only that which was actually used by the guilty person in the commission of a crime. If we are talking about financing activities directed against the security of the State, then within the framework of criminal proceedings, the participation of certain property in such financing must be proved, which also cannot be applied to a formal approach. The evidence of the participation of any property in the commission of a crime must be indisputable. Devaluation of the institution of confiscation in favor of political motives is unacceptable, despite all the fair aspects of such motives. According to the author’s conclusions, the lack of judicial practice in cases of this category will prevent the full application of the property confiscation mechanism, since the composition of such crimes forms the dissemination of information; accordingly, the instruments of crime will have to be seized first of all, and more compelling reasons are needed for the seizure of real estate, land and cars, and such grounds cannot be the information itself which the state will consider discreditable and dangerous. In this regard, the rules on confiscation of property imposed for committing anti-state crimes, as well as for “fakes about the army” are premature and disproportionate to the accumulated legal experience.