Providing Compensation for Harm Caused by Crime as a Task of

Criminal Intelligence and Surveillance Operations in Correction

Facilities

Aleksandr Yakovlevich Grishko

Ryazan State University named for S.A. Yesenin, Ryazan, Russian Federation

Keywords: Criminal intelligence and surveillance operations, criminal law, convicted person, compensation for harm,

victim.

Abstract: Compensation for harm caused by a crime is important in the protection of human rights. This constitutional

obligation of the state is to a certain extent ensured by the current legislation, including criminal and criminal

intelligence and surveillance legislation. The norms contained therein create the legal basis for

implementation of the corresponding constitutional norm. However, the practical execution of claims when

the convicted persons serving their sentences evidences its low level. The analysis of the criminal intelligence

and surveillance legislation allows to assert about the unused reserves. The thing, among others, is about

setting a task for the criminal intelligence and surveillance operations in the correction facilities to assistant

in compensation for the harm caused by the convicted persons as a result of the crime. The objective of the

research was to consider the process of providing compensation for harm caused by crimes as the task of the

criminal intelligence and surveillance operations in the execution of sentences in the form of imprisonment.

The following tasks can be set: identifying the reasons and conditions for a low level of compensation for

harm by the convicted persons while serving their sentences, analyzing the current criminal and criminal

intelligence and surveillance legislation, as well as foreign legislation in this area, developing specific

practical recommendations and proposals. The research methodology was based on: general scientific

methods, as well as statistical method, method of comparative jurisprudence. Based on the research results,

there were developed the proposals that make it possible to carry out compensation for harm in the conditions

of serving the sentence by the convicted persons in the form of imprisonment on a systematic basis.

1 INTRODUCTION

One of the significant norms aimed at protecting the

rights and freedoms of citizens is the constitutional

right of victims of crimes to compensation for the

damage caused (Art. 52 of the Constitution of the

Russian Federation). The importance of this

disposition could be hardly overestimated. Even

Caesar Beccaria emphasized the importance of harm

as a true measure of crime (Beccaria C., 1939).

Not resolving the issue of compensation for harm

creates among citizens the disbelief in law, in the

inability to qualitatively protect their rights, freedoms

and legitimate interests, which has an ambiguous

effect on the legal consciousness, determining any of

its transformations (Frolov A.N., 2018).

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1834-0794

Unfortunately, theory and practice do not always take

into account the rights and legitimate interests of the

property owner, as L.V. Vedernikova notes

(Vedernikova L.V., 2016). Ignoring the rights and

legitimate interests of the victim also takes place at

the conceptual level. Characterizing a new version of

the 2020 Penitentiary System Development Concept,

V. I. Seliverstov notes the addition of a new section

“Ensuring the rights and legitimate interests of

convicted persons and persons in custody” as positive

(Seliverstov V.I., 2016). At the same time, the rights

and legitimate interests of the victim of a crime and

their reflection in this concept are neglected.

The analysis of the practice of compensation for

harm by convicted persons shows its low level. This

especially relates to the stage of execution of

punishment in the form of imprisonment. If at the pre-

Grishko, A.

Providing Compensation for Harm Caused by Crime as a Task of Criminal Intelligence and Surveillance Operations in Correction Facilities.

DOI: 10.5220/0010629600003152

In Proceedings of the VII International Scientiﬁc-Practical Conference “Criminal Law and Operative Search Activities: Problems of Legislation, Science and Practice” (CLOSA 2021), pages

98-101

ISBN: 978-989-758-532-6; ISSN: 2184-9854

litigation stage the specific weight of the

compensated damage is about 30% (information of

the Main Informational Analytical Center of the

Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia: the criminal

situation for January-December 2019), at the stage of

serving the sentence, the convicted persons

compensate the claims amounts within 2.86%

annually (Report of the Federal Penitentiary Service

of Russia for 2020. Form 1. Section 8). In fact, a little

more than half of the convicted persons fulfill the

claims (Grishko A.Ya., 2017).

Considering the significant role of the criminal

enforcement institutions in the compensation for

harm by convicted persons, motivating them to work

(Mirusin N. S., 2017), it can be concluded about

necessary study of the reasons and conditions for the

low level of compensation for harm by convicted

persons while serving their sentence.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

For the purposes of the problem under consideration,

the author studied the statistical indicators of the

Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia and the Federal

Penitentiary Service of Russia that characterize the

state of affairs in the field of compensation for harm

caused by crimes by persons serving their sentence in

the form of imprisonment. The materials for the study

of this issue were also the works of the authors

dealing with this topic (Vorobyev S.M., Grunin A. G.,

2020; Rumyantsev N.V., 2018; Suchevskaya Yu. A.,

2020; Graf R.V., 2020; Bulatov B.B., Dezhnev A.A.,

2019), the results of its discussion at scientific forums

(International Interdepartmental Scientific and

Practical Round Table “Causes of economic crime:

identification, training, counteraction” dedicated to

the discussion of the textbook of Professor

Matskevich Igor Mikhailovich “Causes of Economic

Crime”, 2017).

In addition to the statistical analysis of the theory

and practice of compensation for harm caused by

crime, of the national legislation in this area (criminal

enforcement, criminal intelligence and surveillance),

the method of comparative jurisprudence was used.

The criminal legislation of the Republic of

Kazakhstan is given as a positive example.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis of the reasons and conditions for the low

level of compensation for harm by convicted persons

allows us to conclude that they are primarily due to

insufficient legal regulation of this issue. An attempt

to solve them at the sub-legal level bears no results.

Thus, for example, the obligations imposed on the

correction facilities to take measures for employment

of the convicted debtor“ in accordance with the

requirements of the Criminal Enforcement Code of

the Russian Federation” as set out in Agreement of

the Federal Bailiff Service of Russia and the Federal

Penitentiary Service of Russia No. 0001/43/01-81180

dated November 25, 2015 “On interaction of the

Federal Bailiff Service of Russia and the Federal

Penitentiary Service” (cl. 2.2.1) in no way match the

norms of the mentioned Code. The norms governing

the issues of involvement of the convicted persons in

the work (Art. 103 of the CEC of the RF), educational

work with the convicted persons (Art. 109 of the CEC

of the RF) do not point out the presence of claims of

the convicted person as mandatory for solving them.

This fully applies to criminal intelligence and

surveillance operations. The list of the criminal

intelligence and surveillance operations in the

correction facilities does not prolong the tasks of such

operations arising from Federal Law No. 144-FZ “On

criminal intelligence and surveillance operations”

dated August 12, 1995. This law provides for

identification of the property subject to confiscation

among the tasks of the criminal intelligence and

surveillance operations (Art. 2). The similar task is

included in the criminal intelligence and surveillance

operations in the correction facilities (Art, 84 of the

CEC of the RF). It is supposed that the imposition of

such obligation for the criminal intelligence and

surveillance operations in the correction facilities is

possible even within the framework of the current

criminal and criminal enforcement legislation.

This task could be solved by identifying the

convicted persons who hid property subject to

confiscation (for example, by its artificial transfer to

the ownership of another person, etc.). This

information could be brought to the attention of the

bailiffs and other servants of the correction facility,

primarily to the chiefs of detachments. The latter

could use such information provided that the issue of

termination of illegal transactions is resolved when

the legal status of the convicted person changes

(release on parole, replacement of punishment with

another more lenient punishment, etc.). The

implementation of this proposal could be one of the

constituent norms of the chapter regulating criminal

intelligence and surveillance operations in the

correction facilities offered by N.P. Gnezdova

(Gnezdova N.P., 2018).

Providing Compensation for Harm Caused by Crime as a Task of Criminal Intelligence and Surveillance Operations in Correction Facilities

The role, significance, activity of the criminal

intelligence and surveillance operations are in many

aspects determined not only by the quality of

legislation in this area, but also by other legislation,

and, first of all, by criminal, criminal procedural, and

criminal enforcement legislation.

Thus, the criminal legislation provides for

positive liability for the crime that has caused harm to

the victim (exemption from criminal liability with

damage compensation - Art. 761, 1041 of the CC of

the RF; referring to the circumstances commuting the

punishment, voluntary compensation for property

damage and moral harm - cl. “k”, P. 1, Art. 61, of the

CC of the RF, release on parole from further serving

the sentence with compensation for harm - P. 1, Art.

79 of the CC of the RF, replacement of punishment

with another more lenient punishment under the same

conditions - P. 1, Art. 80, of the CC of the RF, etc.).

The criminal procedural legislation sets forth the

criminal law and civil law procedure for

compensation for harm (P. 2, Art. 309 CPC of the

RF). The criminal enforcement legislation assessed

the acts of the convicted person on compensation for

harm as positive (P. 3, Art. 175 of the CEC of the RF).

The above evidences considerable changes the

executor applied to the sentence. This cannot but find

its reflection in scientific views. “The modern

scientific knowledge about the essence of punishment

in the 21st century is largely reduced to the study of

its restorative, punitive, corrective, educational and

preventive functions,” A.V. Shidlovsky writes

(Shidlovsky A.V., 2020).

4 CONCLUSIONS

The law-maker does not determine the claim

fulfillment by the convicted persons as a priority task

for the correction facilities.

The norms established by these laws do not

provide the most favoured treatment of compensation

for harm caused by crime. This includes, among

others, the criminal intelligence and surveillance

operations. In the author's opinion, one of the

fundamental areas in improvement of the criminal

intelligence and surveillance operations on

identification of the convicted persons who have

hidden their property from confiscation, along with

this task set out in Art. 84 of the Criminal Code of the

Russian Federation, may be a change in Art. 315 of

the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that

provides for liability for failure to comply with a court

decision. In the current version, the subject of crime

cannot be a convicted person, like any natural person.

It can be a special subject only: a government official,

a civil servant, an employee of a state or municipal

institution, a commercial or other organization.

In this case, the legislative practice of the

Republic of Kazakhstan is noteworthy. The criminal

law of this country, in contrast to Russia, establishes

liability for the similar crime of a natural person (P.

1, Art. 430 of the CC of the RF). Failure to comply

with a sentence, decision or other judicial act or an

enforcement document executed using one's official

position is attributed to a qualified criterion, and in

case of committing the acts the amount of the penalty

for which exceeds ten thousand monthly calculation

indices, or obstruction of their execution - to a

particularly qualifying criterion (P. 3 Art. 430 of the

CC of the RF). The initiation of a criminal case

according to the mentioned article creates conditions

for implementation of the criminal intelligence and

surveillance operations, including in relation to

persons serving sentences. Revision of Art. 315 of the

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the

context of Art. 430 of the Criminal Code of the

Republic of Kazakhstan will undoubtedly intensify

the criminal intelligence and surveillance operations

in the correction facilities in the study area.

The Japanese legislation cannot fail to attract

attention in this regard (Smirnova I.G., 2020). The

Criminal Code of this state contains a norm that

establishes the direct liability for avoiding

compensation for harm. According to Art. 96-11 of

the Criminal Code of Japan, the persons who hid,

destroyed, falsely alienated their property, burdened

it with non-existent debts in order to evade the forced

seizure, shall be punished with imprisonment with

forced physical labor up to two years or a fine of up

to five thousand yen.

The retrospective analysis of the criminal

enforcement legislation allows us differently to treat

Art. 67 of the CEC of the RF contained in the CEC of

the RF until 2003. According to this article, the court

could issue a ruling on the foreclosure of the property

undetected during confiscation. It is supposed that the

specified norm should be restored in the specified

law. This could strengthen a systematic approach to

the issue of compensation for harm by the convicted

persons. The author shares the position of T.I.

Belyukova regarding the establishment of the

obligation for the convicted person to compensate for

harm (Belyukova T.I., 2017). Such obligation must be

among the main obligations of the convicted persons

as provided by Art. 11 of the CEC of the RF.

The legislative task setting for the criminal

intelligence and surveillance operations in the

correction facilities concerning identifying the

CLOSA 2021 - VII INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC-PRACTICAL CONFERENCE “CRIMINAL LAW AND OPERATIVE SEARCH

ACTIVITIES: PROBLEMS OF LEGISLATION, SCIENCE AND PRACTICE”

100

property hidden from confiscation, along with the

task setting for the criminal enforcement legislation

(P. 2, Art. 1 of the CEC of the RF) in the form of

compensation for harm caused to the victim as a result

of the crime committed by including it in the

correction (P. 1, Art. 9, of the CEC of the RF), taking

into account the existence of claims when involving

the convicted persons in the work (P. 1, Art. 103, of

the CEC of the RF), determining compensation for

harm as one of the areas of educational work with the

convicted persons (P. 1, Art. 109, of the CEC of the

RF), will make it possible to compensate for harm in

the conditions of serving the sentence by the

convicted persons in the form of imprisonment on a

systematic basis. Separating this issue as an

independent chapter of the Criminal Executive Code

of the Russian Federation is also not excluded.

REFERENCES

Beccaria, C., 1939. About crimes and punishments. p. 226.

Belyukova, T.I., 2017. Some problems arising in the course

of execution of suspended service of sentence

according to Art. 82 of the CC of the RF and ways to

solve them. In Bulletin of Tomsk State University. 25.

pp. 41-46.

Bulatov, B.B., 2019. Interdiciplinary peculiarities of legal

regulation of imposition of arrest on property in the

criminal proceeding. In Bulletin of Tomsk State

University. 34. pp. 44-52.

Vedernikova, L.V., 2016. Gratuitousness as a sign of

seizure of the entrusted property. In Bulletin of Tomsk

State University. 3. pp. 13-14.

Vorobyev, S.M., 2020. Prospects of use of the QR-code in

compensation for harm by the convicted persons in the

criminal enforcement system of Russia. In Bulletin of

the Vladimir Institute. 3. p. 9.

Grishko, A.Ya., 2017. Compensation for harm causes by

crime: problem setting. In Journal Administrative Law

and Proceeding. 10. pp. 56-60.

Gnezdova, N.P., 2018. Some aspects of improvement of

criminal intelligence and surveillance operations in

correction facilities. In Journal News of the Criminal

Enforcement System. 5. pp. 13-17.

Graf, R.V., 2020. Constitutional right to compensation for

the state damage: notion and content. In Journal

Modern Law. 6. pp. 45-49.

The International Interdepartmental Scientific and Practical

Round Table “Causes of economic crime:

identification, training, counteraction” dedicated to the

discussion of the textbook of Professor Matskevich Igor

Mikhailovich “Causes of Economic Crime”, 2017. p.

272.

Mirusin, N. S., 2017. Labor in the places of confinement as

thought by convicts and servants of correction facilities.

In Journal Criminal Justice. 10. pp. 94-104.

Rumyantsev, N.V., 2018. Ensuring rights and freedoms of

citizens in the criminal intelligence and surveillance

prevention of crimes. In Journal Criminal Enforcement

System: Law, Economics, Management. 3. pp. 28-30.

Seliverstov, V. I., 2016. Changes in the criminal

enforcement policy and criminal enforcement

legislation in the sphere of imprisonment. In Bulletin of

Tomsk State University. 2. pp. 69-81.

Smirnova, I.G., 2020. Protection of property interests in

criminal proceedings of the RF and Japan: comparative

legal analysis. In Bulletin of Tomsk State University. 35.

pp. 122-126.

Suchevskaya, Yu.A., 2020. Harm as a subject of economic

criminilogy. Collection Effectiveness of criminal law,

criminological and criminal enforcement counteraction

to crime: materials of the XII of the Russian Criminal

Law Congress held on May 28-29, 2020. Erlitinform.

pp. 423-426.

Frolov, A.N., 2018. Mechanism of influence of the

transformed legal consciousness on the content and

implementation of law in today’s Russia: author's

abstract of dis. p. 32.

Shidlovsky, A.V., 2020. Philosophical basis of study of

punishment. In Journal of Belarusian State University

“Law”. 1. pp. 87-94.

Providing Compensation for Harm Caused by Crime as a Task of Criminal Intelligence and Surveillance Operations in Correction Facilities

101