King of the special services.

[Матушкин Андрей Николаевич]

König der besonderen Dienste. Wann und wie wird es in Russland eine einzige Konsequenz geben?

Julia Taratuta darüber, was eine einzelne Untersuchung ist und was sie alle Strafverfolgungsbehörden bedroht.

Bei den nächsten Wahlen - bis 2016 - wird das Ergebnis in Russland dasselbe sein. Diese Nachricht im Februar brachte den Chef der staatlichen Drogenkontrolle Viktor Ivanov. Es wurde sogar ein Zeitplan für die Vereinigung der Sicherheitskräfte unter einem Dach erstellt.

Mikhail Vinogradov, Politikwissenschaftler: Am Tag von Stalins Tod erklärt Putin die Notwendigkeit, die Kontrolle zu stärken. Es scheint ziemlich logisch: den großen Bruder, der dich beobachtet, das Gerät zu beobachten und so weiter.

Seit vielen Jahren wird über einen einzigen Untersuchungsausschuss gesprochen. Das Schema ist einfach. Jede der Strafverfolgungsbehörden - das Innenministerium, das FSB, das Gosnarkontrol und der Generalstaatsanwalt - wird von ihrem Ermittlungspersonal abgeladen und arbeitet in einer gemeinsamen Registrierkasse. Sie überlassen sich eine Kleinigkeit - eine Funktion der Untersuchung. Es bleibt zu entscheiden, wo der gemeinsame Fonds gespeichert werden soll.

Menschenrechtsaktivisten sagen, dass dies eine gute Sache ist. Die Konzentration der Suche und Untersuchung an einem Ort ist ein sowjetisches Relikt. Dies führt zu einer Eskalation der Unterdrückung. Staatsbeamte halten es für unzulässigen Luxus, so viele Konsequenzen für das Ministerium zu haben. Befürworter einer einzelnen Untersuchung befürworten, dass die Untersuchung keine Abteilungsinteressen hat. Aber der Teufel steckt in politischen Details.

2007 erschien der Untersuchungsausschuss in der mächtigen Generalstaatsanwaltschaft. Vor zwei Jahren erlangte das Ei nicht nur die Souveränität, sondern wuchs auch völlig über das Huhn hinaus. Das von Alexander Bastrykin angeführte Vereinigte Königreich hat die Generalstaatsanwaltschaft von Yuri Chaika unterdrückt und versucht, das Eigentum zu erweitern.

Da die Generalstaatsanwaltschaft das Rennen verlassen hatte, konnte das Innenministerium den Status eines einzigen Ermittlungsdaches beanspruchen. Aber jetzt wehren die polizeilichen Ermittlungen Angriffe von Angreifern ab. Das einheitliche Untersuchungskomitee plant, eine Aufenthaltserlaubnis in der Abteilung Bastrykin zu erhalten. Das Innenministerium hat seine Untersuchung vom Ausschuss umsichtig in Abteilung umbenannt. Erinnerung an territoriale Integrität.

Mikhail Vinogradov, Politikwissenschaftler: Wenn ein einzelnes Ermittlungsgremium monopolisiert wird, entsteht ein Konflikt, etwa in Bezug auf das Verhältnis des Untersuchungsausschusses und der Staatsanwaltschaft. Letzterer ist nicht ganz klar, was er tut. Und ihr Hardwarestatus ist dramatisch gesunken. Weder das Innenministerium noch das FSB oder die staatliche Drogenkontrollabteilung wollen das Schicksal der Abteilung von Yuri Chaika wiederholen.

Ende letzten Jahres nahm der zukünftige Superorgan sogar Gestalt an. Kreml-Dokumente zur Verbesserung der Voruntersuchungsstellen sind zahlreich: Der Bundesdienst für Drogenkontrolle delegiert zweitausend Menschen an den Untersuchungsausschuss, das Innenministerium - 35.000. Dem Untersuchungsausschuss stehen 100 zusätzliche Kompositionen zu. Analysten des Innenministeriums berechneten schnell: Dies sind fast 2 Millionen Strafsachen, die jedes Jahr untersucht werden, plus 15 Millionen Fälle, in denen die Ermittlungen ausgesetzt wurden. Die Belastung des Ermittlers einer einzelnen Stelle erhöht sich von 8,5 Fällen pro Person auf 35. Zusätzliches Geld und Supermacht werden benötigt. Nach den konservativsten Schätzungen - 97 Milliarden Rubel. Der Beginn des Vereins ist 2013.

Alexander Khinshtein, Stellvertreter: Wir erschaffen gerade ein neues Monster, neben dem das Untersuchungskomitee wie ein Babygespräch auf dem Rasen aussehen wird. Es versteht sich, dass die Grundlage des Untersuchungsausschusses die Staatsanwälte waren - diejenigen Personen, die über eine bestimmte Ausbildung und Schulung verfügten, aber um ehrlich zu sein, war das berufliche Niveau in der Staatsanwaltschaft immer hoch. Die Grundlage eines einzigen Untersuchungsausschusses, wie aus dem Gesetzestext hervorgeht, sollte von den Ermittlern des Innenministeriums festgelegt werden. Die Qualität und das Niveau können natürlich nicht mit der Staatsanwaltschaft und dem heutigen IC verglichen werden. Der Gesetzentwurf in der Form, in der er zur Rückmeldung an verschiedene Abteilungen gesendet wurde, löst kein weiteres entscheidendes Problem: die Stärkung der Aufsicht durch die Staatsanwaltschaft.

Aber der Präsident hielt die Pferde. Es wird angenommen, dass sich das Innenministerium selbst vor der Absorption bewahrt hat, indem es es buchstäblich an den Haaren aus dem Wasser gezogen hat. Es sind Ermittler der Polizei, die schnell den hochkarätigen Fall Oboronservis entwickelten, Diebstähle im GLONASS-System und bürokratischen Diebstahl bei der APEC entdeckten.

Nach einer anderen Version funktionierte der Speichermodus. Die Ermittler des Innenministeriums sind im Prinzip teurer als ihre Kollegen aus Großbritannien: Umzug ist immer eine Verschwendung, und die Beschäftigung von zehntausend ehemaligen Ermittlern des Innenministeriums, die nicht in den Ausschuss aufgenommen werden, ist eine zusätzliche Entschädigung, Renten und ein Sozialpaket. Die Interessengruppen bereiten jetzt einen neuen Business Case vor.

Im Terrarium des Siloviki pflegen Informationsgeschenke von Bastrykin selbst. Der britische Chef kauft entweder Immobilien in der Tschechischen Republik oder bringt Journalisten in den Wald.

Alexander Khinshtein, Stellvertreter: Ich muss sagen, dass die Abteilungen selbst mit Ausnahme des Untersuchungsausschusses nicht sehr begeistert waren. Es gibt eine offiziell erklärte Position des Innenministeriums, des Drug Control Service. Die Position des FSB ist etwas anders: Zunächst haben sie Einwände erhoben, dann waren sie sich einig, sofern ihnen die Formulierungen des Strafgesetzbuchs zugewiesen werden, die sie heute untersuchen. Aber dann geht das Wesen und die Idee, eine einzige Konsequenz zu schaffen, verloren.

Das Hauptargument ist jedoch politisch. Wer hat eine Konsequenz - dass man Macht hat, sagt die Weisheit der Strafverfolgungsbehörden. Strafsachen sind das Hauptinstrument im Zeitalter des staatlichen Kampfes gegen Korruption. Ein universeller Hauptschlüssel hilft bei der Auswahl eines Mandats, eines Unternehmens oder sogar eines Zepter, wenn ein Fall gegen Mitglieder eines Wettbewerbsteams eingereicht wird.

Putin hatte es nie eilig, ein Ermittlungsmonster zu erschaffen. Und der Untersuchungsausschuss ist bereits politisch gefährlich “, erinnern sich die Sprecher des Generalstaatsanwalts wachsam. Unkontrolliert und finanziell für niemanden rechenschaftspflichtig. Der politische Status entspricht dem der Präsidialverwaltung, der rechtliche Status dem einer ausländischen Botschaft, in die der Fuß eines anderen nicht treten kann.

Mikhail Vinogradov, Politikwissenschaftler: Es reicht aus, die Memoiren über die Verschwörung gegen Beria zu erheben, um zu sehen, dass das emotionale Gefühl, dass er zu viel auf sich genommen hat und zu viel bereit ist, die interessantesten Koalitionen erzeugt, obwohl diese Tage friedlicher sind als Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Daher besteht die Sorge, dass jemand Monopolist wird. Und solch ein gewisser Wettbewerb mit all seinen Kontroversen in Bezug auf das Ergebnis - die Überwindung der Korruption - stärkt die föderalen und regionalen Spaltungen dieser Strukturen und gibt ihnen die Möglichkeit, sich nicht zu entspannen. Die Schaffung einer großen Ermittlungsstruktur wird zur Entstehung eines Monopolisten führen, der beginnt, jeden für sich selbst zu vernichten, einige zweite Personen aus der obersten Führung des Landes anzugreifen oder zu einer amorphen Struktur wird, die nichts benötigt.

Die Ankündigung einer einzigen Untersuchung ist in der Tat eine Nachricht, dass der Prozess eingefroren ist. Die staatliche Drogenkontrolle sollte als erste ihre Untersuchung an die allgemeine Kasse übergeben, dies wird jedoch nicht früher als 2015 geschehen. Der Rest der Sicherheitskräfte wird erst 2016 Opfer bringen. Und davor müssen wir leben. Auf freiem Fuß.

[DLMURL = "https://tvrain.ru/articles/korol_spetssluzhb_kogda_i_kak_v_rossii_pojavitsja_edinoe_sledstvie-338326/"] https://tvrain.ru/articles/korol_spetssl ... ie-338326 / [/

 

[Хагани]

vielen Dank für die Information ........

 

[VASILIY]

Danke für die Info.

 

[Плотников Юрий Михайлович]

Danke, interessant!

 

[Детективное агентство Тула]

Ein altes Lied über die Hauptsache.

 

[Борис Вячеславович]

Vielen Dank.

 

[Частный детектив Киров]

VIELEN DANK!!!

 

[Андрей Захаров]

Vielen Dank))) Soweit ich mich erinnern kann, war das Gespräch über eine einzelne Untersuchung immer im Gange ... Trotz der Neuerungen ist der Wagen im Großen und Ganzen immer noch da ... Meiner Meinung nach bis zur Voruntersuchung es wird genau in das Justizsystem "gegossen" (wie es zum Beispiel im zaristischen Russland war), die Angelegenheit wird nicht in Gang kommen ... Aber vor der Revolution gab es ein gutes Institut von Justizermittlern ... Dies wird jedoch höchstwahrscheinlich nicht geschehen, weil. es ist nicht vorteilhaft für die Machthaber ... Was im obigen Artikel ausführlich beschrieben wird ... Schade

 

[Андрей Захаров]

A brief history of the formation of the investigation in Russia (before the revolution) And as they say, find the differences ... (with that history of the formation of the investigation in modern Russia)
In the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries, the body performing the preliminary investigation function was the general police, which as a special state body for combating crime and protecting public order was created at the very beginning of the eighteenth century.
The police bodies differed in structure depending on the locality: the Zemstvo court in the countryside and the deanery council in the cities. In the Nizhny Novgorod province, they were created in 1779 and 1780, respectively. With the establishment in September 1802 of new state bodies - ministries, police leadership was entrusted to the Ministry of the Interior.
In 1826, the “Third Division of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery, reporting directly to the Tsar,” was created, whose task was to ensure state security, including the implementation of political investigation and investigation. Thus, the preliminary investigation in this category of cases was removed from the jurisdiction of the general police.
The general police carried out many different functions. According to the Regulation on the Zemstvo Police adopted in 1837, its duties were set out in 56 points, among which, along with ensuring cleanliness in the streets, collecting information about crops, population, diseases, tax collection, public order protection, search and detention were indicated criminals, examination of corpses and clarification of the causes of their death, preventive work, preliminary investigation, trial in certain categories of cases, execution of sentences, detention of prisons, etc.
The merger of executive and judicial functions in the hands of the police, the absence of independent branches of government is explained by the nature of absolutism, which implied the concentration of all power in the hands of one person - the emperor, whose interests were represented on the ground by the governors.
The pre-reform procedure for investigating crimes was regulated by the norms of Book II “Criminal Laws” of Volume XV of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, was built on feudal serfdom, and had all the signs of an investigative (inquisition) process. The main features inherent in the pre-reform investigation include: the mixing in the person of a police officer of the functions of conducting investigations, administering justice and enforcement proceedings; secrecy of the investigation; artificial division of the preliminary investigation into the preliminary and formal investigation; the class nature of legal proceedings; the dominance of the formal theory of evidence; lack of adversarial process; lack of independence of the investigation and court from the administration; lack of proper control and supervision and activities of the investigator; low professional level of investigators, etc.
The result resulted in police arbitrariness, the use of illegal methods of investigation, the virtual lack of defense of the accused, the prosperity of bribery, the unreasonable delay of the investigation, the lack of guarantees for the correct application of the law so that everyone who committed the crime would be subjected to fair punishment and not a single innocent would be prosecuted criminal liability.
Ideas about the need to reform the investigation and the court appeared in Russia long before the 1860 reform. At the very beginning of the 19th century, reform projects were drawn up by M.M. Speransky, who in the "Plan of State Transformation", pointed out the need for separation of powers, but still retained some of the supervisory powers of the court. The project is interesting in that for the first time Speransky formulates the problem of determining the place of the preliminary investigation in the system of public authorities. To the question: “Who owns the investigation: the police or the court?” - he replies that “the investigation is not a court, but its foundation. It is the action of the police ... And therefore, the investigation belongs to the police; but to consider it belongs to the court. "
In the project M.A. In 1827, Balugiansky's “Reasoning on the Establishment of Provinces”, attempts are being made to separate the production of criminal investigations from other police functions of an administrative and executive nature by creating a special investigative unit in the general police structure.
For the first time, the production of a formal investigation was assigned to the competence of judicial officials - investigating bailiffs in the draft law “On Investigation”, developed in 1837 by the II branch together with the Ministry of Justice.
Clear measures to improve the preliminary investigation, including: removing from the police the conduct of investigations of the most important cases and transferring them to the court, determining specific grounds for initiating and terminating criminal cases, introducing elements of protection, presumption of innocence at the preliminary investigation, establishing judicial and prosecutorial control over the investigation, contained in the draft Charter of the proceedings on crimes and misconduct prepared by D.N. Bludov, who, in addition, became the author of the concept of “judicial investigator”.

In the second half of the 50s of the XIX century, the political, economic and social crisis of the Russian autocracy based on the serfdom was manifested to the maximum extent. The urgent need for peasant reform forced the government to take urgent measures to strengthen the police, a body that ensures public order and peace. For this, the most rational decision is to withdraw from the police the function of conducting a preliminary investigation and transferring it to the judicial department.
To implement this concept of law enforcement reform in 1859, several bills were developed, the most interesting of which was a note by N.I. Stoyanovsky's “Establishment of Investigative Bailiffs,” in which he substantiates the need to separate the preliminary investigation into police inquiry and preliminary investigation carried out by independent members of the court - investigative bailiffs. This note became the basis for a future investigation reform. In the further edition of the draft, judicial officials were renamed investigative judges, and in the approved version of the bill they were defined as judicial investigators.
The establishment of the institute of judicial investigators in Russia on June 8, 1860 can be considered the first significant step towards the democratization of the criminal process, as it strengthened the independence of the judiciary, reduced the influence of the administration on the investigation process, endowed investigators with a high status and broad procedural competence, determined the procedural framework for inquiry and preliminary investigation.
The formation of the institute in practice took place in extremely difficult conditions, which, combined with some problems that arose within the institute itself, determined the insufficient effectiveness of the investigative activity. For the full and effective functioning of the new investigative bodies, it was necessary to radically change the administrative and judicial systems through the implementation of the most important reforms, as well as eliminate the negative factors within the institution.
The Law of 1862, which outlined the government course for the future judicial transformation, was of crucial importance in the development of the institution of judicial investigators, since it significantly supplemented the legal basis of its activities.
The “Basic Provisions” proclaimed the principle of the complete separation of the judiciary from the executive, the principle of procedural independence of the investigator. The governors were deprived of the right to create investigative commissions with their officials in their composition, thereby eliminating the possibility of the governor's influence on the course of the preliminary investigation. The prosecutor's office, as the body overseeing the conduct of the preliminary investigation, was also reorganized and removed from the subordination of the administrative provincial authorities, was established at the district courts.
The law of 1862 recognized the advantage of the accusatory form of the process, refusing to investigate (inquisition) proceedings. The institute of deputies from the estates, the formal theory of the assessment of evidence, the oath at the preliminary investigation were liquidated.
The preliminary investigation was recognized as the most important pre-trial stage of the criminal process. It must have preceded the trial. The “Basic Provisions” retained 2 forms of preliminary investigation: police inquiry and preliminary investigation carried out by judicial investigators. In an effort to limit police arbitrariness, the law delimited their competences in more detail.
Despite the fact that the “Basic Provisions” still did not allow the defense counsel to enter the preliminary investigation stage, they nevertheless tried to create the conditions for an objective and fair investigation: they determined an exhaustive list of reasons and grounds for initiating a criminal case; established an exhaustive list of preventive measures, the grounds for their election, procedural terms; retained the duty of the investigator to collect both incriminating and justifying evidence; established the mandatory presence of witnesses during inspections, searches and seizures; transferred the function of criminal prosecution to the prosecutor's office, etc. In addition, the accused was endowed with the means of self-defense: the right to challenge the investigator, appeal against all investigative actions in court, at the end of the investigation he was given the opportunity to familiarize himself with the case file and get a copy of the indictment.
Draft Judicial Statutes were prepared by a special commission for 11 months; in the autumn of 1863, discussion began. The first comments were made by Minister of Justice D.N. Zamyatin. He put the success of the reform in direct dependence on the quality of future judicial personnel, in connection with which he proposed introducing special examinations for judicial officials and providing them with decent state content. Later, when discussing bills in the State Council, the requirements for candidates for judicial investigators were increased. At the same time, judicial investigators increased from the eighth to the sixth grade of service, were equated in class with fellow prosecutors of the courts; their content increased from 1000 to 2000 rubles. In addition, their staffing levels were revised.
When discussing projects in the State Council, the first attempts by a conservative administration to liquidate the institution of judicial investigators appear. This proposal was made by the Minister of the Interior, P.A. Valuev, who proposed to liquidate the institution of judicial investigators, and to entrust the production of preliminary investigations to justices of the peace, or, having retained the investigators, to entrust them with the investigation of the most important cases, including the investigation of these cases, and completely entrust the less important cases to the police. However, the proposal was not supported.
The discussion in the State Council was also raised by the question of the procedure for the appointment of judicial investigators. The original version of Article 174 of the “Establishment of Judicial Places” project provided the right to be approved as a judicial investigator by the Minister of Justice, but in the final version these powers were transferred to the emperor, since he was the one who approved all judicial ranks, which included judicial investigators.
In the final draft, the procedure for transferring a judicial investigator from one station to another within the same district court was changed. Initially, the project provided that a judicial investigator, like any other member of the court who was guaranteed irremovability, could be transferred only with his consent. However, it was decided that, in cases of emergency, the transfer of an investigator without his consent within one district is not a derogation of the principle of irremovability.
During the discussion on “Establishment of Judicial Places”, it was also suggested that not only the courts, but also prosecutors should be entitled to represent candidates for judicial investigators. However, this amendment was not made to the text of the draft in order to avoid creating the possibility of personal influence of prosecutors on investigators appointed at their request.
Following the proclaimed principle of exempting the criminal prosecution function from the jurisdiction of the judiciary, the final version of the Charter of Criminal Procedure has limited as much as possible the grounds on which the investigator could initiate a criminal case at his discretion, that is, actually stand on the side of the prosecution. Article 313 of the Charter of Criminal Proceedings (CCI) allowed this only in the event that “a judicial investigator has caught a criminal act that has just been committed or has just been committed”.
However, the CCC did not completely segregate the judiciary in the person of the judicial investigator from the indictment - in the person of the prosecutor. Such a conclusion can be made by examining the norm on the nature of the instructions of the prosecutor given to the investigator on the performance of investigative actions. Initially, the project provided for the possibility of non-compliance with the instructions of the prosecutor by the investigator if the latter disagreed with them. However, in the final version of the Charter of Criminal Proceedings, the advisory nature of the instructions of the prosecutor remained only in the case when he intended to choose a more stringent preventive measure.
The initial draft Charter of the Criminal Procedure provided for the extension of the principle of publicity not only to the stage of the trial, but also to the stage of the preliminary investigation. The United departments agreed with the sponsors of the project and the introduction of publicity at the preliminary investigation was considered useful. However, when considering the issue at the general meeting of the State Council, these norms were removed from the project as redundant. The Council of State considered that a verbal, open trial in court and the right to have a defense counsel at the trial stage are sufficient guarantees of the rights of the accused. Subsequently, punitive articles of the Penal Code were adopted, criminalizing the publication of information obtained in the course of an inquiry or preliminary investigation in the press.
Attempts by the drafters of the Judicial Statutes to extend the principle of adversariality to the stage of the preliminary investigation were also unsuccessful. The State Council considered that the interests of the accused are sufficiently protected by the investigator himself, since he “is obliged to notify with complete impartiality both the circumstances incriminating the accused and the circumstances justifying him” (Article 265 of the Criminal Procedure Code). In addition, the procedural rights and guarantees of suspected and accused persons were significantly expanded.
The judicial statutes adopted in 1864, unchanged, did not exist for very long. The many changes to which they underwent were the result of a tough struggle to maintain maximum control by the administration over the judicial department. Instead of further progressive reform of all state and public spheres, the autocracy chose the path of a veiled liquidation of liberal legislation and bringing the court in line with the form of government and political regime. Significant changes have affected the investigating authorities.
So, already on September 27, 1866, under the guise of an explanation of Article 362 of the Charter of Criminal Procedure, the second part of this article was actually canceled, which allowed judicial investigators to conduct searches in the palaces directly without obtaining the prior permission of the court authorities.
In 1867, on the initiative of the Minister of Justice, K.I. Palena was eliminated one of the most important guarantees of the activities of judicial investigators - their irremovability. Under the pretext of the need to update investigative personnel by more qualified employees, judicial investigators began to be replaced by correcting the position of judicial investigators, who did not have the status of a member of the court, who could be dismissed at any time. The author has studied the opinions of lawyers on this issue, including A.F. Horses, M.F. Gromnitsky et al. Also, the scope of such a replacement in various years is shown. Thus, for example, out of 136 newly appointed investigators in 1867, almost 81% were temporarily in office, and by 1898, out of 1,487 judicial investigators throughout Russia, no more than 10.4% had judicial tenure. In the Nizhny Novgorod province in 1898, out of 26 judicial investigators, only 2 were approved in office.
May 29, 1869 also at the initiative of K.I. Palen accepted the note to article 433 of the CCI, according to which certain categories of subjects, if they were called as witnesses to the investigator and to the court, were released from personal appearance. This novella oblivious to one of the basic principles of the Judicial Statutes, which proclaimed the court equal for all classes.
Beginning in 1867, the posts of judicial investigators in especially important cases and most important cases were introduced, first as temporary in the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, and then received constant widespread distribution. These investigators, at the suggestion of the prosecutor of the district court, began the preliminary investigation within the district of the court at which they were. At the suggestion of the prosecutor of the judicial chamber, they investigated criminal cases in the territory of the corresponding judicial chamber, and at the proposal of the Minister of Justice - in the whole of Russia.
Studying the legislative novels on the establishment of judicial investigators in the most important cases and cases of special importance, it should be noted that the laws, on the one hand, were designed to improve the production of the preliminary investigation, as they introduced some specialization in the investigation of criminal cases, reduced the burden of these investigators, which allowed them to qualitatively investigate complex, multi-episode cases.
On the other hand, in the conditions of distrust and opposition of the administration to new judicial institutions, the introduction of the posts of investigators in the most important cases and especially important cases had negative consequences. Now, the prosecutor could remove any case from the investigation department, recognizing it as important, and transfer it to the investigator for important cases for the investigation. This procedure could also be applied to veiled removal from the investigation of an objectionable district investigator.
May 19, 1871 at the initiative of the chief of gendarmes P.A. Shuvalov adopted a law that significantly reduces the competence of judicial investigators. Investigations of state crimes were withdrawn from their jurisdiction. With the adoption of this law, gendarme investigators were established to replace legal investigators, and a state crime investigation was replaced by a police inquiry, which deprived the accused of most procedural guarantees, including the right to familiarize himself with the testimony of witnesses.
Here it is, our being ... ...)

 

[Плотников Юрий Михайлович]

Danke, interessant!