Private Investigation and Code of Criminal Procedure

[Андрей Захаров]

Recently I talked with colleagues on the issue of discussing the possibility and necessity of reflecting in the Laws the status of a private detective as a participant in a criminal process. There are several opinions on this issue. There are adherents of the idea of giving a licensed private detective a similar status, but there are those who do not see this as a special need.
In this article we will try to consider the point of view on this issue of precisely those persons, among whom the author of this article belongs, who do not see the need to give the licensed private detective such a status ... status of a participant in a criminal process.
What is emphasized by those who insist that the private detective in the criminal process be just a procedural figure, capable of presenting certain information that the court or law enforcement agencies conducting a preliminary investigation or inquiry should supposedly recognize as “evidence” in a particular case.
First of all, they insist that if a private detective is recognized by the Law as a participant in the process, he will be vested with certain rights that supposedly allow him to make available to the court or other authorities the above information, which will be precisely “evidence” in a criminal case. At the same time, they believe that the detectives, under the current legislation, including the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Law on Private Detective and Security Activities in the Russian Federation, allegedly do not have such an opportunity.
However, in our opinion, these persons, expressing a similar point of view, are deeply mistaken ... And these errors are most likely connected with the fact that these persons will not be offended, it seems that there is simply no certain experience in collecting information specifically on criminal cases and “Legalization” of information obtained precisely by a private detective. Many supporters of this point of view are also supporters that the allegedly private detective activity has a clearly law enforcement orientation, which is associated only with the identification and suppression of various types of offenses, including crimes. At the same time, they argue that within the existing framework defined by the current legislation, private detectives are allegedly deprived of the opportunity to legally cooperate with law enforcement agencies in collecting information on criminal cases and this, in turn, supposedly prevents the private detective from realizing all his capabilities, in the question of how they call it “fighting crime” .... They argue at various information sites that a private detective must be a “crime fighter,” offering to entrust him with additional functions specific to law enforcement agencies to detect and suppress various offenses, including both administrative and crimes.
This point of view, in our opinion, is a mistake in connection with the following circumstances.
First of all, you should pay attention to the fact that a private investigator, in accordance with the current norms of the Law, is primarily an individual entrepreneur-subject of entrepreneurial activity, the main focus of which is the provision of information collection services to both citizens and legal entities, including and in criminal matters, on a reimbursable basis. At the same time, a private detective, being an individual entrepreneur, is not endowed with the rights and obligations of law enforcement officials, including the right to conduct any investigations within the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. A private detective is simply a “collector” of information that, of course, can be used in the investigation of specific criminal cases. However, this information can only be recognized as evidence only after it has been “verified” by the authorities vested with the right to conduct an investigation, inquiry or by the court in the manner regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. A private detective renders his data collection services on the basis of a civil law contract concluded with a customer - a physical or legal person.
How, then, can the information obtained by a private detective be “legalized” in accordance with the current legislation when considering the existence of a crime in certain persons?
With regard to the collection of information on a criminal case, an act of acceptance of work performed is drawn up based on the result of the service provided, the preparation of which is regulated by the current legislation. A detective’s written report may also be attached to the act. Due to the fact that these documents are compiled within the framework of the current civil law, they are precisely “documents” drawn up and issued by an authorized person to compile and issue them, in our case, a private detective. Based on this circumstance, these documents - the act of acceptance of work, which reflects the amount of information collected by a private detective, or the annex to the act-report of a private detective, are documents recognized as evidence in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation as such in accordance with Article 84 Code of Criminal Procedure if they contain information proving the circumstances provided for in Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
These documents drawn up by a private investigator, including the information presented therein, can be used by the customer, which, in accordance with the current practice of collecting information on criminal cases, is any participant in the process who is vested with certain powers by the procedural legislation, subject to compliance with the requirements, regulated by Article 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such information can be used, in particular, when organizing verification of reports of crimes regulated by Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation initiated by the applicant, which in most cases is a potential “victim” or his representative.
When drawing up acts of acceptance of work and reports drawn up for the use of information by the customer, the private investigator, of course, must comply with a number of requirements regulated by the Law in order to ensure compliance with the requirements for admissibility of evidence (Article 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).
Let’s try to consider the use of information obtained by a private investigator in the framework of the implementation of the agreement on the provision of services to collect information on a criminal case using a specific example from our own practice in accordance with applicable law, including the Law on Private Detective and Security Activities in the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code RF This example is not unique, but it can be used to analyze the specific tactics of a private detective to use the information received by him outside the Criminal Procedure Code in a criminal trial by a participant in this process, by whose order information was collected.
A few years ago, a citizen contacted us, we will call her a PH with a request to assist in collecting the information necessary to initiate a criminal case on the fact of beating her and her relatives by unidentified persons. According to her, she turned to the police on this fact. However, on her appeal, the officers of the Department of Internal Affairs made a decision in accordance with clause 3, part 1, article 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on sending her application to the justice of the peace. At the same time, police officers qualified the actions of the perpetrators in accordance with Part 1 of Article 1116 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (beatings), which envisages the application of the rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which regulate the procedure for holding perpetrators accountable under a private charge. On this fact there were 5 victims and as persons involved it was supposed to bring to justice 6 people, of which 5 are minors. However, the police did not even bother to interview all the defendants in this case, as well as all the “victims”.
Having talked with the PH, we, based on our own investigative practice, came to the conclusion that the actions of the perpetrators by the police officers were qualified in accordance with Part 1 of Article 1116 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation incorrectly, seeing in the actions of the defendants a criminal offense involving liability under paragraph “A”, part 2, article 1116 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (beatings committed as a result of hooliganism as amended in 2013), the criminal case of which should not be initiated by a justice of the peace, but by the preliminary investigation authorities in public-private prosecution.
A further algorithm of actions was as follows.
At the conclusion of the contract, in order to comply with the rules of law providing for the procedure for collecting information by a private investigator, we selected from the customer-PH and all potential “victims” a receipt that they give their written consent to study the documents submitted by them to the private investigator , the use of audio, video recording, photographing during the inspection of the scene.
Further, oral interviews were conducted with the “victim” in this case. When conducting surveys, an act of completed survey work was drawn up, in which their results were reflected. Moreover, in the acts of acceptance of work, all respondents, with their consent, put their signatures on the reliability of the information specified in the acts. An inspection of the scene of the incident was also carried out, which was also issued by an act of acceptance of work as part of the actions of a private detective — an external inspection of the premises, buildings, structures, to which a diagram of the premises is attached, indicating, from the words of the “victims” of their location during the beating. Photographic tables are attached to the act of acceptance of the inspection work.
Based on the results of the collection of information, a report was also prepared with the application of the above acts of acceptance of work. The information reflected in the reports and the above acts formed the basis for compiling a complaint filed by the RN with the supervisory authority, the Prosecutor's Office of the district, on the determination made by the police on the fact of RN's appeal. The reports and acts mentioned above and drawn up by the private investigator are attached to the complaint. Based on the results of the consideration of this complaint with the attached materials provided by a private investigator as part of the execution of an agreement on the collection of information by the police, an order was carried out by the prosecutor on the basis of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Based on the results of checking the information reflected in the acts and the report by the private detective in the manner regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, a criminal case was initiated under subsection "a" of part 2 of article 1116 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which was successfully sent to court. Perpetrators held accountable.
At the same time, I want to draw attention to the fact that, in principle, no one interviewed a private investigator in this case, nor summoned him to court. And the private detective did not take any part in the criminal process precisely as a procedural person. All actions that contributed to the prosecution of perpetrators were carried out by a private detective outside the framework of the CPC. All information provided by a private detective was checked in accordance with Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation by competent persons, after which it was precisely this information, already clothed in the rank of evidence, that formed the basis for holding perpetrators accountable.
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that, in accordance with Article 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, victims of criminal cases, as well as their representatives, are entitled to participate in the criminal prosecution of perpetrators. In connection with these circumstances, any interaction of persons conducting a preliminary investigation or inquiry in criminal matters with victims is assumed to be unconditional.
All of the above may indicate that, in principle, a private investigator does not have to have any rights of a particular procedural person in a criminal process in order to qualitatively, in the interests of the customer, the same participant in the process, carry out his work, the results of which can be taken as the basis the realization of the rights of the same customer of our services to satisfy the needs of which our services are directed .... data collection services ....

 

[Детектив-Молдова]

Andrey Valerievich, everything is correctly described!
I would like to read your reasoning and FOR making additions!

 

[Андрей Захаров]

Andrey Valerievich, everything is correctly described!
I would like to read your reasoning and FOR making additions!

Unfortunately, Nikolay Vasilyevich is just “FOR” and there are no arguments .... During a conversation with some of our colleagues who were just “FOR” trying to find out their reasons for making some changes to the CPC .... But to get no intelligible answers failed ... unfortunately .... And all the arguments boiled down to the fact that the courts, for some reason, for some reason, allegedly did not accept BH information as evidence of any facts ... however, with a detailed "debriefing" so to speak , it turned out that the “invoice” that the BH tried to present as evidence in criminal cases simply did not meet the requirements for evidence in the criminal process ... Although in principle (but it already depends on the particular executor), this “invoice” can it was to give the status of evidence, if the BH correctly formalized it all .... Something like this .... And I would also like to hear of course the opinion of just pro-ZA supporters on this resource .... But not unfounded, but with a cast some specific examples from practice, when the BH, which performed all its actions in accordance with the applicable law, something prevented the court or other authorities from giving their information the status of evidence in the case .... It’s most interesting what they can say on this matter ... only without water, and specifically ....))))

 

[Детектив-Юг]

Andrei Valerievich writes everything correctly, correctly collected materials drawn up in accordance with applicable law can be used as evidence.
Troublesome, that's all.

A simple question arises - why the hell does all this paperwork need a detective, let alone jostle in the courts and participate in various criminal trials?
Perhaps for the former employees in their detective work this paper scribbling and parties are not enough?

From personal experience:
I was contacted by the customer about the theft of property of the organization.
I took measures to collect information incriminating attackers, established the location of the stolen property, set up accomplices, I recorded all this.
I recorded all the available information on disk and discussed it with operas.
The customer wrote a statement to the Police Department, I organized a meeting of operas with intruders.
My work on this ended, specially trained specialists took up the matter.

As a result, everyone except the crooks is happy:
Ready-made opera Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, part 4.
Customer return stolen property and compensation for damage.
Contractual fee due to me.

 

[Андрей Захаров]

You can agree with Viktor Anatolyevich on several points ... Actually, BH is not a procedural figure (in the sense of criminal procedural law) .. and should not be it ... We just collect information for the customer (possibly for a participant in the process ), who can use this information to protect his interests (including to establish certain facts, possibly exposing the person who committed the crime, etc. ...) ... There are, of course, certain nuances in these matters ... but this is not fundamentally .... And the participation of the Black Sea Region in the criminal process as a separate procedural person, we really do not need it ....

 

[Группа К]

Recently I talked with colleagues on the issue of discussing the possibility and necessity of reflecting in the Laws the status of a private detective as a participant in a criminal process. There are several opinions on this issue. There are adherents of the idea of giving a licensed private detective a similar status, but there are those who do not see this as a special need.
............
All of the above may indicate that, in principle, a private investigator does not have to have any rights of a particular procedural person in a criminal process in order to qualitatively, in the interests of the customer, the same participant in the process, carry out his work, the results of which can be taken as the basis the realization of the rights of the same customer of our services to satisfy the needs of which our services are directed .... data collection services ....

The question of the need for the detective to participate in the criminal process is much deeper than it might seem at first glance. The case described by detective A.V. Zakharov only arouses respect - after all, it is still necessary to try to find the name of a detective acting in the catalog of court cases, acting on the basis of a license (and not as a witness status). It remains to be envied by those detectives who find the strength and ways to “twist” their hands in such a way as to “crush” the taken case to such a state when the court takes the side of the detective’s customer.

Now to the point. To begin with, I recently discovered a rule for myself - it turns out that the nature of living things does not tolerate symmetry.

Some time ago, I was sure that the scales in Themis’s hands symbolize the pros and cons. A similar "method" was held in the Roman Senate. Stones were thrown into a jug or other suitable vessel, while the color of the stone corresponded to the decision of the voter - for example, black stone meant "for", and white - on the contrary - "no." So, it turns out that the scales that Themis holds in their hands are actually weighed not for or against, but the good and evil of the offense in question. And these, as you know, are two different things.

“Evil” may outweigh “Good” if there are more supporters of the former. And since value judgments about good and evil in society are always volatile, the swings of justice will never find an equilibrium position. Such is the nature of human notions of good and bad.

Nature does not tolerate symmetry, otherwise life would have looked boring. For example, look at your reflection in the mirror. If people were absolutely symmetrical, would they be so individual, charismatic, interesting, since these things are now? Symmetry is suitable for inanimate nature, for chairs, tables, golden sections. But not for man and not for wildlife.

So, criminal justice, just like the nature of living things, cannot be in a static state, because the process (which is what it is called - the criminal process) is called to be in constant motion. If he stops, that is, finds a point of balance, then everything - consider that kirdyk came to a judicial sentence.

The scales are driven by the evaluative judgments of living people about a good and evil deed, and not the dead facts of pros and cons.

In my opinion, in the Russian justice system, the dead were replaced by the living. Inanimate, often unsubstantiated facts, expert judgment of good and evil. Where did I get this from? In overwhelming cases in 99% percent, the procedures for collecting and presenting evidence are implemented only by one side of the process - the interrogating officer, investigator, prosecutor, and court. For the other side - the lawyer - Themis left one percent.

Only the investigator can collect and attach evidence to the case. The defender, of course, can also try to exercise his “equal” right in the process, but only at the discretion of the competent authorities and officials conducting the preliminary investigation. What is this equality? This is a reality that the progressive advocacy community, it seems to me, is already "tired" of resisting.

But there is still a detective! And on the basis of personal experience, I argue that the legal nature of detective, non-procedural activities can revive the criminal process, set the scales of justice in motion. They say that there are no more than a thousand of us left, but even such an army is enough to stir Themis!

Take the most common private investigative method, the survey. Zakharov Andrey Valerievich also spoke about this private investigative action in his article "Private Investigation and the Code of Criminal Procedure Code". Then, how, if not the investigator, you ask, should a survey of individuals be recorded?

I can assume that the information obtained should be clothed in a procedural form at the request of the detective by the court or at the request of the detective by a notary.

It is clear that in this case the detective will be liable for repeated verification of the information submitted to the court regarding their admissibility and reliability. But can this circumstance stop the detective? Is this action, by its legal nature, not the very independent (private) production of the investigative action that the detectives dream of the procedural application of? I note that in the criminal process of England and America, a private investigator has the opportunity to independently carry out certain procedural actions. In particular, I have repeatedly interviewed private witnesses in criminal and civil cases, including at the request of US courts. In my closet there are also many cases in which the collected evidence was presented to the Russian court as evidence issued through a notarial protocol.

In my opinion, giving procedural status to a detective to collect and submit evidence to the court will only expand the possibilities of non-procedural criminal prosecution through the use by the court of the results of private operational-search activity, create an objective need for our existence, our public usefulness and need.

On the other hand, to impose rules and methodological necessities on a detective is contrary to the principle of freedom of our craft. Everyone has the right to choose whether the evidence collected by him will have the status of admissible or for the customer one “detective” word will be sufficient. Hence my suggestion to the developers of a new detective law on the application of licensing rules only if the detective will present the collected evidence in court. In other “non-procedural” cases, in my opinion, it is not necessary to obtain a license for a detective. That is, the truth is somewhere in the middle))

[DLMURL] https://www.krioni.com/en/blog/k-diskussii-o-protsessualnom-statuse-detektiva/ [/ DLMURL]

 

[Андрей Захаров]

Recently I talked with colleagues on the issue of discussing the possibility and necessity of reflecting in the Laws the status of a private detective as a participant in a criminal process. There are several opinions on this issue. There are adherents of the idea of giving a licensed private detective a similar status, but there are those who do not see this as a special need.
............
All of the above may indicate that, in principle, a private investigator does not have to have any rights of a particular procedural person in a criminal process in order to qualitatively, in the interests of the customer, the same participant in the process, carry out his work, the results of which can be taken as the basis the realization of the rights of the same customer of our services to satisfy the needs of which our services are directed .... data collection services ....

The question of the need for the detective to participate in the criminal process is much deeper than it might seem at first glance. The case described by detective A.V. Zakharov only arouses respect - after all, it is still necessary to try to find the name of a detective acting in the catalog of court cases, acting on the basis of a license (and not as a witness status). It remains to be envied by those detectives who find the strength and ways to “twist” their hands in such a way as to “crush” the taken case to such a state when the court takes the side of the detective’s customer.

Now to the point. To begin with, I recently discovered a rule for myself - it turns out that the nature of living things does not tolerate symmetry.

Some time ago, I was sure that the scales in Themis’s hands symbolize the pros and cons. A similar "method" was held in the Roman Senate. Stones were thrown into a jug or other suitable vessel, while the color of the stone corresponded to the decision of the voter - for example, black stone meant "for", and white - on the contrary - "no." So, it turns out that the scales that Themis holds in their hands are actually weighed not for or against, but the good and evil of the offense in question. And these, as you know, are two different things.

“Evil” may outweigh “Good” if there are more supporters of the former. And since value judgments about good and evil in society are always volatile, the swings of justice will never find an equilibrium position. Such is the nature of human notions of good and bad.

Nature does not tolerate symmetry, otherwise life would have looked boring. For example, look at your reflection in the mirror. If people were absolutely symmetrical, would they be so individual, charismatic, interesting, since these things are now? Symmetry is suitable for inanimate nature, for chairs, tables, golden sections. But not for man and not for wildlife.

So, criminal justice, just like the nature of living things, cannot be in a static state, because the process (which is what it is called - the criminal process) is called to be in constant motion. If he stops, that is, finds a point of balance, then everything - consider that kirdyk came to a judicial sentence.

The scales are driven by the evaluative judgments of living people about a good and evil deed, and not the dead facts of pros and cons.

In my opinion, in the Russian justice system, the dead were replaced by the living. Inanimate, often unsubstantiated facts, expert judgment of good and evil. Where did I get this from? In overwhelming cases in 99% percent, the procedures for collecting and presenting evidence are implemented only by one side of the process - the interrogating officer, investigator, prosecutor, and court. For the other side - the lawyer - Themis left one percent.

Only the investigator can collect and attach evidence to the case. The defender, of course, can also try to exercise his “equal” right in the process, but only at the discretion of the competent authorities and officials conducting the preliminary investigation. What is this equality? This is a reality that the progressive advocacy community, it seems to me, is already "tired" of resisting.

But there is still a detective! And on the basis of personal experience, I argue that the legal nature of detective, non-procedural activities can revive the criminal process, set the scales of justice in motion. They say that there are no more than a thousand of us left, but even such an army is enough to stir Themis!

Take the most common private investigative method, the survey. Zakharov Andrey Valerievich also spoke about this private investigative action in his article "Private Investigation and the Code of Criminal Procedure Code". Then, how, if not the investigator, you ask, should a survey of individuals be recorded?

I can assume that the information obtained should be clothed in a procedural form at the request of the detective by the court or at the request of the detective by a notary.

It is clear that in this case the detective will be liable for repeated verification of the information submitted to the court regarding their admissibility and reliability. But can this circumstance stop the detective? Is this action, by its legal nature, not the very independent (private) production of the investigative action that the detectives dream of the procedural application of? I note that in the criminal process of England and America, a private investigator has the opportunity to independently carry out certain procedural actions. In particular, I have repeatedly interviewed private witnesses in criminal and civil cases, including at the request of US courts. In my closet there are also many cases in which the collected evidence was presented to the Russian court as evidence issued through a notarial protocol.

In my opinion, giving procedural status to a detective to collect and submit evidence to the court will only expand the possibilities of non-procedural criminal prosecution through the use by the court of the results of private operational-search activity, create an objective need for our existence, our public usefulness and need.

On the other hand, to impose rules and methodological necessities on a detective is contrary to the principle of freedom of our craft. Everyone has the right to choose whether the evidence collected by him will have the status of admissible or for the customer one “detective” word will be sufficient. Hence my suggestion to the developers of a new detective law on the application of licensing rules only if the detective will present the collected evidence in court. In other “non-procedural” cases, in my opinion, it is not necessary to obtain a license for a detective. That is, the truth is somewhere in the middle))

[DLMURL] https://www.krioni.com/en/blog/k-diskussii-o-protsessualnom-statuse-detektiva/ [/ DLMURL]

Question .... and what specific rights, in your opinion, should be given to a private detective participating in the process ... naturally criminal .... and what legal grounds are there for this .... besides this, can you give specific examples from practice, when without the availability of procedural rights, a private detective could not realize his abilities to collect information and provide it to a court or other body, taking into account the fact that BH provides its information only to the customer participating in the process, which can use it to exercise their rights ....

 

[Частный детектив Волгодонск]

All rights entail obligations, restrictions and regulations for the application of these rights.

 

[Группа К]

That's right, colleagues. The expansion of the rights of the subject of legal relations entails the mandatory restriction of the rights of its neighbors. Another thing is for whom the first has these rights expanded and who restricts whom to the second. So, in my subjective opinion on the private investigation market, a very uncomfortable (even somewhat sensitive) situation has developed. On the one hand, the detective has the special right to collect information, and on the other, his rivals - citizens without a license - do the same without any obligation.

Competitors - the term that refers to curious citizens, of course, is harshly said by me, and I ask you to excuse me if I hurt someone. But it turns out that these people, calling themselves "Competitive intelligence agents" and even "private detectives" really limit the right detectives working under license. By restriction of the rights of private investigators, I understand first of all the restriction of their constitutional right to choose the type of activity and profession guaranteed by the state.

This is a very painful and difficult question. Indeed, at present the situation around detectives is such that even in court cases any private person can collect information. We and our activity (mind you, special! Activity) - we are spread over the economic field, just like margarine is spread over a loaf of bread with a knife. There is nothing to be done, such is the situation and such are the results of many years of inaction of detective associations. Yes, we ourselves didn’t seem to understand the dead end of the Russian private investigation.

Cancel the "detective" law now and besides two or ten detectives no one will feel the difference. But there is a law, which means we exist and our rights exist, which are not very convenient for our competitors to take into account. So, we still have a chance to consolidate a private investigation, weave it into the legal system. That's just somehow embarrassingly and roughly this embedding occurs.

I’m not sure that I can give the exact reasons for the failures, but the main question that seems to me that everyone needs to answer sounds something like this: who is the Detective and why is he needed at all? This is a very strange and probably stupid question that can only be heard on the site of this kind, but I think I'm not the only one who asks him more often. In general, the time has come that the detective needs real and deep self-identification)))

 

[Детектив-Юг]

That's right, colleagues. The expansion of the rights of the subject of legal relations entails the mandatory restriction of the rights of its neighbors. Another thing is for whom the first has these rights expanded and who restricts whom to the second. So, in my subjective opinion on the private investigation market, a very uncomfortable (even somewhat sensitive) situation has developed. On the one hand, the detective has the special right to collect information, and on the other, his rivals - citizens without a license - do the same without any obligation.

Competitors - the term that refers to curious citizens, of course, is harshly said by me, and I ask you to excuse me if I hurt someone. But it turns out that these people, calling themselves "Competitive intelligence agents" and even "private detectives" really limit the right detectives working under license. By restriction of the rights of private investigators, I understand first of all the restriction of their constitutional right to choose the type of activity and profession guaranteed by the state.

This is a very painful and difficult question. Indeed, at present the situation around detectives is such that even in court cases any private person can collect information. We and our activity (mind you, special! Activity) - we are spread over the economic field, just like margarine is spread over a loaf of bread with a knife. There is nothing to be done, such is the situation and such are the results of many years of inaction of detective associations. Yes, we ourselves didn’t seem to understand the dead end of the Russian private investigation.

Cancel the "detective" law now and besides two or ten detectives no one will feel the difference. But there is a law, which means we exist and our rights exist, which are not very convenient for our competitors to take into account. So, we still have a chance to consolidate a private investigation, weave it into the legal system. That's just somehow embarrassingly and roughly this embedding occurs.

I’m not sure that I can give the exact reasons for the failures, but the main question that seems to me that everyone needs to answer sounds something like this: who is the Detective and why is he needed at all? This is a very strange and probably stupid question that can only be heard on the site of this kind, but I think I'm not the only one who asks him more often. In general, the time has come that the detective needs real and deep self-identification)))

Alexander, what can you talk about, what kind of competitors, about which scouts, about which people who position themselves as private detectives who do not have a valid IP and license, when even here in the community of private detectives out of 500 declared Personal pages of detective agencies and private detectives are less than 100 have licenses and more than half did not have them.
It is not law that needs to be corrected, but outlawed all those who nimble in the detective glade.
But alas, this topic is not welcomed in the community of Private Detectives, our slogan is that everything that is not forbidden is allowed!