Ðóñ Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

National Security
Reference:

Social and legal conditionality of confiscation of property in domestic criminal legislation

Bargaev Damir Kamilevich

Postgraduate Student, Department of Criminal and Penal Enforcement Law, Saratov State Law Academy

410056, Russia, Saratovskaya oblast', g. G. Saratov, ul. Ul. Vol'skaya, 1, kab. 420, 421, 716

damir.bars@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0668.2022.6.38176

EDN:

RQCVQX

Received:

29-05-2022


Published:

30-12-2022


Abstract: The object of the study is the reasons for the existence of confiscation of property in criminal legislation. The socio-legal conditionality of the named institute is designed to reveal the functional purpose of the criminal instrument, its social role and place in the system of combating crime. Special attention is paid to the method of analysis, with the help of which the necessary data are investigated to confirm the hypothesis of the social necessity of the existence of the institution of confiscation of property. The institution of criminal law confiscation of property is an effective tool of the state's anti-criminal policy, the content and purpose of which have been dynamically transformed throughout the history of Russian society. The basis of the research is a synthesis of domestic as well as foreign legislative and doctrinal provisions using the formal legal method. The main conclusions of the study are that the socio-legal conditionality of the criminal law institution of confiscation of property is expressed in compensation for the negative consequences of the crime committed by asymmetric compensation for damage to legally protected public relations. Confiscation of property acts as a means of criminal law repression, designed to impose on the convicted person the obligation to suffer the negative consequences of the crime committed by him. Through the institution of confiscation, the criminal legislator focuses on law-abiding behavior related to economic and financial activities. The novelty of the study is represented by a system of key factors (reasons) justifying the need for the existence of the institution of confiscation of property in domestic criminal legislation.


Keywords:

criminal code, confiscation of property, social conditioning, history of development, criminal law norms, political and legal reasons, socio-cultural reasons, economic reasons, punishment, criminal law measure

This article is automatically translated. You can find original text of the article here.

Relevance of the research topic. Conditionality is traditionally considered as the dependence of something on any external conditions, circumstances or causes. Being a multifaceted social and legal institution, criminal confiscation of property exists as a legal phenomenon due to a number of circumstances that determine it as an effective tool of the State's criminal policy. Every legal institution develops due to its objective dependence on "existing social relations, their influence on the ongoing processes in the legislative and law enforcement sphere" [1, p. 22]. Consequently, the study of the criminal-legal confiscation of property from the standpoint of its socio-legal conditionality requires the identification of the complex of causes (factors) that act as circumstances justifying the fact of its existence.

The issue of confiscation of income and property related to crimes is one of the most complex and controversial in modern criminal law. It is at the center of a whole system of interrelated problems that simultaneously focus a lot of scientific and practical contradictions. The first circumstance that attracts attention is the peculiarities of criminal activity. Organized crime, the shadow economy and corruption in the national and transnational dimensions undermine the economic basis of society by investing illegal money, weakening institutions and losing confidence in the rule of law. This trend is especially evident in countries with economies in transition and an unstable political system, where finally unformed institutions and imperfect legal regulation cannot effectively resist the destructive impact of organized economic crime.

The situation brings us to the discourse on the social conditionality of organized crime and corruption, which should determine the optimal model of anti-criminal activity of the state. It should be noted that confiscation in this context acts as a kind of bridge that can connect public and private interests in limiting crime. Special attention should be paid to the works of P. F. Grishanin [2], who revealed to the scientific community in his 1978 lecture the social conditionality of criminal law norms, further in his book of the same name P. S. Tobolkin [3] justified the existence of criminal law norms from the point of view of social necessity. Various authors continue to explain the existence of various institutions and groups of public relations regulated by criminal law (for example [4; 5; 6] – similar studies are being conducted at the present time [7] in part of one of the theoretical aspects). V. A. Posokhova [8], in turn, argues that the confiscation of property it is a means of economic influence designed to change the selfish motivation of the perpetrator's unlawful behavior.

The economic vision of the conditionality of crime naturally determines the need for regulatory regulation and the use of confiscation of income and property related to crimes. The economic motivation of criminal behavior is the most stable and at the same time rational. Thus, punishments, including confiscation, seem to be a rational response on the part of the legislator in terms of the impact on offenders and persons who have selfish motives and may commit crimes in the future.

Methodology and methods of research. The basic universal method of studying society and thinking in their development is applied – dialectical. Special attention is paid to the method of analysis, with the help of which the necessary data are investigated to confirm the hypothesis of the social necessity of the existence of the institution of confiscation of property. With the help of the historical and legal method, the historical conditionality of the existence of the institution under consideration is characterized. Comparative legal research has revealed foreign factors of the existence of confiscation of property. The basis of the research is a synthesis of domestic as well as foreign legislative and doctrinal provisions using the formal legal method. The use of such techniques allows us to identify common approaches to the consideration of legal problems.

Taking into account the existing doctrinal provisions of the issue under consideration, our efforts are aimed at solving such goals as revealing the socio-legal conditionality of the institution of confiscation of property, determining the functional purpose of this criminal instrument, its social role and place in the system of combating crime.

The main part. The institution of criminal law confiscation of property is an effective tool of the state's anti-criminal policy, the content and purpose of which have been dynamically transformed throughout the history of Russian society. Traditional for the legal doctrine for a long period of time was the perception of confiscation of property as a type of criminal punishment, the use of which within the framework of legal responsibility formed a circle of so-called confiscation crimes. Nevertheless, in the post-Soviet period, the institution of confiscation has undergone significant changes, moving from the category of additional punishment to the category of another measure of a criminal nature. This was not the first case of changing the criminal-legal meaning of confiscation of property. Throughout the history of the criminal legislation of Russia, this institution has been excluded from the circle of criminal penalties several times and, nevertheless, has been restored again. Each time such a change became the subject of discussions in the legal doctrine, provoking significant criticism of the legislator [9, p. 118].

The socio-legal conditionality of the criminal law institution of confiscation of property in the legislation of Russia makes it possible to divide the causal factors of its existence into economic, socio-cultural and political-legal ones. Further, it is proposed to systematically consider each group of reasons for the existence of the institution of confiscation of property, with the consistent allocation of their separate subspecies.

Economic reasons are proposed to be understood as a set of economic factors that determine the need for the existence and application of confiscation of property as an effective means of restoring normal economic relations in society and compensation for property damage caused by a criminal act.

Under the socio-cultural reasons for the existence of the institution in question, it is proposed to understand the totality of social, moral and historical factors that determine the need for the use of criminal confiscation of property as an instrument of the state's anti-criminal impact on the criminal behavior of individual citizens. The socio-cultural conditionality of the confiscation of property acts as a means of justifying the credit of public trust that is given by citizens to their state as a monopoly entity engaged in criminal law counteraction to crime.

Under the political and legal reasons for the existence of confiscation of property, it is proposed to understand those factors that determine the need for the existence of confiscation of property as an effective tool of state anti-criminal policy, allowing it to achieve the goals of criminal repression and the prevention of criminal behavior.

The whole complex of reasons for the existence of the institution of criminal confiscation of property can be grouped in accordance with the common nature of its social purpose and are presented as follows.

1. Economic reasons.

a) The need to restore the normal balance of economic relations in society.

The economic conditionality of the criminal law institution of confiscation of property proceeds from the general idea that the committed crime should not serve as a means of legitimate enrichment for the criminal. There is no doubt that a number of criminal acts involve obtaining a certain kind of profit or material benefit for the criminal. First of all, this statement is true for crimes committed with a selfish purpose. The result of committing these illegal acts is the illegitimate enrichment of the criminal, which introduces an imbalance in the normative order of the flow of economic relations. In connection with this general provision of a moral and legal nature, it becomes necessary not only to expose the criminal to certain negative consequences associated with restrictions on the freedom of his personality, but also to deprive him of the opportunity to use illegally acquired material benefits.

The mercenary motivation of the criminal is the main driving force for the commission of a number of crimes. The desire for illicit enrichment becomes the subject of an economic accentuation of the individual, which encourages a person to commit a criminal encroachment on legally protected property relations. The damage caused to the normal course of economic relations requires its own compensation, but it is not achieved by the restrictions imposed on the criminal's personality alone. The balance of economic relations in the society should be restored by returning to the status quo in one form or another, either by returning the object of illegitimate enrichment directly to the affected party, or by turning this object into state property.

b) The need to compensate for damage to the economic interests of the state and society.

A number of crimes involving the infliction of tangible property damage to the State require, within the framework of criminal repression, the restoration of the balance of interests of the State and society, which can sometimes be achieved only by the confiscation of criminal income or other material benefits from the crime committed. Thus, the confiscation of proceeds from corruption is the most effective measure to combat corruption crimes and prevent the laundering of proceeds from corruption, since it is a tool that deprives criminals of illegal and unfair income. The most common objects of confiscation measures are the funds used to commit corruption crimes and the income received from their commission (both direct and indirect, as well as any profit received from this).

In general, the complex of economic reasons that determine the existence of the institution of confiscation of property in the Russian legal order indicates a significant economic function of this measure of criminal coercion. The institution of confiscation of property is a typical example of the concept of economization of criminal law widely discussed in Russian and foreign legal doctrine. Its content in the most general form can be presented as a question of the economic feasibility of the operation of certain criminal law norms, the effectiveness of criminal law for the implementation of not only criminal, but also economic policy of the state. The economic "effectiveness" of criminal law lies in the fact that through a criminal law prohibition, as well as certain rules-incentives, the legislator focuses on law-abiding behavior related to economic and financial activities (payment of mandatory payments, refraining from criminal bankruptcy, etc.) [10].

In general, the term "economization" is not very applicable in the science of criminal law. The reason lies in a certain dogmatism of the criminal law doctrine, a certain isolation of criminal law. The revision of the provisions of criminal legislation containing prerequisites for economization demonstrates that the "profitable" institutions of the industry are fines, court fines, confiscation of property and exemption from criminal liability in connection with damage compensation. Cost savings for the branch of criminal law are possible through the use of institutions of exemption from criminal liability and punishment. Indirect effective application of punishments and incentives to convicts serving sentences, both related to isolation from society and unrelated, also gives a positive result: the number of convicts is reduced, damage to the victim is voluntarily compensated, recidivism is reduced.

Another direction of economizing the branch of criminal law may be the development of mechanisms to stimulate law-abiding behavior of convicts. Thus, financial gain is the main motive of corruption crimes. As a rule, criminals try to legalize the proceeds of corruption crimes in order to hide the source of origin and the inevitable link between the main corruption crimes and the laundering of proceeds from corruption.

2. Socio-cultural reasons.

a) The need to follow the established historical and legal tradition of property punishment of criminal behavior.

The institution of criminal law confiscation of property is not something fundamentally new for the domestic criminal law system. In fact, the use of confiscation of property can be traced back to the earliest times of the existence of the Russian state. In this regard, the confiscation of property is one of the oldest criminal law institutions of the state, the very fact of its centuries-old history, which emphasizes the need for its presence in the modern Russian legal order.

The legal tradition, acting as an organic connecting thread of various historical epochs of the development of the legal system of the state, also determines and emphasizes the need for the institution of confiscation of property in modern criminal law.

b) The need to satisfy a social request for fair compensation for the criminal damage caused.

It would not be a significant exaggeration to say that at the philistine level, confiscation continues to be considered by citizens as an effective form of criminal punishment for a crime committed. Confiscation meets a significant social demand for compensation for damage caused by a criminal tort to the normal course of public relations. That is why the institution of confiscation of property remained so in demand in the theory and practice of the criminal policy of the state. Already at the earliest stages of the development of the Russian state, it is possible to detect signs of a social nature that emphasize the need to confiscate property from a criminal.

For example, the flow and plunder in ancient Russian law remained a significant form of punishment throughout the medieval period of Russian history, significantly transforming according to the specifics of its purpose and application. For medieval law, the form of compensation to the victim of a crime was typical, providing for the transfer of part of the property or money from the criminal to him. At the same time, the state sought to normalize this process in a certain way by setting certain amounts of payments in favor of the victim.

3. Political and legal reasons.

a) The need for property punishment of certain types of criminal behavior.

Throughout the history of criminal law, punishment for criminal acts has been the center of countering criminal behavior. The punishability of illegal actions forms the basis of criminal law prevention, changing under the influence of current social and political processes. Today, the issue of the social and legal nature of criminal confiscation of property is again raised in the legal literature and stimulates legal initiatives to improve themselves. To analyze the reasons for such an ambiguous legal fate of the institution of confiscation in criminal legislation, it is advisable to raise the question of its social purpose and the range of tasks that it is able, both actual and potentially, to solve when implementing the criminal policy of the Russian state.

First of all, it should be noted that the confiscation of property can be considered as an institution not only of substantive, but also of procedural law. After the exclusion of this institution from the list of criminal penalties (Federal Law No. 162-FZ of December 8, 2003 // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. No. 252. December 16, 2003) confiscation of property continued to exist as a procedural institution, since Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation No. 174-FZ of December 18, 2001 (ed. of 03/25/2022, with amendments. dated 19.04.2022) // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. 24.12.2001. No. 52 (Part I). Article 4921.) provided for the possibility of confiscation of property as material evidence. Criminal procedural confiscation allowed to turn into state income property funds and items, the receipt of which became possible as a result of criminal actions of a person. Return of confiscation of property to the text of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation No. 63-FZ of 13.06.1996 (ed. of 25.03.2022) // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 17.06.1996. No. 25. St. 2954.) in 2006, as another measure of a criminal law nature (Chapter 15.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is devoted to its regulation), again stimulating a doctrinal discussion about its substantive nature and purpose.

b) The need for economic and legal prevention of future criminal behavior.

Depriving the criminal of the income received as a result of the crime committed by him, the institution of confiscation, among other things, acts as an economic tool to deter his possible future behavior, since the confiscated benefit will no longer allow his further criminal intentions to fully develop. In this regard, the economic reasons for the existence of criminal confiscation of property indicate the intention of the State to suppress the conditions leading a person to continue his illegal activities.

Taking into account current trends in crime, confiscation of proceeds and property related to crimes is a necessary tool in the fight against organized crime and corruption. However, its use is associated with increased interference in property rights. The purposes of confiscation are to deprive crime of economic benefits and to control the use of property. However, any regime requires maximum guarantees of human rights protection and a fair trial. Criminal legal measures can also be determined taking into account the orientation to the objective consequences of the elimination of the crime. Most international anti-corruption treaties oblige States to punish offenses with criminal sanctions and to expand the prospects of prosecution or asset recovery by bringing to certain criminal responsibility [11, p. 269].

However, punishments in general and confiscation in particular are a path to an unjustified expansion of State coercion, which is ineffective in preventing crime. Indeed, in this case there is no connection between the motivational aspect of the crime problem and measures to influence it. An important argument, among other things, is the formal legal gaps and contradictions that arise in the process of regulation and application of confiscation. So, if we are talking about instruments of crime, then confiscation is aimed at preventing the illegal use of "property" in a way dangerous to society, the legal origin of which has not been established. The measure of confiscation, even if it involves the deprivation of property, nevertheless represents control over the use of property. It is possible to apply confiscation to family members and other close relatives of offenders who are believed to have been able to unofficially own and dispose of "illegal" property on behalf of suspected offenders or who otherwise did not have the required "good faith" status.

Analyzing the proportionality of confiscation by a third party, it is worth noting that it is based on: 1) knowledge of the illegal origin of the property; 2) inability to explain the origin of the property; 3) type of crime (severity of the crime); 4) finding out whether a third party is a fictitious owner [12]. However, in any case, we are talking about income and property related to crimes, the confiscation of all property of third parties is unacceptable. With regard to the confiscation of proceeds and property related to crimes, the principles of legality and proportionality limit State interference in property rights. Only in this case does the State really have ethical reasons to restrict the rights and freedoms of offenders. Society, on the other hand, spends limited funds on the most effective measures to prevent crime. Another positive consequence of the relationship between legality and expediency is the prevention of a slide towards a police state in conditions of increasing crime. With regard to the confiscation of proceeds and property related to crimes, the principles of legality and proportionality set the limits of State interference in property rights.

It follows directly from the principles of legality and proportionality that the application of confiscation involves certain legal procedures. Thus, fair trial guarantees are an important part of the discussion of standards for the regulation and enforcement of confiscation. This rule applies even to the most serious criminal cases related to the activities of organized crime. Thus, the presumption that the property of a person suspected of belonging to a criminal organization is the proceeds of illegal activities, if the relevant proceedings provide the owner with a reasonable opportunity to address his case to the authorities, is not prohibited in itself [13; 14, pp. 16-17].

Any interference by the State authorities in the fair use of "property" can be justified only if it serves legitimate public (or general) interests. In particular, we are talking about measures to combat drug trafficking and smuggling; protection of the interests of victims of crime; confiscation of funds obtained illegally. In this sense, confiscation makes it possible to balance public and private interests while countering organized crime and corruption.

c) The need for the Russian criminal law system to borrow advanced means tested in foreign legal systems to counter criminal behavior.

The Russian legal system does not exist in isolation from the experience and traditions of foreign countries. The attention of the domestic criminal law doctrine and the legislator to the most effective means of countering crime, tested in foreign legal systems, also acts as a reason for the existence of the institution of confiscation of property in the criminal law of Russia. Also, the need for the widespread use of criminal confiscation of property as a measure of criminal coercion is declared in a number of international legal documents that act as the supranational basis of state criminal policy.

1. In international documents, confiscation is not explicitly defined as a criminal measure, moreover, the State may use a method other than confiscation, seizure of proceeds and property related to crimes. However, given that we are talking about the commission of crimes, it is logical to consider confiscation, at least in the vast majority of cases, as a criminal measure. It is noteworthy that the term "confiscation" is used in international acts. Although in paragraph "d" of Article 1 (Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Detection, Seizure and Confiscation of Proceeds from Criminal Activity and on the Financing of Terrorism (Concluded in Warsaw on 16.05.2005) // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. No. 8. 19.02.2018. Article 1091) the term "confiscation" is used both for punishment and for a measure (as a result, the application of both punishment and measure should be permanent deprivation of property). Part 2 of article 2 of this Convention calls upon States parties to confiscate property of "lawful or illegal origin" in the case of links with the financing of terrorism or in the case of the acquisition of property as a result of terrorist activities.

2. Article 5 of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Union (Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and notification of instrumentalities and proceedings of crime in the European Union // OJ of the EU. No. L 127. 29.04.2014) contains an indication of "extended confiscation", which can be applied if there is evidence that the value of the property is disproportionate to the legal income of the convicted person. At the same time, at this stage, confiscation of income and property related to the crime is provided for from third parties, i.e. from those who are not the subject of socially dangerous acts, but directly or indirectly received income or property related to the crime from the perpetrator. However, this applies to cases where these persons knew or should have known that the purpose of such transfer or acquisition was to avoid confiscation. That is, the importance of the rule of law, the components of which are ensuring the clarity and predictability of regulations, is not eliminated or reduced; determining the scope of rights and obligations under the law, and not at discretion; ensuring equality before the law; ensuring the fairness of judicial decisions. Confiscation, to the extent that it is not understood in international instruments, must be authorized exclusively by a court or other competent authority. However, this does not indicate the use of confiscation exclusively in criminal proceedings, i.e. it can be at least a civil process.

For many countries of the modern world, the issues of the use of confiscation of property have been actualized in the context of the general problem of countering corruption and the legalization of illegally obtained income. In this regard, the issues of confiscation of income and property related to crimes are being updated. Such confiscation is regarded as a necessary and effective tool for preventing crime and depriving it of economic meaning. In the criminal context, we are talking not only about the proceeds of crime, but also about the instruments of crime. In addition, the mechanisms of laundering dirty money (especially in transnational financial transactions) are quite effective for the legalization of such financial resources. Criminals often hide the proceeds of crime by transferring them to third parties. Consequently, by providing for and applying confiscation, legislators and courts interfere with the property rights of not only specific offenders, but also third parties [15, p. 59].

Conclusion. The socio-legal conditionality of the criminal law institution of confiscation of property is expressed in compensation for the negative consequences of the crime committed by means of asymmetric compensation for damage to public relations protected by law. Confiscation of property acts as a means of criminal law repression, designed to impose on the convicted person the obligation to suffer the negative consequences of the crime committed by him. Through the institution of confiscation, the criminal legislator focuses on law-abiding behavior related to economic and financial activities.

As a result of the conducted research on the socio-legal conditionality of criminal confiscation of property, a system of key factors (reasons) justifying the need for the existence of the institution in question was proposed. Thus, a set of reasons is proposed, the grouping of which makes it possible to identify economic, socio-cultural and political-legal factors. Their research allows us to draw the following conclusions.

Firstly, throughout the history of its existence, the criminal law institution of confiscation of property was called upon (in different historical periods with varying degrees of intensity) to compensate for the negative consequences of criminal law tort both in relation to the State and in relation to the victims of the crime. The property nature of the confiscation reflects the asymmetric compensation of the damage caused by the crime to the public relations protected by law.

Secondly, like any other criminal punishment, confiscation of property acts as a means of criminal law repression, designed to impose on the convicted person the obligation to suffer the negative consequences of the crime committed by him. Like any other punishment, confiscation acts as a means of preventing criminal behavior, warning potential criminals from committing illegal acts by demonstrating the scale of negative property consequences if their criminal intent is realized.

Finally, it is impossible to ignore the purely economic meaning of the use of confiscation of property, which in some cases allows not only to compensate for the purely financial damage from the crime committed for the state and society, but also to ensure the solution of operational tasks of replenishing the state budget at the expense of funds seized from the convicted person. As will be demonstrated further, the last socio-legal characteristic of the confiscation of property is by no means the last in importance when it comes to the seizure of property acquired by corruption. Thus, a retrospective analysis allows us to most clearly reflect the dynamics of state and public attitudes towards the criminal law institution of confiscation of property, identifying the reasons for its action and social purpose.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study, as follows from the title of the work submitted for review, is "The socio-legal conditionality of property confiscation in domestic criminal legislation." The stated boundaries of the study are observed by the author. The methodology of the research was determined by the scientist: he used the dialectical method, the method of analysis, historical-legal and formal-legal methods. The use of a comparative legal research method would allow the author to deepen some of the provisions of the article. The relevance of the chosen research topic is defined quite briefly. The scientist points out that "... the study of criminal law confiscation of property from the standpoint of its socio-legal conditionality requires the identification of that complex of causes (factors) that act as circumstances justifying the fact of its existence," in addition, "... in the post-Soviet period, the institution of confiscation underwent significant changes, moving from the category of additional punishment to the category of another measure of a criminal nature. This was not the first case of a change in the criminal law meaning of confiscation of property. ... Every time such a change became the subject of discussions in the legal doctrine, provoking significant criticism of the legislator." The author named the names of some scientists who were engaged in the study of the problems raised in the work, but did not mention which specific issues remained beyond the attention of researchers. The purpose of the study is "... to reveal the socio-legal conditionality of the institution of confiscation of property, to determine the functional purpose of this criminal instrument ...", its social role and place "... in the crime prevention system". It should be noted that the functions of criminal confiscation are not clearly highlighted by the author. The scientific novelty of the work is not explicitly stated in the text of the article. In fact, it is missing. Thus, the author identifies the key factors justifying the existence of the institution of criminal confiscation of property (economic, socio-cultural and political-legal), but they are named in many monographic works and dissertations (M. V. Bavsuna, A. N. Malysheva, E. V. Martynenko, V. A. Pimonova, D. V. Tolkov, etc.) The same applies to the scientist's conclusion that the institution of confiscation "... was called upon (in different historical periods with varying degrees of intensity) to compensate for the negative consequences of criminal law tort both in relation to the state and in relation to victims of crime." Finally, it is well known that "... like any other criminal punishment, confiscation of property acts as a means of criminal law repression designed to impose on the convicted person the obligation to endure the negative consequences of the crime committed by him. Like any other punishment, confiscation acts as a means of preventing criminal behavior...". The scientific style of the research is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the work is quite logical. In the introductory part of the article, the author makes an attempt to substantiate the relevance of the research topic, determine the degree of its scientific development, and indicate the research methodology. In the main part of the article, the scientist examines the economic, socio-cultural and political-legal factors of the existence of the criminal law institution of confiscation of property, briefly highlights the international legal experience of using this tool. The final part of the work contains the author's conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the work corresponds to its name, but is not without a number of disadvantages. As already noted, the author needs to finalize the introductory part of the study. The scientist separates the concepts of "income" and "property". How appropriate is this from a civil and criminal law point of view? The author writes: "Organized crime, the shadow economy and corruption in national and transnational dimensions undermine the economic basis of society by investing illegal money, weakening institutions and losing confidence in the rule of law." Which institutions are we talking about? The scientist points out: "This trend is especially evident in countries with economies in transition and an unstable political system, where completely unformed institutions and imperfect legal regulation cannot effectively withstand the destructive effects of organized economic crime." In this case, there is a stylistic error that changes the meaning of the statement. The author does not offer an original definition of the concept of "confiscation of property", does not disclose its essence. What is confiscation as a measure of criminal punishment? What is meant by confiscation as "another measure of a criminal nature"? What was the meaning of the transformation of the understanding of this measure? The scientist writes: "In addition, dirty money laundering mechanisms (especially in transnational financial transactions) are effective enough to legalize such financial resources." In a scientific article, the use of journalistic terms such as "dirty money" should be avoided. The term "criminal law tort" is not used in Russian legislation. The bibliography of the research is presented by 15 sources (monographs, dissertations, scientific articles, including in English). From a formal point of view, this is enough. Actually, no, because most of these works did not actually serve as a real basis for writing the article. Note that the potential source base is very extensive, but for some reason the author did not take advantage of this. In particular, in recent years monographs by M. V. Bavsun, O. V. Kurlaeva, E. V. Martynenko, N. A. Lopashenko, A. A. Propostina, etc., dissertations by A. N. Malyshev, E. V. Martynenko, V. A. Pimonov, D. V. Tolkov, scientific articles by Yu. V. Averyanova, V. K. have been published. Adrianova, S. V. Baburina, N. A. Golovanova, D. B. Lapteva, S. V. Zemlyukova, Z. H. Zokova, O. S. Kapinus, I. D. Kozochkina, E. A. Omarova, A. Ragulina, Yu. V. Sorokina, F. S. Sulaimonova, A.V. Chunina, Yu. V. Yushina, etc. Due to insufficient elaboration of the theoretical material, the work submitted for review is not characterized by the proper depth of research. There is no appeal to opponents as such. The author refers to certain sources solely to confirm his judgments; he does not enter into a scientific discussion. There are conclusions based on the results of the study. The author outlined a system of "... key factors (reasons) justifying the need for the existence of the institution in question"; established that "... the institution of confiscation of property was called upon (in different historical periods with varying degrees of intensity) to compensate for the negative consequences of criminal law tort both in relation to the state and in relation to victims of crime"; that "... confiscation of property acts as a means of criminal law repression, designed to impose on the convicted person the obligation to endure the negative consequences of the crime committed by him. Like any other punishment, confiscation acts as a means of preventing criminal behavior..."; as well as the fact that "... it is impossible to ignore the purely economic meaning of the use of confiscation of property, which in some cases allows not only to compensate for the purely financial damage from the crime committed for the state and society, but also to ensure the solution of operational tasks of replenishing the state budget for the account of funds seized from a convicted person"). Nevertheless, these provisions of the work do not have the property of scientific novelty, and therefore they need to be clarified and supplemented. The article needs careful proofreading by the author. It contains typos, spelling, punctuation and stylistic errors.
The interest of the readership in the presented article can be shown, first of all, by specialists in the field of criminal law, provided that it is substantially improved: additional justification of the relevance of the research topic, clarification of its methodology, expansion of the theoretical base of the work, introduction of elements of scientific novelty and discussion, clarification and concretization of a number of provisions of the work and conclusions based on the results of the study, elimination of shortcomings in the design of the article.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study. The subject of the research of the reviewed article is special social relations, namely criminal law confiscation of property. The author attempts to show these special social relations (criminal law confiscation of property) from the perspective of socio-legal conditionality. Research methodology. According to the author himself, he "applied the basic universal method of studying society and thinking in their development – dialectical. Special attention is paid to the method of analysis, with the help of which the necessary data are investigated to confirm the hypothesis of the social necessity of the existence of the institution of confiscation of property. Using the historical and legal method, the historical conditionality of the existence of the institution under consideration is characterized. Comparative legal research has revealed the foreign factors of the existence of confiscation of property. The basis of the research is a synthesis of domestic as well as foreign legislative and doctrinal provisions using the formal legal method. The use of such techniques allows us to identify common approaches to the consideration of legal problems." It seems that the author has correctly characterized the methodology of his scientific research. Relevance. The issues of criminal law confiscation of property are undoubtedly relevant, since they affect the property sphere of subjects. The author's attempt to analyze these social relations from the perspective of socio-legal conditionality clearly does not raise doubts about the importance and significance of this issue. Scientific novelty. It seems that the topic of the reviewed article is not considered to be completely new to legal science. Many legal scholars have addressed the issues of criminal law confiscation of property (as indicated by the author of the article himself). Style, structure, content. The style chosen by the author does not quite correspond to the writing of scientific articles. The material proposed for review is structurally representative of other types of scientific papers (for example, part of the abstract of a dissertation). We believe that it is necessary to finalize the article taking into account the requirements for scientific works of this kind. Bibliography. In general, the author has studied a sufficient number of bibliographic sources, including monographic works and publications from scientific periodicals. including in recent years. Appeals to opponents. When quoting the opinions of other scientists, the author draws up these borrowings with references to the original source. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. Despite the fact that the topic of the article "Socio-legal conditionality of confiscation of property in domestic criminal legislation" is relevant and practically significant, and the aspect chosen by the author for the study has a sign of scientific novelty, nevertheless, the style of presentation of the material does not meet the requirements for writing scientific articles. The structure of the article should be changed, since it is still not an abstract of a dissertation. To present the material consistently, competently and clearly using special legal terminology. Structure the article into an introduction (where the relevance and methodology of the article will be reflected), the main part and the conclusion, which will present the results of the study, conclusions and suggestions of the author. Since the topic is relevant at the present stage, provided that the article is finalized, it will be of scientific interest to the readership.