2025, Vol. 4, No. 3. - go to content...

Permanent address of this page - https://spnjournal.ru/en/06spn325.html

Метаданные этой статьи так же доступны на русском языке

Full article in PDF format (file size: 497.6 KB)

For citation:

Shestakova D.M., Malin P.M. On the impact of criminal procedural coercion on the functioning of business entities. Journal of Social Policy, Population Preservation and Reproductivity. 2025; 4(3). Available at: https://spnjournal.ru/PDF/06SPN325.pdf (in Russian).

On the impact of criminal procedural coercion on the functioning of business entities

Shestakova Darya Mikhailovna
Kuban State Agrarian University named after I.T. Trublin, Krasnodar, Russia
E-mail: dariregardless228@mail.ru

Malin Petr Mikhailovich
Kuban State Agrarian University named after I.T. Trublin, Krasnodar, Russia
E-mail: malin.peter@yandex.ru

Abstract. The article examines the impact of measures of criminal procedural coercion on the activities of business entities and related losses. In the context of strengthening cooperation between business and the state in the Russian Federation, the problem of applying criminal procedural coercion measures to business entities is becoming relevant. This study is devoted to the analysis of the contradiction between the public goals of criminal proceedings and the significant negative economic consequences that interim measures inflict on the activities of enterprises. The key thesis of the work is that such tools as the seizure of property (Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the blocking of accounts, the seizure of documentation and the temporary removal of the head (Article 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) are often used without a proper assessment of their proportionality and potential damage. This leads to an imbalance in which measures designed to ensure investigation actually paralyze the work of companies, causing damage that is inadequate to the severity of a possible offense.

The methodological basis of the research is economic, legal and empirical analysis. Based on the study of judicial practice (for example, the case of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District No. A40-154321/2021) and statistical data (including information from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation and Rosstat), specific consequences are demonstrated: an average decrease in the liquidity ratio by 37 %, a decrease in revenue by 24 %, the loss of up to 27 % of counterparties and a long (up to 9 months) the period of activity recovery. The study reveals a systemic problem: the existing procedural guarantees (art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) are formal in nature and do not create effective mechanisms to prevent or compensate for economic damage, which is confirmed by the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the need for proportionality of restrictions.

Keywords: criminal procedural coercion; business entities; economic consequences; proportionality of measures; seizure of property; seizure of documents; financial indicators; judicial control; compensation for harm; corporate compliance

Download article in PDF format