doctoral candidate from 01.01.2025 until now
Omsk, Omsk, Russian Federation
UDC 343.1
Introduction. The development of economic relations and the transformation of crime have led to a significant change in the nature of physical evidence. An increasing share of physical evidence consists of items which, due to their bulkiness and other properties, cannot be stored together with the criminal case file. The costs of handling physical evidence have increased significantly. At the same time, the recovery of procedural costs from convicted persons in this respect is practically not implemented. Methods. The research is based on general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, generalization) and special legal methods (formal legal method, methods of interpreting legal norms). Investigative and judicial practice was studied using methods of empirical socio-legal research, which was carried out in two stages. At the first stage, 550 verdicts for 2019-2024 and the first half of 2025 were examined by random sampling from the judicial decisions database "Judicial and Regulatory Acts of the Russian Federation”. At the second stage, judges, officers of preliminary investigation bodies and supervisory authorities were interviewed, which made it possible to additionally identify investigative and judicial practice related to the subject of the study. Results. The study substantiates the conclusion that procedural costs represent state expenditures incurred in connection with the procedural duties imposed by law. The convicted person has no obligations towards other participants in the criminal proceedings in this respect. Gaps have been identified in the legal regulation of the procedure for compensating costs to persons who have accepted physical evidence for storage without concluding a contract, and ways of overcoming these gaps are proposed. It is demonstrated that the recovery of procedural costs is aimed at ensuring the participants’ right to the immediate judicial examination of physical evidence during the trial. The transfer of the challenging of physical evidence to the pre-trial stage is assessed as an effective mechanism substituting for in-court examination, reducing federal budget expenditures and contributing more to the establishment of the truth than long-term storage of physical evidence that is rarely requested in court proceedings.
physical evidence, immediacy, handling, challenging, procedural costs, storage
1. Uvarov S. Yu. Spornye voprosy pri vzyskanii processual'nyh izderzhek // Ugolovnyy process. 2019. № 7 (175). S. 70–75.
2. Golovkin O. E. O sovershenstvovanii srokov hraneniya veschestvennyh dokazatel'stv // Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Pravo. 2014. № 4 (19). S. 207–212.
3. Perekrestov V. N., Zarubina M. R., Borisova A. N. Problemy otneseniya rashodov, ponesennyh v hode proizvodstva po ugolovnomu delu, k inym processual'nym izderzhkam // Aprobaciya. 2016. № 10 (49). S. 138–139.
4. Karipova A. T., Omarov E. A., Akishov A. Zh. Processual'nye izderzhki v ugolovnom processe: ponyatie i priznaki // Vestnik Instituta zakonodatel'stva i pravovoy informacii Respubliki Kazahstan. 2019. № 2 (56). S.91–99.
5. Kvasnikov A. V. Processual'nye aspekty organizacii vozmescheniya rashodov uchastnikov ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva / Ugolovnyy process i kriminalistika: pravovye osnovy, teoriya, praktika, didaktika (K 75-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya professora B. Ya. Gavrilova) : sbornik nauchnyh statey po materialam mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferencii, g. Moskva, 3 noyabrya 2023 g. Moskva : Akademiya upravleniya MVD Rossii, 2023. S. 101–105.
6. Molotkov N. V. Klassifikaciya processual'nyh izderzhek: podhody k formirovaniyu kriteriev // Forum molodyh uchenyh. 2019. № 12 (40). S. 561–569.
7. Kal'nickiy V. V. Processual'nye dokumenty, sroki, izderzhki // Zakonodatel'stvo i praktika. 2013. № 2 (31). S. 85–88.
8. Himicheva O. V., Tutynin I. B. Obespechenie vzyskaniya processual'nyh izderzhek v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve // Vestnik Volgogradskoy akademii MVD Rossii. 2025. № 3 (74). S. 100–108.
9. Anheeva U. I., Samdanova B. B. Aktual'nye voprosy instituta veschestvennyh dokazatel'stv v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve / Aktual'nye problemy yurisprudencii : sbornik statey po materialam X mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferencii, g. Novosibirsk, 28 maya – 8 iyunya 2018 g. Novosibirsk : Sibirskaya akademicheskaya kniga, 2018. T. 5 (10). S. 25–28.
10. Derishev Yu. V. Institut processual'nyh izderzhek: problemy realizacii i puti optimizacii // Ugolovnaya yusticiya. 2021. № 18. S. 49–57. https://doi.org/10.17223/23088451/18/9
11. Mamedov R. Ya. Obschie problemy predstavleniya veschestvennyh dokazatel'stv na stadii vozbuzhdeniya ugolovnogo dela // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel'stve. 2015. № 1. S. 218–222.
12. Dranichnikova N. V. Problemy primeneniya instituta processual'nyh izderzhek v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve // Pravoporyadok: istoriya, teoriya i praktika. 2022. № 1 (32). S. 122–127.
13. Zelenin S. R. Sudebnye izderzhki i ih mesto v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve po Ustavu 1864 goda // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2021. T. 25, № 4. S. 129–143. https://doi.org/10.12737/jrl.2021.051
14. Churkin A. V. Processual'nye izderzhki kak stimul dlya dobrosovestnogo pol'zovaniya processual'nymi pravami // Lex Russica. 2017. № 4 (125). S. 74–88. https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2017.125.4.074-088
15. Bulatov B. B., Dezhnev A. S. Osnovaniya nalozheniya aresta na imuschestvo dlya obespecheniya ispolneniya prigovora v chasti imuschestvennyh vzyskaniy, ne svyazannyh s obespecheniem grazhdanskogo iska, shtrafa ili vozmozhnoy konfiskacii imuschestva // Rossiyskiy sledovatel'. 2018. № 3. S. 39–43.
