Take not everything and divide it

The State Duma on Wednesday adopted in the second reading and in general amendments to the Criminal Code (CC), introducing confiscation of property for a number of crimes against security, including the dissemination of fakes about the armed forces. The bill, signed by almost four hundred deputies, did not cause controversy, but parliamentarians used the platform to once again threaten the departed “traitors” whose property remained in Russia and propose expanding the use of confiscation.

On January 29, the Legislation Committee proposed holding the second and third readings of the amendments on different days, but the Duma Council decided not to delay the consideration of this issue. Let us remind you that the bill was submitted to the State Duma on January 22 by 395 deputies led by Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, and on January 24 the document passed its first reading. Amendments to the Criminal Code will allow the confiscation of money, valuables and other property used or intended to finance activities against the security of the Russian Federation, as well as, by court decision, deprivation of honorary titles for crimes such as the dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the armed forces of the Russian Federation (Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code) , public calls for extremist activities (Article 280), calls for actions aimed at violating the integrity of the Russian Federation (Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code), and a number of others. These articles are included in the existing list of articles that provide for the confiscation of property obtained as a result of a crime or used to commit it.

First Deputy Chairman of the Legislation Committee Irina Pankina (United Russia), speaking about the project, complained that “a number of reputable media outlets” interpreted it incorrectly.

“Let me remind you that confiscation is not a type of punishment, but a measure of a criminal law nature. It would seem a small, but fundamentally significant nuance that distinguishes the Soviet version of confiscation, when it was possible to confiscate anything, from the current confiscation, when only property that is directly related to a particular crime is confiscated,” explained Ms. Pankina.

However, this is precisely what did not satisfy Oleg Nilov (“A Just Russia – For Truth”). “When we confiscate only property that was used by a criminal, an enemy of our Army and Navy, to carry out harmful criminal activities—what is that? Computer, phone, golden microphone? Why don’t we confiscate other property?” – the Social Revolutionary was indignant. He is confident that it is necessary to at least oblige criminals to prove the legality of the origin of property, and it is better to return confiscation to the Criminal Code as a separate type of punishment. True, his colleagues in the Duma, “good investigators,” do not support his idea, Mr. Nilov complained.

“Everyone loves gingerbread, but we also need a club and a whip for these figures who allow themselves to commit crimes against national security,” said Andrei Lugovoi (LDPR), speaking on behalf of the faction. In his opinion, the current amendments are “one of the fundamental laws that limit foreign influence on our internal affairs,” and they will make many people think: “It’s one thing when he sits on the fence and waters his own country, and another thing when we approach this fence We’ll build a bridge.”

“You and I have found an elegant, precise, smart legal form that will make the responsibility of those who betray their homeland inevitable,” Vice Speaker Irina Yarovaya (ER) praised herself and her colleagues.

And for Nikolai Kolomeytsev (KPRF), these amendments suggested returning to the practice of creating public councils on television, since “the most serious thing is the long-term struggle for minds.”

As a result, 382 deputies voted for the adoption of the project in the second reading, and then it was immediately adopted in the third reading with 377 votes. After this, Anatoly Greshnevikov (SRZP) asked why the amendments were not supported by New People. Vyacheslav Volodin replied that the deputies would be responsible for this to their voters, who “overwhelmingly supported the adoption of this law.”

Meanwhile, the list of “enemies” against whom parliamentarians would like to apply innovations continues to grow. Thus, Olga Zanko (ER), after the vote, spoke out on her Telegram channel in favor of “checking some foreign agents who have state awards,” for example, the editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, Nobel laureate Dmitry Muratov and comedian Maxim Galkin (both included by the Ministry of Justice in register of foreign agents). And a day earlier, LDPR leader Leonid Slutsky sent a letter to Presidential Advisor Vladimir Tolstoy with a proposal to work out a mechanism for depriving him of the title of People’s Artist of the Russian Federation for a number of administrative offenses, including propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations, public calls for violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, demonstration of extremist symbols and discrediting the armed forces Russian forces.

Ksenia Veretennikova