What does business think about the project – Economics – Kommersant
[ad_1]
The head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, Alexander Shokhin, expects that work to reduce the criminal risks of business will continue. He noted that the draft has not yet taken into account the proposals of the RSPP on the introduction of coordination of detention with the prosecutor’s office, although such a procedure could provide a more thorough consideration of the arguments of investigators and business. The proposal to consider the issue of extending the detention of those suspected of economic offenses in custody by a higher court was not taken into account either – the union believes that if a particular court has already made a decision on detention, then it “is difficult for it to refuse to extend it.” In addition, the RSPP proposes to scale up the practice of using collateral. They note that now the mechanism practically does not work: one of the reasons is the absence of a fork in the size of the deposit: now there is only a lower limit. Mr. Shokhin proposes to define a strict framework with reference to the amount of alleged harm, for example, by limiting the bail ceiling to twice the amount of damage.
Boris Titov, Commissioner for the Protection of Entrepreneurs’ Rights, draws attention to the fact that the draft retains the wording “if the crimes are committed in connection with the implementation of entrepreneurial activities.” “It is with her help that investigators successfully bypass the restrictions of Part 1.1 of Art. 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (prohibition on detention of entrepreneurs.— “b”). If a charge is brought, for example, under an article on fraud, the courts very easily accept the position of the investigation that fraud (not yet proven) has nothing to do with entrepreneurial activity. In this case, the court refuses to consider the entrepreneur an entrepreneur and sends him to jail,” he explains. Now the investigator is invited to prove his position with “specific information confirming that the act was not committed in connection with the implementation of entrepreneurial activity,” but this information may remain exactly the same as before, the business ombudsman fears. “It remains to be hoped that the need for proof will seem too troublesome to some of the investigators and he will consider that the tasks of justice can be solved without isolating the accused. Although the restrictions of Part 1.1 of Art. 108 are successfully (both now and in the future) overcome by declaring a person to have fled from the preliminary investigation bodies or from the court,” adds Mr. Titov. The business ombudsman considers the wording on the choice of a preventive measure that does not interfere with doing business (in addition to refusing to be kept in a pre-trial detention center, this also means refusing to use house arrest), the business ombudsman considers it useful, but on condition that the restrictions described above work.
[ad_2]
Source link