The deputies propose to confiscate the property of the departed Russians. How this can be organized, the lawyer explained to “Dash”

With Maxim Krupskiy, Visiting Scholar of the Russia and Eurasia Program at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University

State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin called for the confiscation of the property of Russians who left the country and criticize the Russian authorities and the army, while his deputy and former Commissioner for Children’s Rights Anna Kuznetsova suggested using the property of “traitors to the country” to help orphans with housing. At the same time, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov says that the issue of confiscation of the property of the departed Russians was not discussed in the Kremlin. The legislation already has rules according to which the state can arrest or confiscate the property of citizens. What laws are in force now and whether there may be amendments that will allow the state to take away the property of Russians who have left the country – lawyer Maxim Krupsky explained to Cherta.

What does “confiscation of property” mean: in what cases can the state seize something from a person, in connection with what crimes and what kind of values can they take away? And if a person left Russia, does something change?

According to the Criminal Code, confiscation of property is the forcible seizure of money, valuables and other property and their conversion into state ownership on the basis of a guilty verdict. In particular, the authorities can seize property obtained by criminal means – for example, as a result of murder, kidnapping or illegal sale of alcoholic beverages. In criminal cases involving repeated violations of traffic rules, the convict’s car may be confiscated.

In this case, there are no exceptions for certain categories of property, including real estate: the norm of the Criminal Code proceeds from the fact that the seized property is either acquired by criminal means or used to commit criminal activities. For those who have left the country, this article works in exactly the same way.

What is the difference between seizure of property and confiscation? According to the law, only property that is obtained by criminal means, or just any valuables, can be arrested?

Suppose the court in its verdict decided to confiscate some property from the criminal. In order to carry out this sentence, the court first needs to seize the property so that the convicted person cannot somehow dispose of it, for example, sell it. This also happens with fines – the courts resort to seizing the property of the suspect or the accused in order to make sure that he pays the fine. It is important to note that property can also be seized at the stage of investigating a crime, long before a guilty verdict.

In the summer of 2022, the property of journalists accused of “discrediting the army” who left Russia was seized . The very fact that a person left the country can be considered a potential problem for collecting a fine? Will it be more likely that the court will seize the property if the defendant is abroad?

If the investigator has established that the crime caused damage to property or requires the collection of a fine from the accused, he is obliged to immediately establish what kind of property he has and seize it. The size of the fine, the timing of its non-payment, the departure of a person abroad do not matter here.

State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin calls for the confiscation of property from those who have left the country and “insult Russia.” Can they restrict entry to Russia, deprive of citizenship on the basis that a citizen has violated the law?

Currently, there are no such types of punishment in the legislation as deprivation of citizenship or a ban on entry into the Russian Federation, but this does not mean that these mechanisms will not appear in the future. It is obvious that Russia has set a course for the rehabilitation of the repressive practices of the Soviet Union – there, by the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, it was possible to deprive of citizenshipfor “actions discrediting the high rank of a citizen of the USSR and damaging the prestige or state security of the USSR.” 

If such a norm appears, what will be considered an “insult to Russia”? Do you mean the same “discrediting” of the Russian army, or can this concept be expanded to any statement against the authorities? 

It is pointless to try to answer this question, having before our eyes the existing quasi-legal legislative and law enforcement practice on “foreign agents”. Obviously, representatives of the executive and judiciary will recognize everything they see fit as an “insult to Russia” – as in the case of the so-called “discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation”. Law enforcement practice in “discrediting” cases shows that today in Russia they can be held accountable simply for expressing a negative opinion about the actions of the Russian army and the decisions of the authorities.

Volodin writes that the “fees paid by Russian citizens” are used by those who have left to “pour dirt on Russia.” Under the laws that we have now, is it possible to confiscate property on the assumption that the profit from it goes to the offense? 

Confiscation of property on the basis of “suggestion” is illegal in principle, it should be carried out only on the basis of a guilty verdict of the court.

It is not worth drawing parallels between this norm and what Mr. Volodin says – his words have nothing to do with law and constitutional requirements for the content of laws. It is quite obvious that such proposals are yet another attempt to find leverage on those citizens of the Russian Federation who continue to publicly criticize the current Russian government, exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech. The state wants, if not completely to clean up the information space from their voices, then at least to reduce them to a minimum.

Can Russia confiscate the property of a Russian on the territory of another state?

Yes maybe. If the property is located outside of Russia, then the investigator must apply with a request for seizure and potential confiscation of property to the competent authorities of a foreign state on the basis of an international treaty or an international agreement concluded with the Russian Federation.

Volodin writes that the confiscation of property will compensate for the damage to the state. Could there actually be a law that would force citizens to pay “damage” to the state? What does “damage” mean and how can it be assessed?   

The terminology used by Volodin looks like a legal term only at first glance, in fact it is all the same Soviet rhetoric about “damage to the prestige” of the state. The content of the concept of “damage to the state” will again be at the mercy of the free imagination of the law enforcer.

Most likely, as in the case of Soviet legislation, no one will disclose its meaning. It will be a kind of empty vessel, which in each case will be filled with one or another content, depending on the circumstances. Perhaps the legislator will simply decide to supplement the already existing criminal norm on “discredit” with a new type of punishment – confiscation of property.

On January 18, RIA Novosti reported that the State Duma was already preparing a bill on the confiscation of property. Can this rule really be introduced?

We are closer now than we have ever been in more than thirty years. It is obvious that the struggle of the Russian authorities against dissent has passed into a particularly active stage, any reputational, international legal and, even more so, ethical barriers (if they ever existed at all) have been removed for it. Public opinion, in my opinion, is prepared for a new round of repressions. Do not forget that any large-scale military conflict makes the use of repression especially tempting. With this in mind, against the backdrop of recent media reports , I see the prospect of “confiscation” in relation to “foreign agents” as more than real.

Translated from Russian.

This interview is republished from Dash (Черте).