АРЕШТ МАЙНА З МЕТОЮ ЗБЕРЕЖЕННЯ РЕЧОВИХ ДОКАЗІВ: ПРОБЛЕМИ ЗАСТОСУВАННЯ У СУЧАСНОМУ КРИМІНАЛЬНОМУ ПРОВАДЖЕННІ (Ukrainian)

The current Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine) allows attachment of property in view of preservation of exhibits; such attachment may be applied to property of any individual or legal entity if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it meets the criteria specified in article 98 of CPC of Ukraine, i.e., signs of physical evidence. In this regard, there arises a number of issues concerning the grounds and conditions, and things that may be seized, as well as concerning the parties to the relations formed within criminal proceedings with respect to this type of attachment, and also concerning the "local fact" to be proved, the specifics of protection of the ownership rights to such property, the appeal against property attachment, and the proportionality of use of this type of property attachment, all these reflecting its specific nature as compared to other types of property attachment. The article is aimed at singling out and elucidating the specific nature of property attachment for the purpose of ensuring maintenance and safety of physical evidence based on systematic interpretation of criminal procedure legislation and its application practice, and also at identifying the gaps in the legal and regulatory framework applicable to this type of attachment, and at formulating the proposals for their elimination. Based on the conducted research, the author concludes that current legislation of criminal procedure, having enshrined property attachment as a means of ensuring maintenance and safety of physical evidence in provisions of Chapter 17, does not reflect the specifics of such attachment to the full extent. Therefore, the author proposes that changes and amendments should be made with the aim of defining property attachment with due regard for the specifics of property attachment as a means of ensuring maintenance and safety of physical evidence; as well as with the aim of elaborating the list of items which may be seized as physical objects provided that there is sufficient reason to believe that they meet the criteria specified in Art. 98 of CPC of Ukraine; elaborating the requirements to a motion for property attachment as a means of ensuring maintenance and safety of physical evidence; highlighting the need to take into account the substantive character of suspicion and the consequences of attachment for other owners of physical objects when making a decision on property attachment. It is proved that in order to protect the property rights and interests of an individual whose property is seized in view of preservation of exhibits, it is necessary to use the rights enshrined in CPC of Ukraine for another individual whose rights or legitimate interests are restricted during pre-trial investigation. The author argues that to ensure the efficiency of criminal proceedings, all investigators of the investigation team and all prosecutors - supervisors of the proceedings should be specified in a respective ruling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Law of Ukraine / Pravo Ukraini is the property of Editorial Board of Journal "Law of Ukraine" and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)