UDK: 355.243

Mariyam F. Mingalimova - Candidate of Law, associate professor, Kazan Law Institute (branch), University of Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, Kazan, Russia

Abstract. The current paper has examined a range of issues related to the use of vehicle confiscation as a criminal-law measure to terminate criminal cases on non-rehabilitating grounds. There has been analyzed the legal nature of such grounds, their differences from rehabilitating grounds, and the legal consequences for the individual against whom the criminal case is terminated. Based on a review of judicial practice and court rulings, there has been substantiated that confiscation of a vehicle under paragraph “d” of Part 1 of Article 104.1 of the Russian Criminal Code in a traffic safety offense committed while intoxicated should be mandatory upon proof of the vehicle’s use to commit the crime, regardless of the subsequent outcome of the criminal case. There has been made a conclusion regarding the mandatory nature of the confiscation provision and its preventive purpose.

Keywords: confiscation; vehicle; termination of a criminal case; non-rehabilitating grounds; criminal liability; traffic safety; judicial fine; expiration of the statute of limitations.

References:

1. Larin, Ye. G. Konfiskatsiya transportnogo sredstva: novoye v ugolovnom zakonodatel'stve, sudebnaya praktika [Confiscation of a vehicle: new developments in criminal legislation, judicial practice] / Ye. G. Larin // Vestnik Sibirskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii. — 2023. — № 2 (51). — S. 41—49.
2. Bagautdinov, F. N. Srok davnosti — isklyucheniye iz pravil [Statute of limitations is an exception to the rule] / F. N. Bagautdinov // Zakonnost'. — 2024. — № 8. — S. 46—48.

Download article: PDF file

For citation: copy to clipboard

Mingalimova M.F. Confiscation of vehicles when terminating a criminal case on non-rehabilitating grounds// Transport law and security. 2025; (4(56)):29―37.