The dissertation is dedicated to the study of problems related to the seizure of property as an important means of ensuring criminal proceedings, and the formulation of scientifically based practical and methodical recommendations on the improvement of the current criminal procedural legislation and the practice of its application.
According to the results of the analysis of scientific sources, it was established that, for the most part, separate issues of seizure of property were considered within the framework of the current Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been proven that it is necessary to revise the existing concept of powers of the investigator, the prosecutor, giving them greater powers in the process of imposing a preliminary arrest on property, expanding the procedural possibilities of search and seizure to establish property that may be subject to arrest. The procedural status of the victim, as an active participant in the criminal process, needs to be improved in terms of his right to demand from the investigator, the prosecutor, the identification of property that can be seized and the realization of his other rights. It is the lack of proper procedural status of the investigator, prosecutor, the victim in the criminal process in the institute of property seizure, the complicated procedure of seizure of property within the framework of the current Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine and the need to implement the proposals that justify the timeliness, relevance, as well as the scientific and practical significance of the dissertation research.
Available statistical information shows that, in general, the state of combating crime does not fully meet the needs of today, and as a result, the amount of compensation for material losses is insignificant. Separate from the conditions of this state are the inadequate normative and legal support of law enforcement activities and the practice of law enforcement of criminal procedural legislation. This, in turn, entails failure to establish property and failure to seize it, violation of property rights of the victims.
Based on the results of the research, the author determined the historical genesis of the establishment and development of the institution of property seizure in criminal proceedings on the territory of Ukraine. The author's concept of seizure of property is given, which consists in the description of the property and includes a temporary ban on the alienation, disposition and/or use of property, until it is canceled in accordance with
the procedure established by the Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding which in the criminal proceedings there are sufficient grounds and reasonable suspicions to believe that it can be used to secure a civil lawsuit, recovery from a legal entity of received illegal benefits, a possible fine, confiscation of property and is subject to special confiscation.
It is determined that the purpose of seizure of property is to prevent the possibility of its concealment, damage, spoilage, destruction, transformation, alienation, as well as a temporary ban on the transfer or movement of property or a temporary ban on possession or management of property. It is proposed that the investigator, at the request of the victim, the civil plaintiff or on his own initiative, is obliged to take measures to secure the
civil claim declared in the criminal proceedings, as well as a possible future civil claim, possible confiscation of property and a possible fine.
During the research, the need to exclude from the Code of Criminal Procedure the provision on the need to seize property for the purpose of preserving material evidence was substantiated, as the current wording of Part 1 of Article 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure "Imposing seizure of property" goes beyond the content of the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council of April 3, 2014 No. 2014/42/EU "On the freezing
and confiscation of the means of committing crimes and the proceeds of criminal activities in the European Union", International standards for combating money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The author has proven that one of the ways to identify and search for property that can be seized is a search, as well as under certain circumstances and temporary access to things and documents, it is suggested that during the search, investigators and prosecutors be given the authority to impose a preliminary seizure on property.
