Responsibility for giving false testimony: criminal (Article 306, 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and administrative

Types of liability for lies

You can divide all information that does not correspond to reality into two conditional groups:

False reporting of a crime or offense - that is, a written statement, a phone call, an appeal on the official website of a law enforcement agency, etc. In such situations, the person involved in the unreasonable call is held accountable.
False testimony during questioning during court proceedings (both criminal and civil), as well as when participating in the stage of preliminary investigation (inquiry). At the same time, the law lists the status of those persons who can be involved: these are witnesses, specialists, experts, translators, and also victims.

Depending on the circumstances, administrative proceedings or criminal proceedings may be initiated.

Let's look at various life situations using examples.

False incident reporting

In what cases does administrative liability arise?

First of all, those who call the police for a fictitious reason are attracted. Thus, Article 19.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for punishment from one to one and a half thousand rubles for a knowingly false call:

Ambulance;
firefighters;
other specialized city services.

It is difficult to say with what intention people call the special services for no reason. Most often this is done by teenagers who have fun in this way. Let us remind you that a person who has reached the age of 16 may be held liable for any administrative offense. Until the age of 16, a teenager is not held accountable, but may well be registered with the PDN.

As with any other offense, for liability to be established, the guilt of the offender must be established, which is not always possible.

Example No. 1 . The police department received a report of hooliganism by a drunk company in the courtyard of a residential building. Having arrived at the scene, the duty team did not find the hooligans, and when interviewing citizens living in this yard, it became clear that the call was false. The phone number from which the call was made was used to identify a man who contacted the police. He admitted that he had deceived the duty officer; there was no hooliganism. At the same time, he explained his actions by saying that he repeatedly called the police because of two people who constantly relieved themselves in the arch of the house, but since the police did not come to any of the 12 calls about this fact, he decided to report others that were not true , information about a more serious violation. In this case, the court considered the evidence provided insufficient to establish the guilt of the citizen who called the police out of despair.

Based on practice, persons who clearly and without any worthy reason called the police or other services are brought to administrative liability.

Example No. 2 . College students decided to make a joke and made a call 01, reporting a fire in a private house. After the firefighters arrived, the police were immediately called to draw up a report under Art. 19.13 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, since the call was determined to be false. The callers made excuses for a long time, saying that the fire seemed to them because a fire was burning in a neighboring area (the neighbor actually burned garbage). After a thorough check, it was determined that it was impossible to confuse the fire with a fire on the roof of a residential building (this is what was reported to operator 01), the students’ actions were recognized as intentional, and they were held liable in the form of a fine of 1,000 rubles each.

Usually pranksters call the police, fire department, and less often an ambulance. Other specialized organizations whose intentional challenge falls under Article 19.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation include road, gas, energy services, etc. For example, there are false calls about the smell of gas in a house, about a supposedly collapsed sidewalk where a car landed, about a broken electrical wire, etc. Such information is subject to immediate verification according to the internal instructions of each government agency. By misinforming service dispatchers, such calls disrupt the work of departments as a whole: working time is wasted on imaginary incidents, while at this time others may need real help.

Criminal liability

According to Art. 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation attracts those who reported a crime that actually did not happen. For such actions the legislator provided:

fine up to 120,000 rubles , compulsory work up to 480 hours, correctional labor up to 2 years, imprisonment up to 2 years;
a fine of up to 300,000 rubles or 3 years of imprisonment in the case where a serious or especially serious crime was reported.
Example No. 3 . Nosov E.N., who divorced his wife on her initiative, decided to take revenge on her and called the police. He reported that Nosova K.T. mocks their common son, beats him, keeps him at home for many months, does not take him to the clinic, that is, thereby committing several acts directed against the child’s health. During the verification of the oral statement of Nosov E.N. it was found that the information received by the police was untrue - Nosova does an excellent job raising her son, devotes a lot of time to his development, takes the child to the sports section, school, etc. Against Nosov E.N. a criminal case was initiated for false accusations of committing a serious crime; following the results of the consideration of the case in court, he was given a suspended prison sentence. The ex-wife managed to recover compensation for moral damage in the amount of 50,000 rubles from the convicted person.
imprisonment for up to 6 years if artificial creation of evidence of guilt is proven.
It should be noted that it is in this form that this corpus delicti is less common in practice compared to the “simple” corpus delicti, since it is more difficult to collect evidence. Example No. 4 . Rektov R.P. filed a complaint with the police about his car being stolen. At the same time, he explained that he was beaten by two unknown persons, pushed out of the car and drove off in an unknown direction. During the check, it was established that at 14:15 (the time that the applicant indicated as the time of the theft), he was seen by a neighbor in the entrance, he was sitting in a cafe with a woman and having lunch, and there were no bruises on his face. Subsequently, a friend of the applicant was interrogated, who admitted that, at Rektov’s request, he struck him in the face with minor force and took the car into his garage for storage. Thus, Rektov was sentenced to 1 year of imprisonment under Part 3 of Art. 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (it was established that the motive for the crime was obtaining insurance), including for the creation of artificial evidence.

A separate article of the Russian Criminal Code provides for punishment for false reporting of a terrorist attack. So, in accordance with Art. 207 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the guilty person may be sentenced to up to 5 years in prison .

As a result of a false call to the police, ambulance or other special services, damage is caused to the state, which is recovered from the culprit. The most significant material damage can be caused when responding to a fraudulent report of an act of terrorism, since rapid response teams, dog handlers, explosives experts, and experts are involved, whose presence at the scene of such types of cases is strictly necessary. The departure of all the listed employees could cost the state up to 50,000 rubles, if you count the participation of each of them. The courts recover the wasted amount from the troublemaker, who is previously found guilty under Art. 207 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In some cases, damages are calculated during the preliminary investigation and are recovered from the perpetrator simultaneously with the sentencing.

The plaintiff and defendant cannot be punished for giving false testimony, but their reputation is worth preserving

Few people know that in a Russian court you can lie without fear of any consequences. What to do if your opponent constantly changes the circumstances with which he explains his claims? The legal service of Our Version decided to find the answer to this question.

LLC "Dialan" (publisher of the newspaper "Our Version")

found herself in an absurd situation in the Khamovnichesky Court of Moscow. As soon as the original cause of the dispute was disavowed, the plaintiff presented new frivolous claims. Everything looks as if he is adjusting the conditions to the desired solution to his problem. You may ask: what about the criminal article for false testimony? We answer: it applies to witnesses, experts and interpreters, but not to plaintiffs and defendants.

The main characters of court chronicles, in fact, can say anything, and nothing will happen to them for it. The plaintiff's lies prevent the court from establishing the specific circumstances of the case, which not only damages the reputation of the entire judicial system. Court decisions made on the basis of false testimony are appealed to higher authorities and, as a result, lead to an increase in the workload of judges. That's why this happens.

The Law on the “Second Truth”

Judicial reform has been going on in Russia for several years. For almost as long, the judicial community has been arguing about whether liability for false testimony is necessary for plaintiffs and defendants. Some believe that the current order gives a participant in the process a way to protect his right. The plaintiff and defendant are directly interested in the outcome of the case (and in the opposite result)

.
Whose truth is the case must be decided by the court, which is obliged not only to listen to the explanations of the parties, but also to collectively study other evidence in the case. If one of the parties is deprived of the opportunity to defend their position (even if it is a losing one)
, then the process may lose its competitiveness.

On the other hand, it is important that such behavior of the plaintiff does not lead to abuse of law. Therefore, another part of the judicial community considers the situation in Russia paradoxical. Why is it that in the entire civilized world a participant in a trial is punished for false testimony, regardless of his status, but not here? Why does the law tell only witnesses and experts that they cannot lie? Probably everyone has seen how in American films the heroes, placing their hand on the Bible, swear to tell only the truth in court. In British courts, distortion or concealment of facts by one of the parties can negate absolutely all the evidence on which it relies. Such rigor encourages all participants in the process to separate verifiable facts from opinions, assumptions and fantasies.

There can only be one truth. Each person participating in the case must prove the circumstances, the facts to which he refers, as the basis for his claims and objections (Article 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation)

. The outcome of the case depends on how much you can prove.

Helplessness of the court against lies

Is there really no recourse for the plaintiff if he openly tries to mislead the court? Opponents of criminal liability say that existing legislation can be used. Indeed, in theory, it is possible to bring a liar to justice under several articles of the Civil Procedure Code (CCP)

of the Russian Federation, the Civil Code
(Civil Code)
of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration Procedural Code
(APC)
of the Russian Federation.

On this topic

2801

Kirkorov and Maruv presented a video beyond censorship

Philip Kirkorov and Maruv released a very extravagant video for the song Komilfo. According to the plot of the video, the king of the Russian stage is a patient of a mental hospital, and the Ukrainian singer is a nurse in this clinic.

In particular, in accordance with Art. 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is possible to sue an opponent for compensation for moral damage if he provided the court with false information. Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation allows for compensation for material damage if it was caused to the victim as a result of the defendant deceiving the court. But practice shows that at the moment the courts most likely will not apply these rules when the plaintiff misrepresents the facts.

In a number of cases, false testimony gives rise to bringing its author to justice under Part 1, Art. 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Slander”)

. But in this situation, you will have to prove the deliberate nature of the dissemination of defamatory information, and this can be difficult to do. Therefore, at best, you will have to be content with a court decision on the subject of the dispute made in your favor.

Impunity breeds irresponsibility

Any person has the right to reveal his vision of the situation, but he should not distort the facts. Article 431 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that when interpreting the terms of a contract, the court takes into account the literal meaning of the words and expressions contained in it. But the circumstances surrounding the signing of the document are more difficult to assess. For example, the defendant may insist that the disputed agreement was signed in January in Moscow, and the plaintiff - that the parties agreed on everything verbally in August when exchanging messages by email. In this example, we are talking about stating two different facts, one of which is trying to replace the other. Unfortunately, the average person is accustomed to saying in court what he wants to see in a given situation. And all over the world, it turns out, the court must tell the truth.

Alena Seroshtan, Legal department of Versiya LLC

This is the practice of European courts, where a participant in the process sets out the facts influencing the outcome of the case under the influence of “affido” (Latin - “I swear on oath”)

. Such an “oath” is pronounced directly in the process itself or before a notary. If the court suspects a party of distorting information, it has the right to refuse to consider the claim. Therefore, each participant in the process who reports any information under oath is aware that he bears responsibility for it, even criminal, which leads not only to the improvement of the judicial system, but also to an increase in the level of legal awareness among citizens participating in the process.

Some of our fellow citizens, unfortunately, demonstrate a complete lack of legal consciousness in the courts. For example, Evdokimov S.M.

or his representative by proxy
O.A. Nikolotova
or
L.A. Fedina
, director of the legal entity, tried to deprive the new owners of premises in the center of Moscow of their ownership rights. They wanted to prove that the ground and first floors of the house at 4a Maly Mogiltsevsky Lane are “common premises.” And that the auctions held for city property through the Sberbank site, in fact, could not sell the residents’ space. The basis, it seems, was only the words of the owner of a room in a communal apartment, who allegedly stored his belongings in the indicated premises, and also used them to access the technical rooms of the house to take readings from the meters. We assume only because in fact it is not known who - the lawyers or the tenant - maneuvered between his own claims.

On this topic

2399

FAS filed a case against Alfa Bank and rapper Morgenstern due to obscene advertising

The Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) of Russia has opened a case against Alfa Bank and the popular rapper Morgenstern. The agency suspects them of violating the requirements of the Law “On Advertising” in the video “Clip for 10 Lyama.”

They could not provide a single serious document to support their words. The defendant explained that all metering devices are located in a completely different place; access to them is not required to the disputed premises. It would seem that the dispute can be considered over, but the trial continues. The plaintiff clarified the statement of claim, excluding from it some of the claims related to metering units. Then he increased the rights of claim twenty times in area! Then I cut it in half. Evdokimov’s representatives could not decide what to come up with this time and what else to ask from the court. They asked for documents from Rosreestr, and from the BTI, and an examination, and called everyone to court, including the management company, which, however, later explained that it did not know about any common property in these premises. The name was also given to the city that owned and rented out these premises to Narcology since 1989.

Each document received ultimately showed that there was no reason to believe the Plaintiff’s words. As a result, the court wasted time, other government agencies that provided documents were distracted, the defendant wasted time, and the premises stood idle awaiting a court decision. He most likely will not bear any responsibility for his previous unfounded accusations. True, the lawyers who represent his interests are unlikely to improve their reputation through such dexterity. Perhaps the institution of the reputation of lawyers is the only thing that Russian justice can hope for given the imperfection of the rules against perjury.

Opinion

Kirill Shtykhno, Head of Legal Department of Versiya LLC:
Kirill Shtykhno, Head of Legal Department, Versiya LLC
– To the above, it should be added that this is not the first time our publication has encountered this problem. In almost every process in which our publishing house is involved, the plaintiffs “manipulate” the initially provided data as they please. And they do not bear responsibility under the law for what is usually associated with their own inattention or forgetfulness. At the same time, our lawyers draw the attention of the courts to these facts, but the courts do not properly perceive their opinion. At most, judges can “scold” a participant in the process for some “fact.” Thus, we see here a serious problem, which primarily affects the timing of consideration of legal disputes, which are often artificially delayed by unscrupulous plaintiffs. Perhaps this is where our legislators should turn their attention to the European experience.

False testimony

The rules for prosecution for knowingly giving false testimony are as follows.

Administrative punishment

Administrative punishment in the form of a fine of 1000-1500 rubles awaits those who give false testimony in an administrative case, or as part of initiated enforcement proceedings (Article 17.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

What does this look like in practice?

Example No. 5 . The magistrate considered the issue of bringing to administrative responsibility the driver who refused to undergo examination. Driver Antonov E.R. was brought to justice under Art. 12.26 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and when considering the material in court, witnesses A.A. Raketov. and Mostovoy K.E. gave false testimony. Moreover, immediately before the interview, they were explained their rights and obligations, including the obligation to tell the truth. Witnesses reported that Antonov E.R. was sober, and no one suggested that he undergo a medical examination to determine his blood alcohol content. After viewing the surveillance video, which recorded Antonov’s unsteady gait getting out of the car, a bottle of vodka in his hand, and the actions of the inspector inviting him to take a breathalyzer test, administrative proceedings were initiated against the false witnesses, who were subsequently fined by the court in the amount of 1,000 rubles each.

It is important to know that administrative liability for giving false testimony is possible only if Part 5 of Art. 25.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which stipulates a mandatory warning about liability for lies. If there is no mark that the witness was warned about this, then there will be no administrative offense. In relation to our example, if Raketov and Mostovoy had not been warned about such liability before giving evidence, then the administrative materials under Art. 17.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation could not be initiated.

At the stage of enforcement proceedings, holding persons accountable for knowingly false information is quite rare in practice. First of all, such situations may arise during the identification of sources of income and property of debtors. For example, when an accountant at the debtor’s place of business provides information in a survey report about a deliberately underestimated average salary, an outsider reports that the item to be collected belongs to him and not to the debtor, etc.

According to Art. 17.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, not only witnesses, but also:

victim;
specialist;
expert;
translator.

At the same time, the legislator gives only the witness and the victim the right not to testify against themselves or their loved ones (spouses, children, parents, etc.). This does not mean that, using family ties, you can freely and with impunity tell lies. But if the person being interrogated keeps silent about some facts concerning himself or, for example, a brother or sister, then no one will be able to hold him accountable for this.

Criminal liability

Criminal liability for giving false testimony is provided for in Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Under this provision, those who lie during an investigation or in court in a criminal (civil) case may be punished.

It is no secret that many witnesses and victims in a court hearing change their testimony in favor of the defendant. The reasons for this may be different, but most often, as the end of the trial approaches and the final decision (that is, the sentence) is made, the victim feels sorry for the defendant, they often reconcile, and the victim is compensated for the harm by the relatives.

In accordance with Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, punishment can be in the form of:

fine up to 80,000 rubles;
compulsory work for up to 480 hours;
correctional labor for up to 2 years;
up to 5 years of imprisonment (if the testimony does not correspond to reality relates to charges of a serious or especially serious crime).

In practice, there are cases when the applicant’s actions consist of reporting false information about an allegedly committed crime, and subsequently he also gives false testimony in a criminal case.

Example No. 6 . Frolov R.Sh., who has hostile relations with neighbors in the area, set fire to his own barn, after which he reported on “02” about the arson allegedly by other persons. In his statement, Frolov R.Sh. indicated that the day before he saw his neighbor P.A. Lednev. I brought three cans of gasoline to my home. A fire-technical examination showed the consistency of the substance, the remains of which were found at the scene of the incident, with samples of gasoline seized from Lednev’s house. Both during the investigation and in court, Frolov conveyed untrue information that he personally saw Lednev located near his barn a few minutes before the arson. The deception was revealed when a witness was found who saw R.Sh. Frolov splashing some liquid on his barn, and a few minutes later there was already a flame. Additionally, two witnesses confirmed Lednev’s presence at the time of the fire in the theater, and a ticket was presented. Frolov was convicted of knowingly falsely reporting a crime under Art. 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as for giving false testimony under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The Court of Appeal considered this to be incorrect and left only Art. 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since it covers the crime of giving untruthful testimony.

Thus, if a person makes a false call about a crime, and then gives false testimony in the same case, liability for the call is sufficient; no additional qualifications are required.

Let us recall that according to Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, not only witnesses, but also specialists, experts, translators can be involved if they provide the court (investigation) with knowingly false information that they should have provided by the nature of their activity. The liability of these persons also occurs only if they were warned of the possible consequences in the form of criminal prosecution.

Commentary to Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The main object of this crime is the interests of justice. An additional object is the rights and interests of an individual, the interests of a legal entity.

The public danger of the considered encroachment on the interests of justice is that distortion of the truth in the testimony of a witness, victim or specialist, expert opinion or translation prevents the establishment of the truth in a criminal or civil case, disrupts the normal functioning of the judicial system, the work of investigative and inquiry bodies and may interfere with the decision legal, reasonable and fair court verdict, as required by Art. 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, or a lawful and justified court decision, as required by Art. 195 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. The requirement of legality, validity and motivation for decisions, decisions and determinations made by the arbitration court is contained in Part 3 of Art. 15 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

The objective side of the crime consists of one of the following acts committed by action: 1) knowingly false testimony of a witness; 2) knowingly false testimony of the victim; 3) knowingly false conclusion or testimony of an expert; 4) knowingly false testimony of a specialist; 5) deliberately incorrect translation in court. The act may be committed in criminal, civil or arbitration proceedings or during a preliminary investigation.

Knowingly false testimony of a witness, explanation of a specialist, expert opinion, or deliberately incorrect translation during proceedings in a case of an administrative offense shall entail punishment under Art. 17.9 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, a witness is a person who may be aware of any circumstances relevant to the investigation and resolution of a criminal case, and who is called to testify. Similar definitions are contained in Art. 69 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and Art. 56 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are not subject to questioning as witnesses: 1) a judge, a juror - about the circumstances of the criminal case that became known to them in connection with their participation in the proceedings in this criminal case; 2) lawyer, defender of the suspect, accused - about the circumstances that became known to him in connection with the application to him for legal assistance or in connection with its provision; 3) lawyer - about the circumstances that became known to him in connection with the provision of legal assistance; 4) the clergyman - about the circumstances that became known to him from confession; 5) a member of the Federation Council, a deputy of the State Duma without their consent - about the circumstances that became known to them in connection with the exercise of their powers.

According to clause 1, part 4, art. 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, a witness has the right to refuse to testify against himself, his spouse and other close relatives, the circle of whom is defined in paragraph 4 of Art. 5 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. If a witness agrees to testify, he must be warned that his testimony may be used as evidence in a criminal case, including in the event of his subsequent refusal to testify.

In accordance with Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, a victim is an individual to whom a crime has caused physical, property, or moral harm, as well as a legal entity in the event that a crime causes damage to its property and business reputation. The inquirer, investigator, prosecutor or court make a decision on recognition as a victim. It is from this moment that an individual or legal entity acquires the procedural status of a victim.

The victim has the right to refuse to testify against himself, his spouse and other close relatives, the circle of whom is defined in paragraph 4 of Art. 5 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. If the victim agrees to testify, he must be warned that his testimony can be used as evidence in a criminal case, including in the event of his subsequent refusal of this testimony (Clause 3, Part 2, Article 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) .

In accordance with Art. 277 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the interrogation of the victim is carried out according to the rules for interrogating a witness. In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, before interrogation, the presiding officer establishes the identity of the witness, clarifies his relationship to the defendant and the victim, explains to him the rights, duties and responsibilities (for giving knowingly false testimony or refusal to testify, for disclosing preliminary investigation data), provided for in Art. 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, about which the witness gives a signature, which is attached to the minutes of the court session.

The procedural basis for initiating a criminal case under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as well as Articles 308 and 310 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) are deliberate actions to violate the prohibitions set out in the subscription. Similar provisions are enshrined in Art. 176 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and Art. 56 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Testimony of a victim or witness is data about any circumstances to be established in the case, selected during interrogation by an inquiry officer, investigator or court (Articles 78, 79 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, Article 69 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Article 56 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure of the Russian Federation). That is, information about the circumstances affecting the resolution of the case on the merits. Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not refer to testimony about unimportant circumstances related to the case (for example, a witness changing his explanation of the reason for his appearance at the crime scene during the investigation). Only those statements that relate to significant circumstances are criminal, i.e. influence the adoption of a lawful and justified verdict, decision or other judicial act. They relate to the subject of proof in criminal proceedings, and to the subject of the claim in civil proceedings.

If a witness (victim) simply refuses to speak, he may be held accountable not under the article in question, but for refusing to testify in accordance with Art. 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

All listed in the disposition of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, actions must be committed during the preliminary investigation or at a court hearing. False information given by a witness, for example, in a conversation with a prosecutor, does not constitute a crime under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

According to Art. 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, an expert is a person who has special knowledge and is appointed in the manner prescribed by law to conduct a forensic examination and give an opinion.

In accordance with Part 4 of Art. 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, an expert does not have the right to: give a knowingly false conclusion (clause 4), disclose preliminary investigation data that became known to him in connection with his participation in a criminal case as an expert, if he was warned about this in advance in the manner established by Art. 161 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (clause 5).

In the preparatory part of the court hearing in accordance with Art. 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the presiding officer explains to the expert his rights and responsibilities under Art. 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, about which the expert gives a signature, which is attached to the minutes of the court session. Similar instructions are contained in Art. 171 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and Part 5 of Art. 55 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Violation of the subscription requirements will be a procedural basis for criminal prosecution in case of giving a knowingly false conclusion.

In accordance with Art. 282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation during the judicial investigation, at the request of the parties or on its own initiative, the court has the right to call for questioning an expert who gave an opinion during the preliminary investigation, to clarify or supplement his conclusion. In this case, the expert is questioned as a witness with all the rights and obligations arising from this status.

The falsity of an expert’s conclusion is expressed in a deliberate distortion of the facts identified by him or in keeping silent about them, or in an incorrect assessment of the facts, false conclusions from the case materials presented for research.

In accordance with Art. 58 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, specialist is a person with special knowledge, involved in participation in procedural actions in the manner established by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, to assist in the discovery, securing and seizure of objects and documents, the use of technical means in the study of materials of a criminal case, to pose questions to an expert, as well as to explain to the parties and the court issues within his professional competence.

Unlike an expert, a specialist is subject to criminal liability not for giving a knowingly false conclusion, but for knowingly giving false testimony.

The falsity of a specialist’s testimony is expressed in a deliberate distortion of the facts identified by him or in keeping silent about them, or in a deliberately incorrect assessment of the facts, false conclusions from the case materials presented for research. Like an expert, a specialist testifies as a witness.

An interpreter is a person invited to participate in criminal proceedings in cases provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, who is fluent in a language, the knowledge of which is necessary for translation, and also has the skills of sign language interpretation and is invited to participate in criminal proceedings (Article 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

In the preparatory part of the court hearing in accordance with Art. 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the presiding officer explains to the translator his rights and responsibilities under Art. 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, about which the translator gives a signature, which is attached to the minutes of the court session. Similar provisions are contained in Art. 162 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and Art. 57 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Incorrect translation consists of distorting the meaning of translated case materials (oral or written) - testimony or documents during a preliminary investigation or during a trial. The translator’s silence about circumstances essential to the resolution of the case when translating testimony and documents will also be false.

All of the above acts committed in court or during a preliminary investigation entail criminal liability under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, regardless of whether they distort the truth in favor of the accused in a criminal case or against him, as well as in favor of the plaintiff or defendant in a civil case.

The corpus delicti is constructed by the legislator according to the type of formal crimes. The crime is considered completed from the moment one of these actions is committed, regardless of whether this testimony, expert opinion, specialist testimony or translation is accepted as evidence in the case under consideration. At the stage of preliminary investigation, this crime is considered completed when the witness, victim or specialist, if he asked questions, signed the interrogation protocol, the expert - the conclusion; at the trial stage - from the moment a witness, victim, specialist gives testimony or an expert announces the contents of a conclusion. For a translator, this crime is over from the moment he submits a knowingly incorrect written translation or the end of an oral translation.

In accordance with Part 5 of Art. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, if a victim, witness, specialist, expert or translator participates in the investigative action, then he is warned of the responsibility provided for in Art. Art. 307 and 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (similar actions must be carried out by the court). In this regard, in practice the question arises about the presence of deliberately false testimony, etc. in cases where, for example, the witness was not warned of criminal liability, i.e. the specified rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation were not followed. From our point of view, failure to comply with these rules excludes liability under Art. Art. 306 and 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, since the requirement of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to warn relevant persons about criminal liability is aimed at ensuring the admissibility of evidence (Part 3 of Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) and is, from our point of view, a constructive feature of the elements of these crimes.

The subjective side is characterized only by direct intent. This is evidenced by the indications in the law that the actions taken are known. The perpetrator is aware that in this case he is giving to the court, the preliminary investigation authorities untrue testimony as a witness or victim or a false conclusion as an expert or making an incorrect translation, and wants to commit these actions.

The motives for such actions are not defined by law and can be different (the desire to improve or, on the contrary, worsen the position of the accused, fear of revenge on his part, self-interest, hostile relationships, falsely understood interests in the fight against crime, etc.). They have no significance for qualifying a crime.

Conscientious misconception of the victim or witness, their incorrect perception of acts due to inattention, forgetfulness, lack of proper competence of an expert, specialist or translator and other circumstances that influenced the giving of untrue testimony, conclusion or translation exclude liability under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The subject of this crime is special. They can be persons who have reached the age of sixteen and are expressly specified in Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - a witness, victim, expert, specialist, translator, recognized as such in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, and the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Minors under the age of sixteen, including those involved in the case as witnesses or victims, are not subjects of this crime.

Other participants in the liability process under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not covered.

A qualified type of crime is the commission of the same actions combined with an accusation of committing a grave and especially grave crime, the definition of which is given in Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has been supplemented with a note according to which a witness, victim, expert, specialist, translator are exempt from criminal liability if they: voluntarily, during an inquiry, preliminary investigation or trial, before a verdict or court decision, declared the falsity of the testimony given by them, conclusion or deliberately incorrect translation.

The reasons why a witness, victim, expert, specialist or translator voluntarily declared the falsity of their testimony, conclusion or deliberately incorrect translation do not matter for deciding the issue of releasing them from criminal liability.

False testimony in civil law

According to Art. 70 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, a witness in civil proceedings is also obliged to give only truthful testimony, otherwise liability may be applied under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, it is in civil proceedings that a witness is extremely rarely liable before the law for giving knowingly false testimony; such cases are isolated. This is partly explained by the fact that many civil law norms already contain possible consequences in the event of deception by one of the parties to the contract (failure to provide truthful information about the product, concealment of the expiration date, silence about the fact that the subject of the contract is pledged to third parties, etc. ).

Thus, in civil law, one of the parties to a contract communicates false information about the subject of the transaction. If such a fact is established, in accordance with Art. 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, any transaction is subject to cancellation as invalid; the claim of the injured party in such cases is always satisfied.

Example No. 7 . Kulikov E.N. applied to the court to invalidate the purchase and sale transaction of an apartment that he wanted to purchase from an acquaintance D.L. Pytalov. After Kulikov E.N. gave the money to the seller, the contract was transferred to Rosreestr for registration of rights, which was not done. The reason for the refusal to register was that the apartment was secured by a credit institution, which Pytalov did not inform Kulikov about when drawing up the contract, although he was aware of it. At the court hearing in the civil case, Pytalov confessed that he actually knew that the apartment was listed as collateral for another obligation, but hoped that he would reissue the loan and remove the apartment from the status of collateral while the documents were being considered Rosreestrom. The claim of the injured party was satisfied, and the transaction was declared invalid.

Civil legislation separately provides for the rules for terminating insurance contracts. Thus, Article 944 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation states that the policyholder is obliged to provide information about himself that is important for determining the period of the possible occurrence of an insured event. In other words, if the policyholder is silent about a certain circumstance that would affect the terms of the contract, or provides false information, the insurance payment may not be made at all.

Most often, citizens enter into liability insurance contracts for credit obligations. So, if, when concluding such an agreement, a citizen does not disclose (which is also considered fraud) information about his serious illness, then when an insured event occurs (for example, the death of the borrower), the insurance company will sue, proving the deliberate failure to disclose important information to it. If it is reliably established that the person suffering from the disease concealed his diagnosis, the court will be on the side of the insurer.

Example No. 8 . Zherdin N.G. I bought furniture for my apartment on credit, and the obligation was subject to compulsory insurance (as often happens now). When concluding the contract, Zherdin did not inform the policyholder of his diagnosis, which he had been given for several years - systemic lupus, a disease of the immune system, due to which death can occur at any time. When Zherdin N.G. died, the cause of death was established - the diagnosis was made, the disease progressed rapidly. Since the illness was not reported on time, in court the representative of the insurance company easily obtained termination of the contract; the insurance premium was not paid.

Who can be attracted and for what?

Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal liability:

For victims and witnesses – for perjury.
For experts - for false conclusion and (or) false testimony.
For specialists - for false testimony.
For translators - for incorrect translation.

False testimony, expert opinion or incorrect translation must be known to be so. That is, the guilty person must understand that he is lying or, if we are talking about a translator, translating incorrectly, and must deliberately carry out such actions. Unconscious mistakes do not entail criminal liability. Including those admitted by experts, specialists or a translator due to a lack of competence, due to negligence (carelessness) or arrogance (frivolity).

A lie on the part of a suspect (accused, defendant) is lawful in any case. Such persons are not responsible for false testimony, and such testimony itself is secretly considered a method of defense. Persons who were only formally interrogated as witnesses, but in fact were already suspects and subsequently became suspects, are also not subject to criminal liability.

Article 307 has two parts. The first part provides for softer sanctions. They are prosecuted under it if we are not talking about accusing a person of committing a serious or especially serious crime. If the testimony, expert opinion, or incorrect translation are associated with such an accusation, then liability will follow under Part 2 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Responsibility under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation occurs regardless of what stage of the criminal case the crime was committed - during the investigation of the case or at the stage of its consideration by the court. Similar actions committed at the pre-investigation stage do not entail criminal liability. Here we are talking mainly about possible false explanations. A false statement of a crime filed by the victim entails liability under another article of the Criminal Code - Art. 306 (knowingly false denunciation).

Can they be charged under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of persons who have witness immunity, including in the context of Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation? Yes they can. The fact is that witness immunity gives the right not to testify, but if a person decides to give it, he becomes obligated to tell the truth.

Problems in practice

In practice, many nuances arise that are ambiguously perceived by the courts. For example, how can a person who incriminates himself be held accountable for perjury? Often, there may be an agreement among convicted persons to “take everything upon themselves,” and then during the proceedings, a witness may not only provide false information, but also incriminate himself.

Example No. 9 . Krylov A.P. was prosecuted for theft, the witness in the case was E.A. Ivanov, who, as follows from the case materials, was not involved in the commission of the crime and did not know the intentions of A.P. Krylov. At the court hearing, Ivanov changed his testimony, saying that it was he who committed the theft, and A.P. Krylov. he felt sorry for him and confessed to something he had not done.

In this case, Krylov A.P. was nevertheless convicted as charged, since Ivanov’s testimony was regarded by the court as untrue. The evidence obtained in the case, in addition to the testimony of witnesses and the confession, confirmed Krylov’s guilt. The court had to watch the presented video recording from the supermarket, which clearly shows that it was Krylov who committed the crime alone. It turns out that Ivanov wanted to make his friend’s life easier by providing information that did not correspond to reality.

In the above example, Ivanov was held liable for falsely reporting a crime, but this is not the practice in all regions. Many judges believe that liability can only arise when the information (slip) concerns third parties. If there is self-incrimination, even if it does not correspond to reality, there can be no responsibility.

We assume that each specific situation has its own characteristics that must be taken into account in the aggregate, focusing on those facts that have become known to the court in the case as a whole.

Law of misrepresentation in criminal proceedings

One of the systemic problems of law enforcement remains the issuance of a guilty verdict based solely on the testimony of the parties - oral information provided by participants in criminal proceedings.

Of course, as evidence in accordance with Art. 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation allows the testimony of the suspect (accused), victim and witness. The Code also provides for some mechanisms regulating the use of oral information provided in the process of evidence. Yes, Art. 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes as inadmissible evidence the testimony of a suspect (accused), given by him during pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case in the absence of a defense lawyer, including cases of refusal of a lawyer, and not confirmed by the suspect (accused) in court, as well as the testimony of a victim or witness based on guess, assumption, rumor, including testimony of a witness who cannot indicate the source of his knowledge. Article 77 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the prosecution of a person who has admitted guilt if his guilt is not confirmed by the totality of evidence in the case.

The law also obliges the verification of evidence during the process of proof. According to Art. 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such a check is carried out (by the inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, court) by comparing the evidence with those that already exist in the criminal case, as well as identifying their sources and obtaining other evidence that confirms or refutes what is being verified. Each such evidence is subject to assessment from the point of view of relevance, admissibility and reliability, and all collected evidence is collectively checked for compliance with the criterion of sufficiency for resolving a criminal case.

The reliability of evidence is its compliance with objective reality, admissibility is the legality of collecting evidence, recording it and attaching it to the case file, and relevance is the relationship of evidence to a specific criminal case.

If a criminal case with an indictment is sent to the court, the latter, based on the collected and examined evidence, issues a verdict or other judicial act. According to current legislation, common sense and the principles of fairness, a court decision must be legal, reasonable, fair, logical, understandable and clear. Based on the collected evidence, the court, making a decision in accordance with Art. 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure decides whether it has been proven that the act of which the defendant is accused took place and it was he who committed it, as well as other issues related to the correct qualification of the act, the application of punishment or release from punishment. The final conclusion of the court must be proven, beyond doubt and therefore not requiring further justification.

However, are the specified mechanisms regulating the use of oral information communicated in the process of proof sufficient to make factually justified and consistent with the principle of “verifiability” court decisions in criminal proceedings? Is oral information provided to the investigation and court sufficient to accuse and convict a person of committing a crime?

To answer these questions, let us consider in more detail the essence and nature of oral information and testimony, including traces of a crime, which act as evidence of one or another circumstance in a criminal trial.

From traceology it is known that traces of a crime are any changes in the environment that arose as a result of the commission of a crime. Traces of a crime, in turn, are classified into material and ideal. The first includes “imprints” of the event on any material objects: objects, documents, the body of the victim, etc. Ideal traces are understood as imprints of an event in the consciousness and memory of the criminal, victim, witnesses and other people.

As is customary in legal psychology, in order to correctly assess “ideal traces,” which include oral information and testimony, the investigator “needs to adequately reflect the positions and real awareness of individuals and create psychological prerequisites for information communication.”

In this case, situations may arise when the person being interrogated:

has the required information, but hides it;
has the necessary information, but deliberately distorts it;
does not have the required information;
conscientiously conveys information, but it is not adequate to reality (due to distortions of perception and personal reconstruction of the material in the subject’s memory)1.

Thus, it is almost impossible to obtain reliable information from oral information without distortion, even if the interrogated person is conscientious in its transmission: it may still not correspond to reality, since it always passes through personal subjective perception and personal reconstruction (distortion of the material in the subject’s memory).

The law of information distortion is applied and taken into account in practice in various areas of human life. In particular, it is actively used in management psychology. The essence of this law is that the meaning of information that is of a “managerial” nature (directives, orders, instructions, etc.) can change in the process of transmission and movement “from top to bottom.” The degree of distortion of meaning is directly proportional to the number of channels and transmission links: the more employees gain access to information and transmit it to other people, the more the final meaning differs from the original. In addition, it is worth noting that information can change in the direction of either understating the reliability of facts or exaggerating them.

The reasons for the distortion of information are various. Among the main ones are, firstly, the polysemy of the language in which management information is transmitted. No matter how strict or precise the concepts used, there is always the possibility of different interpretations of the same message, due to differences in education, intellectual development, professionalism of the subjects and characteristics of the objects of management. Secondly, incomplete information. If the information is incomplete or access to it is limited, and the need of subordinates to obtain operational information is not fully satisfied, people inevitably begin to speculate, supplement what they know, relying on unverified facts and their own guesses. The level of qualifications of the employee presenting the information, the presence of emotional stress (fear of punishment, anger, envy, etc.) or prejudice towards the persons or phenomena about which the information is being transmitted are also important2.

Thus, taking into account the law of distortion of information, passing a conviction on the basis of only oral information provided by the participants in the process, or only ideal traces of a crime in the absence of material ones, is incorrect and unacceptable, since such an approach is highly likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice. Borrowing terminology from traceologists, we can conclude that in order to establish the objective truth in a case, checking one ideal trace with another ideal trace is clearly insufficient. Only with the help of material traces of a crime is it possible, in my opinion, to verify ideal traces and actually comply with the principles of verifiability, evaluation and reliability of evidence enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

I believe it would be advisable to enshrine such an approach when checking evidence by law. Due to insufficient legislative regulation of the application of the principles of sufficiency and verifiability of evidence, situations may arise in practice that could lead to miscarriages of justice. In particular, in the case of a confrontation between persons whose testimony is contradictory, there are no material traces of the crime, and the investigator, using his discretionary powers, takes as a basis information that is “convenient” for the prosecution; or when the court, in the absence of material evidence, accepts as the basis for a guilty verdict the testimony of the participants in the trial on the part of the prosecution, and rejects the testimony of the participants on the part of the defense, citing the fact that the accused provided false information in an attempt to avoid punishment, and the court has no reason not to trust the victim .

I also believe that it is unacceptable to use only one source of information – oral – to prove guilt. In practice, there is an approach when the testimony of the victim, in the absence of other material evidence, is simply “replicated” into other types of evidence - such as, for example, “confrontations” conducted using the discretionary powers of the investigator, “verification of testimony on the spot,” “additional interrogations” . Thus, formally the list of evidence in the case increases, but in fact the source of information is the same, and in the absence of other material data, it is impossible to verify the accuracy of the information provided by the victim.

Without in any way belittling the importance and role of testimony in criminal proceedings, I would like to draw the attention of law enforcement officers that, taking into account the law of distortion of information (distortion of perception, personal reconstruction of material, concealment, intentional distortion), testimony (oral information) is only possible versions and directions for inspection and investigation. The veracity and adequacy of oral information can only be verified during an investigation using material traces of the event.

To prove an event in the criminal legal sense, as well as to establish a cause-and-effect relationship, in addition to the ideal ones, it is necessary to find material traces (physical evidence, audio and video recordings, forged documents, fingerprints, biomaterial, shoe prints, bodily injuries, etc.). d.). For an objective investigation, if necessary, you should contact specialists and experts.

The process of proof is a complex intellectual work, but its results must be clear, indisputable, verifiable and correspond to objective reality. Modern science has a sufficient arsenal of means for collecting material evidence and methods for checking ideal traces, which, if used correctly, should solve the main problems of criminal proceedings enshrined in Art. 6 Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal prosecution and the imposition of a fair punishment on the perpetrators correspond to the purpose of criminal proceedings to the same extent as the refusal to prosecute the innocent, releasing them from punishment, and the rehabilitation of everyone who has been unreasonably subjected to criminal prosecution.

In conclusion, I would like to recall that even the ancient peoples of the world did not perceive oral information as categorical truth and subjected it to verification in the administration of justice, although often in barbaric ways. If there is insufficient evidence, the criminal prosecution of a person should be terminated, and this should not be perceived as a mistake in the investigation, since termination of criminal prosecution due to insufficient evidence is a civilized norm.

1 Enikeev M.I. Legal psychology: textbook. St. Petersburg, 2004.

2 Cherednichenko I.P., Telnykh N.V. Psychology of management: textbook. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2004; Mitin A.N. Psychology of management: textbook. M.: Wolters Kluwer, 2010.

When there is no responsibility

1. Conscious delusion. We have noted previously that the primary basis for legal prosecution for perjury is the establishment of guilt. Therefore, if a person was in good faith mistaken about any of the facts that he reported, there will be no crime in his actions.

Example No. 10 . In the case of P.R. Lebedev, accused of insult, witness K.A. Motin, who was present during the conflict between the victim and the defendant, was interrogated. Motin explained to the court that he had not heard any offensive phrases from P.R. Lebedev. Due to the fact that two other persons present in the same place gave different testimony (they heard insults pronounced quite loudly), in relation to Motin K.A. a criminal case was initiated for giving knowingly false explanations under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Contrary to the prosecution's arguments, Motin K.A. was acquitted, while the court indicated that Motin K.A. explained the contradictions by saying that he was not attentive enough to what was happening between Lebedev P.R. and the victims, because at that time he received a phone call and he turned all his attention to the telephone conversation. Thus, a conscientious error of the witness Motin K.A. was established, which excludes criminal liability for his explanations that do not correspond to reality.

2. A special condition, the fulfillment of which guarantees the release from liability of the victim, witness, translator, expert, specialist. This condition is contained in the note to Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: if, before the verdict (decision) of the court, the listed persons confess to the falsity of their testimony (conclusion, translation), there can be no criminal prosecution.

Example No. 11 . Kolosov A.M. caused bodily harm to his child, witness A.R. Mironov, who was a friend of the defendant, testified in the case. Mironov A.R. said at the trial that he never knew that Kolosov A.M. Raises the child strictly and with beatings. After interrogation of Mironov A.R. The trial had not yet been completed; it was planned to study the case materials and interrogate other persons. At one of the subsequent court hearings Mironov A.R. came again and explained that earlier he deliberately did not voice Lebedev’s cruel methods of raising his son. He also said that while at home, he thought about the situation for a long time and decided to tell the truth. According to the note to the article, Mironov cannot become an accused in the case of giving deliberately false testimony, since he confessed to everything earlier than the final decision in the case.

3. Lies as a way to evade responsibility. A line of defense built on distortion of circumstances in favor of the defendant cannot be a criminal offense. This rule is enshrined in Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which the investigator is obliged to explain to each accused. This provision states that no one is obliged to testify against himself. This rule, in essence, provides the opportunity for defendants, suspects, and accused to legally lie to the investigation and the court.

Judicial practice under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Resolution of the ECHR dated March 28, 2017
83. Article 281 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation requires that compensation for seizure correspond to the market value of the property. The Government submitted that the City Court had been presented with a valuation report calculated by a private company, estimating the value of the applicant's and the applicant's properties at US$24,488 and US$73,463 respectively. In addition, the city court requested an expert opinion regarding the market value of the property. The applicants agreed that this determination would be made by the same private company. The experts were warned of criminal liability for drawing up a knowingly false expert opinion (Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The new report assessed the value of the applicants' property at $28,500 and $85,600, respectively. The applicants then missed the opportunity to obtain further expert assessment and failed to provide evidence to support their argument that their property was of higher value.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 07/05/2018 N 4-APU18-25

Taking into account the procedural status of Sh. as a person in respect of whom the case was separated into separate proceedings in connection with the conclusion of a pre-trial agreement, the court correctly did not warn him of criminal liability under Art. Art. 307, 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and explained the provisions of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 26, 2018 N 47-APU18-7

The arguments of the complaints about the groundlessness of the court's reference to the testimony of witnesses E. and S. are untenable, since the witnesses gave their testimony after they were warned of criminal liability under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court did not establish any grounds for E. and S. to slander the convicted persons, and such reasons were not indicated in the appeals of the convicted persons.

Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 28, 2018 N 72-UD18-11

By the verdict of the Chita City Court of the Trans-Baikal Territory, which entered into legal force on May 8, 2021, D. was convicted under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for giving knowingly false testimony during the investigation and in court, connected with the accusation against Danchenko E.S. in the commission of a particularly serious crime (criminal case No. 1-524/2018, vol. 2, pp. 223 - 224).

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/09/2018 N 1-APU17-12

During the identification process (vol. 3, pp. 123 - 124), she was not warned of liability under Art. Art. 307 and 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Interrogated in the witness box, witness B., witness K., and extra L. confirmed the contents of the protocol, which does not contain any indication of her warning of liability. At the same time, B. noted a significant difference between the identifiable Shkaev and the extras. At the same time, despite these violations, the court recognized this protocol as admissible, trying to justify this with judgments that directly contradict the requirements of Art. Art. 193, 166 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, allowing for the possibility of a one-time warning of a witness about liability for giving knowingly false testimony for the entire period of the proceedings.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08/09/2018 N 205-APU18-18

The interrogations of the named persons were carried out by the investigator in compliance with the requirements of Art. Art. 164 and 189 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The investigator verified the identity of the witnesses, explained their rights, and warned them about the responsibility provided for in Art. Art. 307 and 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the procedure for conducting investigative actions. Interrogation of witnesses G. and M. in the absence of lawyers, requirements of Part 5 of Art. 189 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not contradict. In accordance with this provision of the law, the lawyer is present during the interrogation of the witness and enjoys the rights provided for in Part 2 of Art. 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, if the witness came for questioning with a lawyer invited by him to provide legal assistance.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06.08.2018 N 72-APU18-9sp

Interrogated witnesses and victims were warned about criminal liability under Art. Art. 307, 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Subscriptions regarding this were taken from witnesses at the place of their interrogations, including through videoconferencing; these signatures are available in the case materials. The parties were not deprived of the opportunity to ask the interrogated witnesses questions of interest to them, taking into account the peculiarities of the judicial investigation with the participation of a jury.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 26, 2018 N 7-APU18-3sp

In addition, experts, having been warned of criminal liability under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, based on the results of an examination of the convicted person, they came to a unanimous opinion, while the act complies with the requirements of Art. 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Therefore, there is no reason not to trust the conclusions contained in the said act.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 27, 2018 N 56-APU18-21

Contrary to the arguments of the appeals in the verdict, the court in accordance with Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation gave reasons for accepting some evidence and rejecting others. Ovchinnikov's testimony was rightfully critically assessed by the court of first instance as contradicting the body of evidence. Assessing Simaev's testimony at the trial, the court came to the reasonable conclusion that by changing his previously given testimony, he tried to significantly reduce the degree of his guilt and pursued the goal of helping Ovchinnikov avoid responsibility for what he had done.

Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 5, 2018 N 207P18

July 5, 2012 to Govorov A.V. charged under paragraph “a” of Part 3 of Art. 286, paragraphs “a”, “c”, part 2 of Art. 158, paragraphs “b”, “d”, part 3 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 215-FZ of July 27, 2009), paragraphs “a”, “c”, part 3 of Art. 286, part 3 art. 303, part 2 art. 307, part 6 art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 97-FZ of May 4, 2011), paragraphs “a”, “b”, “d”, part 3 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 87-FZ of May 19, 2010), clauses “a”, “b”, “c”, part 3 of Art. 286, part 3 art. 303, paragraphs “b”, “d”, part 3 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 87-FZ of May 19, 2010), clause “c”, part 3 of Art. 286, part 3 art. 303, paragraph “a”, part 3, art. 286, paragraphs “a”, “d”, part 2 of Art. 161, part 4 art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law of December 8, 2003 N 162-FZ), paragraphs “a”, “b”, “d”, part 3 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 87-FZ of May 19, 2010), clause “c”, part 3 of Art. 286, paragraph “a”, part 3, art. 158, paragraphs “b”, “d”, part 3 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 87-FZ of May 19, 2010), Part 3 of Art. 175 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 26-FZ of March 7, 2011).

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated January 29, 2019 N 31-O

As noted by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 17-P of July 20, 2021, a person who is accused (including convicted) in a separate criminal case cannot, when the court is considering the main criminal case in which another person is accused (his accomplice), are given the procedural status of an accused (defendant) in the main case, and therefore cannot participate in it as an accused and give evidence in this case according to the rules of interrogation of the defendant. The mere extension of the rules for interrogating a witness to the procedure for giving evidence by a person whose criminal case has been separated into separate proceedings in a court hearing in the main criminal case does not turn him - in the system of current legal regulation - into a witness in the proper sense of the word (as relating to other , in addition to the prosecution and defense, participants in criminal proceedings), since such a person is simultaneously accused in a separate criminal case of committing a crime for which his possible accomplices are accused within the framework of the main criminal case. Consequently, such a person, when interrogated in proceedings in the main criminal case against another person with whom he is accused of committing one act, is not a proper subject of crimes provided for in Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; Accordingly, the possibility of bringing him to criminal liability on the basis of these articles is not assumed, and therefore there is no need to warn about it during his interrogation in the proceedings in the main criminal case.