Operational investigative activities of criminal investigation officers to identify stolen property in the context of digitalization

Namsaraev Anchig CHingizovich Associate Professor; Department of Organization of Operational Investigative Activities; Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia 125171, Russia, Moscow, Zoya and Alexander Kosmodemyanskikh str., 8 building 1 Anchikne@mail.ru

It is well known that property in the Russian Federation is protected by the basic law of the country (the Constitution). Thus, the protection of private property rights is reported in the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Part 1 of Article 35), (Constitution of the Russian Federation: adopted by popular vote on 12.12.1993: subject to amendments made by the Law of the Russian Federation on the Amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation dated March 14, 2020 No. 1-FKZ // Sobr. legislation of the Russian Federation. Federation. – 2020. – No. 11. – Article 1416). In addition, property is protected by criminal law, and the protection of property is considered one of the tasks of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Part 1 of Article 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: feder. Law No. 63-FZ of June 30, 1996 // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. Federation. – 1996. – No. 25. – Article 2954).

The criminal policy of the Russian Federation in recent years in the field of property protection has been moving towards criminalization. An example of this is the criminalization of petty theft of other people's property committed by a person subjected to administrative punishment for petty theft provided for in Part 2 of Article 7.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), (Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation [Electronic resource]: feder. the law of 30 Dec. 2001 No. 195-FZ (as amended on November 30, 2024) – Access from the help.- the legal system "Consultant Plus" (date of application: 04.12.2024)), (Article 158.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The author of the article does not share the opinion of some scientists that explanations for the chosen path of criminal policy should be sought primarily in the economic field ^{[3, p. 38]}, because he believes that the country's criminal policy primarily affects the problems of combating crime, in particular the issue of strengthening property protection.

It is well known that the consequence of committing a crime is harm caused to the victim, and we believe that state policy should be aimed not only at combating crime, but also at eliminating social imbalance, i.e. ensuring the protection of "property rights" and (or) compensation for (proportionate) damage caused as a result of the crime. In this regard, the author agrees with the opinion of I.Ya. Foynitsky, who emphasized the importance of restoring "destroyed" rights ^{[11, p. 21]}. In addition, individual rights are a priority of the modern state ^{[4, p. 4]}, and, as we assume, the restoration of these rights should be a priority.

Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the Basic Law of the Russian Federation establishes guarantees for the restoration of the property rights of the victim, since the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 52) guarantees compensation to the victim for damage caused by a crime. However, as is known, the problem of compensation for victims of crimes, in case of failure to identify the culprit, remains unresolved to date ^{[6, p. 302]}. In particular, in pre–trial proceedings, the share of compensation for damage caused by crimes was: in 2016 – 25%, in 2017 – 33%, in 2018 – 31%, in 2019 – 16%, in 2020 - 30%, in 2021 – 16%, in 2022 - 33 % (The main indicators of the work of the preliminary investigation and inquiry bodies in 2015-2022 Form 1E // GIAC of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia (individual access). These statistics indicate that usually the victim is not compensated for the damage caused (or part of the damage). We believe that the main problem of non-compensation for damage to the victim as a result of the commission of a crime against him is the low crime detection rate, as a result, firstly, the person who committed the crime is not identified, and secondly, the victim's property itself is not detected. However, in this case, we can also talk about the causal relationship of these problems.

It is logical that if the state at the legislative level has assumed the responsibility of protecting the property rights of its citizens (and not only its citizens), then this protection should be reflected in certain actions. As A.G. Nikolaeva very rightly noted, ensuring property security with the help of state structures is one of the main activities of law enforcement agencies of the state ^{[9, p. 48]}.

By the way, the implementation of state compensation for damage caused by a crime is indicated in the tasks of operational investigative activities, namely: "the establishment of property necessary to ensure the execution of a sentence in terms of a civil claim, the collection of a fine, other property penalties, or property subject to confiscation" (art. 2), (On operational investigative activities: feder. The law grew. Federation dated Aug. 12, 1995 No. 144-FZ (ed. dated 12/29/2022) // Russian Newspaper. – 1995. – № 160). However, this task is often not fully implemented in practice by employees of criminal investigation departments.

It should be noted that today encroachment on someone else's property occupies a significant place in the structure of all crimes committed in the Russian Federation. Thus, out of the total number of crimes registered in 2023 (1 million 73 thousand 872), more than half (55.1%) were crimes against property (Collection of the FKU GIAC of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for 2023. The state of crime in Russia. p. 100). According to statistics, in 2023 alone, the total damage caused to citizens as a result of theft amounted to more than 43 million rubles. Statistical data for 2018-2023 (Table 1), show that, although in recent years there has been a slight increase in property seizures (+3.5%), however, the overall picture as a percentage of seized property continues to be one of the lowest.

Thus, the relevance of solving this problem and increasing the effectiveness of criminal investigation units in identifying (detecting) the property of victims is beyond doubt.

Table 1. Data on the established amount of damage and seized property for 2018-2023 (theft only)

When studying criminal cases of theft (112 cases for 2023 based on the materials of the Republic of Buryatia), we come to the conclusion that in many cases, the persons who committed the theft, the stolen property after committing the crime is sold as soon as possible, and at the time of their detention, the location of the stolen property remains unidentified.

Based on the empirical materials of a survey conducted by the author of the article among employees of the territorial bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in the Republic of Buryatia (81 active police officers took part in the survey), we conclude that about 73% of the stolen property suspects realize (sell) after the theft. The places of sale of such property in most cases are pawnshops, purchases, markets ("from hand to hand"). Recently, stolen property has been sold using the capabilities of Internet resources (for example, on the platforms of Internet resources "Avito", "Yula", "Drom", etc.).

The classic disclosure of theft of property in the theory of operational investigative activities occurs, as a rule, in two ways: "from person to criminal" and "from crime to person". In the context of theft, there is a need to use the experience of searching for a criminal "from the object of theft." Such activity ensures the disclosure of a crime "through property to the criminal" and provides the investigator with the necessary evidence base ^{[10, p. 271]}. It seems that these rules do not always apply, because the main result of operational search activities depends on the professionalism of a police officer and in the absence of methodological recommendations in this area, and proper control, such activities risk being ineffective.

To solve the tasks set, it is necessary to use all available material, information and technical resources that will help increase the effectiveness of detecting stolen property, while depriving the criminal of the opportunity to dispose of the "loot". As already mentioned, criminals often sell stolen property in pawnshops, in purchases, as well as on Internet resource platforms. However, in almost all of these places of sale of stolen property, police officers face certain difficulties in organizing search activities to identify stolen property.

So, we believe that today the problem of identifying stolen property in pawnshops continues to be relevant, since this process is often routine.

A.A. Bazarova, conducting a historical analysis of the activities of pawnshops in the Russian Empire, proved that from the beginning of its creation, the Imperial Ministry of Internal Affairs showed an active interest in various aspects of the activities of pawnshops, and the greatest attention of its (ministry) was attracted to the activities of private pawnshops ^{[1, p. 63]}. It is worth noting that since the second half of the 19th century, control over pawnshops in Russia has already been carried out. Thus, the detective police, which was established in St. Petersburg in 1866, and in Moscow in 1881, cooperated most closely with pawnshops. Since 1910, pawnshop detachments in detective departments were organized in Moscow and St. Petersburg, which monitored pawnshops and searched for stolen property in pawnshops ^{[7, p. 37]}.

To date, the interaction between the police and pawnshops is regulated by the Federal Law "On Pawnshops" (On pawnshops [Electronic resource]: feder. The law grew. Federal Law No. 196-FZ dated July 19, 2007. – Access from the Consultant Plus information and legal system (date of application: 04.12.2024)), the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation: feder. the law of 18 Dec. 2001 No. 174-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. Federation. – 2001. – No. 52. – Article 4921), the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law "On the Police" (On the police: Feder. The law grew. Federal Law No. 3-FZ dated February 7, 2011 // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. Federation. – 2011. – No. 7. – St. 900).

From the essence of Article 4 of the Federal Law "On Pawnshops" it follows that, in case of seizure of a pawned or deposited item, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the loan or storage agreement is terminated. In this case, the borrower has an obligation to the pawnshop. This provision leads to the idea that if a legal entity (pawnshop) that provided a certain amount to the borrower, and then is withdrawn by law enforcement officers, then will the legal entity cooperate with law enforcement agencies, realizing that the borrower is insolvent, and it will make additional efforts to recover funds from the borrower. The answer is obvious: if we are talking about large sums of money, then pawnshop employees will most likely not provide information to law enforcement agencies in order not to incur material losses, especially since, according to Article 19.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, failure to submit or late submission of information entails a warning or a fine in the amount of 3 thousand rubles to 5 thousand rubles. (for legal entities). If the request was received from an investigator or inquirer, then in case of non-fulfillment of its guilty person may be held liable for non-fulfillment of legal requirements under Article 17.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (fine from 50 thousand rubles to 100 thousand rubles). In addition, this procedure is regulated by the CPC of the Russian Federation, in particular: according to Part 4 of Article 21 of the CPC The requirements, instructions and requests of the investigator, submitted within the limits of his powers established by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, are mandatory for all institutions, enterprises, organizations, officials and citizens. However, employees of pawnshops do not have the right to disclose information about their clients (Article 3 of the Federal Law "On Pawnshops").

The above circumstances, ultimately, negatively affect the disclosure of the crime, including the likelihood of detection and (or) seizure of stolen property. Although in practice, employees of operational units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia practice informal communication with pawnshop employees to obtain information about the availability or receipt of things, however, in some cases these actions do not bring significant results. The lacunae include the circumstances when the pawnshop to which the criminal handed over the stolen property is not located at the administrative service station of the police department, as well as the circumstance when the police officer is confident in the honesty of the pawnshop employee, however, the pawnshop employee, having a personal interest (knowing in advance about the origin of the thing; is in friendly relations with the borrower; is an accomplice to a crime), misleads a police officer.

We believe that in order to solve this problem, it is necessary to actively introduce the latest technologies in the activities of operational police units. For example, it is proposed to install the Findface Security facial recognition system in pawnshops (the Safe City APK is used), through which it is possible to identify not only the person who wants to pawn stolen property, but also accompanying persons, who, in turn, may be both accomplices of the crime and perpetrators. In addition, we believe that the introduction (development) of a "Unified information System" in pawnshops will be effective in identifying stolen property. It will be the duty of pawnshops to include data on the property presented as collateral in the program. Thus, an employee of the operational unit will be able to receive up-to-date information about the presence or absence of stolen property in pawnshops, information about the identity, regardless of the location of the pawnshop.

In general, the use of information and telecommunication technologies will help to identify stolen property on the sites of Internet resources (for example, Avito, Drom, Yula, etc.).

However, this does not mean that the use of the latest technologies calls for neglecting established methods of crime detection. It is important to remember that persons who have committed crimes against property often lead an antisocial lifestyle. These persons, for the purpose of profit, mainly commit crimes in areas familiar to them (conditions that facilitate criminal intent, since the criminal is better oriented in familiar terrain, it is easier to choose inconspicuous escape routes after committing a crime), and already in these cases it is necessary:

–to work out personal investigation of places of concentration of antisocial elements, including: markets, brothels, places of residence of migrants, etc.;

–to implement a set of measures to improve the work of confidants in places of possible sale of stolen property, the development of serial thieves and criminal groups ^{[8, p. 280]}.

The author shares the point of view of some scientists that "Measures to search for stolen property and establish its location should be carried out according to a single plan of joint investigative actions and operational search measures based on a detailed study and analysis of criminal case materials, which will serve as a basis for building investigative versions" ^{[5, p. 1398]}. Based on the above, the comprehensive construction of a joint action plan is the basis for building versions in order to identify stolen property.

By the way, in order to increase the efficiency of work in this direction, it is necessary to actively use all methods of crime detection. These include improving the professional level of employees of operational units. These techniques include educational seminars, studying the experience of employees of operational units in other regions in identifying stolen property. In addition, it is necessary to develop and implement methodological recommendations on the activities of employees of criminal investigation departments, when detaining a suspect, if the location of stolen property has not been established, focusing on:

1) the need to establish a range of connections, including related ones, of the suspect, with further elaboration;

2) carrying out the development of the suspect;

3) checking whether the suspect has accounts and deposits in banks for compensation for damage from the crime committed;

4) establishing the presence of a household, garage, vehicles and other valuable property in order to compensate for damage from the crime committed;

5) conducting an operational search event "wiretapping of telephone conversations" conducted by suspects via wired and secure communication channels;

6) verification with the help of confidentially assisting persons of specific suspects in the commission of a crime, etc.

Of course, the organization of investigative and identification activities is of great importance. It should be borne in mind that the lack of complete information about the fugitive makes it difficult to put forward investigative versions and conduct effective operational investigative measures to verify them. According to some authors, when putting forward versions about the whereabouts of a wanted person, in addition to the identity of the wanted person, it is imperative to take into account the nature of his relationships with relatives, the circle of connections, criminal experience, authority in the criminal environment and a number of other aspects ^{[2, p. 172]}.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the identification and seizure of stolen property is a very important task in the activities of employees of criminal investigation departments, since they protect not only the constitutional rights of citizens, but also contribute to achieving the goal of criminal punishment – the restoration of social justice. In many ways, these circumstances favorably influence the opinion of society, contribute to strengthening the trust of citizens in the internal affairs bodies. To increase the effectiveness of criminal investigation units for the detection of stolen property, it is proposed to introduce the latest technologies by creating a single database of pawnshops (to introduce the Findface Security facial recognition system, a "Unified information System").