Confiscation of elements of historical and cultural heritage

The article is devoted to the problems of preserving historical and cultural monuments that have been damaged as a result of crimes. It is noted that the legal means of influence existing in the criminal law on persons committing these criminal acts are unable to prevent the guilty from achieving a criminal goal – ensuring the possibility of unhindered disposal of the object of protection, the land plot occupied by them. In this regard, the author draws attention to the mechanism of confiscation of the land plot of the territory of the destroyed object of cultural heritage, the land plot on which the archaeological monument was located, the identified object of cultural heritage existing in the norms of positive law. The domestic legislator considers the above measure as a sanction for the commission of a crime or other offense, determining the relevance of making corresponding changes and, as a result, expanding the possibilities of applying art. 104 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation.

The purpose of the research is to study the place of the institution of confiscation in the system of domestic criminal law, to study the possibilities of expanding its application in relation to objects of the material world, including historical and cultural monuments damaged (destroyed) as a result of the commission of a crime. To achieve this goal, the following tasks should be solved: to summarize the opinion of scientists considering the institution of confiscation in the context of solving the criminal and political tasks of the state; to study foreign law enforcement experience, and also turn to sources of international law that determine the possibility of using the institute of compulsory seizure of heritage elements; to determine the conditions for the use of confiscation, predetermined by the provisions existing in the norms of positive law. The author used the dialectical method of research, in inseparable unity with the methods of analysis, synthesis. In addition, descriptive, comparative legal methods were used.

The result of the study was the author's proposals to supplement the content of art. 104 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation with paragraph «e», providing for the possibility of confiscation of the land plot of the territory of the destroyed object of cultural heritage, including the archaeological monument, the identified object of cultural heritage from the owner or other legal owner.

1. Alekseev A.I., Ovchinskii V.S., Pobegailo Eh.F. [Russian criminal policy: Overcoming the crisis]. Moscow: Norma; 2006. (In Russ.)]

2. Babaev M.M., Pudovochkin Yu.E. [Russian criminal policy of the XXI century]. Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2020. (In Russ.)]

3. Korobeev A.I. [Criminal Law Policy of Russia: from genesis to crisis]. Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2019. (In Russ.)]

4. Lopashenko N.A. [Reflections on criminal law. Criminal law. Criminal liability. Criminal policy: author's course]. Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2019. (In Russ.)]

5. Lopashenko N.A. [Criminal punishment in Russia: the state and problems of law, practice and criminal policy]. Rossiiskii kriminologicheskii vzglyad = Russian criminological view. 2011;(2):255–285. (In Russ.)]

6. Mikhailov V.I. [Legislative consolidation of confiscation of property: positive analysis]. Ugolovnoe parvo = Criminal law. 2008;(2):54–59. (In Russ.)]

7. Romeo F. La regulacion del uso detectores de metales en la Comunidad Autonoma de Aragon: Uso de detectores de metals y arqueologia: sanciones administrativas y penales. Tirant lo Blanch. Valencia, 2018.

8. Delestre X. Le détectorisme en France: quelle situation et quelle politique publique? Canadian Journal of Bioethics. 2019;2(3):158–165.