Some Criminal Procedure Aspects of Overcoming Counteraction to the Investigation of Crimes Committed by Administrative and Managerial Elite

The investigation of official malfeasance committed by administrative and managerial elites is often accompanied by a number of objective and subjective difficulties. In addition to the specifically forensically relevant features of the subjects of crimes aimed at counteracting the investigation, which is carried out both directly by these subjects or indirectly through defense attorneys and other stakeholders, a significant role is played by the drawbacks found in a number of criminal procedure norms regulating the grounds and the procedures for conducting procedural actions, especially the inspection of the crime scene and other types of inspections. Insufficient clarity of regulations, possibilities of dual interpretations, gaps and collisions lead to a lack of uniformity in their application in investigation and court practice, which acts as a fertile ground for the emergence of conflicts between the prosecution and the defense. Having analyzed the clauses of Art. 176–180 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, primarily in reference to official malfeasance, the author presents his suggestions on improving the wording of specific criminal procedure norms. The author gives his own definition of the concept «the scene of the incident», and argues for its legitimization in Art. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, thus neutralizing both the problem of ambiguous interpretations of this term, and the correlation between the inspection of the scene of the incident and other types of inspections, aimed at studying a certain area. In connection with this suggestion, the author also presents the projects of the norms in Parts 5 and 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation that specify the procedural forms for inspecting dwellings and territories under the jurisdiction of a juridical person or an entrepreneur.