The study is devoted to the subject of proof, its structure, content, and the composition of the circumstances that need to be proven. Noting the existence of various viewpoints on the subject of proof and its characteristics, the author proposes and substantiates the hypothesis of the necessity to include in the subject of proof a broader and more diverse range of circumstances than is currently provided for by the existing version of Article 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CPC RF). Within the framework of the study, the author applied the dialectical method of scientific cognition, as well as established scientific, specific scientific, and special research methods that have been tested in practice over many years: analysis, synthesis, deduction, generalization, comparison, and the formal-legal method. The outcome was conclusions about the inclusion of not only factual circumstances (related to the content of the allegedly criminal event) but also procedural circumstances, which are undoubtedly necessary for adopting a legal, justified, and reasoned procedural decision, primarily at the stage of initiating a criminal case. Regarding the initiation of criminal cases against entrepreneurs, the author advocates for determining a mandatory minimal set of factual and procedural circumstances to be proven: the status of the entrepreneur and the status of the applicant (in cases provided for by Article 28.1 of the CPC RF). In contemporary conditions, there seems to be no other way to ensure the legality of restrictions on rights at the stage of initiating a criminal case than to establish a rule on proving individual circumstances necessary for making procedural decisions regarding the initiation and refusal to initiate criminal cases for offenses categorized as entrepreneurial, as well as those used as grounds for taking procedural actions. It appears essential to convincingly confirm: – the status of the person reporting the entrepreneurial crime; – the status of the person possessing the confiscated object – the entrepreneur; – the exceptional nature of the situation necessitating the seizure of certain objects; – the fact of the existence of harm. A special type of subject of proof is being formed, which includes specific procedural circumstances that possess legal significance.
Viktor Igorevich Nikitin (Sun,) studied this question.