fbpx
Size of letters 1x
Site color
Image
Additionally
Line height
Letter spacing
Font
Embedded items (videos, maps, etc.)
 

“Games played by law enforcement”

09/ 12/ 2021
  Author: Maria Petrenko, lawyer of Dynasty Law & Investment Often, legal searches of investigating judges are permits to invade the property of non-involved persons. The idea is to seize the most valuable property during a search, and then the hide-and-seek and catch-up begins. The investigator feels like a game leader and dictates his rules. For example, the best scenario of the so-called game is the seizure of confiscated property, where a third force enters the game - the investigating judge. In this case, the hostage of the situation - the owner of the property, at least there are several options out of the game, namely: the opportunity to challenge actions during the seizure of property; if the court still decides to arrest without your participation - cancel the arrest by submitting a request to the court; and finally, an appeal against the arrest warrant to the Court of Appeal. However, there is another (worst) scenario, when the investigator does not even consider it necessary to seize the property, because he believes that such property is directly specified in the court ruling on the search, and therefore not subject to arrest, but confiscated, so to speak, without appeal. In this situation, investigators confuse the crime scene where you can seize specific items, tools and place of work of the enterprise, the place of residence of the person - where the suspects are not to commit any crimes. The direct indication of the subject in the court decision is an evaluative concept, and therefore is subject to detailed consideration by the court and cannot be considered only by one party - the prosecution. In this situation, there is only one way out - to provide the owner with a complaint about the return of such property as temporarily seized, ie to prove that such property is not specified in the decision or does not relate to the crime under investigation and therefore subject to arrest or return. There are a lot of unknowns in this game, the rules of the game are not clear and discriminatory, but the leader in such a game can be an experienced professional lawyer. So do not take risks, play the right games with knowledgeable players.

Author: Maria Petrenko, lawyer of Dynasty Law & Investment

Often, “legal” searches of investigating judges are permits to invade the property of non-involved persons.

The idea is to seize the most valuable property during a search, and then the “hide-and-seek” and “catch-up” begins. The investigator feels like a game leader and dictates his rules.

For example, the best scenario of the so-called game is the seizure of confiscated property, where a third force enters the game – the investigating judge. In this case, the hostage of the situation – the owner of the property, at least there are several options out of the game, namely:

  • the opportunity to challenge actions during the seizure of property;
  • if the court still decides to arrest without your participation – cancel the arrest by submitting a request to the court;
  • and finally, an appeal against the arrest warrant to the Court of Appeal.

However, there is another (worst) scenario, when the investigator does not even consider it necessary to seize the property, because he believes that such property is directly specified in the court ruling on the search, and therefore not subject to arrest, but confiscated, so to speak, without appeal.

In this situation, investigators confuse the crime scene where you can seize specific items, tools and place of work of the enterprise, the place of residence of the person – where the suspects are not to commit any crimes. The direct indication of the subject in the court decision is an evaluative concept, and therefore is subject to detailed consideration by the court and cannot be considered only by one party – the prosecution.

In this situation, there is only one way out – to provide the owner with a complaint about the return of such property as temporarily seized, ie to prove that such property is not specified in the decision or does not relate to the crime under investigation and therefore subject to arrest or return.

There are a lot of unknowns in this game, the rules of the game are not clear and discriminatory, but the leader in such a game can be an experienced professional lawyer. So do not take risks, play the right games with knowledgeable players.

If you have found a spelling error, please, notify us by selecting that text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.

Start
in the Telegram bot
Read articles. Share in social networks
0 Shares

Spelling error report

The following text will be sent to our editors: