Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/socinov/index
Some considerations regarding the scope and legal status
of persons whose property may be subject to seizure in
criminal cases
Shakhboz BURONOV
1
Samarkand State University after named Sharof Rashidov
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received April 2025
Received in revised form
15 May 2025
Accepted 15 June 2025
Available online
25 June 2025
This article discusses the fact that in the practice of judicial
investigation, when confiscating the property of persons who
are not suspects, accused and civil defendants or property
objects in them, an approach is taken based on the content of
the laws, without being limited only to the provisions of Part 1
of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the fact that
the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide a list of persons
whose property is subject to confiscation in connection with the
conduct of a criminal case may cause misunderstandings.
2181-
1415/©
2025 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol6-iss3-pp304-309
This is an open access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru)
Keywords:
crime,
criminal process,
participants in the process,
judicial investigation
practice,
suspect,
accused,
civil defendant,
property,
seizure of property,
persons whose property is
seized.
Jinoyat ishlarida mol-mulki musodara qilinishi mumkin
bo‘lgan shaxslarning huquqiy holati va qamrovi bo‘yicha
ba’zi mulohazalar
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar
:
jinoyat,
jinoyat protsessi,
protsess ishtirokchilari,
sud-tergov amaliyoti,
gumon qilinuvchi,
ayblanuvchi,
Ushbu maqolada sud-tergov amaliyotida gumon qilinuvchi,
ayblanuvchi va fuqaroviy javobgar maqomida bo’lmagan
shaxslarning mulklarini xatlashda faqat JPK 290-moddasi
birinchi qismi qoidalari bilan cheklab qolinmasdan qonunlar
mazmunidan kelib chiqib yondashish kuzatilishi, biroq JPKda
jinoyat ishini yuritish munosabati bilan mulki xatlanadigan
1
Student, Samarkand State University after named Sharof Rashidov. E-mail:
buronovshahboz@gmail.com
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
6
№
3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
305
fuqaroviy javobgar,
mulk,
mulkni xatlash,
mulki xatlanadigan shaxslar.
shaxslarning ro’yxati ko’rsatilma
ganligi tushunmovchiliklarga
sabab bo’lishi mumkinligi haqida so’z yuritilgan
.
Некоторые вопросы по поводу правового положения и
круга лиц, чье имущество может быть конфисковано в
рамках уголовных дел
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
преступление,
уголовный процесс,
участники процесса,
судебно
-
следственная
практика,
подозреваемый,
обвиняемый,
гражданский ответчик,
имущество,
арест имущества,
лица,
на имущество которых
наложен арест
.
В статье рассматривается тот факт, что в практике
судебного следствия при конфискации имущества лиц, не
являющихся
подозреваемыми,
обвиняемыми
и
гражданскими ответчиками, или находящихся у них
объектов имущества применяется подход, исходящий из
содержания
законов,
не
ограничиваясь
только
положениями части 1 статьи 290 УПК, однако тот факт, что
в УПК не указан перечень лиц, имущество которых
подлежит конфискации в связи с ведением уголовного
дела, может вызывать недоразумения.
.
In a criminal case, the seizure of property or other property of the required value
shall be carried out in order to ensure the execution of the part of the judgment on
property recovery or if the judgment may indicate the transfer of a specific property
object to another person. The seizure of property in a criminal case may be directed to all
property objects that should not be seized.
The second part of Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lists as non-
seizable property "a house, apartment, household appliances and equipment, clothing
and other items necessary for the normal life of the family of the suspect, accused,
defendant and civil defendant...". What exactly constitutes property in this category is
vague, and therefore causes everyone to interpret it differently. This was clarified by the
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated April 14, 2009
"On approval of the list of household appliances and equipment, clothing and other items
necessary for the normal life of the debtor and his family, which cannot be subject to
enforcement under executive documents" [1]. The appendix to this resolution states that
the following properties are not subject to enforcement:
1. Persons whose main occupation is agriculture:
a ) a single cow, or if there is no cow - a single heifer, if there is neither a cow nor a
heifer on the farm, a single goat, sheep or pig, as well as domestic poultry (chicken, duck,
goose, turkey and guinea fowl);
b) fodder for cattle until new fodder is harvested or until it is put out to pasture (if
the collection is not directed to cattle);
c) seeds needed for the next planting;
2. The following household items, equipment, and clothing necessary for the
debtor and his/her dependents to live a normal life:
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
6
№
3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
306
a) clothing for each person: an autumn or spring coat or cloak, one winter coat (or
overcoat, fur coat), one winter suit (for women - two winter shirts), one summer suit or
overcoat for men (for women - two summer shirts), one headgear for each season (in
addition, for women - two summer scarves and one warm scarf or shawl), other clothing
and headgear that have been used for a long time and are of no value;
b) used footwear, underwear, bedding, kitchen and dining equipment (except for
items made of precious metals, items with inlaid patterns made of precious and semi-
precious stones, as well as items of artistic value);
c) furniture for each person - one bed and chair or stool, one table for the family,
one wardrobe and one chest of drawers; d) all children's equipment;
3. Rehabilitation equipment and prosthetic and orthopedic products used by
disabled people;
4. If the debtor's main occupation is agriculture, food products in the amount
necessary for the debtor and his family until the new harvest, and in other cases - food
(cash) in the amount of the basic calculation for each member of the debtor's family;
5. Fuel necessary for the debtor and his family to cook and heat their home during
the heating season.
However, these property objects can be seized if they are the subject of a crime, a
weapon of a crime, or were obtained through criminal means.
If the civil claim requires the return of lost property in kind or if the property is
recognized as material evidence, this property itself is subject to seizure. If the value of
the property is required in the civil claim, in addition to compensation for procedural
costs, other property may also be seized. When seizing other property, the seized
property is evaluated by the inquiry officer or investigator at the market price at the time
of assessment, taking into account the degree of its deterioration, in accordance with the
requirements of Article 293 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If necessary, the assessment
of the property is carried out with the participation of an expert.
Money, bonds, stocks, and other securities are recorded at their fair value.
When attaching property to ensure the execution of the civil claim part of the
judgment, sufficient property shall be included in the record to cover the loss in value. In
this case, the owner or possessor of the property shall have the right to indicate which
property, in his opinion, he considers necessary to include in the record. This rule is also
sufficiently substantiated in theory [2].
Among lawyers involved in the theoretical and practical aspects of property
seizure, there is a consensus that the value of the property in an amount or sum should
not be less than the value of the civil claim. In this case, when determining the amount of
material damage caused by criminal aggression, it is necessary to take into account the
value of the property on the date of the decision to recover material damage [3].
In theory, there are also opinions that when confiscating property, the value of the
property to be seized should be 25% higher than the value of the damage (in our opinion,
procedural costs may also be taken into account). There are also reasonable opinions
against this. For example, according to VS Shadrin, it is not right to confiscate property
that is “in excess of any need”. The value of the property to be seized must cover the
damage caused by the crime [4]. In our opinion, in addition, the costs associated with the
handling of the case should also be taken into account. Criminally acquired income and
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
6
№
3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
307
items and physical evidence obtained in exchange for them do not fall into this category
of property that is assessed and confiscated.
According to the procedural order of the writ, property can be divided into the
following types: 1) movable property; 2) real estate; 3) securities and money in accounts.
According to Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the property of the
following persons may be seized in a criminal case: 1) the suspect; 2) the accused
(defendant); 3) the civil defendant. However, this list is not sufficient in our opinion.
Because the property of a person who is not a specific participant in the criminal case
may also be seized. If there are sufficient grounds to believe that as a result of a crime or
the actions of an insane person, certain property has passed into the possession of
another person who is not involved in another crime, this property shall also be seized.
For example, a person who bought stolen property at a flea market, even though he was
not involved in the crime, shall have this property seized. However, this property is not
the property of the suspect, accused, defendant, or civil defendant.
The issues of confiscation of property in criminal procedural law have remained
virtually unchanged for several decades. One of the comments to the RSFSR Code of
Criminal Procedure on the norm on non-confiscible property stated that this rule does
not apply in cases where the property was acquired by the suspect or accused in a
criminal way and transferred to other persons in order to hide it from confiscation [5].
The commentary to the RF Code of Criminal Procedure states that the rule on non-
confiscible property does not apply in cases where there is evidence that the suspect or
accused in another person acquired it in a criminal way and alienated it in order to hide it
from confiscation [6]. It follows from these comments that the property of the suspect or
accused in another person is not subject to confiscation if it was transferred for purposes
other than hiding it from confiscation (free use, lease, etc.). Proponents of this view, who
constitute a minority in the world of criminal procedure, strive to achieve the inclusion of
norms of civil and other areas of law in the conduct of criminal cases. However, the
condition for applying norms of civil, labor and family law to criminal proceedings is that
these norms should not contradict the general principles of criminal procedure.
Most scholars, including A. P. Koratkov and I. L. Petrukhin, believe that the seizure
of the property of a suspect, accused, and other persons materially responsible for his
actions is carried out regardless of where it (i.e., the property) is located [7]. In other
words, these scholars tried to propose a law that the property of a suspect, accused, and
other persons who are subject to seizure may be seized regardless of where and in whose
hands it is kept.
ADMarchuka and AVFedulova believe that property owned by others should be
confiscated only if there is evidence that it was obtained through the criminal actions of
the suspect or accused [8]. However, the property of the suspect or accused, which may
later be subject to execution, may have passed into the ownership of another person on
legal grounds.
Previously, some legal literature put forward such ideas: when a person becomes
the owner of property, the person giving, donating, or selling this property knows or does
not know how this property was acquired, and the idea was put forward that the
property in question should be confiscated [9]. This means that if a person knows that he
is becoming the owner of property acquired through criminal means - if he is a dishonest
possessor, then the property in him should be confiscated, and if not, then it should not
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
6
№
3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
308
be confiscated. However, this is completely contrary to the rules of criminal procedure
law on the return of property to the victim or civil plaintiff. In these cases, the property
must be confiscated according to the claim. Because the real owner is considered to have
the right to own this property more than anyone else. A person who is not involved in the
crime and suffers damage as a result of the seizure of property retains the right to claim
its value.
There is another controversial situation in criminal practice. Persons who are
involved or likely to be involved in a criminal case as suspects or defendants alienate
property belonging to them. However, this property was not obtained through criminal
means. In these cases, there is no legal basis for confiscation of these properties. Only the
purpose of alienation is important. If the contract is fraudulent or in order to hide from
confiscation, the property is sold, given for free use, or donated to another person, it can
be confiscated, taking into account the actual circumstances of the case.
In the practice of judicial investigation, when confiscating the property of persons
who are not suspects, accused and civil defendants or objects of property in them, an
approach is observed based on the content of the laws, not limited only to the provisions
of Part 1 of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the fact that the
Criminal Procedure Code does not specify a list of persons whose property is subject to
confiscation in connection with the conduct of a criminal case may cause
misunderstandings.
In our opinion, it would be appropriate to add to the first part of Article 290 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure a provision stating that "The property of other persons shall
be seized on the grounds provided for in Articles 285 and 287 of this Code. If there is
sufficient evidence that the property of a suspect, accused or civil defendant that may be
seized has been transferred to other persons in order to conceal it from seizure, such
property shall also be seized."
REFERENCES:
1.
"Collection of Legislative Acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan", 2009, No. 16,
Article 203.
2.
Mazalov AG Grajdansky isk v ugolovnom proshes. - M, 1977.
–
P.
103-104.
3.
Paragraph 8 of Resolution No. 21 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Uzbekistan dated September 11, 1998 “On judicial practice on the issue of
compensation for material damage caused by criminal acts”.
4.
Bagautdinov FN Obespecheniye imushchyestvennyx prav lichnosti pri
rassledovaniy. -M.: 2002. -S. 103-104
5.
Kommentary k Ugolovno-procesualnomu Codex RSFSR! Otv.ed. VI
Radchenko; pod ed. VTTomina 5-ye izd., pererab. i dollar - M., 2001:
–
S. 324.
6.
Kommentary k Ugolovno-procesualnomu kodexu Rossiyskoy Federasii:
Novaya redaksiya. Pod ob shch eat red. NA Petukhova, GI Zagorskogo. - M., 2002. - P. 231.
7.
Kommentarii k Ugolovno-prosesualnomu kodeksu Rossiyskoi Federasii v
redaksii Federalnogo zakano ot 29. maya 2002 goda / Pod ob shch yey i nauch. ed. A. Ya.
Sukhareva. - M., 2002. - S. 216., Commentary on Ugolovno-procesualnomu kodeksu
Rossiyskoy Federasii / Pod ed. I.L.Petrukhina . M., 2002.
–
P. 183.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
6
№
3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
309
8.
Комментарий,, k Ugolovno
-prosesualnomu: codexu Rossiyskoy Federasii /
Otv. ed. VI Radchenko; Nauch. ed. VT Tomin, MP Polyakov. - M., 2004:
–
S. 327.
9.
Chichko VN Deyatelnost slozhatelya po obespecheniyu realnogo
vozmeshchyeniya materialnogo ushchyerba, prichinennogo prestupleniyem // Uchenyye
zapiski Saratovskogo yuridicheskogo instituta. Vyp. XIX. Ch.I. - Saratov, 1970. - P. 277.
