The practice of applying vehicle confiscation as a criminal law measure to combat traffic crimes

The author studied the features of legislative regulation and law enforcement practices regarding the confiscation of a vehicle as another measure of criminal law applied in connection with the commission of crimes provided for in articles 264.1–264.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - CC RF). Despite the relatively recent consolidation in criminal law of the grounds for the forced gratuitous seizure of a vehicle used in the commission of repeated serious violations of traffic rules by a person subject to administrative punishment or having a criminal record, the courts of the Russian Federation have developed sufficient practices for applying this measure of criminal law. Within the framework of law enforcement activities, a number of problematic issues have been identified, due to the lack of uniform practice among the courts in applying the provisions established in paragraph "d" of part 1 of article 104.1 of the CC RF. In addition, in the context of analyzing the outlined issues, controversial situations regarding the question of confiscation of a vehicle are examined. The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific methods: synthesis, induction, and generalization. Using the formal-legal method, an analysis of the norms of domestic criminal legislation regulating the grounds and conditions for the application of vehicle confiscation has been conducted. The method of legal modeling has allowed for the formulation of specific proposals to improve another measure of criminal law in the form of vehicle confiscation. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the identification of contradictions arising in the process of applying another measure of criminal law - the vehicle confiscation. The result of the work is the development of scientifically grounded proposals aimed at eliminating the contradictions, improving the mechanism of confiscation, and increasing its effectiveness in the context of preventing repeated road traffic crimes. It is concluded that the collection of a monetary amount equivalent to the market value of the vehicle used in the commission of crimes provided for in articles 264.1–264.3 of the CC RF and owned by other individuals or legal entities negates the potential advantages arising from the use of someone else's property, including based on a short-term rental agreement (car sharing), at the moment of committing road traffic crimes.