Good mood to you, dear readers of our blog.
Today I went to the SudAkt database in order to look at the latest (new) examples of court rulings on diggers. And, here, in the first line of the search results, I saw a judicial decision of the Ryazan Regional Court to cancel the Resolution of the judge of the Mikhailovsky District Court of the Ryazan Region dated October 15, 2020. By this Resolution, citizen Kanel A.I. was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 3 of Article 7.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and was subjected to administrative punishment in the form of a fine in the amount of 2,200 rubles (without confiscation of the metal detector)
What a news!!! This surprised me!!! And, with pleasure, I began to figure out how this happened? After all, all the examples of court rulings against diggers and treasure hunters that I had previously worked out were accusatory. And attempts to appeal them in a higher court were also in vain. So let's look at this unique example.
Start.
According to the court proceedings, on May 11, 2020, an employee of the FSB Directorate for the Ryazan Region (FULL NAME4) received information that in the area of the floodplain of the Trubezh River, an unidentified person was searching for objects using a metal detector. An FSB officer went to the scene and saw a man carrying out a search using a metal detector. FULL NAME4 called the police department on duty and reported this crime. A police squad arrived at the scene and, in fact, operational measures were carried out.
In particular, the identity of the person who carried out the search was established, explanations were taken from citizen Kanel, the coordinates of the crime scene were established, and Kanel himself was photographed with a metal detector and a shovel.
Now it is important to understand what the detainee himself said in an explanation of his activities. Kanel A.I. stated that he was engaged in his favorite hobby, namely, using a metal detector to look for antiques, including coins older than a hundred years.
And here it is necessary to clarify that, as I understand, the police installed two diggers at the site. One of them is Kanel A.I. in the court materials he appears as FULL NAME1 and a certain second citizen who appears in the case materials as FULL NAME7. So, explanatory work was carried out regarding FULL NAME7
I simply must quote the following passage in full)))
“During the survey, FULL NAME7 was informed that, on the basis of Federal Law No. 73-FZ “On Objects of Cultural Heritage,” it is prohibited to carry out archaeological searches without special permission. He treated this information with understanding and said that in the future he would not search for objects using a metal detector.”
Kindergarten, of course))) but let's go further.
Where the citizen FULL NAME7 went next is unknown; I was unable to establish whether an administrative case was initiated against him. If anyone is interested in studying this court ruling in full, then follow the link.
Resolution No. 5-141/2020 of October 15, 2020 in case No. 5-141/2020 Mikhailovsky District Court (Ryazan region)
We are interested in the further fate of citizen Kanel. Since, an administrative case was initiated against him and the materials of this case were transferred to the court. The accused did not appear at the trial court, sending a statement with a request to consider the case without his participation. The Mikhailovsky District Court considered the case and decided – “to find him guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 3 of Article 7.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and to sentence him in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 2,200 (two thousand two hundred) rubles.”
Kanel A.I. with the assistance of a lawyer, filed a complaint with the Ryazan Regional Court, having considered the case materials and the defense arguments, the Ryazan Regional Court issued a decision to cancel the decision of the Mikhailovsky District Court and terminate it against A.I. Kanel. administrative paperwork.
Now pay close attention. What did the lawyer rely on? The fact that the investigation provided only a protocol on an administrative offense as evidence of guilt. The explanation given by citizen Kanel on the spot cannot be used as evidence since it was received before the initiation of an administrative case.
Below I provide a full quotation from the materials of the regional court’s decision on the topic and in what exactly the district court was wrong in rendering a guilty verdict.
“According to Article 26.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, evidence in a case is any factual data on the basis of which the judge, body, official in charge of the case establishes the presence or absence of an administrative offense event, the guilt of the person brought to administrative responsibility, as well as other circumstances relevant for the correct resolution of the case.
These data are established by the protocol on an administrative offense, other protocols provided for by this Code, explanations of the person against whom proceedings are being conducted for an administrative offense, testimony of the victim, witnesses, expert opinions, other documents, as well as testimony of special technical means, material evidence.
From the presented materials it is clear that in this case of an administrative offense, in relation to Kanel A.I. no administrative investigation was carried out in accordance with Article 28.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation; other procedural documents, with the exception of the protocol on an administrative offense, were not drawn up within the framework of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
The evidence available in the case materials was collected in accordance with the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and within the framework of operational investigative activities. The official did not make any procedural decision (decree, ruling) on separating the materials of the case of an administrative offense into separate proceedings .”
I am not a lawyer, so I will try to explain the judge’s conclusion as I understood it at a layman level. Administrative case against Kannel A.I. was closed, precisely closed, and not returned to the court of first instance. Because the activities carried out by the police to establish the fact of a crime on the spot are actions provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, whereas in order to initiate an administrative case, completely different investigative measures must be carried out. I don’t know which ones exactly, but so be it.
For those who are interested in viewing the materials of the regional court's decision, you can follow the link.
Decision No. 12-163/2020 of November 24, 2020 in case No. 12-163/2020 Ryazan Regional Court (Ryazan region)
I really hope that this note was useful to you. Personally, this information was interesting to me; the links to these two cases have already gone into the memory of one summary document that I store on my computer. I sincerely hope that this information will never be useful to me. However, trust in God, but don’t make a mistake yourself.
