The Supreme Court of Russia advocates a broader use of non-custodial preventive measures. This stance, pronounced by its president, Vyacheslav Lebedev, came during the XVII Meeting of the Presidents of the Supreme Courts of SCO member states, according to RAPSI. President Lebedev stressed that the number of people held under court orders has fallen to a quarter of its previous level when prosecutors commonly chose arrests. This shift underscores a stronger legal framework for suspects and defendants, emphasizing broader application of measures that do not involve detention.
Lebedev highlighted that defendants with drug dependence who voluntarily seek treatment may be exempted from imprisonment as part of their sentences. The focus is on individuals convicted of minor drug‑trafficking offenses for the first time rather than hardened offenders. Such changes aim to balance public safety with humane and effective legal practice.
job protection
Lebedev noted that the Supreme Court is closely watching cases involving business figures and economic activity. He pointed out that last year courts stopped criminal proceedings for a third of the accused in entrepreneurial crimes, while only about one in ten convicted individuals faced prison. The Criminal Procedure Code has been supplemented to prevent undue extensions of detention for those charged with economic crimes, particularly when investigators stall or fail to proceed effectively.
In 2021, courts halted criminal proceedings against more than half of those accused of organizing or participating in a criminal organization. The law also allows for exemption from criminal liability for first‑time economic offenders, with full restitution of damages and some transfer of monetary penalties to the federal budget. Lebedev added that the termination of cases involving tax offenses may occur at any stage if compensation is arranged and the victim is fully compensated through court‑ordered restitution [publication].
Last year, the number of tax crime convictions declined, while nearly half of the accused saw criminal prosecution halted, signaling evolving approaches to tax enforcement and accountability in business contexts [publication].
On the topic of private prosecution issues, a draft law was introduced to the State Duma proposing that assault, minor bodily harm, and defamation be categorized as special criminal cases where public prosecution is recommended and the court could consider termination upon reconciliation if voluntary and full damages are confirmed [publication]. Lebedev explained that giving courts discretion to terminate such proceedings may help determine whether reconciliation is genuine and whether the victim has been fully compensated.
fault
The Supreme Court regards alternative punishments as a vital instrument and has urged expanding this avenue to include 112 lesser and medium severity offenses not tied to violence or organized crime, where offenses are committed for the first time. Beyond offenses with administrative risks, some high‑public‑danger acts, such as false reports of terrorism or certain procurement violations and minor bodily injuries, could fall outside the scope of the offense when handled under alternative measures. A criminal offense would then be punishable by fines, community service, or limited paid work.
The proposed legislative move is meant to broaden the use of alternative sanctions and reduce the reliance on traditional punishment in suitable cases, according to the Supreme Court president. This approach would, in his view, broaden the spectrum of responses to crime while preserving public safety.
Restraint measures in “high-profile” cases
Recent reports describe moves in high‑profile matters, including a petition to transfer Sergei Zuev, rector of the Moscow Higher School of Social and Economic Sciences, from pretrial detention to house arrest until October 11, amid fraud allegations. The inspector of the Ministry of Internal Affairs faced a similar request regarding Vladimir Mau from RANEPA as part of a major case that raised questions about custody in high‑profile investigations [TASS].
Officials indicated that Mau would be subject to a written guarantee not to leave house arrest. On the same day, a State Duma deputy was sentenced to a lengthy prison term and faced a substantial fine for substantial bribes; he was not present at the hearing due to heavy scheduling and court occupancy [publication].
In 2016, the deputy joined the State Duma as part of a party list, and although immunity was lifted in 2018 to allow prosecution, he was reelected in 2021 on the same party list. Observers note that the absence of a deputy from public appearances can be surprising yet unsurprising in light of entrenched power networks and financial interests [publication].
Observers say that in some cases courts selectively grant petitions while often aligning with investigative demands. Still, arbitration remains a central justification for limiting custody in many instances. Legal advocates argue the Supreme Court’s position—favoring shorter detention where appropriate—reflects a practice that can leave innocent people in custody longer than necessary, sometimes for months or years [interview].