The General Assembly of the Supreme Court is moving toward a formal decision on how criminal practice should handle pending and ongoing offenses. Experts note that the changes, faces unseen since 1929, are not a dramatic overhaul but could tighten accountability for certain actions. The topic has drawn attention in the Russian press, including coverage by Vedomosti, and reflects a push to refine rules governing criminal liability and sentencing.
The draft decision emphasizes that determining the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution, resolving questions about immunity from liability, or selecting an appropriate sentence depends on clearly established markers of a continuing or ongoing crime. This means that the legal character of actions will hinge on whether the conduct forms a persistent pattern or a sequence of connected acts over time.
Plenary instructions urge courts to distinguish a truly continuing crime from a series of offenses that, while sharing the same factual elements, are not a single continuous act. The distinction matters for how charges are framed, how evidence is evaluated, and how sentences are calculated in cases involving multiple related violations.
In discussions of narcotics offenses, the draft cites examples under Section 228.1 as illustrating the nuanced approach. Analysts point out that the classification of operations can shift depending on whether activities are viewed as a continuous process or as separate acts committed in what may appear to be a single organized effort.
Igor Ivlev, head of the criminal defense practice group at the Early Parole Institute, explains that previously, actions in which distributors carried out multiple transactions from a single batch, selling to different buyers in a short span and within a single region, were considered a single crime. The proposed changes would treat such actions as multiple crimes when the circumstances indicate distinct harms or separate instances of liability.
Nikita Filippov, head of the De Jure Lawyers Bureau, notes that if a legal norm specifies a defining sign of an ongoing offense, the conduct can be assessed as a whole with that sign in view. For instance, several extortion episodes, one involving violence, could be described collectively as extortion through force, rather than as entirely separate offenses, depending on the regulatory markers present in the governing norm.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also moved to align evidentiary standards, clarifying how a defendant’s refusal to unlock a smartphone should be treated during guilt assessment. This decision reflects the court’s broader effort to harmonize how digital evidence is weighed in criminal proceedings.
In related developments, three former police officers faced changes in sentencing in the Golunov case, illustrating how the court’s evolving approach to ongoing offenses may affect case outcomes and accountability for law enforcement personnel involved in criminal activity. Overall, the direction signals a shift toward more precise delineation of when crimes are continuous and when they are a sequence of separate acts, with implications for liability, penalties, and the administration of justice across criminal cases.