Special Confiscation as a Measure of Criminal Law under Ukrainian Legislation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of special confiscation as a measure of criminal law, other than punishment, which was introduced into the legislation of Ukraine on the way of transformation and reformation of the institution of confiscation of property. The study found that the emergence of special confiscation was dictated primarily by Ukraine's choice of European integration and the need to fulfil its obligations to bring domestic criminal law in line with European standards and international legal practice in combating crime. The article notes that today the confiscation of property remains one of the most controversial measures of criminal law in both domestic and foreign law. Traditionally, in the criminal law of Ukraine, this measure played the role of one of the types of punishment. However, at the present stage of development of criminal law, the legal regulation of forced confiscation of property has undergone significant changes. Currently, this is not only a form of criminal liability, but also different from the latter, another measure of criminal law, which manifests itself in three forms, namely as: 1) special confiscation of property of an individual; 2) confiscation of property of a legal entity; 3) special confiscation of property in respect of a legal entity. The article analyzes the provisions of the current criminal legislation of Ukraine on the regulation of special confiscation as another measure of criminal law and considers the main problematic aspects of this institution in the doctrine of criminal law of Ukraine. The correlation between general confiscation and special confiscation was revealed in the article. The conclusion was drawn that these two types of confiscations are different in legal nature. Confiscation of property is a type of additional punishment, and special confiscation of property is an independent type of other measures of a criminal law nature. The main difference between the investigated institutions is that their application seizes property of different nature, namely: the subject of confiscation of property is property that belongs to the convict on the right of ownership, and in the case of special confiscation, property related to the commission of a crime is subject to confiscation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it