Criminal law mechanism of compensation for harm caused by crime: trends in legislative regulation and practical implementation

The relevance of research. Allocating compensatory actions a place either in the system of coercive measures or in the arsenal of stimulating measures, the legislator took the path of strengthening private interests, expanding the grounds for exemption from criminal liability, and reducing the requirements for post-crime behavior of the accused. The revealed legislative transformation of the restorative actions of the guilty party laid the foundation for the reevaluation of their content by a law enforcement officer. By recognizing as optional the solely personal participation of the offender in compensation for damage, as well as transferring “redressing of harm” from certain definitions to evaluative ones, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court laid the foundation for forming practice in a new direction, the study of which is the purpose of this article . Research results. Critically assessing the emerging practice, the authors raise the questions of justification for the release of those guity, who personally did nothing for the state forgiveness, as well as justification for courts to refer to mitigation of harm, actions being far from compensatory. The paper substantiates the conclusion that the solely judicial discretion in determining the redress of harm conceals not only corruption risks, but also threatens the uniform application of the law. The accumulated experience does not allow development of universal criteria that allow to determine not only sufficient, but also the minimum necessary actions of the perpetrator to smooth down the harm caused by a crime infringing on public interests. The Plenum of the Supreme Court clarifications, which exclude recognition as compensatory actions of the guilty party to terminate the criminal offense, and also form active repentance in content, can facilitate the prompt elimination of defective law enforcement. The methodological basis is formed by general scientific (analysis, synthesis, and dialectics) and special scientific research methods (historical and legal, systemic and structural, formal and legal).