Raiding: criminalistic aspects of counteraction, standards of proof and judicial-institutional guarantees of the rule of law

The article examines raiding as a complex criminal law, criminal procedural, criminalistic and judicial-institutional phenomenon that poses a threat to property rights, corporate rights, economic security, legal certainty and the rule of law. The relevance of the topic is determined by the fact that, under martial law, raiding risks are significantly intensified due to the displacement of owners, managers and employees of enterprises, the loss of or restricted access to primary documents, complications in working with state registers, the use of electronic signatures, digital documents, notarial and registration procedures, as well as the possibility of concealing the real mechanism of the unlawful transfer of control over assets. The article substantiates that the criminalistic characteristics of raiding should cover typical methods of preparation, commission and concealment of the unlawful seizure of property or corporate rights, the range of typical participants, the role of officials, state registrars, notaries, legal advisers, nominal persons, as well as documentary, digital, registration, corporate, financial and communication traces. Particular attention is paid to digital traces of raiding, including electronic documents, electronic signatures, access logs to registers, metadata, electronic correspondence, electronic banking transactions and the digital chain of custody of evidence. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the development of a comprehensive model for counteracting raiding, in which criminalistic means of detecting and documenting raiding schemes are combined with standards of proof, requirements for the admissibility of evidence, procedural integrity, judicial control and institutional safeguarding of the rule of law. It is substantiated that proof in criminal proceedings of this category cannot be limited to the formal establishment of a separate registration action, the existence of a document or a change in corporate control. It must cover the entire mechanism of the unlawful transfer of control over an asset, the role of each participant, the origin of documents and digital data, causation, the amount of damage, the form of guilt, motive, and the good faith or bad faith acquisition of rights.