Lifehacks for investigators and lawyers in corruption cases - 1
I teach specialized courses at the university on prosecution and defense in corruption and official crime cases.
In almost every class, we solve problems in a "3-in-1" format: classifying the crime + proving guilt + defending against the charges.
It's difficult for poor master's students... After all, we don't classify the act "as it objectively should be," but make legal decisions from the perspective of:
prosecution
defense
trial
It seems the students' minds are boiling and their familiar worldview is crumbling...
For your attention - an example of the logic behind solving a simple problem under Article Article 290 (or 286, or 285?) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation...
This conversation demonstrates:
how an investigator can qualify and prove cases both legally and in a way that is "beneficial" to the prosecution
how they can create a basis for compromise with a strong defense attorney (if one is available)
how a lawyer can "destroy" a criminal case before it's even opened
how a defense attorney can quickly prove innocence and defend aggressively
Forgive me, gentlemen lawyers, but I'm once again criticizing a large part of your distinguished professional community. I believe it's constructive.
Or perhaps unfair?
Please argue with me! Condemn and refute a professor—a former investigator!
I'd be grateful.
By the way, what do you think of the podcast project with this title: "LIFE HACKS FOR INVESTIGATORS, LAWYERS..."?
If we get a lot of comments and views, we'll continue this thread.