Federation Council Rejects Bill Tightening Drug Trafficking Prosecution Rules
Recently, the Federation Council rejected at a plenary session on Friday a bill that would have tightened the requirements for initiating criminal cases related to drug trafficking. The bill was developed to protect citizens from unwarranted prosecution in such cases.
The bill received 10 votes in favor, 122 against, and 6 abstentions. Prior to the session, the Federation Council’s Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Building recommended rejecting the bill for further revision. According to committee members, the proposed wording could reduce the effectiveness of efforts to combat drug trafficking.
The bill proposed amendments to Article 146 of the Russian Federation’s Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which would establish that criminal cases under Articles 228.1 and 228.4 of the Criminal Code (CC) for illegal drug trafficking could not be initiated without information on the type, weight, and name of the drugs, as well as sufficient evidence indicating their transfer to other individuals. If adopted, the law would require that criminal cases for illegal drug trafficking by unidentified persons, including those based on materials separated from administrative offense cases, could only be initiated if there is evidence confirming the transfer of drugs to another person and an expert opinion determining their type, weight, and name.
Andrey Klishas, head of the Committee on Legislation, noted that the bill essentially creates a new mechanism for establishing exceptions to the general grounds for initiating criminal cases by supplementing Article 146 of the CPC with stricter requirements for the actions and information needed to open a case. However, committee members believed that requiring a full investigation before initiating a criminal case does not solve the problem of unjustified involvement of citizens in pre-investigation checks and criminal investigations. At the same time, it would give law enforcement agencies an additional reason not to open a criminal case even when all elements of a crime are present.
Klishas suggested that the existing mechanism for establishing such exceptions would be more effective—specifically, defining in Article 140 of the CPC the conditions under which a criminal case for drug trafficking cannot be initiated. He explained that at the stage of initiating a criminal case, only the presence of signs of a crime is recorded, which is a legal basis for conducting a preliminary investigation. During this investigation, the elements of the crime are established. The need to initiate a criminal case may arise not only from the establishment of clear and indisputable signs of a specific crime, but also from the necessity to conduct investigative actions to uncover factual circumstances that cannot be identified during the initial case initiation stage.
Debate Over the Bill
Opinions among participants at the plenary session were divided. Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs Igor Zubov asked senators to support the bill, stating that the Russian government’s position was outlined in the bill and its accompanying documents.
“The document has gone through all stages of public discussion, received approvals from interested ministries and agencies, and was adopted by the State Duma. Its essence is to resolve a situation that leads to numerous complaints, appeals, and disputes—specifically, cases where a living or deceased person’s body contains traces of narcotic, potent, or intoxicating substances, but it is impossible to determine what the substance is, how much is present, or how to classify it. In such cases, there is usually no information on how the substance was obtained, whether it was transferred to third parties, or if there was any actual trafficking,” he explained.
According to Zubov, almost half of all drug trafficking cases fall into this category and are initiated against unidentified dealers. “The result is this: 48,000 criminal cases, 23 reach the courts, and in three of those, people were acquitted. We believe that passing this law would not worsen the drug situation or reduce law enforcement effectiveness. On the contrary, it would allow us to focus on fighting organized drug crime and its consequences,” the deputy minister said.
Nikolai Fedorov, a member of the Federation Council’s Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Building, also supported the bill, noting that it concerns the fate of “tens of thousands of innocent families who are being prosecuted.”
Federation Council Chairwoman Valentina Matviyenko, in turn, emphasized that the arguments presented by Klishas and the reasoned opinion of the Prosecutor’s Office could not be ignored. “I believe nothing catastrophic will happen if we reject the bill and create a conciliation commission, listen carefully to all sides, and find the best solution to protect our citizens’ rights. In a month, nothing will change. The conciliation commission will work, and in January we can adopt a revised version of the law,” she said.
The Federation Council speaker urged not to rush, stating, “When passing such important laws, we cannot afford to overlook even a single opinion.”