THE DEFENDANT’S SILENCE UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW OF RUSSIA AND FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS

Introduction: the article analyzes the defendant’s silence models in foreign states (England and Wales, Ireland, the United States, the Netherlands, Belgium) and in Russia, with a focus on the evidence thresholds that allow drawing adverse inferences from the accused’s refusal or failure to answer questions as well as on the scope of these inferences. The historical retrospective of the issue and the development of international standards permitting the use of silence for evidentiary purposes are explored. The purpose of the paper is to study the legislation and law enforcement practice of the selected countries with regard to the conditions under which adverse inferences can be drawn from the defendant’s silence. Methods: general scientific methods of analysis, synthesis, analogy, and interpretation; comparative legal, formal legal, and axiological methods. Results: the author identifies the categories (groups) of crimes to which provisions on adverse inferences are applicable and indicates the guarantees designed to compensate for the limitation of the right to remain silent. The implementation of such guarantees in Russian legislation and their practical application are analyzed. The author outlines the possible negative scenarios for criminal process in Russia in cases where ambush defenses are raised. The experience of Belgium and the Netherlands in investigating stand-alone money laundering exemplifies the algorithm of using the indirect method of proof and demonstrates the role of the defendant’s failure to clarify the origin of an asset suspected to originate from an illegal source as corroborative evidence. Conclusions: while the presumption of innocence is a universal principle, the legal approaches to adverse inference from the defendant’s silence differ from state to state. Attaching the evidentiary importance to the accused’s silence does not violate the right to a fair trial, subject to compliance with the safeguards. The attitude to the evidentiary value of the defendant’s silence in Russia is to be changed due to the known difficulties of prosecution for profit-driven crimes.