Pre-trial violations in recognition of victims in criminal cases

Let me give you an example of how the rights and duties of the victim are wrongly assigned to improper individuals.

Suppose a director of an LLP files a complaint with the law enforcement authorities, asking them to prosecute an employee who misappropriated or embezzled the LLP’s property entrusted to him. What does the investigator do? He recognizes this director as a victim. Is this correct in terms of law? Of course not.

In this case, the organization should be recognized as the victim because, generally speaking, it is not the director’s personal pocket that has been affected, but the property fund of the organization. Based on the legislative definition mentioned earlier, the property damage was directly caused by the LLP.

The director of the company in such cases is recognized as the representative of this affected legal entity. Another example of erroneously granting the procedural status of a victim is when the founder believes that the money in the company’s bank accounts, which was taken away as a result of fraudulent actions by the attacker, belongs to him personally (according to his logic, he is the owner), and the investigating authorities recognize the founder as a victim, not the company. This is also an erroneous procedural decision.

Imagine if tomorrow the director or the founder changes and new people who had nothing to do with the company at the time of the crime take their place. This does not mean that these former directors and founders can retain their victim rights in a criminal case. Thus, it is important not to be confused by the rules of criminal and civil law and to initially clearly define the victim in a criminal case.