The lawyer revealed five main tricks of investigators during the interrogation

Anton Kornev, attorney, founder of a legal agency

Interrogation itself is the receipt of information by the investigator or the interrogator, for which they receive this information, either to establish the truth in a criminal case and then everything is fine, or in order to obtain the required result, or, more simply, to attract what the investigator knows to to any person.

Unfortunately, in economic cases, more and more often we see the second option, when the investigator, having any information, is trying to find the person the role of the accused, which is more suitable in his opinion. How to understand that you are in such a situation, of course, on the question. And today I will analyze 5 basic questions that should make you think and alert.

And so the very first question - do you understand that they simply don't invite for interrogation?

This is a very old move. With this phrase, the investigator or interrogator makes it clear to you that he very much doubts that your status as a witness will remain so. If you hear such a question, then my advice to you is to ask for a break in order to invite a lawyer.

With this question, the investigator expects you to be scared and if you have something to hide, then immediately confess everything. It's naive to think so, but sometimes it really works, if a person is emotionally unbalanced, experienced a very long time and strongly before interrogation, it can work. Be careful.

The second question - do you understand that we know everything?

This is done so that you have psychological discomfort and you began to doubt the chosen defense tactics, you began to doubt that you really didn’t do anything and it was on these doubts that you confessed to something.

You should never trust the investigator, his task is to identify as many people as possible who are involved in a criminal offense. And even if this is not always the case, all the same, his job will consist precisely in this, not only to reveal the crime itself, but also to identify as many people involved in this crime as possible and subject them to punishment in the future, I will introduce this, this is his job.

The third question - do you know that refusing to testify is automatically an admission of your guilt?

This is very rude, both psychologically and legally, it is possible only if you are alone under interrogation. This phrase will never be included in the protocol and it is a lie.

The fact is that the investigator deliberately replaces the concepts of admission of guilt and refusal to testify , they do not mix. There is no automatic admission of guilt in the criminal procedure code and in the criminal code, this is a deception. You have the right, on the basis of Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to refuse to give any evidence. This is your constitutional right, and it is forbidden to blame that you have used your constitutional right.

All this is necessary, again, so that you experience psychological discomfort, begin to get confused in your testimony, to doubt your testimony, all this is called "psychological pressure on a witness." And it is possible only if you came for interrogation alone, without a lawyer.

The fourth question - do you understand that either you are confessing now, or you go straight from here from interrogation to the pre-trial detention center?

This is done on purpose, and they especially love to do this after the search has passed and the interrogation has been going on for quite a long time, when the witness is physically and mentally exhausted and the information that everything that you told us is complete nonsense, you are lying and for this we Now we will formalize your arrest, should cause stress in a person, he is immersed in a reality in which he will not return home today, but will go to prison so that he is more accommodating.

Sometimes even a whole show is played out. The investigator calls the court, finds out when there are office hours, someone constantly comes into the office and asks with a complacent smile, well, the villain has not yet confessed, no, well, don't worry, let's arrest him, I'll sign it as if it's his boss, etc. etc.

They can call a convoy, give you five, ten minutes to think while they are standing outside the door, so that you confess ... Know that a measure of restraint in the form of arrest must be sanctioned by the prosecutor's office, that is, they must have sufficient grounds for accuse you of something. And after that , the court and only he chooses the measure of restraint in the form of arrest. For all this, the valiant law enforcement officers have only 48 hours, that is, you can be detained as a suspect for only two days without being charged. During these two days, they must go out with a petition to the prosecutor's office, the prosecutor's office must support the presentation of charges against you and go to court, and the court is already examining whether you deserve a measure of restraint in the form of arrest or something softer.

Fifth question - do you understand that if you confess now, then the maximum that you will get is a suspended sentence?

Never believe such questions and such statements of the investigator. The fact is that promising a slight punishment for those actions that possibly contain corpus delicti and the investigator will very seriously convince you that you have violated such and such a law and if you suddenly believe him and go to self-incrimination or to give false testimony, you you won't help yourself.

The investigator cannot guarantee you anything. Only the court decides who had what role, whether this role was correctly established and proved during the investigation and what punishment will be chosen specifically for you, if it came to this. And the consequence cannot influence this process from the word at all. So when an investigator promises something like that, it's about nothing. He cannot guarantee you that if you agree to his terms, you will receive a suspended sentence. And it is natural that the investigator says the truth, the truth is, to assess all the consequences of such proposals from the investigation can only be a lawyer who has developed serious judicial practice. And if what the investigator proposes fights against the current judicial practice and the lawyer says yes we will go for it, this is a completely different situation. You can either believe or not believe the investigator, if you suddenly came without a lawyer and my advice to you - do not believe the investigator, it will be much more useful for you.

The link to the video is here.