scholarly journals PUBLIC INCITEMENT TO TERRORIST ACTIVITY, PUBLIC JUSTIFICATION OF TERRORISM OR ADVOCACY OF TERRORISM: PECULIARITIES OF THE SUBJECT AND THE OBJECTIVE SIDE OF THE CRIME

2020 ◽  
pp. 3-8
Author(s):  
I.A. Anisimova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Side Information ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Public Justification ◽  
Terrorist Activity ◽  
Scientific Principles ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Objective Side

The article is devoted to the problems of the criminal liability for crimes covered by article 205.2 of theCriminal Code of the Russian Federation. Based on the analysis of legislation and scientific principles theauthor gives a refined description of the most controversial elements of crimes covered by article 205.2 of theCriminal Code of the Russian Federation. They are a subject and an objective side. Information containingincitement to terrorist activity, justifying or promoting terrorism is considered as the subject of crimes under article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The article offers recommendationsfor interpretation of the signs of the subject and the objective side of the crime under article 205.2 of theCriminal Code of the Russian Federation and qualification of these crimes.

scholarly journals Going through training for the purpose of carrying out terrorist activity

2020 ◽  
pp. 89-103
Author(s):  
Georgii Moskalev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Body ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Minimum Age ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Objective Side

The subject of this research is the provision on criminal liability for training for the purpose of carrying out terrorist activities. In the course of this research, the author determines the content of the elements of a crime stipulated by the Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, defines boundaries of this criminal violation, as well as makes recommendations on the improvement of its legal regulation. The article is based on the component legal analysis of the body of crime, stipulated by the Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, with application of such methods of legal hermeneutics as grammatical and systemic interpretation. It was revealed that de facto, a direct object of crime envisaged by the Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation differs depending on the type of crime for which the subject is undergoing training; while the objective side of crime consists in training, including self-training of the subject. The article criticizes the legislator’s decision to establishing a minimum age threshold (14 y.o.) for the subject of crime, as well as the method to describe the purpose in disposition of the Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author describes the cases when introduction of the Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation allows double prosecution for the same offence, as well as regulation of a stiffer penalty for preparation, in comparison with the completed substantive crime, which in both cases violates the principle of justice (Article 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).  A proposal is made to exclude the Article 205.3 from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as introduce a special rule on the boundaries of punishment for preparation of terrorist acts.

COUNTERING MATCH-FIXING: COMPARISON OF CRIMINAL LAW AND SPORTS LAW REGULATION ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE RUSSIAN ICE HOCKEY FEDERATION

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Евгения Германовна Ветрова ◽  
Илья Александрович Васильев
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Ice Hockey ◽  
Sports Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Objective Side ◽  
Subjective Side

В статье проводится сравнение положений ст. 184 УК РФ (Оказание противоправного влияния на результат официального спортивного соревнования) и соответствующих статей Дисциплинарного Регламента Федерации Хоккея России. Автор произвел сравнение составов анализируемых правонарушений: объекта, субъекта, объективной стороны и субъективной стороны и указал их сходства и отличия. The article compares the provisions of Article 184 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Illegal influence on the result of an official sports competition) and the corresponding articles of the Disciplinary Regulations of the Russian Ice Hockey Federation. The author compared the components of the analyzed offenses: the object, the subject, the objective side and the subjective side, and indicated their similarities and differences.

scholarly journals CRIMINAL AND LEGAL STUDY OF CONNIVANCE IN CRIME AS A SIGN CHARACTERIZING CONFLUENCE OF SEVERAL PERSONS IN ONE CRIME

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (72) (2) ◽  
pp. 236-241
Author(s):  
A. A. Kashkarov ◽  
D. A. Poshtaruk
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Study ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Objective Side ◽  
Made In

A criminal and legal analysis of the objective and subjective signs, characterizing the connivance to the crime is made in the publication. The study found that connivance in a crime may be characteristic of various criminal law institutions, such as implication in a crime and complicity in a crime. In addition, the presented arguments show that connivance as a criminally punishable act may be associated with non-interference with unlawful activities that do not constitute a crime. The analysis shows that connivance in a crime can have a selfish purpose. It is noted that connivance in a crime is significantly different from other forms of implication in a crime, namely concealment of a crime and failure to report a crime. The subject of connivance in a crime is a person endowed with special powers to prevent, document and register crimes or offences. The article discloses that there is no special penal provision in the current Act of Criminal Responsibility of the Russian Federation that criminalizes it. The exception is the disposition of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of RF, which contains an indication of connivance as a sign characterizing the objective side of receiving a bribe.

scholarly journals Differentiation of criminal liability depending on the signs of the subject of the composition of a transport crime

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Valeriy F. Lapshin
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Motor Vehicles ◽  
Direct Control ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Structural Methods

Subject of research: signs of the subject of the offenses under Art. 264 and 2641 of the Criminal Code of Russia (hereinafter the Criminal Code). Purpose of the study: formulation of proposals on the content of the category "subject of traffic crimes", depending on which a qualitative differentiation of responsibility for crimes involving the use of motor vehicles is ensured. List of methods and objects of research. To obtain the results of the research, the methods of cognition used in the humanities (legal) sciences were used. The method of content analysis was used in the study of the content of Art. 264, 2641, 109 and 118 of the Criminal Code, as well as Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 9, 2008 No. 25. The dialectical method was used in the study of opinions on the qualification of some transport crimes. Logical and systemic-structural methods were applied in the study of the typical degree of social danger of the criminal's personality. Conclusions based on the results of the study: 1) the subject of the offenses under Art. 264 and 2641 CC is special. It is determined on the basis of the existence of an official right to drive a vehicle and the corresponding obligation to comply with the relevant safety rules; 2) the instructor possesses the characteristics of a subject of corpus delicti of transport crimes in cases when he had a real opportunity to drive a training vehicle and (or) exercised direct control of it together with the student.

scholarly journals КВАЛИФИКАЦИЯ НАРУШЕНИЙ ТРЕБОВАНИЙ В ОБЛАСТИ ТРАНСПОРТНОЙ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ С УЧЁТОМ ОСОБЕННОСТЕЙ СУБЪЕКТИВНЫХ ПРИЗНАКОВ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЯ, ПРЕДУСМОТРЕННОГО СТАТЬЁЙ 2631 УК РФ

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-145
Author(s):  
Е.А. Князева
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Group ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Transport Infrastructure ◽  
Transport Safety ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

В представленной научной работе анализируются проблемы квалификации субъективных признаков статьи 2631 УК РФ. Установлено, что данная норма была изменена в части субъекта преступления, а именно – была введена уголовная ответственность за несоблюдение требований в области транспортной безопасности пассажирами и иными лицами, т.е. лицами, обладающими признаками общего субъекта преступления. В качестве квалифицированных признаков анализируемой нормы была введена уголовная ответственность за групповое совершение данного преступления при наличии неосторожной формы вины, а именно – группа лиц по предварительному сговору и организованная преступная группа. Мы считаем, что введение соучастия в такого рода преступлениях представляет серьёзную проблему для последующего применения статьи 2631 УК РФ на практике, поскольку квалифицировать в случае нарушений указанных в рассматриваемой нами норме специальных правил по указанным в частях третьей и четвёртой признакам будет практически невозможно. Нам видится, что основная проблема ответственности соучастников за нарушение требований в области транспортной безопасности со-стоит в необходимости установления двух важных моментов: 1) ограничение круга специальных субъектов анализируемого состава преступления и его отражение на ответственность других соучастников; 2) оценка уголовно-правовой характеристики роли субъекта и других соучастников преступления. Сделан вывод о том, что соучастие по исследуемой нами норме возможно лишь в тех случаях, когда исполнителем данного преступления является специальный субъект. Остальные лица подлежат уголовной ответственности как организатор, подстрекатель или пособ-ник. Полагаем, что следует исключить данные квалифицированные признаки из исследуемого нами состава и говорить о неосторожном сопричинении, а не о со-участии. Ключевые слова: квалификация, нарушение требований, неосторожное со-причинение, неосторожная форма вины, соучастие, субъективная сторона преступления, субъект преступления, транспортная безопасность, транспортная инфраструктура. The present research work analyzes the problems of qualifying the subjective characteristics of Article 2631 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It was established that this provision was changed in terms of the subject of the crime, namely, criminal liability was introduced for non-compliance with the requirements in the field of transport safety by passengers and other persons, i.e. persons possessing the characteristics of a common subject of a crime. As qualified features of the analyzed norm, criminal liability was introduced for the group commission of this crime in the presence of a careless form of guilt, namely, a group of persons by prior conspiracy and an organized criminal group. We believe that introduction of complicity in this type of crime is a serious problem for the subsequent application of Article 2631 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in practice, since it will be practically impossible to qualify in case of violations of the rules specified in the norm under consideration by the signs indicated in parts three and four. We see that the main problem of responsibility of accomplices for violation of requirements in the field of transport security is the need to establish two important points: 1) limiting the range of special subjects of the analyzed corpus delicti and its reflection on the responsibility of other accomplices; 2) assessment of the criminal law characteristics of the role of the subject and other accomplices in the crime. It is concluded that complicity according to the norm we are investigating is possible only in cases where the perpetrator of this crime is a special subject. The rest of the persons are subject to criminal liability as organizer, instigator or accomplice. We believe that it is necessary to exclude these qualified signs from the composition we are studying and talk about careless complicity, and not about complicity. Keywords: qualification, violation of requirements, careless submission, careless form of guilt, complicity, the subjective side of the crime, the subject of the crime, transport security, transport infrastructure.

scholarly journals Features of the qualification of insult to an employee of the FPS of Russia as a representative of authorities

2021 ◽  
Vol 225 (2) ◽  
pp. 46-51
Author(s):  
K.A. SHILOV ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Objective Side

Abstract. The article analyzes the scientific literature, judicial practice on the specific characteristics of qualifying an insult to an employee of the FPS of Russia as a representative of the authorities. Proposals and additions to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are formulated. Key words: qualifications, criminal liability, insult, employee of the FPS of Russia, a sign of publicity, the objective side of the insult.

QUALIFYING SIGNS GENERAL CHARACTERISTIC AND THEIR IMPORTANCE IN CORPUS DELICTI STRUCTURE PLANNING

2019 ◽  
pp. 66-75
Author(s):  
Mikhail Alekseyevich Avdeyev ◽  
Anastasiya Sergeyevna Shtrants
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
General Characteristic ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Dual Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One ◽  
Objective Side

We consider qualifying signs of the crime as one of the forms of differentiation of criminal liability, reflecting the qualitative characteristics of the criminal act. Also we analyze the doctrinal approaches to the two most controversial issues of the theory of criminal law concerning the nature and content of qualifying signs: their correlation with the circumstances aggravating the punishment, as well as a constructive connection with the corpus delicti. We draw a conclusion that such qualifying signs as the criminal law category have a dual nature. On the one hand, they are comparable to the aggravating circumstances listed in article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, on the other hand, they are expressed in the norms of the Special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as constructive signs of corpus delicti the strengthening of the level of criminal repression in relation to the basic composition of the relevant crime. In particular it is a constructive connection with the corpus delicti expresses the most popular in the literature classification of qualifying signs of the circumstances relating to: the object and the objective side, the subject and the subjective side of corpus delicti. We propose interpretation of the concept of qualifying signs, which are indicated by the circumstances, which is a constructive element of the corpus delicti, which indicate increased relative to the basic corpus delicti of public danger of the act and the identity of the person committing the act.

scholarly journals On exemption from criminal liability for unlawful restriction of competition (the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Evgen'evna Derevyagina
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The subject of this research is the notes to the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Article 14.32 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses; foreign antimonopoly legislation on exemption and mitigation of liability for cartels; decisions of the plenums of higher judicial instances of the Russian Federation regarding the grounds and procedure for exemption from liability for cartel agreements; draft of the federal law on introducing amendments to the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and antimonopoly practice on cartels. The article aims to examine the grounds for exemption from criminal liability for cartel agreements, including in comparative-legal and interdisciplinary aspects. The novelty of this research consists in establishing extension of the grounds for exemption from liability in the Russian legislation to all cartel participants (unlike foreign legislation, according to which the cartel facilitator is not exempt from liability). This article is firs to provide interpretation to scantily studied questions of the procedure for realization of the conditions of exemption from criminal liability: the instance, when the cartel participant is still able to declare the restriction of competition to law enforcement agencies, and other measures of reparation of the inflicted damage. The author proposes a method for unification of the the grounds for exemption from liability stipulated by the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Article 14.32 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses. The acquired results can be applied in the activity of law enforcement agencies.

scholarly journals Theoretical and practical problems of applying Art. 291. 1 of the Criminal Code due to the imperfection of its legislative structure

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 340-347
Author(s):  
E. V. Gerasimova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Fundamental Importance ◽  
Current Version ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Broad Interpretation ◽  
Legislative Structure ◽  
Significant Size

The article examines the problems of applying the norm, fixing the criminal liability for intermediation in bribery, due to the imperfection of the legislative structure 291.1 of the Criminal Code. The author considers the main forms of intermediation in bribery: physical and intellectual. Particular attention is paid to the sign of a significant size of the subject of the bribe, which is of fundamental importance for assessing the act under this article. It is noted that according to the current version of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code intermediation in giving or receiving a bribe in an amount not exceeding 25 thousand rubles cannot form the specified corpus delicti. It is emphasized that intermediation in bribery in the absence of a sign of significant size cannot form complicity in receiving or giving a bribe. In this regard the author considers it inappropriate to indicate a significant amount in part 1 of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code. The article also considers the problem of a broad interpretation of physical intermediation in giving and (or) receiving a bribe. The provisions of Part 5 of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code, which establish criminal liability for a promise or offer of inter mediation in bribery, are analysed. The author notes that the groundlessness of the lack of guidance in Part 5 of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on a significant size of the subject of a bribe allows us to talk about the establishment of criminal liability for preparation for intermediation in bribery, regardless of the size of the subject of a bribe. In this regard it is proposed to exclude part 5 of Art. 291.1 from the Criminal Code.

scholarly journals Criminal liability for unlawful operations with securities

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Eleonora Romanovna Vinner
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Key Aspects

The subject of this research is differentiation by key aspects of criminal liability for unlawful operations with securities established by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Conceptual, special-legal, and technical-legal aspects of criminal liability for unlawful operations with securities are highlighted. Research is conducted on the problematic of the applicability of proposed differentiation for improvements of doctrinal and normative legal approaches towards regulation of criminal liability for unlawful operations with securities. Based on the conducted differentiation, proposals are made for promising vectors of improvements to the provisions criminalizing unlawful operations with securities. The scientific novelty of this research consists in the following: based on the study carried out within the framework of conceptual, special-legal, and technical-legal aspects of criminal liability for unlawful operations with securities, the author determines the problems pertaining to incompliance of administrative legal and criminal legal regulation of liability for unlawful operations with securities due to textual ambiguity of the norm of criminal law, based on which the recommendation is made to amend Part 1 of the Article 185.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document