scholarly journals ELECTRONIC DATABASES AS A SOURCE OF OBTAINING DATA FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE PROVEN IN A CRIMINAL CASE

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-42
Author(s):  
A.Yu. Safronov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Record Keeping ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Special Part ◽  
Other Information ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article provides an analysis of the sources of obtaining evidentiary and other information necessaryfor the investigation body, the prosecutor (state prosecutor) and the court to implement the provisions on theconfiscation of property under Art. 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. With examples fromthe judicial practice of the federal court and the positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,set out in the Resolution of the Plenum, the issue of obtaining information from electronic databases aboutthe property status of a participant in criminal proceedings is considered. The possibilities of GAS “Justice” ofPI “Judicial record-keeping” on the issues under consideration are revealed. The conclusion is substantiatedthat the conclusion that electronic databases can and should be used as a source of obtaining data for thecircumstances to be proved in a criminal case. Taking into account the provisions of Articles 73 and 74 of theCriminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the place and type of information received, using theseelectronic databases, in the evidence system in a criminal case, is determined. The conclusion is substantiatedthat the list of compositions (articles) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which itis possible to apply confiscation by a conviction of a court, is practically unlimited, and, to be more precise,is limited only to the list of articles of the Special Part of the said code.

Individualization of Punishment Taking into Account the Nature and Degree of Public Danger

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Вячеслав Воронин ◽  
Vyacheslav Voronin
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
The Public ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Common Criteria ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Common

Part 3 of article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers to the common criteria of individualization of punishment the nature and degree of public danger of committed crime in each criminal case. The purpose of this article is to analyze the legal practice of this provision, as well as the construction of clarification on the issue of taking into consideration the public danger, which will be useful for the judiciary. For this purpose the author supposes to solve following problems: analysis of dogmatic ideas about the nature and degree of public danger; search for factors that courts consider in determining public danger in judicial practice; analysis of the survey data of judges from different regions of the country. As a result the author concludes that the nature of public danger depends on the object of the offense and cannot influence on individualization of punishment, because it was considered by the legislator when constructing the corresponding article of the Special Part and therefore should be excluded from Part 3 of art. 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Degree of public danger when individualizing is determined subject to the objective and subjective elements of a crime. The author proposed to make recommendations on considering into account degree of public danger in the judgment 22.12.2015 No. 58 adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On practice of criminal sentencing by courts of the Russian Federation”.

scholarly journals Termination of a criminal case (criminal prosecution) as a result of voluntary compensation for damage caused by a crime in the russian criminal court legal proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3B) ◽  
pp. 645-651
Author(s):  
Artem Igorevich Neryakhin ◽  
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov ◽  
Vasily Dzhonovich Potapov ◽  
Denis N. Stacyuk ◽  
Tatiana Ivanovna Bondar
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage

The authors study the controversial issues of termination of a criminal case (criminal prosecution) on the condition of voluntary compensation for the damage caused by the crime by the suspect (accused) during the preliminary investigation. The thesis is proved that in Russian criminal proceedings the procedure for voluntary compensation for damage caused by a crime is quite clearly regulated, and if the suspect (accused) voluntarily compensated for the property damage caused, then their actions will be evaluated within the current legal framework, when the fact of compensation for damage creates grounds for exemption from criminal liability and termination of the criminal case (criminal prosecution) in accordance with Articles 75, 76, 761, 762 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 25, 251, 28, 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Relevant issues of conducting verification of reports on illegal banking operations

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Anisya Aleksandrovna Dementyeva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Legitimate Business ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Major Attention ◽  
Banking Operations

This article is dedicated to the issues of conducting audit pursuant to the Article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on report of crimes established by the Article 172 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Methodological framework for this research consists of dialectical, logical, and formal-legal methods; the normative framework is comprised of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, criminal and criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, local normative acts that regulate the conduct of audit initiating at the stage of initiating a criminal case. Major attention is turned to the theoretical and applied issues associated with the initiation of criminal cases stipulated by the Article 172 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Analysis is conducted on the peculiarities of seizure of objects and documents on this category of crime; as well as on the goals, tasks, methods of seizure, and admissible procedural actions. The author examines the questions of admissibility of evidence received at the state of opening a criminal case, their role in subsequent stages of criminal proceedings. Assessment is given to the existing theoretical and practical views on the possibility of instituting a search and seizure prior to opening a criminal case. The author analyzes case law on the topic, and concludes on the need for further amendments. The importance of observing the rights and legitimate interests of individuals and companies in the course of pre-trial proceedings pertinent to the reports of illegal banking operations is substantiated. The author also indicates that arbitrary interference of law enforcement agencies in legitimate business activity is unacceptable.  

scholarly journals The Involvement of a Legal Entity in a Criminal Case

Russian judge ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 25-29
Author(s):  
Vladimir Yu. Stelmakh ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Governing Body ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Main Representative

The article analyzes problematic aspects of representation of a legal entity in criminal proceedings. Representatives of a legal person may be all persons listed in the criminal procedure law, but the main representative is a member of the governing body, and the remaining persons are appointed by this body and are additional. Some decisions (for example, an application to initiate criminal proceedings on crimes listed in chapter 23 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) are entitled to be submitted by the governing body as such, and not by its individual members. A distinction is made between the representation of a legal entity in unitary enterprises and joint-stock companies. The possibility of participation of representatives of the owner of a unitary enterprise as a representative of the victim is justified in cases where the director of the enterprise unsatisfactorily performs duties in criminal proceedings or is suspected of committing a crime.

scholarly journals On the problem of establishing a condition for compensation for damage and making amends for damage when a criminal case (criminal prosecution) is terminated in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 129-134
Author(s):  
I.V. Fatyanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage

The article examines the ambiguity in the interpretation of article 76.2 of the Criminal code and article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation to establish terms of compensation for the damage and (or) smoothing caused by the crime harm. The author substantiates the argument about the fallacy of considering this condition only formally, the author focuses on the mandatory establishment in this case of the characteristics of the identity of the guilty person and the measure of public danger of the committed act. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the approach proposed by the author to the study of the problem of establishing such a condition. In particular, the author considers it essential to solve such a problem to study the legal nature of compensation for damage and compensation for damage when a criminal case (criminal prosecution) is terminated on this basis. The author defines the specifics, identifies the main purposes of such a legal phenomenon in the context of a legal problem. The article concludes that if the preliminary investigation body and (or) the court (justice of the peace) the lack of property harmful consequences from the crime, the failure to make reparation is not to be considered as an obstacle to the termination of criminal proceedings on the grounds provided by article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, article 76.2 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. As a conclusion, the scientific work has prepared a specific text of the interpretation of the condition in the relevant explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which will exclude ambiguity on this issue from the law enforcement officer.

A Crime Organizer in the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Special Rules on Complicity of the Special Part

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 118-133
Author(s):  
D. M. Molchanov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Group ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Original Plan ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Special Rules ◽  
The Moment

A paper provides a comprehensive study of the role of the organizer in crimes without compulsory complicity and in crimes prohibited by special provisions on complicity of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Under the special rules on complicity in this work we understand two types of norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: 1) rules establishing responsibility for combining several persons into a criminal group — Art. 209, 210 and others; 2) establishing responsibility for instigators, organizers, accomplices and other accomplices directly in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation — Art. 205.1, etc.). The paper considers the issues of distinguishing the role of the organizer from the role of the instigator to the commission of a crime and an accomplice in the commission of a crime. In judicial practice, errors are often encountered both in the form of excessive (when the instigator is recognized as the organizer) and in the form of insufficient qualifications (when the organizer is recognized only as an instigator or accomplice). Such a variant of over-qualification is also possible, when the organizer is recognized as both an accomplice and an instigator to committing a crime, although the role of the organizer should absorb these functions. The paper considers the issues of qualification of the actions of the organizer and other accomplices of the crime, when, in the process of directing the commission of the crime, the organizer changes the direction of the actions of the accomplices in comparison with the original plan of action. The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in some decisions recommends not to take into account the role of the organizer when committing a crime as part of an organized group (to recognize him as a co-executor of the crime). In the educational literature, this is considered as a universal rule for qualifying crimes committed by an organized group. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not provide grounds for such a qualification. In judicial practice, there is no uniformity on this issue. The role of the organizer in crimes without obligatory complicity distinguishes from the role of the organizer in organized groups and criminal communities (special rules on complicity) in that in the first situation the organizer is subject to responsibility only if preparations for a specific crime are started, and in the second situation, regardless of the crime preparation commencement, but from the moment the corresponding organized group or criminal community was created.

scholarly journals The prohibition of driving a vehicle for committing a crime as a means of ensuring transport security

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 216-221
Author(s):  
Lyubov’ Yu. Larina
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Vehicle Management

The article deals with the penalty of deprivation of the right to engage in vehicle management activities as a means of ensuring transport security. This penalty is often imposed for crimes committed while driving vehicles. At the same time, judicial practice in relation to various articles of the special part of the criminal code of the Russian Federation develops in different ways. The author analyses sentences and other judicial acts in criminal cases on crimes committed while driving vehicles. Based on the generalisation of theoretical material and judicial practice on the problem under consideration, the author formulated proposals for changing the current legislation and recommendations for law enforcement. The article substantiates the need for mandatory discussion by the court of the possibility of imposing a penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to engage in activities for driving vehicles in all cases of committing a crime while driving.

FORMAL AND EVALUATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE SPHERE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

2021 ◽  
pp. 86-97
Author(s):  
Yuri V. Truntsevsky ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Author Note

In the article, the author consider the theoretical positions on the rules for the qualification of crimes in the field of economic activity. The author consider the judicial practice in criminal cases and formulates conclusions about the characteristics of the elements (signs) of corpus delicti (see also – delicti) set out in the dispositions of articles of Chapter 22 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. One of the objectives of the article is to consider formal and informal elements as content (context) delicti. At the same time, the author note that the formality or informality of signs (context) delicti has no legal significance. This conclusion follows from the provision that all the signs described in the norm of the Special part of the Criminal code of the Russian Federa-tion are legally mandatory. It is important to differentiate between elements of crimes in order to qualify crimes, especially those committed in the sphere of economic activity. The author notes that the dispositions of articles of the Special part of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation can combine elements of blankness, descriptive and evaluative. The author notes the accessory nature of criminal law from positive (regulatory) legal regulations, and the absence of concentration of legal sources. The author emphasized that the norms of the Special part of Criminal law contain two parts. The first part contains a description of the object of the crime, which the offender attempt on. Such an object is represented in the form of a legal order established by the norms of regulatory legislation. The author considers the fact of attempt on this law and order as event (hypothesis) of criminal liability. Clarification of this hypothesis take place in the process of qualifying crimes (in the sphere of criminal law application). Together, these parts of the disposition of the criminal law norm form a common whole, which indicate the legislator's idea of a criminal law prohibition. The article emphasizes the intersectoral nature of the institution of formulating grounds for criminal liability for crimes in the sphere of economic activity. The author identifies the types of evaluation signs delicti of economic crimes: quantitative (size), qualitative (can not be measured by cost) and cumulative. The author comes to the conclusion that it is expedient to further study the concept, types and role of evaluative signs of crimes. The role of evaluation signs is stated in the formulation of criminal law prohibitions. The author makes the following conclusions for the readers' discussion: the formulation of signs of crimes in the sphere of economic activity is based on the blank dispositions of the corresponding articles; a separate type of such description of the disposition is administrative prejudice; this administrative prejudice relates the grounds for criminal liability of a person for the act with his previous administrative penalty; assessment signs of the crime is determined not only by the normative legal act, judicial practice, but also in the process of qualification of a crime is determined by the consciousness of a person when it examines the being of the case.

scholarly journals CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS IN IMPROVING LEGISLATION TO COUNTERACT THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON MEASURES TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-104
Author(s):  
D.S. Lanshakov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Disclosure Of Information ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
State Protection

The improvement of the security process of citizens' participation in a criminal case is guaranteed by various legal means, among which the legal protection on the basis of Federal Law No. 45-FZ “On state protection of judges, law enforcement and supervisory authorities” and Federal Law No. 119-FZ “On state protection of victims, witnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings” holds a special place. The criminal legislation of the Russian Federation provides for an independent Article 311, which establishes criminal liability for disclosing information on security measures of participants in criminal proceedings. In law enforcement practice, there are problems of initiating criminal cases of this category and their subsequent investigation. The subject of evidence in a criminal case instituted on the grounds of corpus delicti provided for in Article 311 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation includes a body of information of a different nature. It is specific to the problem of delimiting the characteristics of Article 311 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation from the signs contained in Article 310 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, at the stage of criminal proceedings, the absence of an administratively punishable misconduct should be determined. Among the criminal procedural measures to counteract the disclosure of information about security measures, it is necessary to single out, first of all, a warning to participants in criminal proceedings to prevent the disclosure of information on security measures, by analogy to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The article substantiates the need to highlight a new Art. 161.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation “Inadmissibility of disclosure of data on security measures for participants in criminal proceedings” and the author's version of this rule is proposed. In addition, an analysis of other criminal procedural means of counteracting the disclosure of this property is presented.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document