scholarly journals To the Characteristics of Person Occupyting the Highest Position in the Criminal Hierarchy: Criminalistic and Criminal Procedure Aspects

Author(s):  
Nikolay Lebedev ◽  
Sergey Nider

The authors use the analysis of investigation-court practice and doctrinal positions of researchers to raise the issue of determining the subject of the crime under Art. 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors describe a number of problems regarding the possibility of establishing and proving the guilt of a person who went through the criminal world’s ritual of “coronation” and thus acquired the status of a “thief in law”. The authors also present their own opinion on the fallacy of the lawmakers’ decision that occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy is an independent corpus delicti as it does not meet the obligatory criterion of public danger and, consequently, cannot be called a crime. The authors also believe that the abovementioned corpus delicti is, in essence, neither the action nor the inaction, but is an (actual) state, thus it cannot be called a deed and, correspondingly, a crime.

Author(s):  
E.V. Bolshakov ◽  
◽  
I.D. Nazarov ◽  

The subject of the research within the framework of the article is the criminal procedure institute for the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime. The legal nature of this institution is analyzed, and comments are given on the normative legal acts and judicial practice regulating the issues of detention. The theoretical basis of the research is based on the publications of the last two decades on this problem, in particular, reflecting the discussion of the process scientists S. A. Shafer, S. B. Rossinsky and A. A. Tarasov, the subject of which was the issue of the legal nature of a suspect detention in a criminal case. In the paper, the authors ask the following questions: What is the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation? From what moment does the detained person acquire the status of a suspect? Is it possible to detain a person before initiating a criminal case? The study concludes that a person acquires the actual status of a suspect from the moment of direct detention, that is, before documenting this status and, as a result, before initiating a criminal case. Amendments to the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are proposed, and the authors` versions of the definitions of the concepts «detention of a suspect», «the moment of actual detention» and «pre-trial proceedings» are given.


2018 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 01159
Author(s):  
Anton Shamne

The article compares the Criminal Procedural Codes provisions of the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany that regulate conducting a search as an investigative act. It also provides and compares the definitions of the concept “search” and “dwelling” given in Russian and German criminal procedural legislation. The reasons for conducting the search in general and the search of dwelling are considered, similarities and differences are revealed in relation to the status of the subject who is under the search. The author characterizes the search of dwelling and gives a comparative analysis of this investigative action as well as the notion of “urgent cases” in both countries. The authors also proposed some brief recommendations for improving the norms of the Russian Federation Criminal Procedure Code.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-165
Author(s):  
T. Yu. Popova

Article is devoted to search of author's determination of the criminal procedure status of the head of investigative body. Determination of the status is given in it is general legal sense, types of legal statuses, such as the general (constitutional), special (patrimonial), individual, the status of the foreigner and branch legal statuses are allocated. The discussion about a ratio of legal status and a legal status on the basis of which conclusions the author has divided concepts of legal and procedural status per se is given. Are carried to number of elements of legal status of the head of investigative body: the rights and duties provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and specified departmental standard legal by acts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, SK of Russia and FSB of Russia; the criminal liability regulated by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the disciplinary responsibility provided by subordinate regulations for non-execution or inadequate execution of the procedural powers; procedural and administrative accountability of activity of the head of investigative body to the head of higher investigative body. Elements of the criminal procedure status of the designated participant of criminal trial, according to the author, are the rights and duties provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; the accountability of activity of the head of investigative body to the head of higher investigative body regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The author has also mentioned a discussion about existence of criminal procedure responsibility of participants of criminal legal proceedings. In article the maintenance of each of elements of the status and justification of reference of each of them to this or that type of the status is opened. Proceeding from the considered structure, the concept of the criminal procedure status of the head of investigative body as the position of the head of the investigative body including his procedural laws, duties and accountability to the head of higher investigative body regulated only by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is formulated.


2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. 20-23
Author(s):  
Т.Д. Дудоров ◽  
А.Ю. Кирюхин

The article proposes an analysis of the formation and development of the doctrine on criminal procedure functions in the science of the Russian criminal process, concludes that the meaning and structural binding of the content of the concept of "criminal-procedural function" and the principle of adversarial function are impractical. The authors proposes to proceed from the systemicity of criminal proceedings, the goals and objectives of each stage, which determine the activities of the participants in the criminal process, and ultimately - from the general purpose, enshrined in Article 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Its provisions could be used in scientific studies on the subject at hand.


Author(s):  
Vladimir Danko

The work is carried out on the basis of special methods of knowledge, including historical-legal, logical, formal-legal. In the article, taking into account scientific sources and practical experience, the legal problems of operative-search counteraction to crimes provided for in Article 290-291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are considered. The analysis of bribery is realized jointly, because there are identical characteristics in all its corpus delicties – the same subject and object of crime. The existing norms of criminal and criminal procedure laws in relation to bribery are analyzed. Principal operative-search measures used in documentation of bribery are determined. They are surveillance and operational experiment. Their difference is justified and successful use examples are examined. An actual statistics of the Komi Republic for 2015-2018 is given. The lack of normative securing for interaction between operational subdivisions and preliminary investigation body is ascertained. Based on personal practical experience some measures to counteract bribery are proposed.


Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 150-158
Author(s):  
K. V. Dyadyun

The paper analyzes the objective and subjective features of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The problems of interpretation and application of this norm are investigated, taking into account the goals and objectives underlying its creation. Special legislation regulating the sphere under study is considered. The studied imperfections of regulation of the subject of the crime (the relationship between the concepts of alcoholic and alcohol-containing products), problems of distinguishing acts from related compounds (article 151 of the Criminal Code), the complexity of the classification. The analysis of crime-forming features is presented: "repeatability", "retail", and "sale". Imperfections of the legislative and law enforcement approach in this aspect are revealed. In particular, the key features and correlation of the concepts of wholesale and retail trade are analyzed; the problems of assessing what was done with remote methods of selling alcohol; the content aspects of the categories "duplicity and repetition" in the context under study. The question of the expediency of replacing the term "sale" with "illegal sale" in the disposition of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is studied. The regulation of features of the subject of the studied elements is considered, and existing problems are identified. The question of the expediency of norms with administrative prejudice in the criminal law was raised. Some problematic aspects of sentencing for retail sale of alcoholic products to minors are identified; and issues of establishing the subjective side of the elements. The paper analyzes the opinions of various authors regarding the possibility of improving the norm of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the study of statistical data and materials of judicial practice. The author indicates the need for an integrated approach in the fight against alcohol abuse among young people. The conclusion is presented regarding the validity of the existence of the studied norm in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the current version.


Author(s):  
Igor Antonov ◽  
Igor Alekseev

The authors use a communicative approach to the theory of law in their analysis of criminal procedure policy and its role in crime prevention. This approach allowed them to determine the content of criminal procedure work that lies outside the scope of criminal law. This content is its ability to regulate social conflicts of criminal law character. Within this framework, the criminal procedure is viewed as a platform for resolving social conflicts, the sides use it to resolve a conflict between them in socially acceptable ways in the process of communication. The involvement of the aggrieved party in the process of communication in connection with the crime intensifies the correctional impact of the criminal process and its significance for crime prevention. The authors suggest using simplified measures of criminal procedure law for reforming this process and basing it on the procedure of terminating a criminal case with the imposition of a court fine as a measure of criminal law influence. They suggest using the same approach when terminating a criminal case due to the reconciliation of the sides, with one exception: during the reconciliation of the sides, only grounds provided for in Art. 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be proven. If they are established, the investigator is obliged to petition to the court and the court, having established their validity, should decide to terminate the criminal case.


Author(s):  
Farhat Mukhambetov

An attempt is made in this work to reveal the content of the subject of the crime under art. 258¹ of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation “Illegal extraction and circulation of especially valuable wild animals and aquatic biological resources belonging to the species included in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and (or) protected by international treaties of the Russian Federation”. The necessity of division of art. 258¹ of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation into two articles, separately providing for liability for illegal production and trafficking of especially valuable wild animals and illegal extraction of especially valuable aquatic biological resources. The differences in the subject of the crime under art. 256 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation, from the subject of the crime under art. 258¹ of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. The necessity of a substantial expansion of the List of especially valuable especially valuable wild animals and aquatic biological resources belonging to the species included in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and (or) protected by international treaties of the Russian Federation for the purposes of articles 2261 and 258¹ of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation due to inclusion in him of all representatives of the Red Book of the Russian Federation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document