scholarly journals The Concept of Freedom of Enterprise Through the Prism of Criminal Law Characteristics of Fraud

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-299
Author(s):  
Yekaterina Yakimova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Entrepreneurial Activities

The research of issues connected with the analysis of business risks is relevant because of the problem of qualifying the actions of entrepreneurs under the fraud-related Articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Besides, the development of technologies increases the number of frauds in the digital environment, which makes it necessary to determine key features of fraudulent actions connected with the changes in the economic organization of the society connected with the digital transformation of some branches of the world economy in general and Russian economy in particular, of the social sphere, and of the specifics of public administration of some areas of life. The responsiveness of lawmakers manifested in amending a group of Articles in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regarding the legal characteristics of fraud, shows that there are some problems in the legislative regulation of this sphere. The author believes that they are caused by an attempt to assess the degree of freedom of enterprise and the degree of involvement of each side of legal relations in the risk of investment. The analysis of legislation, the law enforcement practice, statistical data give reason to believe that most of the problems of legislative understanding of fraud in entrepreneurship are not connected with contradictions in the legal regulation, but rather with the drawbacks of the law enforcement practice, the prevalence of repressive methodology in classifying the actions of entrepreneurs and the inner conviction of the law enforcement employees that entrepreneurs intentionally strive to obtain negative results in any, and primarily entrepreneurial, activities. The author argues that further improvement of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will not yield any tangible results, which testifies to a considerable transformation of the fraud-related Articles in the last 15 years. Changes in the practice of enforcement of the criminal law’s articles regarding fraud are only possible after the principles of such work are worked out by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, who at present pays much attention to this issue, although some clauses of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation require further analysis and improvement.

scholarly journals Criminal infraction as a mean of differentiating criminal responsibility and punishment

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
pp. 62-67
Author(s):  
E. A. BABAYANTS ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

Discussions caused by the initiative of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the introduction of a new category of offenses – criminal infraction which can occupy an intermediate link between an administrative offense and a criminal offense – do not stop. The article reveals the concept of a criminal infraction, lists its main features, considers the feasibility of introducing this category into domestic criminal legislation. A brief analysis of the legislation of a number of foreign countries is also given, the possibility of applying such experience in Russian conditions is assessed. The conclusion is formulated that it is necessary to recognize as fair the arguments challenging the necessity of adopting the draft law in the form in which it was submitted for consideration by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Attention is drawn to the fact that in those countries where the category of criminal offense was introduced, a fundamental reform of the criminal legislation was required: a total revision of the norms of the existing criminal legislation or the adoption of a separate Code of criminal infractions (for example, in Kyrgyzstan). Based on this the draft law under consideration appears to be a half-measure, which will lead to the complication of the existing legal regulation. The most correct way to resolve the problem under consideration would be to reduce the number of minor offenses in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

scholarly journals The Perpetrator of the Crime in Complicity and without Complicity: A Universal Role in the Diversity of Legal Constructions

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
D. M. Molchanov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Main Element ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Sense

A comprehensive study of the perpetrator’s role leads to the following conclusions: “perpetrator of the crime” is a universal term used to describe an act that constitutes an objective element of the crime committed both in complicity and without complicity. Four alternatives to the actions of the perpetrator exist: executor who performed the objective element alone, an accomplice who performed the objective element with other accomplices, an indirect perpetrator, an indirect accomplice. Other ways to qualify person’s act as a perpetrator are based not on the law, but on the recommendations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation that de facto acquired the status of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (joint participation in the organized group, joint participation in a crime with “technical distribution of roles”). The main element of the act of the perpetrator includes the fulfillment of the objective element described in the disposition of the article of the Special Part. The content of the objective element of a particular crime does not depend on the existence of complicity, hence the term “perpetrator” is applicable to any crime and has a universal value. It is impractical to describe in the law the same acts in different terms. “Technical distribution of roles” is a doctrinal term. Its content is disclosed in some resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF. Extensive interpretation of the term “perpetrator” in crimes with “technical distribution of roles” is a forced measure on the part of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, since the term “the group of persons in conspiracy” is interpreted restrictively. This interpretation complicates the application of the criminal law and does not allow us to adequately assess the greater risk of crimes committed in complicity. The term “technical distribution of roles” does not have a universal (acknowledged) interpretation in jurisprudence, which also makes it difficult to apply the law. Joint participation in a legal sense in crimes committed by an organized group is a construct that is not based on law applied to crimes with a special subject, which contradicts part 4, Art. 34 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Malfeasances: features of law enforcement.

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-337
Author(s):  
M.P. Pronina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Assessment ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article deals with the problems of law enforcement in the group of malfeasances. Official crimes are most dangerous due to the fact that they undermine the prestige of the authorities and directly violate the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations. In this regard the legislator has established criminal liability for officials who abuse their functional duties. In particular the author studies the problems of qualification arising in the legal assessment of crimes enshrined in Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, due to the highest level of their blanketness and evaluativeness. Examples of judicial and investigative practice on competition issues of general and special rules are given. Difficulties are revealed in the legal assessment of the actions of officials when determining the signs of abuse of office, enshrined in Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Arguments are presented that are a clear demonstration of the fact that the solution to the identified problems of applying the norms of the criminal law lies in the plane of reducing the level of conflict of laws of criminal legislation. Practical proposals are being made to include amendments to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 09.07.2013 No. 24 “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and other corruption crimes” (clause 12.1) and Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 16.10.2009 No. 19 “On judicial practice in cases of abuse of office and abuse of office” (p. 21.1). The solution of the stated problems in the field of application of the norms of the criminal law consists in the development of a uniform practice of application of the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, reduction of the level of gaps in criminal legislation, the development of methodological and scientific recommendations with the participation of law enforcement officials and scientists, the preparation of draft laws and plenums of the Supreme Court aimed at elimination of gaps and gaps.

scholarly journals ISSUES OF QUALIFICATION OF EXCEEDING OF JUSTIFIABLE DEFENSE LIMITS

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 32-36
Author(s):  
Andrey V. Nikulenko ◽  
◽  
Maksim A. Smirnov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article is dedicated to justifiable defense as a circumstance excluding the criminal character of an act pursuant to criminal laws of the Russian Federation. The authors cover some issues concerning the application of provisions stipulated by Article 37 of the Criminal Code of Russia. The research of these provisions allows identifying the advantages and disadvantages of the legal regulation of justifiable defense including the disadvantages of the judicial and investigative practice. The paper criticizes the existing approach and offers ways to solve the indicated problems including by means of amendment of resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 19 of September 27, 2012, On the Judicial Application of Laws on Justifiable Defense and Causing of Damage in the Course of Detention of a Criminal. The authors suggest a means of possible reconstruction of the corresponding provisions of Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in view of ambiguous and often inconsistent practice of application of criminal law provisions on justifiable defense.

scholarly journals Deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities: regulatory issues and law enforcement practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 234 (11) ◽  
pp. 16-24
Author(s):  
SERGEY A. PICHUGIN ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to various aspects of the regulation and execution of punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities. The subject of the article is the norms of the current domestic legislation, data from official statistics of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, as well as law enforcement practice on the topic under consideration. The purpose of the article is to analyze the normative regulation and practice of applying punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities. The methodological basis of the research is represented by a set of general and specific scientific methods. The work used methods such as analysis, synthesis, formal legal, statistical. As a result of the study, proposals were formulated to amend the current legislation in terms of improving preventive work with persons sentenced to punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities. Conclusions are made about the essence, features of legal regulation and law enforcement practice of the considered type of punishment in modern conditions, about the need to increase the effectiveness of preventive activities in relation to persons sentenced to punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to engage in activities related to driving a vehicle. Key words: deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities, punishment, penal inspectorates, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, convict, deprivation of the right to engage in activities related to driving.

scholarly journals Implementation of the Doctrine of Good Faith (Bona Fides) in Corporate Legal Relations

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
pp. 70-80
Author(s):  
Yu. V. Brisov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Corporate Ethics ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

Good faith (bona fides) is presented in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as a general principle and presumption. In resolving corporate disputes, the courts are governed by general principles of good faith. However, corporate relations have a specificity due to, inter alia, the variety of corporate forms. It can be assumed that the application of good faith provisions should also vary taking into account the characteristics of corporate patterns, the types and forms of corporate relations, subjective internal corporate circumstances. Common law countries have developed a system of good faith elements and special tests to apply the required requirement of good faith according to the context. A special place is given to fiduciary relations as a product of bona fides. The author has carried out a comparative analysis of the provisions of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the law enforcement practice of Germany, the USA, Great Britain and Canada on the issues of good faith in the consideration of corporate disputes. Special attention is paid to the interrelation between corporate ethics and law. Examining a number of key cases from the law-enforcement practice of the courts of the Anglo-American system of law, the author substantiates the possibility of applying special tests, namely, objective and subjective good faith tests, to regulate matters related to the application of the rules of good faith from the Civil Code and special laws in dealing with corporate disputes. Special attention is paid to the role of courts and permissible discretion in the formation of standards of enforcement of blanket norms and general principles of law in corporate relations.

scholarly journals Court’s modification of category of gravity of the committed offence and implementation of compulsory measures set by the Article 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: problems of theory, legislative regulation, and law enforcement

2021 ◽  
pp. 59-84
Author(s):  
Kirill Igorevich Nagornov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Closed Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Doctrine

Leaning on the analysis of the provisions of current legislation, clarification of the supreme judicial authority, scientific doctrine, case law materials and statistics, this article explores the implementation of compulsory measures set by the Article 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, after court’s modification of the category of gravity of the committed offence in accordance with the Part 6 of the Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The goal of this research lies in assessment from the perspective of the theory of criminal law of such specific procedure for implementation of disciplinary compulsory measures and herding to closed-type special institution, as well as identification of possible flaws and contradictions that may cause problems and ambiguous decisions in law enforcement practice. Attention is given to the existing contradictions between the provisions of criminal law and criminal procedure law, explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as well as legislative gaps and problems emerging in law enforcement practice in the context of provision set by the Article 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in accordance with the Part 6 of Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Taking into account the sequence, grounds and conditions established by the legislator in the Part 6 of the Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the use of the latter, the conclusion is made on impossibility to apply compulsory educational measures in line with this norm. The article also substantiates the position infeasibility of preliminary imposition of penalty (de lege ferenda) on release of such with implementation of compulsory measures set by Part 1 and 2 of the Article 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author also offers to supplement and rectify certain provisions of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 of May 15, 2018.

scholarly journals A New Kind of Exemption from Criminal Responsibility: the Theoretical, Legislative and Enforcement Aspects

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-166
Author(s):  
N A Egorova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Difference

Questions about the place of norms about exemption from criminal responsibility with the appointment of a judicial fine in the system of criminal law institutions, the difference of judicial fine from other criminal law measures, the grounds for exemption from criminal responsibility under article 76.2 of the Criminal code, and the appointment of a judicial fine are considered. It is stated that the basis of a judicial fine may only be established by court fact of the crime of a certain category, therefore it is difficult to explain the appointment of this measure to a person suspected of committing a crime; the purpose of restoring social justice when releasing from criminal responsibility with the appointment of a judicial fine is not achieved. A critical analysis of the resolution of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from June 27, 2013 No. 19 «About application by courts of the legislation regulating the grounds and procedure of exemption from criminal responsibility» (new edition) in the explanation concerning the mentioned exemption from criminal responsibility is done. It is concluded that the appearance of the considered norms in the Russian criminal law reflects not only the search of more flexible methods of criminal law impact and new criminal law measures, but also about the failure of the state and society in solving the problem of crime prevention. Legal regulation of judicial fine in the future should be more detailed, the scope of application of article 76.2 of the Criminal code is narrower, and the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation should pay more attention to the interpretation of article 76.2, 104.4 and 104.5 of the Criminal code.

Hearing of Cases about Indemnification, Caused to the Environment: Procedural Questions ofJudicial Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 48-58
Author(s):  
M. A. Fokina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Research Gaps ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

Research objective is the analysis of practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on cases of indemnification caused to the environment. Proceeding their concepts of integrative right understanding the author reveals the importance of legal positions of the supreme judicial authorities for law-enforcement practice of inferior courts by hearing of cases about indemnification, caused to the environment. During the research gaps in the current legislation and ways of their completion in judicial practice are revealed. Methods. As methods of a research the legallistic method, synthesis, the analysis, induction, deduction were used. Results. The research showed certain shortcomings and gaps of legal regulation of an order of the indemnification caused the environment. Legal positions of the supreme courts which allowed to meet lacks and shortcomings of the legislation are revealed and analysed and to provide appropriate protection of the rights of citizens and legal entities.

Illegal entry into a home as a means of differentiating punishment for theft of narcotic drugs

2020 ◽  
pp. 25-29
Author(s):  
Ольга Александровна Беларева
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Assessment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

В статье рассматриваются вопросы квалификации и связанной с ней наказуемости хищения наркотических средств, совершенного с незаконным проникновением в жилище. В научной литературе и разъяснениях Пленума Верховного суда РФ отсутствуют рекомендации по вопросам юридической оценки таких хищений. Это можно объяснить небольшим количеством таких преступлений. Однако они встречаются, и практику квалификации хищений наркотических средств только по ст. 229 УК РФ без совокупности со ст. 139 УК РФ нельзя признать правильной. Автор выделил две группы хищений наркотических средств, совершенных с незаконным проникновением в жилище, на конкретных примерах рассмотрел встречающиеся в приговорах варианты квалификации. В статье указывается, что на законодательном и правоприменительном уровнях отсутствует уголовно-правовая охрана неприкосновенности жилища в случаях хищения наркотических средств с незаконным проникновением в него. Предложение о дополнении ст. 229 УК РФ квалифицирующим признаком «с незаконным проникновением в жилище» автор расценивает как криминологически необоснованное. Наиболее оптимальным способом отражения повышенной общественной опасности рассматриваемого хищения является квалификация по совокупности преступлений, предусмотренных ст. 229 и ст. 139 УК РФ. The article deals with the issues of qualification and related punishability of theft of narcotic drugs committed with illegal entry into the home. In the scientific literature and explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, there are no recommendations on the legal assessment of such embezzlement. This can be explained by a small number of such crimes. However, they meet and practice the skill of theft of drugs only by Art. 229 of the Criminal Code without conjunction with Art. 139 of the Criminal Code cannot be considered correct. The author identified two groups of theft of narcotic drugs committed with illegal entry into the home, and considered specific examples of the types of qualification found in the sentences. The article states that at the legislative and law enforcement levels, there is no criminal legal protection of the inviolability of the home in cases of theft of narcotic drugs with illegal entry into it. The author regards the proposal to add Art. 229 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as a qualifying feature “with illegal entry into a dwelling” as criminologically unfounded. The most optimal way to reflect the increased public danger of the theft in question is to qualify for a set of crimes under Art. 229 and Art. 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document