scholarly journals Legal Nature and Features a Continuing Crime

Author(s):  
Konstantin Obrazhiev

The author singles out constituent features of a continuing crime: 1) a continuing crime, although legally completed, is happening continuously until its actual completion; 2) a continuing action has a complex two-element structure: the first element of the objective side of a continuing crime is the action or inaction of the guilty person that legally constitutes a crime, and the second element is the subsequent continuous behavior that «stretches» the objective side of the continuing crime in time; 3) a continuing crime is producing a non-stop destructive effect on the object of criminal law protection, and the long-term deformation of this object happens because of the action itself, not the consequences caused by it; 4) by committing a continuing crime, the person preserves conscious control over the action after its legal completion, regulates his behavior, controls the process of inflicting harm on the object of criminal law protection, which makes it possible to recognize the person as active (non-active) in the criminal law sense; 5) only a crime with a formal construct of corpus delicti can be continuing. The abovementioned features together could act as reliable criteria for determining the chronological boundaries of specific criminal actions, as a key to resolving theoretical disputes and law enforcement problems connected with classifying a certain action as continuing. The article stresses that the permanent character of a continuing crime cannot be explained through the prism of the theory of a continuing criminal condition. Such an interpretation of a continuing crime, common in Russian and foreign research, contradicts the established tenets of the classical theory of crime. Only an act in the form of action or inaction can be recognized as a continuing crime, but not a state, situation, or status. Based on this, the author gives a critical assessment of Art. 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that provides for the liability for holding the highest position in a criminal hierarchy. The objective side of a continuing crime has the following manifestations: 1) continuing criminal inaction; 2) a crime legally completed by an action, and continuing through inaction; 3) continuing action. Based on this, the author states that the description of a continuing crime contained in the Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the USSR of March 4, 1929 No. 23 (edition of the Decree of the Plenary Session of March 14, 1963, No. 1) should be specified.

Author(s):  
Yu. K. Krasnov

Introduction. May and June 2018 saw intensi­fied discussions in Russia around the issue of confis­cation of property obtained by criminal means. These discussions arose after several initiatives of legisla­tors who advocated the strengthening of the role of this institution of criminal law in the legal practice in Russia and after the Supreme Court of the Rus­sian Federation summarized the experience of the use of confiscation in the practice of Russian courts and formulated some recommendations for the courts in the decision of the plenary session of June the 14th .  Materials and methods. The article uses a number of research methods and techniques to ana­lyze the problem such as analysis that allows isolat­ing the trends in the development of the institution of confiscation; comparison which allows evaluating homogeneous processes at different stages of the in­stitute of confiscation of property acquired by crimi­nal means, and generalization which is necessary to summarize the results of the research.  Research results. The use of the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means in the legal practice of Russia has passed several stages. The modern stage began after the institution was restored in the criminal code of the Russian Fed­eration by the Federal law of July 27, 2006 № 153FZ and section VI of the Criminal Code was supple­mented by Chapter 15.1 “Confiscation of property”. This Chapter contains the legislative definition of the confiscation of property (article 104.1 of the Crimi­nal Code) and an indication of the subject of confis­cation, its types and conditions.  Based on the decisions of the plenums of the Su­preme Court of the Russian Federation the article analyzes the practice of this institution in the activi­ties of Russian courts. 12 years of experience in the application of Chapter 15.1 of the Criminal Code, showed that, despite the repeated explanations of the Supreme Court, which dealt with individual crimes, some of the controversial issues remained unre­solved. In this regard the Plenum of the Supreme Court introduced a number of proposals to improve the legal framework of this institution in the draft Resolution.  On June 14th , 2018 the next plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ad­opted a new detailed resolution on the practice of application of Chapter 15.1 of the Criminal Code and proposed detailed recommendations to improve the application of the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means in the Russian Federation, which are considered and commented on in the article.  Discussion and conclusion. Legal literature discussed the innovations in the Russian legislation related to the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means caused in a very active mode. The views of the authors of articles on this is­sue can be divided into two parts with each havinga lot of supporters. According to the first of them the new place of confiscation of property among the mea­sures of criminal law is justified.  Supporters of the opposite point of view sup­port the exclusion confiscation of property from the system of measures of criminal law as they believe that the legal nature of the confiscation of property belongs to a form of criminal punishment. This is the opinion of the judges. Two-thirds of the judges believe that the confiscation of property should be considered as an additional form of punishment.


Author(s):  
Anatoly Naumov

In both normative and sociological senses criminal law includes three components — criminal legislation, judicial practice, and criminal law doctrine, and the development of this branch of law is possible only in their unity. The criminal law doctrine is to a certain extent superior to the other components of the "triad" and involves the development of the branch’s principles, goals and objectives. At the same time, the improvement of criminal law is not the only goal of the theory of criminal law. It should not be limited only to criticism of the current legislation and proposals for its improvement. However, the vast majority of modern domestic criminal law publications, such as monographs, articles in legal periodicals, dissertations, are devoted to criticism of the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Indeed, the current criminal law is not perfect, but the "imbalance" of research into the "law-making" side significantly reduces the scope of criminal law doctrine. And there will always be demand for theoretical studies on the analysis of the subject and method, system and objectives of criminal law, its sources.Debatable, for example, still is the issue of the legal nature of the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and, in particular, the judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court are a special kind of judicial interpretation and a fairly reliable tool for the courts to understand "the letter of the criminal law" and it’s applicability to the particular case. As for the assessment of the legal nature of the judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the criminal law doctrine often fails to notice that they touch upon the methodological problems of the theory of criminal law. In relation to a number of criminal law prohibitions, judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation are a source of criminal law, along with the Criminal Code. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation specified the most important principle of criminal law — the principle of legality and clarified the characteristics of criminality of socially dangerous acts prohibited by criminal law, which is directly related to the issue of criminal liability. In this sense, the Constitutional Court formulated a new and important addition to the content of the principle of legality — the certainty of criminal law rules, and, first of all, the criminal law prohibitions. Thus, the judicial authority overtook the criminal law doctrine in solving one of the most important issues for criminal proceedings.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 72-82
Author(s):  
Vadim V. Khilyuta

Criminal law institutions and basic concepts are being reformatted. This work focuses on the objective signs of theft and the mode of activity - the seizure of someone elses property. The existing law enforcement practice and the current recommendations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the qualification of thefts are critically perceived. The article focuses on provisions of the general theory of criminal law on the classification of theft. This study aims to substantiate the need for correlation of objective signs of theft in relation to the expansion of the boundaries of the object of theft and the method of activity. During the study, traditional methods of the sociolegal and formal-dogmatic analysis were used: documentary, comparative-legal, analytical, systemic, and logical. On the basis of the results of the study, adjustments were made to understand the objective side of theft and expand the boundaries of the method of action. The seizure of other peoples property cannot characterize the mechanism of embezzlement and reflect all aspects of qualification. The prospect of identifying theft with the extraction (receipt) of property benefits carries the risk of erasing the boundaries between embezzlement and other economic crimes. The author proposes models for the development of criminal legislation to establish criminal liability for crimes against property (property crimes). To modify the object of theft, its purpose, and mode of activity, the author proposes to identify a new group of crimes (crimes against the circulation of objects of civil rights) that would cover illegal acts against property and compulsory relations. Further scientific study requires a detailed separation of embezzlement (as attacks on bodily goods), crimes against the circulation of civil rights (as attacks on non-bodily goods), and crimes in economic activity (as attacks on the procedure for performing operations in the economy), summarizing their characteristic features and designing new formulations of crimes in the property sphere.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 46-50
Author(s):  
Valeriy Protasov

The author points out the need to clarify the key terms of modern Russian jurisprudence. It is proposed to replace the term "criminal process" with the term "criminal-legal process". Attention is drawn to the incorrectness of the terms "criminal code" and "civil Code". The article reveals the essence and legal nature of the presumption of innocence in criminal law proceedings, which consist in the fact that the accused and the defendant do not have such legal obligations before the entry into force of the guilty verdict, as if they were guilty of committing the incriminated act. The author substantiates the fact that only the state can be a violator of this legal presumption.


Author(s):  
Ольга Александровна Беларева

В статье рассматривается сущность лишения права заниматься определенной деятельностью как обязательного дополнительного наказания за преступление, предусмотренное ст. 264 УК РФ. В большинстве приговоров по ст. 264 УК РФ дополнительное наказание сформулировано как лишение права заниматься деятельностью, связанной с управлением транспортным средством. Однако использование в приговорах единой формулировки не снимает вопросов, связанных с толкованием объема назначенных судом ограничений. Автором выделены два подхода к определению содержания понятия «транспортные средства»: широкий, включающий все виды транспортных средств, и узкий, включающий только механические транспортные средства. Анализ судебных решений позволяет сделать вывод об отсутствии единообразного подхода к определению содержания наказания в виде лишения права заниматься деятельностью, связанной с управлением транспортными средствами. Показано, что в практике применения наказания за преступления, предусмотренные ст. 264 УК РФ, сложилась парадоксальная ситуация: лицо, нарушившее правила дорожного движения, лишается права управления всеми видами транспортных средств. По мнению автора, такая ситуация нарушает принцип справедливости: характер наказания не соответствует характеру совершенного преступления. В целях единообразного применения уголовного закона Пленуму Верховного суда РФ следует разъяснить, что суды должны конкретизировать вид транспортных средств, права управления которыми лишается осужденный, исходя из характера совершенного преступления. The article deals with the essence of deprivation of the right to engage in certain activities as a mandatory additional punishment for a crime under Art. 264 of the Criminal Code. In most of the sentences under Art. 264 of the criminal code additional punishment is formulated as deprivation of the right to engage in activities related to driving. However, the use of a single wording in sentences does not remove questions of interpretation of the scope of the court's limitations. The author identifies two approaches to the definition of the concept of “vehicles”: wide, including all types of vehicles, and narrow, including only mechanical vehicles. Analysis of court decisions leads to the conclusion that there is no uniform approach to determining the content of the penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to engage in activities related to the management of vehicles. The article shows that in the practice of punishment for the crimes provided for in the Art. 264 the criminal code, there is a paradoxical situation: a person who violates the rules of the road, is deprived of the right to control all types of vehicles. According to the author, this situation violates the principle of justice: the nature of the punishment does not correspond to the nature of the crime committed. For the purpose of uniform application of the criminal law to the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation it is necessary to explain that courts have to specify a type of vehicles which right of management is deprived condemned, proceeding from character of the committed crime.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 87-96
Author(s):  
Zulkhumor Ibrokhimova ◽  

This article deals with the social danger of some crimes against family and family relations in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. From a scientific, theoretical and practical standpoint, the author analyzes the signs of the objective side of the elements of some crimes against the institution of the family, defined in Chapter V "Crimes against family, youth and morality" of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan. In particular, such crimes as evasion from the maintenance of minors or disabled persons, evasion from the maintenance of parents, substitution of a child, disclosure ofthe secret of adoption, violation of the legislation on marriageable age were comprehensively considered. In addition, the issues of criminalization of certain acts against the family, which are not recognized as criminal in the Criminal Code, were raised and relevant proposals were presented


Author(s):  
Евгения Германовна Ветрова ◽  
Илья Александрович Васильев

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.


Author(s):  
Алена Харламова ◽  
Alena Kharlamova ◽  
Юлия Белик ◽  
Yuliya Belik

The article is devoted to the problematic theoretical and practical issues of the content of the signs of the object of the crimes under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code. The authors determined the main direct object, revealed the essence of the right of ownership, use and disposal. Marked social relations that can act as an optional direct object. Particular attention is paid in the article to the subject of the crime. Attempts have been made to establish criteria that are crucial for the recognition of any vehicle as the subject of theft. The content of the terms “automobile” and “other vehicle” is disclosed. The analysis of the conformity of the literal interpretation of the criminal law to the interpretation of the law enforcer is carried out. It is summarized that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation narrows the meaning of the term “other vehicle”, including in it only vehicles for the management of which, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, is granted a special right. The authors provide a list of such vehicles and formulate a conclusion on the advisability of specifying them as the subject of a crime. The narration of the article is accompanied by examples of decisions of courts of various instances in cases of crimes under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation


Author(s):  
V.V. Rovneyko

The article deals with the issues of criminal law and legal assessment of patent trolling, which, on the one hand, is a kind of abuse of law and violation of the principle of good faith of participants in civil legal relations, and, on the other hand, has a sufficient degree of public danger and prevalence to be the basis of criminal liability. The author's conclusions are based on the study of media materials and judicial practice. Most of the “victims” of patent trolling pay money, not being mistaken about the legality of the claims, but being guided by the desire to avoid legal costs and other problems associated with litigation. Establishing the criminal legal nature of patent trolling is somewhat problematic, since it is a combination of fraud and extortion in the broad sense of these concepts. Signs of existing crimes, such as fraud (article 159 of the criminal code) and extortion (article 163 of the criminal code), contain definitions of these concepts in a narrow sense. This does not allow such actions to be classified as specified crimes.


Author(s):  
A. A. Kashkarov ◽  
D. A. Poshtaruk

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document