Resolution No. 48 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 26, 2019, “On the Practice of the Courts’ Application of Legislation on Liability for Tax Crimes”: An Analysis of the Main Novels

2021 ◽  
pp. 18-24
Author(s):  
Igor O. Tkachev ◽  

The article provides a critical analysis of a number of provisions of the Resolution No. 48 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 26, 2019, “On the practice of the courts’ application of legislation on liability for tax crimes”. The author notes that the current version of the decree allows considering tax evasion as a formal crime. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation laid down the preconditions for classifying tax evasion as a continuing crime, which would significantly reduce the number of criminal cases terminated due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal liability. The author also draws attention to the refusal of the Supreme Court to define the category “concealment of funds or other property” for the purposes of applying Art. 199.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It is noted that such a refusal may lead to a broader interpretation by the courts of this criminal law norm.

Author(s):  
V. V. Dubrovin

The establishment of an intentional form of guilt and its specific type is mandatory for the implementation of the provisions of Art. 8 of the Criminal Code. In criminal proceedings in connection with tax evasion, a direct intent should be established in the act of the accused, otherwise the provisions of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 28, 2006 No. 64 “On the practice of criminal law on liability for tax offenses”. One of the proofs of direct intent in the act of the accused may be the decision of the tax authority to prosecute for the tax offense, made according to the results of tax control measures (in-house or on-site tax audits). In the event that it establishes an imprudent form of the taxpayer’s guilt in committing a tax offense, in proving the guilt of the accused in the course of criminal proceedings there may be an intractable contradiction.


Author(s):  
A. Ya. Asnis

The article deals with the criminological grounds and background of the adoption of the Federal law of April 23, 2018 № 99-FZ, which introduced criminal liability for abuse in the procurement of goods, works and services for state or municipal needs (Art. 2004 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and for bribery of employees of contract service, contract managers, members of the Commission on the implementation of the procurement of persons engaged in the acceptance of the delivered goods, performed works or rendered services, other authorized persons, representing interests of customer in the scope of the relevant procurement (Art. 2005 of the Criminal Code).The author formulates private rules of qualification of the corresponding crimes and differentiation of their structures from structures of adjacent crimes and administrative offenses. The necessity of changing the position of the legislator regarding generic and direct objects of these crimes, the adoption of a special resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to explain the practice of applying the relevant innovations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-84
Author(s):  
N. N. Korotkikh

The article analyzes some of the controversial, in the opinion of the author, recommendations of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 of 15.05.2018 «On the practice of the courts applying the provisions of paragraph 6 Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation». Lowering the category of crime always requires clear criteria by which the actions of the defendant could be qualified with a change in the gravity of the crime. Based on examples from judicial practice, the thesis is substantiated that “taking into account the factual circumstances of the case” and “the degree of its public danger” are evaluative e criteria and do not always allow to decide the validity of the application of part 6 article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The discrepancy between some of the recommendations contained in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is shown. It is concluded that it is impossible to exempt a person from criminal liability on the grounds specified in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 142-154
Author(s):  
N. Yu. Skripchenko ◽  
S. V. Anoshchenkova

The actively defended idea of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the inclusion of an offencse  of criminal misconduct in the criminal legislation was reflected in the revised draft federal law submitted to the  Parliament on October 13, 2020. The purpose of the study is to determine the key changes in the content of the  institutions of criminal misconduct and other measures of a criminal law nature proposed for consolidation in the  Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to assess the objective need of the reforms initiated by the Supreme  Court of the Russian Federation. The methodological basis is a set of methods of scientific knowledge. General  scientific (analysis and synthesis, dialectics) and specific scientific research methods (system structural, formal legal)  were used. A comparative analysis of draft laws allows us to classify the substantive content of acts constituting a  criminal misconduct as key changes and the modification of other measures of a criminal legal nature. The authors  critically assess the idea underlying the classification of acts as criminal misconduct. By laying in the criteria for  the isolation of acts that are minimal in terms of the degree of danger, not legally significant elements of corpus  delicti, but the types and amount of punishments, the lack of criminal experience, the interests of the business  community, the developers of the draft law violate the system of law, since the proposed approach excludes the  assessment of the public danger of the act based on the significance of the protected by the criminal the law of  public relations. The meaning of the differentiation of criminal liability declared by the initiator of the reforms is  lost with the proposed duplication of other measures applied both to persons who have committed a criminal  misconduct and to those guilty of committing crimes of small or medium gravity, and the proposed conditional  nature of other measures levels the idea of liberalizing the criminal law. The paper focuses on the provisions of  the project that require revision and additional comprehension.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana Bersh ◽  
Anna Khristyuk

Despite the positive attitude towards the presence of compromise norms in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, containing the possibility of exemption from criminal liability for a committed crime, their mere presence seems insufficient. It is important to introduce a mechanism for the functioning of the norms, which will describe in detail all the stages necessary for their application. The article discusses controversial issues of insufficient legislative regulation of exemption from criminal liability on the basis of the application of a note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The opinions of scientists concerning the application of special grounds for exemption from criminal liability for kidnapping are generalized, the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding the understanding of the term “voluntary release of the kidnapped” is considered. A number of controversial issues that have not been taken into account by the legislator, which require mandatory regulation, are cited. The article examines the existing judicial practice of applying the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A lack of uniformity in the law enforcement activities of the judiciary was revealed. Supplements are proposed to the new resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 24, 2019 No. 58 to increase the effectiveness of the application of the considered grounds for exemption from criminal liability. As a result, a proposal was put forward that is aimed at improving the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The issues raised in the article are of scientific and practical interest.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 25-29
Author(s):  
O.S. Kapinus ◽  

The article analyzes legislative initiatives of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on introduction of the criminal offense concept in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Supporting the striving of the supreme judicial authority for humanization of criminal laws, the author notes that the proposed criminal law mechanisms and means of reaching this goal contradict the conceptual origins of Russian criminal laws, deform the basic branch institutions


2021 ◽  
pp. 93-104
Author(s):  
Vladimir K. Andrianov ◽  

Legislative reform in respect of forfeiture, having returned it in 2006 in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but in an altered status – other measures of a criminal-legal nature – after its exclusion in 2003 as a form of punishment, made a confiscation as one of the most difficult problem and controversial in the doctrine of criminal law. This is due not only to the attribution of confiscation of property to the category of other measures of a criminal-legal nature as in itself still insufficiently defined and highly controversial, but also by the inter-sectoral nature of the problem of confiscation, regulated not only by the norms of criminal, but also by criminal procedural legislation, as well as interconnected with measures of civil law – the return of property to the rightful owner, and compensation for any damage. Understanding the complexity of the legal nature of the confiscation of property lead to quite frequent changes in the Chapter 151 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (19 of federal laws on amendments), as well as cause a lot of questions of their use in practical lawyers. This is evidenced by the resolution adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 14, 2018 No. 17 «On some issues related to the use of confiscation of property in criminal proceedings». The target of this article is to study the confiscation of property as another measure of a criminal-legal nature by resolving theoretical and applied issues of the application of Chapter 151 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. An important role in the research process was played by work on the problems of other measures of a criminal-legal nature, confiscation of property, as well as published court practice. The methodological basis of the study were the principles of the dialectical method of cognition, as well as general scientific and private scientific methods (sociological, system-structural and formal-logical) methods. In the proposed publication, based on the analysis of special scientific literature and legal positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, such complex issues as the legal nature of confiscation in terms of its generic and specific characteristics, correlation with criminal punishment and criminal liability are considered, and specific recommendations are given on topical issues of application of the Chapter 151 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 32-38
Author(s):  
Viktor I. Gladkikh ◽  

The article discusses the issues of distinguishing two types of crimes: extortion (Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and coercion to complete a transaction or to refuse to complete it (Article 179 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), the objective parties of which have a certain similarity, which gives rise to problems of qualification to take possession of the right to someone else’s property or commit other property actions. The practice of applying the norms in question is analyzed, the author points out the qualification errors in this kind of criminal cases, both at the stage of preliminary investigation and judicial examination. It is proposed to give an appropriate explanation of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
P. A. Akimenko ◽  

The norms introduced at different times into Russian criminal legislation and enshrined in Articles 322, 3221, 3222 and 3223 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation have a number of legal defects, resulting in a controversial practice that has generated a lot of debate in the scientific community regarding this research issue. There was a need to accumulate and analyze the existing judicial practice, taking into account advanced scientific views. As a result, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a Resolution aimed at regulating criminal liability for violations of migration legislation. After that, the author of the article conducts a detailed analysis of the said judicial act and on this basis draws conclusions about the set of positive and negative aspects contained in it in order to help create a uniform law enforcement practice.


Author(s):  
Larisa Gotchina ◽  
Marina Dvorzhitskaya

The paper discusses highly latent actions constituting implication in a crime. The goal of this study is to identify the problems of criminally prosecuting persons who committed actions constituting implication in a crime, to qualify them and to develop recommendations for their elimination. Formal legal and comparative legal methods were used to obtain and process results relevant for the research, the statistical method was used to collect and analyze data on the examined crimes, and the sociolo­gical one — to conduct a survey of experts. An analysis of criminal cases made it possible to state that the problem of criminally prosecuting persons who committed actions constituting implication in a crime is connected with the problems of their qualification, and with widening the institute of implication through failure to report a crime; this action is included in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the topical issues of terrorism threat, a growing number of terrorist crimes and the necessity to protect the society from them. The authors believe that it is reasonable to recognize 16 years old as the minimum age of criminal responsibility for failure to report a crime. It is proven that the criminal character of implication in a crime could be based not only on the guilty verdict for the main case, but also on other procedural acts. It is concluded that implication in a socially dangerous act is possible for a person who does not possess the attribute of a subject of a crime due to his/her mental incompetence, and is also possible for a crime committed in complicity. It is stated that concealment of a crime is constituted by actions to conceal the event of the main crime, its traces, the objects obtained through criminal means, or the person who committed the main crime. It can be committed not only through physical, but also through intellectual actions. The authors suggest differentiating between criminal liability for the concealment of grave and especially grave crimes. The analysis of judicial investigation practice made it possible to identify typical models of qualifying actions constituting implication in a crime, as well as psychological, moral, criminological and criminal law features of a person who conceals a crime or fails to report it. Based on the authors’ position, a formulation of the decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation «On some issues of implication in a crime» is suggested.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document