Issues of Improving of Legal Rule of Relief from Criminal Responsibility in Cases of Economic Crimes (Article 76.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

2016 ◽  
Vol 119 (3) ◽  
pp. 74-82
Author(s):  
Aleksandr Reshetnikov ◽  
Author(s):  
O.N. Ryabchenko

In the modern doctrine of criminal law, a detailed study of economic crimes located in Chapter 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation revealed a certain tendency of the absence of system-forming signs of this group of criminal encroachments. A serious analysis of the signs of the corpus delict provided for in Article 169 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was carried out in order to further improve them. The purpose of this work is to study the legal potential of the article and the factors that prevent the implementation of its provisions in practice. Achieving this goal is possible by solving such tasks as identifying the legal nature of objective and subjective signs of a crime under Article 169 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, studying the problems of applying this article and identifying possible ways to resolve them. The relevance and significance of the existence of this corpus delict for the protection of the interests of an entrepreneur in the Russian Federation is established. The problems of judicial practice that prevent the real application of the provisions of Article 169 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are identified. The emphasis is placed on the involvement of officials in the commission of criminal acts against business entities. Some changes in the criminal legislation are proposed, which will exclude the identification of the provisions of Article 169 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with the category of "dead" norms. In this regard, it seems quite justified to consider in more detail the provisions of Article 169 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for liability for obstruction of legitimate entrepreneurial or other activities.


Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 53-63
Author(s):  
A. N. Kameneva

The paper investigates the normative regulation of socially dangerous consequences of economic crimes set forth in Chapter 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A legislative structure of economic crimes is rather heterogeneous. Some of them are determined as formal (registration of illegal transactions with real estate — Art. 170; illegal organization and conduct of gambling — Art. 171.2, etc.); others are defined as economic (illegal obtaining of credit — Art. 176; abuse of securities issue — 185, etc.); and the third are defined as formal economic (illegal entrepreneurship — Art. 171; restriction of competition — Art. 178 et al.).The paper analyzes the negative aspects of including the criteria characterizing socially dangerous consequences in the norms-notes to Chapter 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, determines the significance of criminological peculiarities of economic crimes in determining the extent of damage caused by economic crimes of different types; the influence of the nature and amount of damage established in the law on the exemption from criminal liability for the commission of economic crimes.It is concluded that a law-maker needs a more uniform approach to determining the types and sizes of consequences caused by economic crimes (types should be, as a rule,” economic”, and the size should be the same for all the crimes) and to the placement of quantitative indicators of consequences (in the note to Article 1 where sequences are specified); to achieving compliance with the rules of differentiation of responsibility in the construction of basic and qualified crimes (large and especially large scale of consequences should be indicate only for the latter); to imposing "unfavorable” sanctions from the point of view of the legal consequences of economic crimes, and, on the contrary, to giving a “favorable” character to the exemption from criminal responsibility under Art. 76.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in comparison with the specified sanctions.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1726-1740
Author(s):  
E.G. Moskaleva ◽  

The article presents the results of studying the level of crime in the economic sphere in the country on the basis of official statistical information from Rosstat and the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation. Economic crimes are difficult enough to detect, and the scale of latent economic crime is very large. In addition, the complexity of research in this area is due to the lack of precisely defined and unambiguously interpreted terms: “crimes in economic sphere”, “economic crimes”, “crime in economic field” or “crimes in the field of economic activity”. Summarizing the experience of theoretical and empirical research in this area, the author identifies three approaches to the interpretation of the concept of “economic crime”: legislative (based on the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), departmental and research. The consequences of economic crimes inflict irreparable harm on economic entities, society, the state as a whole, and undermine national security. The systematization of statistical data and the research carried out over a long period of time made it possible to identify the main trends in the situation from the standpoint of criminalization and decriminalization of the Russian economy, as well as to identify regions with an increased level of economic crime. The criminological analysis of crime in the sphere of economic activity has shown that there is an increase in negative trends, and with the development of the economy, it is necessary to strengthen activities to suppress economic crime. The statistical analysis of empirical data and monographic analysis made it possible to determine the most effective, in the author’s opinion, directions of combating economic crime in the modern world.


Author(s):  
L.Y. Larina

The study of the problems of legislative regulation of criminal responsibility for transport security requirements violation is due to the necessity to ensure it as part of national security. The purpose of the study is to identify the shortcomings of the legislative structure of article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, preventing its effective application in practice, and suggest ways to overcome them. In the research on the basis of comparison of the content of article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with the norms of the Federal Law “On transport security” and Decrees of the government of the Russian Federation analyzed some blank signs of transport security requirements violation. In the study we identify deficiencies of the legislative construction of article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the necessity of its correction, and formulate proposals for changing the individual characteristics and the sanctions of article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In particular we discuss the proposal to change the sanctions of part 1 of article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the inconsistency with the sanction of part 1 of article 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, it is proposed to expand the range of subjects of crime under part 2 of article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Inna Andreyevna Podroykina

The present study analyzes the content of the laws changing Chapter 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author draws attention to the fact that since the adoption of the Criminal Code, 60 laws have amended this Chapter. As a result of constant adjustments, not a single article from the 1996 version of the Code has remained in its original form. Both the dispositions of the arti-cles of Chapter 22 of the Criminal Code and the sanctions were “improved”. A number of articles were restated several times. The number of econom-ic crimes has increased by more than 80 %. As-sessing these processes, the author points at the unstructured nature of the changes, inconsistency with respect to criminalization (decriminalization) of the economy, and therefore calls on the legislator to change the approach to reforming the Criminal Code in general and Chapter 22 in particular.


Author(s):  
A. V. Danilovskaya ◽  
A. P. Tenishev

The anti-monopoly practice concerning agreements prohibited by the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” traditionally defines the so-called collusions at tenders. Depriving the state of the opportunity to save budget funds, collusions at auctions do not only violate the procedure established by the law, but, by limiting competition, adversely affects the country’s economy.For collusion at an auction, both administrative (Article 14.32 “Conclusion of an agreement restricting competition, the implementation of concerted actions restricting competition, coordination of economic activities” of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) and criminal responsibility (Article 178 “Restriction of competition”, as well as Articles 159, 285, 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) is set.However, the current version of Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is supposed to be the main one in the fight against anti-competitive agreements, has significant drawbacks that make the fight against these dangerous anti-competitive agreements ineffective. The damage from the activities of all cartels (in the commodity markets, during the procurements by state-owned companies and the state, during the bidding for the alienation of state property) is estimated at 1.5-2% of GDP.Meanwhile, when carrying out public procurement and procurement of companies with state participation consume up to 30 trillion rubles a year. If the bidding is held under collusion, the reduction in the initial (maximum) contract price hardly reaches 1%; if the bidding is held in a competitive environment, the price decline reaches 20-30%. Perhaps not so obvious, but this does not mean that the collusion at auctions has a negative effect on competition. Companies compete neither in price nor in quality. Access to the state order, and therefore, an undoubted competitive advantage in the commodity markets, is obtained not by those companies that are better and more efficient, but by those that have been able to come to an agreement. Only in 2016, due to the low level of competition in trading, the budgets of all levels lost more than 180 billion rubles. Moreover, the Federal AntiMonopoly Service (FAS) considers this number underestimated — the application of the methodology adopted in OECD countries brings the figure of damage up to 1 trillion rubles per year.The current situation requires an appropriate response, in particular, introducing changes into the legislation of the Russian Federation that reflect the substantially increased public danger of anti-competitive agreements and will also contribute to the development of the practice of countering them.


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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 18-20
Author(s):  
Bagautdinov F.N. ◽  
◽  
Sharifullin R.A. ◽  

The article deals with some issues of bringing citizens of the Russian Federation to criminal responsibility for participation in illegal armed formations on the territory of a foreign state (part 2 of article 208 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document