scholarly journals Activities aimed at encouraging children to suicidal behavior: judicial-psychological examination

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
F.S. Safuanov ◽  
T.N. Sekerage
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Suicidal Behavior ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Commit Suicide

Federal law of June 7, 2017 g. № 120-FZ "On amendments to the criminal code of the Russian Federation and article 151 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation in the part of establishing additional mechanisms to counter activities aimed at encouraging children to suicidal behavior" establishes criminal liability for inducement to commit suicide or assist in its Commission (article 110.1 of the criminal code), as well as for the organization of activities aimed at encouraging citizens to commit suicide (article 110.2 of the criminal code). Two additions to the criminal code include using a publicly performed work, the media or information and telecommunications networks (including network "Internet"). There are new legal consequences relevant to forensic psychological assessment related to suicide. The article analyzes the legal situation (pre-investigation check of materials and incitement to suicide) that define the subject of judicial-psychological or psychological and psychiatric examinations as the mental state of the subject in the period preceding the suicide (death). Legislative innovations require expertise in psychology and linguistics. One of the subjects of psychological-linguistic expertise is the focus of the information material (text, graphic, together verbal and non-verbal information) or the communicative activity of the subject to encourage the addressee to co-concluding suicide. Formulate possible questions for the ex-experts and psychologists.

scholarly journals On exemption from criminal liability for unlawful restriction of competition (the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Evgen'evna Derevyagina
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The subject of this research is the notes to the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Article 14.32 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses; foreign antimonopoly legislation on exemption and mitigation of liability for cartels; decisions of the plenums of higher judicial instances of the Russian Federation regarding the grounds and procedure for exemption from liability for cartel agreements; draft of the federal law on introducing amendments to the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and antimonopoly practice on cartels. The article aims to examine the grounds for exemption from criminal liability for cartel agreements, including in comparative-legal and interdisciplinary aspects. The novelty of this research consists in establishing extension of the grounds for exemption from liability in the Russian legislation to all cartel participants (unlike foreign legislation, according to which the cartel facilitator is not exempt from liability). This article is firs to provide interpretation to scantily studied questions of the procedure for realization of the conditions of exemption from criminal liability: the instance, when the cartel participant is still able to declare the restriction of competition to law enforcement agencies, and other measures of reparation of the inflicted damage. The author proposes a method for unification of the the grounds for exemption from liability stipulated by the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Article 14.32 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses. The acquired results can be applied in the activity of law enforcement agencies.

scholarly journals Novels of the Criminal Code on responsibility for abusesin public procurement: background and problems of qualification

2018 ◽  
pp. 34-43
Author(s):  
A. Ya. Asnis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Service Contract ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Contract Managers

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.

scholarly journals PECULIARITIES OF SUPERVISION OVER THE RECEPTION, REGISTRATION AND AUTHORIZATION OF CRIMES UNDER ARTICLE 145.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION BY THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-540
Author(s):  
M.A. Gabdullina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Complete Failure ◽  
Employer Liability ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The Constitution of the Russian Federation protects the right to work for remuneration not below the statutory minimum wage. Non-payment of wages is one of the most serious violations of worker's rights. In this regard, the current legislation provides for different types of employer liability for violating these provisions: civil, administrative and criminal. The Federal law “On amendments to article 145.1 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation” dated 23.12.2010 No. 382-FZ tightened criminal liability for non-payment of wages. Thus, in particular, this law introduced criminal liability for partial non-payment of wages, while the former wording of article 145.1 of the Criminal code established liability only for its complete failure. In practice, this norm has not previously been brought to criminal liability for partial non-payment of wages. The paper deals with the issues of powers of the Prosecutor at the stage of reception, registration and resolution of reports on crimes provided for by article 145.1 of the criminal code. The problematic issues arising from the investigative authorities in conducting procedural checks on the specified categories of messages are analyzed. Suggestions on the improvement of criminal-procedural legislation are made.

scholarly journals Recidivism as Legal Background for the Differentiation of Criminal Liability: Conceptual Approaches of Russian and Foreign Legislators

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-371
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Zharkikh ◽  
Afet Maksimov ◽  
Leonid Prokhorov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Correctional Institution ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
General Role ◽  
The World ◽  
The Russian Federation

The authors examine key stages of the development of theoretical views and concepts of the essence of recidivism lying at the basis of the emergence of professional and organized crime, whose genesis trends pose a special danger for the global community in the 20th and the 21st centuries. It is noted that the problems of counteracting repeat offences were discussed by scholars of different periods of the development of criminological and criminal law doctrines. Besides, the authors state that in contemporary lawmaking practice in the world there are several radically different approaches to the assessment of repeat offences in terms of the differentiation of criminal liability and individualization of punishment. A heightened danger of repeat offences dictates special approaches of lawmakers to the differentiation of criminal liability, to determining its limits in the norms of the Special Parts of criminal legislation in cases of recidivism. The authors describe key stages of the development of the institute of repeat offences and its influence on the differentiation of criminal liability and individualization of punishment in the Russian legislation. They examine key functional roles of the institute of repeat offences: ensuring the differentiation of criminal liability depending on recidivism, determining the limits of its use and the conditions of release; regulation of the algorithm of the individualization of punishment for repeat offences; determining the type of correctional institution to which the offender is allocated in cases of recidivism; execution of punishment. There are two key approaches to assessing repeat offences in terms of the differentiation of criminal liability and the individualization of punishment in the lawmaking practice in the world. The first approach to determining the limits of punishment in case of a repeat offence is based on assessing the personality of the offender, while the second presupposes shifting the emphasis from the personality of the offender to the committed crimes, to recidivism. The authors specifically stress that while the general role of the institute of repeat offences is positive, there are some contradictions in the system of the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regarding the lawmakers’ approach to its regulation that have an impact on the differentiation of criminal liability. These contradictions are connected with considerable changes in the contents of Part 2, Art. 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation introduced by the Federal Law of Dec. 8, 2003 № 162-ФЗ. It states that the term of punishment of any type of repeat offence cannot be under one third of the maximum term for the strictest type of punishment, and it should be restricted by the limits of the sanction in the corresponding article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Consequently, the introduction of this criminal law norm in the legislative system neutralized the requirement of Part 5, Art. 18 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which repeat offences lead to stricter punishments on the basis and within the limits provided in the Code, while the preventive role of the analyzed criminal law norm that it played in the previous version is lost. In this connection, the authors formulate recommendations on improving the contents of Part 2, Art. 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and present its version.

scholarly journals Differentiation of criminal liability depending on the signs of the subject of the composition of a transport crime

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Valeriy F. Lapshin
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Motor Vehicles ◽  
Direct Control ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Structural Methods

Subject of research: signs of the subject of the offenses under Art. 264 and 2641 of the Criminal Code of Russia (hereinafter the Criminal Code). Purpose of the study: formulation of proposals on the content of the category "subject of traffic crimes", depending on which a qualitative differentiation of responsibility for crimes involving the use of motor vehicles is ensured. List of methods and objects of research. To obtain the results of the research, the methods of cognition used in the humanities (legal) sciences were used. The method of content analysis was used in the study of the content of Art. 264, 2641, 109 and 118 of the Criminal Code, as well as Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 9, 2008 No. 25. The dialectical method was used in the study of opinions on the qualification of some transport crimes. Logical and systemic-structural methods were applied in the study of the typical degree of social danger of the criminal's personality. Conclusions based on the results of the study: 1) the subject of the offenses under Art. 264 and 2641 CC is special. It is determined on the basis of the existence of an official right to drive a vehicle and the corresponding obligation to comply with the relevant safety rules; 2) the instructor possesses the characteristics of a subject of corpus delicti of transport crimes in cases when he had a real opportunity to drive a training vehicle and (or) exercised direct control of it together with the student.

scholarly journals КВАЛИФИКАЦИЯ НАРУШЕНИЙ ТРЕБОВАНИЙ В ОБЛАСТИ ТРАНСПОРТНОЙ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ С УЧЁТОМ ОСОБЕННОСТЕЙ СУБЪЕКТИВНЫХ ПРИЗНАКОВ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЯ, ПРЕДУСМОТРЕННОГО СТАТЬЁЙ 2631 УК РФ

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-145
Author(s):  
Е.А. Князева
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Group ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Transport Infrastructure ◽  
Transport Safety ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

В представленной научной работе анализируются проблемы квалификации субъективных признаков статьи 2631 УК РФ. Установлено, что данная норма была изменена в части субъекта преступления, а именно – была введена уголовная ответственность за несоблюдение требований в области транспортной безопасности пассажирами и иными лицами, т.е. лицами, обладающими признаками общего субъекта преступления. В качестве квалифицированных признаков анализируемой нормы была введена уголовная ответственность за групповое совершение данного преступления при наличии неосторожной формы вины, а именно – группа лиц по предварительному сговору и организованная преступная группа. Мы считаем, что введение соучастия в такого рода преступлениях представляет серьёзную проблему для последующего применения статьи 2631 УК РФ на практике, поскольку квалифицировать в случае нарушений указанных в рассматриваемой нами норме специальных правил по указанным в частях третьей и четвёртой признакам будет практически невозможно. Нам видится, что основная проблема ответственности соучастников за нарушение требований в области транспортной безопасности со-стоит в необходимости установления двух важных моментов: 1) ограничение круга специальных субъектов анализируемого состава преступления и его отражение на ответственность других соучастников; 2) оценка уголовно-правовой характеристики роли субъекта и других соучастников преступления. Сделан вывод о том, что соучастие по исследуемой нами норме возможно лишь в тех случаях, когда исполнителем данного преступления является специальный субъект. Остальные лица подлежат уголовной ответственности как организатор, подстрекатель или пособ-ник. Полагаем, что следует исключить данные квалифицированные признаки из исследуемого нами состава и говорить о неосторожном сопричинении, а не о со-участии. Ключевые слова: квалификация, нарушение требований, неосторожное со-причинение, неосторожная форма вины, соучастие, субъективная сторона преступления, субъект преступления, транспортная безопасность, транспортная инфраструктура. The present research work analyzes the problems of qualifying the subjective characteristics of Article 2631 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It was established that this provision was changed in terms of the subject of the crime, namely, criminal liability was introduced for non-compliance with the requirements in the field of transport safety by passengers and other persons, i.e. persons possessing the characteristics of a common subject of a crime. As qualified features of the analyzed norm, criminal liability was introduced for the group commission of this crime in the presence of a careless form of guilt, namely, a group of persons by prior conspiracy and an organized criminal group. We believe that introduction of complicity in this type of crime is a serious problem for the subsequent application of Article 2631 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in practice, since it will be practically impossible to qualify in case of violations of the rules specified in the norm under consideration by the signs indicated in parts three and four. We see that the main problem of responsibility of accomplices for violation of requirements in the field of transport security is the need to establish two important points: 1) limiting the range of special subjects of the analyzed corpus delicti and its reflection on the responsibility of other accomplices; 2) assessment of the criminal law characteristics of the role of the subject and other accomplices in the crime. It is concluded that complicity according to the norm we are investigating is possible only in cases where the perpetrator of this crime is a special subject. The rest of the persons are subject to criminal liability as organizer, instigator or accomplice. We believe that it is necessary to exclude these qualified signs from the composition we are studying and talk about careless complicity, and not about complicity. Keywords: qualification, violation of requirements, careless submission, careless form of guilt, complicity, the subjective side of the crime, the subject of the crime, transport security, transport infrastructure.

Signs characterizing the person occupying the highest position in criminal hierarchy

2020 ◽  
pp. 75-80
Author(s):  
Александр Викторович Сенатов
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation

В связи с изменениями, внесенными Федеральным законом Российской Федерации от 01.04.2019 № 46-ФЗ «О внесении изменений в Уголовный кодекс Российской Федерации и Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации в части противодействия организованной преступности» в уголовном законодательстве появилась ст. 210, предусматривающая уголовную ответственность за занятие высшего положения в преступной иерархии. Данное преступление имеет специальный субъект, обладающий дополнительными признаками, которые должны быть закреплены в законе. Однако в уголовном законодательстве, а также постановлениях Пленума Верховного суда Российской Федерации отсутствует определение данного понятия, а также признаки, в соответствии с которыми необходимо привлечь лицо к уголовной ответственности. В статье проанализированы научные определения «преступная иерархия», «иерархическая лестница уголовно-преступной среды», лицо, занимающее высшее положение в преступной иерархии, а также выделены конкретные признаки, характеризующие специальный субъект, закрепленный ст. 210 УК РФ. Рассматривается опыт борьбы с организованной преступностью в Республике Грузия, а также материалы следственной практики в отношении лица, привлекаемого к уголовной ответственности по признакам состава преступления, предусмотренного ст. 210 УК РФ. Due to the changes made by the Federal law of the Russian Federation of 01.04.2009 No. 46-FZ “On modification of the criminal code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation regarding counteraction of organized crime” to the criminal legislation there was Art. 210 providing criminal liability for occupation of the highest position in criminal hierarchy. This crime has a special subject with additional features that must be enshrined in the law. However, in the criminal legislation, as well as the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme court of the Russian Federation, there is no definition of this concept, as well as signs according to which it is necessary to bring a person to criminal responsibility. The article analyzes the scientific definitions of “criminal hierarchy”, “hierarchical ladder of criminal environment”, the person occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, as well as the specific features, fixed Art. 210 of the Criminal Code. The article also discusses the experience of combating organized crime in the Republic of Georgia, as well as materials of investigative practice in relation to a person brought to criminal responsibility on the grounds of a crime under Art. 210 of the Criminal Code.

scholarly journals Theoretical and practical problems of applying Art. 291. 1 of the Criminal Code due to the imperfection of its legislative structure

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 340-347
Author(s):  
E. V. Gerasimova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Fundamental Importance ◽  
Current Version ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Broad Interpretation ◽  
Legislative Structure ◽  
Significant Size

The article examines the problems of applying the norm, fixing the criminal liability for intermediation in bribery, due to the imperfection of the legislative structure 291.1 of the Criminal Code. The author considers the main forms of intermediation in bribery: physical and intellectual. Particular attention is paid to the sign of a significant size of the subject of the bribe, which is of fundamental importance for assessing the act under this article. It is noted that according to the current version of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code intermediation in giving or receiving a bribe in an amount not exceeding 25 thousand rubles cannot form the specified corpus delicti. It is emphasized that intermediation in bribery in the absence of a sign of significant size cannot form complicity in receiving or giving a bribe. In this regard the author considers it inappropriate to indicate a significant amount in part 1 of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code. The article also considers the problem of a broad interpretation of physical intermediation in giving and (or) receiving a bribe. The provisions of Part 5 of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code, which establish criminal liability for a promise or offer of inter mediation in bribery, are analysed. The author notes that the groundlessness of the lack of guidance in Part 5 of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on a significant size of the subject of a bribe allows us to talk about the establishment of criminal liability for preparation for intermediation in bribery, regardless of the size of the subject of a bribe. In this regard it is proposed to exclude part 5 of Art. 291.1 from the Criminal Code.

scholarly journals Interpretation of certain aspects of criminal restriction of competition

2021 ◽  
pp. 48-58
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Evgen'evna Derevyagina
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Tax Legislation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The subject of this research is the norms of antimonopoly legislation aimed at prevention and suppression of cartels, the norms of tax legislation that define the income and establish special tax regime for professional income, the norms of the Chapter 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the draft federal law on amendments to the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and practical implementation of the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The goal of this research is to examine the concept of income derived by the cartel; establish whether self-employed citizens can be the subject of an offence under this category, and clarify the criminal responsibility of the parties to the cartel agreement. The novelty consists in the fact that this article is first to examine the question of attributing the individuals conducting business activity under the special “Professional Income Tax” regime (self-employed citizens) to economic entities (i.e., parties to the cartel agreement). The effective legislation indicates that self-employed citizens do not belong to this group, as they are not state registered. A substantiation is made that a conscious neglect or an indifference to such socially dangerous consequence as income unfeasible: the cartel agreement is aimed at derivation of sizeable income. A consciously indifferent attitude is possible only towards such socially dangerous consequence as infliction of considerable damage. The field of application of acquired results is the activity of law enforcement agencies.

scholarly journals Criminal liability for unlawful operations with securities

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Eleonora Romanovna Vinner
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Key Aspects

The subject of this research is differentiation by key aspects of criminal liability for unlawful operations with securities established by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Conceptual, special-legal, and technical-legal aspects of criminal liability for unlawful operations with securities are highlighted. Research is conducted on the problematic of the applicability of proposed differentiation for improvements of doctrinal and normative legal approaches towards regulation of criminal liability for unlawful operations with securities. Based on the conducted differentiation, proposals are made for promising vectors of improvements to the provisions criminalizing unlawful operations with securities. The scientific novelty of this research consists in the following: based on the study carried out within the framework of conceptual, special-legal, and technical-legal aspects of criminal liability for unlawful operations with securities, the author determines the problems pertaining to incompliance of administrative legal and criminal legal regulation of liability for unlawful operations with securities due to textual ambiguity of the norm of criminal law, based on which the recommendation is made to amend Part 1 of the Article 185.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document