scholarly journals Monetary Surrogates:the Looking Glass of Modern Regulation

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 204-207
Author(s):  
D A Pechegin

«Current legislation of the Russian Federation establishes a variety of currency restrictions, which are a set of rules established by the state, designed to protect the national currency to affect the behavior of participants in foreign exchange transactions by imposing prohibitions or additional encumbrances on certain foreign exchange transactions». One of the such rules is the provision of art. 27 Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 10.07.2002 «On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (the Bank of Russia)», according to which the introduction in the territory of the Russian Federation of other monetary units and the issuance of monetary surrogates are prohibited. Meanwhile, the current legislation does not establish any liability for the issuance of cash surrogates. Moreover, new technologies are increasingly being introduced into our lives and are constantly inf luencing the legal environment in which we are currently surrounded. Much attention today is focused on the topic of cryptocurrency and the use of blockchain technology in the public and private sectors. Currently, both professional and non- professional participants are increasingly discussing various aspects of the use of cryptocurrencies in a particular state. The article analyzes urgent issues of the circulation of money substitutes, identifies the prospects of establishing criminal responsibility for the issue and circulation of money substitutes, etc.

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov

Currently, public hearings are one of the most widespread forms of deliberative municipal democracy in Russia. This high level of demand, combined with critique of legal regulations and the practices for bringing this system to reality – justified, in the meantime, by its development (for example, by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Public Chambers of the Russian Federation) of proposals for the correction of corresponding elements of the legal code – make both the study of Russian experiences in this sphere and comparative studies of legal regulations and practical usage of public hearings in Russia and abroad extremely relevant. This article is an attempt to make a contribution to this field of scientific study. If the appearance of public hearings in Russia as an institution of Russian municipal law is connected with the passing of the Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No.131-FZ, “On the general organisational principles of local government in the Russian Federation,” then in the United States, this institution has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, with mass adoption beginning in the 1960s. In this time, the United States has accumulated significant practical experience in the use of public hearings and their legal formulation. Both countries are large federal states, with their own regional specifics and diversity, the presence of three levels of public authority and different principles of federalism, which cause differences in the legal regulation of municipal public hearings. For this reason, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of Russian and American experiences of legal regulation and practical use of public hearings, on the example of several major municipalities – the cities of Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. A comparison of laws influencing the public hearing processes in these cities is advisable, given the colossal growth in the role of city centers in the industrial and post-industrial eras. Cities in particular are the primary centers for economic growth, the spread of innovations, progressive public policy and the living environment for the majority of both Russian and American citizens. The cities under research are one of the largest municipalities in the two countries by population, and on such a scale, the problem of involving residents in solving local issues is especially acute. In this context, improving traditional institutions of public participation is a timely challenge for the legislator, and the experiences of these cities are worth describing. The unique Russian context for legal regulations of public hearings involves the combination of overarching federal law and specific municipal decrees that regulate the hearing process. There are usually two municipal acts regulating public hearings on general issues of the city district (charter, budget, etc.) and separately on urban planning. In the United States, the primary regulation of public hearings is assigned to the state and municipality level, with a whole series of corresponding laws and statutes; meanwhile, methodological recommendations play a specific role in the organisation of hearings, which are issued by the state department of a given state. It is proposed that regulating the corresponding relationships at the federal subject level will permit a combination of the best practices of legal administration with local nuances, thereby reinforcing the guarantee of the realization of civil rights to self-government. There are other features in the process of organizing and conducting public hearings in the United States, which, as shown in the article, can be perceived by Russian lawmakers as well in order to create an updated construct of public discussions at the local level.


2021 ◽  
pp. 55-62
Author(s):  
I. S. Polyakova

The objective of this research is to consider some controversial issues of the development of public-and-private partnership (and concession agreements as its most common form) in Russia. Some complaints made by Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation to some infrastructure projects are reviewed. The author studied dynamics of private investments into infrastructure projects in the conditions of imperfect legal regulation. The assessment of the validity of the position of Federal Antimonopoly Service is given. It is predicted whether the legislative collisions will prevent the growth of private investments into infrastructure. Recommendations on the development of the mechanism of public-and-private partnership with the observance of antimonopoly regulation, as well as recommendation on the improvement of the legislation in this area are developed. The results of the research can be used by both private participants of public-and-private partnership and the federal, regional and municipal authorities, and also by legislators working on the improvement of the legislative regulation in this area.


Author(s):  
Irina Damm ◽  
Aleksey Tarbagaev ◽  
Evgenii Akunchenko

A prohibition for persons holding government (municipal) positions, for government (municipal) employees, and some other employees of the public sphere who are public officials to receive remuneration (gifts) is aimed at preventing bribery (Art. 290, 291, 291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and could be viewed as a measure of anti-corruption criminological security. However, the existing collisions of civil, administrative and criminal law norms that regulate this prohibition lead to an ongoing discussion in research publications and complexities in practice. The goal of this research is to study the conditions and identify the problems of the legal regulation of receiving remuneration (gifts) in connection with the performance of official duties that prevent the implementation of anti-corruption criminological security. The authors use the legal theory of security measures to analyze the provisions of Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Clause 6, Part 1, Art. 17 of the Federal Law «About the Public Civil Service in the Russian Federation», examine the doctrinal approaches to defining the priority of enforcing the above-mentioned norms, study the significant features of the category «ordinary gift» and conduct its evaluation from the standpoint of differentiating between gifts and bribes, also in connection with the criteria of the insignificance of the corruption deed. The empirical basis of the study is the decisions of courts of general jurisdiction. The authors also used their experience of working in Commissions on the observance of professional behavior and the resolution of conflicts of interests at different levels. The conducted research allowed the authors to come to the following fundamental conclusions: 1) the special security rule under Clause 6, Part 1, Art. 17 of the Federal Law «About the Public Civil Service in the Russian Federation», which sets a full prohibition for government employees to receive remuneration (gifts) in connection with the performance of official duties, contradicts Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the existing legal-linguistic vagueness of categories in Art. 575 of the CC of the RF leads to problems in law enforcement and makes a negative impact on the anti-corruption mentality of people); 2) as the concepts «gift» and «bribe» do not logically intersect, the development of additional normative legal criteria for their delineation seems to be unpromising and will lead to a new wave of scholastic and practical disagreements; 3) the introduction of a uniform and blanket ban on receiving remuneration (gifts) in the public sphere by eliminating Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the CC of the RF seems to be an effective measure of preventing bribery, and its application is justified until Russian society develops sustainable anti-corruption mentality.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ольга Кобелева ◽  
Olga Kobeleva ◽  
Лилия Духовная ◽  
Liliya Dukhovnaya ◽  
Ирина Шпагина ◽  
...  

Today the hotel business enterprises in the Russian Federation are still in their infancy, lagging behind from major hotel chains by the level of development in average of 10-15 years. However, a gradual process of increasing of hotel room stock, the active implementation of new technologies and methods of guest services in the hotel market gradually allows Russian means of accommodation to form a competitive, profitable sector of service and economy. Against the background of these trends the process of formation and development of small hotels that are very popular among tourists abroad plays an important role. It determines the relevance of the article. The article gives a detailed analysis of small hotels segment and determines their share in the overall structure of the city´s accommodation. In accordance with the Federal Law №108-FZ "On the preparation and holding in the Russian Federation in the FIFA World Cup and Confederations FIFA Cup 2017 and Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation" classification of hotel enterprises is mandatory for all hotel businesses, including small hotels in Moscow and other cities involved in this large-scale event. Therefore, the article analyzes in detail the current situation with the classification of hotels in Moscow. The comparative characteristic of the share of small hotels in total accommodation facilities in Moscow and in major European cities is of significant interest. The authors especially point out the problems of imperfection of legal and regulatory framework governing the activities of given means of accommodation, as well as distinguish the most promising directions of small hotels development in the structure of hotel enterprises of Moscow.


2021 ◽  
pp. 101-108
Author(s):  
E. V. Burdenko ◽  
G. V. Korolev

The novelty of the study is the generalization and analysis of statistical data obtained as a result of various sociological and scientific studies on the impact of the COV-ID-19 pandemic on the activities of the public catering sector in the Russian Federation. The authors carried out a study of positive practices that allowed the industry enterprises to continue to operate in self-isolation and improve financial results with the easing of restrictions. Among them are simplified terms for renting premises; sale of finished products by delivery to the direct consumer or pickup; non-standard formats of catering enterprises; restoration of demand for catering; application of new technologies in the process of cooking; introduction of vending machines in the catering industry; cooperation of catering enterprises with the tourism business.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 657-661
Author(s):  
Maria V. Talan ◽  
Oleg N. Dunin

Purposes: This article is devoted to the analysis of the problem that has been developed in the Russian Federation with the access of patients with severe pain to narcotic painkillers. Methodology: The legislation of the Russian Federation recognizes that patients have an unconditional right to pain relief, which is reflected in the Federal Law No. 323 dated November 21, 2011 “On the Basics of Protecting the Health of Citizens in the Russian Federation”. However, the procedural rules governing the receipt of narcotic painkillers by patients establish strict bureaucratic rules that impede the timely access of patients to the only effective narcotic drugs in their case.   Results: Deviation from these procedural rules threatens medical and pharmaceutical workers with criminal liability for illegal drug trafficking. As a result, Russian patients do not receive painkillers on a significant scale. The quality of life in the patient, who is forced to endure severe pain, is significantly reduced, which often leads to suicide. Various legislative solutions to this problem are proposed. Implications/Applications: Liberalization of the rules for dispensing narcotic painkillers are effective in the long term, but it has several problems. Slight liberalization is not able to fundamentally improve the situation of patients with severe pain. Novelty/Originality: Significant liberalization can create a negative narcotic situation due to market saturation with legal narcotic drugs. In the short term, an effective measure will be the exclusion of the criminal liability of medical and pharmaceutical workers for the prescription and dispensing narcotic painkillers to patients with severe pain syndrome in violation of the existing procedural rules, but for medical reasons.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 93-102
Author(s):  
Pavel Metelsky ◽  
Nadezhda Verchenko

Introduction. The publication is devoted to the corpus delicti, provided for by Art. 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which, being, in fact, a special type of official abuse, stands out as the direct object of a criminal assault and a special subject, since it can be committed exclusively by professional judges. The main features of the objective and subjective parties, qualifying signs of the offense are revealed, some problems that arise when applying this criminal law are outlined. Purpose. The goal is to analyze the design features of the crime and issues that arise when applying this rule. Methodology. The method of a formal legal analysis of the norms of the criminal law and theoretical provisions on problems directly related to the application of this rule was used. Results. The public danger of a criminal act that undermines the very foundations of justice is obvious, in connection with which it stands out as an independent crime by all the Russian Criminal Codes, starting in 1922, the history of criminal responsibility for its commission can be traced in our country in general since the 16th century. The current criminal law prohibition is characterized by considerable complexity, due to both the blanket nature of the disposition of the norm itself and the presence of discrepancies in the understanding of the signs embodied in it. Conclusion. The implementation of criminal liability for this crime involves the establishment of not only circumstances directly related to the corpus delicti that lie in the criminal law field. The subject of an infringement, a judicial act, must be subjected to procedural review without fail, after which, subject to the consent of the Higher Qualification Collegium of Judges of the Russian Federation, in fact, and the mechanism of criminal prosecution is “launched”. That is, a truly “multi-way” combination of actions is necessary, carried out in several stages, and the problem itself to some extent becomes interdisciplinary, going beyond only criminal law.


Author(s):  
Aleksey Drozd ◽  
Aleksandr Ravnyushkin

The relevance of the research is determined by a legal gap in the current legislation, which lies in the fact that when bringing a person who has committed a crime under Article 116.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation repeatedly in relation to the same person to responsibility, the state of the criminal record of this criminal is not taken into account. In this case, a person who has unexpunged or outstanding convictions, when committing battery for the third time, according to common sense, should be brought to criminal responsibility, and not to administrative responsibility, as is currently the case. In order to eliminate this conflict, the authors propose to include part 2 of Art. 1161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for the liability of a person who has an unexpunged or outstanding conviction in relation to the same person. At the same time, the authors consider it necessary to include a group of criminal cases considered as cases of public prosecution to part 2 of Art. 1161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors also see an urgent problem of the need to improve the effectiveness of the prevention of domestic violence through the inclusion of new legal means in legislation and law enforcement practice. Attempts to implement the norms of international acts providing for legal means of preventing domestic violence in the Russian Federation, as well as the study of foreign experience on this issue, according to the authors, looks ambiguous and is debatable. In particular, the issue of introducing protective orders and orders as administrative and legal means of preventing administrative offenses through the adoption of the federal law «On the Prevention of Domestic Violence in the Russian Federation» is being considered. According to the authors, taking into account the foreign practice, there are sufficient grounds to believe that protective prescriptions and some other means will not be able to confirm their effectiveness in Russia.


2021 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 03010
Author(s):  
Andrey Vladimirovich Makarov ◽  
Larisa Vladimirovna Makogon ◽  
Oleg Vyacheslavovich Firsov ◽  
Aleksandra Sergeevna Zhukova

The purpose of the study is a comprehensive analysis of the issues of the application of criminal liability as a means of countering violations of sanitary and epidemiological rules in a pandemic. The main idea of the study: the validity and expediency of amending the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation establishing punishment for violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules and criminalization of the spread of an infectious disease. A methodological toolkit is a set of methods, means and techniques with the help of which the criminalization of violations of sanitary and epidemiological rules in a pandemic is substantiated. The following methods were used in the work: hypothetical-deductive; dogmatic (formal legal analysis); description; comparative. The result of the work is the provision that in a pandemic, a necessary condition for ensuring national security seems appropriate to criminalize the spread of infectious diseases that pose a danger to others, which will make it possible to prosecute people who, deliberately or through negligence, have committed infecting a disease included in the category of dangerous to others. These recommendations are due to the noted problems in science and practice, including the results of comparative legal analysis. The novelty of the research lies in the substantiation of amending the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation by federal law. The amendments introduce stricter types of punishments, establish responsibility for the threat of a mass disease or people intoxication, and additions have been made in the form of a third part which provides for liability for violation of sanitary standards that inadvertently entailed the death of two or more people. The peculiarities of bringing to criminal responsibility for similar acts in certain foreign countries are also considered. There is a tendency to classify such crimes as terrorism-related.


Author(s):  
E. V. Blagov

The article considers the reason, adequate cause, justifying exemption from criminal responsibility. In the criminal law literature there are numerous decisions on this issue, but their main body alone can not explain why a person is exempted from criminal responsibility. The author concludes that the basis for such liberation must be sought in the personality of the culprit. Under current criminal legislation, justifying the exemption from criminal responsibility can only be elimination or significant reduction in the public danger of the person who committed the crime. In the future, it is necessary to formulate the relevant provisions of the criminal law so that the basis for this exemption is only elimination of the public danger caused by the individual. Accordingly, Art. 76. 2 and part 1 of Art. 90 are subject to exclusion from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and, on the contrary, inclusion in the chapter on the exemption from criminal responsibility of the relevant provisions of Art. 80.1 and part 1 of Art. 81 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document