ON THE DISTINCTIONS OF CRIMINAL-LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE-LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF THE SELF-ISOLATION REGIME IN THE CONDITIONS OF DANGER OF THE SPREAD OF CORONAVIRAL INFECTION IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-41
Author(s):  
S. B. Syropyatova ◽  
◽  
L. N. Kabanova ◽  
P. A. Kabanov ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Self ◽  
False Information ◽  
Legal Enforcement ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The paper considers the issues of differentiation of criminal and administrative penalties for violation of the regime of restrictions imposed by the government authorities of the Russian Federation, government authorities of the RF subjects to prevent the spread of coronaviral infection. The authors define restrictive measures as the rules of behavior when introducing a high-alert regime. The paper reveals the issues of regulation by the law of the main restrictions caused by the coronavirus spread in the territory of the Russian Federation. The authors define the parameters of restrictions on rights and freedoms, such as self-isolation, high-alert regime, quarantine, emergency, emergency state, as well as liability for violations of restrictive measures when imposing each of the regimes. The paper identifies the lack of sharply defined criteria to introduce one of the regimes as a reason for the lack of practice of applying criminal liability for non-compliance with the above requirements. The authors considered the issue of assigning an action to a criminal or administrative category and clarified the criteria for attribution. The types of violations (regime violations, dissemination of deliberately false information, business violations) that resulted in criminal penalties are defined. The authors considered the conditions for the application of criminal legislation and determined responsibility, depending on the application of a qualifying feature. The paper formulates the proposals for the application of criminal and administrative legislation: they should be distinguished depending on the current regime and not on the ensuring of consequences of its violation. That happens because currently, it is difficult to identify causal relationships due to the understudy of a new phenomenon – the spread of coronaviral infection. The authors consider the adopted amendments to the RF Criminal Code as the state’s activity to ensure the security of the nation.

scholarly journals On implementation of the Institution of criminal misconduct and the prospects for its extension to offences against intellectual property

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-64
Author(s):  
Sergei Nikolaevich Titov
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
History Of ◽  
Scientific Substantiation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
The Impact

This article analyzes the draft law on implementation of the institution of criminal misconduct into the criminal legislation that was submitted to the State Duma upon the initiative of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The author traces the history of the problem, difference between the new and the previous draft law, which has received a negative response from the Government of the Russian Federation, and thus has not been implemented. The newly introduced institution viewed from the perspective of cross-sectoral competition, systematicity of criminal legislation, terminological accuracy, adequacy of sanctions for different types of offenses, correlation between the institution of criminal misconduct and the institution of exemption from criminal liability. The author also raises the question on the impact of implementation of the new institution upon the workload of law enforcement and judicial branches. The following conclusions were made: the institution of criminal misconduct would extend the chain of concepts that cannot be clearly defined: crime – minor misconduct – criminal misconduct – administrative offence; such institution violates the system of sanctions for unlawful acts, as the sanctions  for most criminal misconducts are milder than for administrative offenses. The authors of the draft law underline the effectiveness of the norms on minor misconduct, administrative prejudice, and exemption from criminal liability, without clarifying the goals that cannot be achieved by these existing instruments. Most likely, the new institution would require increasing the workload of judges. The draft law violates the systematicity in establishing liability for infringement of intellectual property rights. It is recommended to include in the draft Paragraph 4 of the Article 15.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation reference to the Part I and Part II of the Article 146, and Part I of Article the 147 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The conducted research allows concluding that the draft law does not have sufficient criminological and criminal-legal scientific substantiation.

Criminal-Legal Characteristics of Encroachment on the Health, Personal Integrity, Honor and Dignity of a Representative of the Authorities

2021 ◽  
pp. 96-103
Author(s):  
N. Yu. Borzunova ◽  
O. S. Matorina ◽  
E. P. Letunova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Personal Integrity ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The authors of the article consider the criminal- legal characteristics of crimes against representatives of the authorities, in particular, encroachment with the purpose of causing harm to the health, personal integrity, honor and dignity of a representative of the authorities. The definition of the term “representative of the authorities”is given. The main characteristics of a representative of the government are analyzed. Statistical data on the number of convictions and types of punishments in accordance with the provisions of articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 318, 319) are summarized. Examples of judicial practice are considered. The ways of improving the criminal legislation are proposed.

scholarly journals ON THE ISSUE OF IMPROVING THE CRIMINAL LAW NORMS ON LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF DRIVING OR OPERATION OF CARS

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-106
Author(s):  
V.V. Kusakin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Traffic Safety ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Military Vehicles ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Observation Methods ◽  
Expert Assessments ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article is devoted to the analysis of Article 350 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for criminal liability for violation of the rules of driving or operating cars, the evolution of this article and the problems of sentencing under it are considered. One of the suggestions for improving this article is to change its sanction, which will eliminate the identified significant legal gap. The author conducted a comprehensive analysis of various aspects related to the criminal violation of traffic safety rules and the operation of military vehicles, and proposed the author's solution to the problematic aspects. The study used specific dialectical methods: comparative, hermeneutical, discursive, formal-legal, as well as some sociological methods: observation, methods of expert assessments and analysis. The provisions contained in the materials of the article can be used to improve the current criminal legislation and to develop explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in reviews of judicial practice.

scholarly journals ON THE ISSUE OF CRIMINALIZATION OF CRIMINAL ACTS RELATED TO THE SPREAD OF CORONAVIRUS INFECTION

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-250
Author(s):  
E.R. Gafurova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Sociological Study ◽  
False Information ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Coronavirus Infection ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article deals with the issues of improving the Russian criminal legislation on toughening responsibility in the context of coronavirus infection. The author analyzes the effectiveness of measures to tighten criminal liability for violations of quarantine measures in order to counter the spread of coronavirus infection in foreign countries and presents proposals for improving Russian criminal legislation, taking into account the data of a sociological study conducted among citizens of the Russian Federation. In order to study the norms of criminal legislation introduced by Federal Law No. 100-FZ of 01.04.2020, on liability for the dissemination of deliberately false information about circumstances that pose a threat to the life and safety of citizens, examples of judicial practice are given. There is a promising tightening of legal liability in the context of the spread of coronavirus infection in Russia based on the experience of foreign countries.

scholarly journals The goals of criminal punishment as a reflection of modern criminal policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 324-330
Author(s):  
V.V. Popov ◽  
◽  
S.M. Smolev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The presented study is devoted to the issues of disclosing the content of the goals of criminal punishment, analyzing the possibilities of their actual achievement in the practical implementation of criminal punishment, determining the political and legal significance of the goals of criminal punishment indicated in the criminal legislation. The purpose of punishment as a definition of criminal legislation was formed relatively recently, despite the fact that theories of criminal punishment and the purposes of its application began to form long before our era. These doctrinal teachings, in essence, boil down to defining two diametrically opposed goals of criminal punishment: retribution and prevention. The state, on the other hand, determines the priority of one or another goal of the punishment assigned for the commission of a crime. The criminal policy of Russia as a whole is focused on mitigating the criminal law impact on the offender. One of the manifestations of this direction is the officially declared humanization of the current criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. However, over the course of several years, the announced “humanization of criminal legislation” has followed the path of amending and supplementing the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: introducing additional opportunities for exemption from criminal liability and punishment, reducing the limits of punishments specified in the sanctions of articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and including in the system of criminal punishments of types of measures that do not imply isolation from society. At the same time the goals of criminal punishment are not legally revised, although the need for such a decision has already matured. Based on consideration of the opinions expressed in the scientific literature regarding the essence of those listed in Part 2 of Art. 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the goals of punishment are determined that each of them is subject to reasonable criticism in view of the abstract description or the impossibility of achieving in the process of law enforcement (criminal and penal) activities. This circumstance gives rise to the need to revise the content of the goals of criminal punishment and to determine one priority goal that meets the needs of modern Russian criminal policy. According to the results of the study the conclusion is substantiated that the only purpose of criminal punishment can be considered to ensure proportionality between the severity of the punishment imposed and the social danger (harmfulness) of the crime committed. This approach to determining the purpose of criminal punishment is fully consistent with the trends of modern criminal policy in Russia, since it does not allow the use of measures, the severity of which, in terms of the amount of deprivation and legal restrictions, clearly exceeds the social danger of the committed act. In addition, it is proportionality, not prevention, that underlies justice – one of the fundamental principles of criminal law.

scholarly journals Mediation in Bribery: Gaps in the Legal Interpretation

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vadim Zamaraev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
Legal Interpretation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Objective Aspect

The article considers and analyzes some gaps in the legislative interpretation of Article 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It examines the objective aspect of the crime, and also presents the problems of prosecuting for mediation in bribery according to the specifics of the qualification of this socially dangerous act. The author substantiates the grounds and limits of criminal liability for mediation in bribery, taking into account the act of committing various forms of this crime. On the basis of a comprehensive analysis of criminal legislation and scientific works of not only Russian scientists, but also foreign experts in the field of criminal law, the main prospects for the development and solution of the above mentioned problematic issues related to gaps in the legislative interpretation of Article 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are proposed. Special attention is also paid to certain issues of qualification of the investigated act, which directly depend on the amount of the bribe. As a result of the study, it is recommended to introduce some changes and additions to Parts 1 and 5 of Article 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

To the issue of legal liability for informational and mental iatrogenesis and their correlation

2019 ◽  
pp. 165-174
Author(s):  
Nikolai Alekseyevich Ognerubov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Medical Worker ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

We consider various approaches to understanding and classifying such phenomenon as “iatrogenesis”. Taking into account the specifics of the stated theme, we highlight informational and mental manifestations of iatrogenesis, we identify approaches where these types differ, as well as approaches where they are identical. Due to this, we analyze informational and mental iatrogenesis from the juridical science point of view. We define the reasons for the criminal liability of a medical worker for “classical” mental iatrogenesis as highly controversial. At the same time there is a civil liability, namely, the issue of causing moral harm. In the context of the consideration of informational iatrogenesis, we propose to pay attention to the provisions of Article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Article 732 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the provisions of criminal legislation on offenses to which medical workers may be subject, and the provisions of civil legislation on redress for the non-pecuniary damage as a civil liability. The conducted research led to the conclusion that it is impossible to identify informational and mental iatrogenesis from a legal point of view. We substantiate the necessity of conducting work at the legislative level on a clear classification of iatrogenesis as a basis for further research on its individual differentiations, which have legal significance both in doctrinal and practical terms.

scholarly journals Special Subject of Crime as an Object of Criminological Determination

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 980-991
Author(s):  
Andrey Makarov ◽  
Aleksandr Protasevich ◽  
Aleksandra Zhukova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Personal Gain ◽  
Relevant Today ◽  
Official Position ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

Currently, many authors pay attention to the criminological description of the object of their research. This approach is absolutely justified. It is better to examine the institutes of criminal law in correlation with the interdisciplinary spheres of knowledge. The article presents an analysis of adjacent but not equal legal categories of the subject of crime and the personality of a criminal. This research is relevant today because crimes committed by persons with characteristics of a special subject in general, and with the use of their official position in particular, have a higher degree of public danger. It is connected with a wide area of official interests of public officers. Their criminal offences destabilize the normal work of governmental bodies. Corruption, abuse of office, general crimes committed for personal gain act as negative social and legal phenomena that widen the range of persons in criminal statistics referring to special subject. A heightened degree of public danger in the actions of public officers is a factor that influences current criminal legislation. An example is the abuse of public office as a circumstance that aggravates criminal liability. The contents of the norms in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation could be named a legislative reaction of the authorities to the growing level of misuse of office. The current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation mentions the misuse of office with mercenary motives or for personal gain, acting as an aggravating circumstance for the main crime, over 60 times. Taking into account that the contemporary condition and scale of the self-determination of crime according to the characteristic of a special subject are developing interconnected systemic causes and conditions, it is possible to discuss the necessity of criminological prevention of crimes with a special subject — a criminogenic person who has specific functions (as a rule, a representative of authorities).

scholarly journals Problems of exemption from criminal liability for restricting competition

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 02012
Author(s):  
Andrey Viktorovich Sarubin
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Comparison Analysis ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article considers the problems of exemption from criminal liability for restricting competition (Art. 178 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The criminal legislation of Russia and the practice of its application in terms of exemption from liability for restriction of competition are analysed. It is thought that the main objectives of the criminal-law prohibitions contained in Chapter 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is to ensure the criminal-legal protection of economic relations, preventing the growth of crimes that threaten the development of financial institutions of the state. Purpose of work: Identify problems of exemption from criminal liability for restricting competition in the modern practice of preliminary investigation and court, and propose ways to improve the criminal law on the exemption from criminal liability for restricting competition. Methods. The methodological basis of the research was the general dialectical method of scientific knowledge, which has a universal character, as well as methods of logical deduction, induction, cognitive methods and techniques of observation, comparison, analysis, synthesis and description, formally logical. Results. The research revealed the problems of application of the criminal law on the exemption from criminal liability for restriction of competition and suggested ways to improve paragraph 3 of the notes to the Art. 178 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing for the possibility of exemption from criminal liability for restricting competition.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document