scholarly journals Fraud in the Field of Entrepreneurship: Theory, Practice, Problems

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 27-31
Author(s):  
Ekaterina N. Barkhatova ◽  
◽  
Alexander O. Mironov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Abuse Of Power ◽  
Entrepreneurship Theory ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Commercial Organizations

The authors analyzed the provisions of Part 5–7 of the Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for compliance with the criminal law principles of justice and equality before the law. The signs by which it is necessary to distinguish the considered type of fraud from civil tort and related offenses are given. Particular attention is paid to the subject of the crime in question and the victim, which can only be individual entrepreneurs and representatives of commercial organizations. Among related crimes, simple fraud (parts 1–4 of Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), fraud in the field of lending (Art. 1591) and abuse of power (Art. 201) are highlighted. It is concluded that it is necessary to establish, first of all, the subjective signs of crimes, which to a greater extent allow to distinguish the adjacent elements of the indicated crimes from each other.

scholarly journals On the construction of the purpose of punishment in criminal law

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-53
Author(s):  
S. A. Borovikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Special Part ◽  
Clear Guideline ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The One

The subject of consideration of this paper is the study of the purposes of punishment enshrined in article 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Attention is drawn to the similarities and differences in the approaches used to determining the purpose of criminal punishment in the laws of different countries and historical periods, the need for a critical assessment of the existing legislative decision. In the course of a comparative analysis the conclusion is formulated that the current version of the purposes of punishment in criminal law is overly broad, which creates the illusion of its achievement and in some cases the competition of its parts among themselves. So the first of those mentioned in article 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation the purpose of restoring social justice is a quality that should be inherent in punishment. The second of the purposes stated in the law – the correction of the convict – is one of several ways to achieve it. However the very purpose of the punishment is not to correct the convict. The third of these purposes – the prevention of crimes – is most consistent with the purpose of punishment, but it is quite lengthy and requires clarification. In addition it does not contain a clear focus on a person who can or has committed a crime. According to the results of the analysis it is proposed to carry out an adjustment of the purposes of criminal punishment in the law. The purpose of punishment should be one and have a common focus. In this regard it is proposed to define as the purpose of punishment – retention persons from committing crimes. The single and understandable purpose of punishment on the one hand will be a clear guideline in constructing the type and size of both the main and additional punishments in the sanctions of the articles of the Special Part, and on the other will allow the courts to choose the punishment that most corresponds to the intended result.

The Subject of a Crime Under Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 87-92
Author(s):  
E. G. Bykova ◽  
◽  
A. A. Kazakov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Code

The change in the disposition of Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation led to questions from law enforcement officers about from what moment a person is considered to be held administratively liable and what to mean by the commission of a similar act. The article carries out a systematic legal analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in order to formulate proposals for solving the indicated problems. The fundamental method was dialectical. The formal legal method was used in the study of regulations governing certain aspects of the legal assessment of unlawful acts that take into account administrative precedence. Using a comparative legal method, a distinction was made between situations where a person was ordered to be held administratively liable and an administrative penalty was imposed. Scientific publications on the subject were analyzed. It was concluded that the current version of Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, containing a formally indefinite legal category, raises the problem of calculating the one-year period during which a person can be prosecuted under this norm if there is an administrative precedence. In addition, it is justified that a «similar act» should be understood only as an administrative offense, responsibility for which is provided for in Art. 20.3.1 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. The use of criminal law by analogy is unacceptable, therefore, it is proposed to amend the disposition of Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code to eliminate the identified gap. The problem identified could be the basis for further scientific research. The practical significance is due to the fact that the positions formulated by the authors can be taken into account in the process of improving criminal law, when amending the relevant explanations of the highest court in this category of cases in order to form a unified practice of applying criminal law.

COUNTERING MATCH-FIXING: COMPARISON OF CRIMINAL LAW AND SPORTS LAW REGULATION ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE RUSSIAN ICE HOCKEY FEDERATION

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Евгения Германовна Ветрова ◽  
Илья Александрович Васильев
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Ice Hockey ◽  
Sports Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Objective Side ◽  
Subjective Side

В статье проводится сравнение положений ст. 184 УК РФ (Оказание противоправного влияния на результат официального спортивного соревнования) и соответствующих статей Дисциплинарного Регламента Федерации Хоккея России. Автор произвел сравнение составов анализируемых правонарушений: объекта, субъекта, объективной стороны и субъективной стороны и указал их сходства и отличия. The article compares the provisions of Article 184 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Illegal influence on the result of an official sports competition) and the corresponding articles of the Disciplinary Regulations of the Russian Ice Hockey Federation. The author compared the components of the analyzed offenses: the object, the subject, the objective side and the subjective side, and indicated their similarities and differences.

scholarly journals Features of signs of the crime object provided by article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-198
Author(s):  
Алена Харламова ◽  
Alena Kharlamova ◽  
Юлия Белик ◽  
Yuliya Belik
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the problematic theoretical and practical issues of the content of the signs of the object of the crimes under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code. The authors determined the main direct object, revealed the essence of the right of ownership, use and disposal. Marked social relations that can act as an optional direct object. Particular attention is paid in the article to the subject of the crime. Attempts have been made to establish criteria that are crucial for the recognition of any vehicle as the subject of theft. The content of the terms “automobile” and “other vehicle” is disclosed. The analysis of the conformity of the literal interpretation of the criminal law to the interpretation of the law enforcer is carried out. It is summarized that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation narrows the meaning of the term “other vehicle”, including in it only vehicles for the management of which, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, is granted a special right. The authors provide a list of such vehicles and formulate a conclusion on the advisability of specifying them as the subject of a crime. The narration of the article is accompanied by examples of decisions of courts of various instances in cases of crimes under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

scholarly journals Leniency programmesfor cartel: mature reforms

2018 ◽  
pp. 24-33
Author(s):  
K. N. Aleshin ◽  
S. V. Maksimov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Main Factors ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The problems of interpretation of criminal law and administrative law institutes of active repentance (“leniency programmes”) in relation to cartels are considered.The definition of the effectiveness of the institution of active repentance is given as the ability of this institution to achieve the goals stipulated by law (in the aggregate or in a particular combination): 1) termination of the committed offense (crime) (“surrender”),2) assistance in investigating the relevant administrative offense (crime), 3) compensation for the harm caused by his offense (crime), 4) refusal to commit such offenses (crimes) in the future.The condition of the quadunity of these goals is investigated. It is noted that among the main factors reducing the effectiveness of administrative law and criminal law institutions of active repentance (“leniency programmes”) in relation to a cartel is the legal inconsistency of these institutions.Proposals are being made to amend par. 3 of the Notes to Art. 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Note 1 to Art. 14.32 of the Code of the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offenses iin order to bring together the relevant institutions of active repentance.The necessity of legislative consolidation of general procedural rules for the implementation of the person who participated in the conclusion of the cartel, the law granted him the right to active repentance is substantiated.

scholarly journals CRIMINAL AND LEGAL STUDY OF CONNIVANCE IN CRIME AS A SIGN CHARACTERIZING CONFLUENCE OF SEVERAL PERSONS IN ONE CRIME

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (72) (2) ◽  
pp. 236-241
Author(s):  
A. A. Kashkarov ◽  
D. A. Poshtaruk
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Study ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Objective Side ◽  
Made In

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.

Occupation of the highest position in the criminal hierarchy: features of criminal law qualifications

2021 ◽  
pp. 500-509
Author(s):  
Ivan V. Pikin ◽  
Ilya A. Tarakanov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Group ◽  
Criminal Organization ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Points Of View

We consider the features of criminal law qualification of occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy. We analyze the provisions of Article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the points of view of legal scholars about the specifics of establishing the highest criminal status of a person. As a result of this study, it is concluded that the establishment of the place of a specific subject in the criminal hierarchy is possible in those cases when the person confirms his criminal status or the persons involved as witnesses confirm that this person has a higher position in the criminal hierarchy. We believe that when determining the subject of a given crime, it is necessary to establish such signs as the subject’s opinion regarding this status; the opinion of the persons who were part of this criminal organization regarding the position of this person in it; his possession of “powers” of an administrative nature in relation to members of this criminal group or other persons adhering to “thieves’ concepts”; the opinion of other persons with the highest position in the criminal hierarchy regarding the criminal status of the subject. At the same time, it should be recognized that there is an urgent need for a judicial interpretation of the issues of quali-fication of a crime provided for in Article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which necessitates the preparation of an appropriate resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals The impact of administrative prejudice upon the content of penal prohibition

2021 ◽  
pp. 99-115
Author(s):  
Sergei Gennadevich Losev ◽  
Viktor Ivanovich Morozov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Record ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Subject ◽  
General Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Impact

The object of this research is the legal relations arising in the context of implementation of the norms of criminal law of the Russian Federation that establish liability for repeated administrative offenses. The subject of this research is the practice of application the criminal law norms of the Soviet and post-Soviet periods that regulate the institution of administrative prejudice, and acts of interpretation of the Russian Constitution, in which the Supreme Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation deals with the problems of the use of separate articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that contain the norms with administrative prejudice, and parts of interrelation between the institutions of administrative prejudice and recurrence of offenses. The subject of this research is also justification of existence the institution of administrative prejudice in the national criminal law, main flaws in interpretation of the articles that describe the norms of the institution of administrative prejudice in the text of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Taking into consideration all shortcomings in interpretation of the articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the author offers unified definition of the composition with administrative prejudice. It is suggested to reintroduce the concept of recurrent offense in the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the fact of administrative liability, outstanding criminal record, or criminal record that has not been expunged. The case if the legislator deems it necessary to take into account not identical, but homogeneous recurrence should be stipulated in the note to the article of the Special Part. The author also offers to include the Article 16.1 into the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the following wording: “The repeated offense is considered an act committed by a person who has previously been subjected to administrative penalty for similar type of offense, unless stipulated otherwise in the corresponding articles of the Special Part of the effective Code”.

scholarly journals Aggravating circumstances

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-161
Author(s):  
A. P. Kuznetsov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Preventive Role

In the article on the basis of the latest amendments made to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation circumstances aggravating the punishment are investigated, attention is drawn to some controversial legal and technical decisions in their formulation. The criminal law on the strength of influence of certain circumstances on the chosen punishment is clearly not enough, which does not contribute to enhancing the preventive role of the law, the elimination of subjectivism and discord in practice. Most scientists and practitioners support the idea of specifying, emphasizing that it will be easier to apply the law, circumstances of the case will be visibly linked to the chosen measure of criminal law impact, the importance of references in sentences to data on the case will increase, the preventive role of criminal law will increase, the prerequisites for a uniform understanding will be strengthened and application of the Criminal Code. It was not by chance that in the Soviet period of development of the science of criminal law, a tendency emerged to single out: a) main and b) other mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Consequently it is necessary to take into account the whole range of issues relating to the practical implementation of the idea of legislative specification of the strength of influence of individual circumstances: the circle of circumstances, which it may concern; the extent to which such circumstances influence the punishment (including the expediency of specifying in the law how much the punishment increases or decreases, or what is the upper or lower new limit within which the court selects the punishment taking into account the “main” circumstance). According to Part 2 of Art. 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation if the aggravating circumstances are provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part as a sign of a crime, it in itself cannot be re-taken into account when imposing a punishment. In the criminal law doctrine an exhaustive (closed) list of aggravating circumstances has not been approved by scientists, who believe that this method does not take into account changes in the sphere of public life to a certain extent.

scholarly journals Criminal law protection of certain principles of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
pp. 60-69
Author(s):  
Artem Aleksandrovich Pastushenko ◽  
Elena Yuryevna Antonova
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The subject of this research is the criminal law guarantees for the implementation of the principles of appropriate and targeted spending of budgetary resources as an element of ensuring national security of the Russian Federation. The author conducts the assessment of normative and law-enforcement material that determines the legal essence of the indicated principles of budgetary system of the Russian Federation. The article explores case law of implementation of certain norms of criminal legislation of the Russian Federation associated with contravention of the principle of appropriate use of budgetary allocations. This article is first to juxtapose the measures of criminal law protection of the principles of appropriate and targeted spending of budgetary resources. Based on the acquired results, the current position on the absence of penalties for the inappropriate use of budgetary allocations is being disputed. The conducted comparative analysis of the measures of criminal responsibility reveals large disparity with regards to protection of the two key principles of budgetary system of the Russian Federation. The author also established the presence of criminal elements that carry out preclusive function, which narrows down the capabilities of criminal law of the Russian Federation. The article offers an optimal and effective method for eliminating this problem and improving protective capabilities of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, including the tasks of ensuring national security.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document