scholarly journals A Criminal Offense and Minors: The Analysis of Provisions of a Draft Federal Law No. 612292-7 On the Amendment of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in View of the Introduction of the Criminal Offense Concept

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 3-7
Author(s):  
Natalia M. Khromova ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolay Letelkin ◽  
Dmitry Neganov

The article examines the situationality of modern lawmaking in the field of criminal law in the context of the adoption of the federal law of 1.04.2020 No. 100-FZ «On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Articles 31 and 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation», adopted by the State The Duma of the Russian Federation in connection with the pandemics of the Corona Virus Disеаsе 2019 (COVID-19).


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 52-57
Author(s):  
Samvel M. Kochoi ◽  

The paper concludes that article 171 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal law No. 203-FZ of 26.07.2017) and the practice of its application are not only contradictory, but also contain certain shortcomings. Formulated proposals on the directions of changes and additions to the «business» norms of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. An exception from the Criminal Code article 171 and the qualification an act that falls under the «illegal business» according to article 198 or 199 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is considered as one of these areas.


The article deals with the fundamentals of organization, tactics of production and fixing the results of one of the most important investigative actions. The authors note that the quality of the investigation of the crime as a whole and the results of the trial largely depend on the quality of the inspection of the scene. At the same time, the inspection efficiency and the objectivity of fixation depend on the scientific and technical means, methods and technologies used in its production. Attention is paid to the issues of organization of interaction both in the course of a study of the situation and objects, and when displaying information in the protocol and its annexes. It is especially important in connection with the changes in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation introduced by the Federal Law № 23-FZ of March 4, 2013. Given that the inspection is a collective investigative action, not only the professional qualities of each employee involved, but also the coordinated work of the whole team significantly impact on the efficiency of its production and the quality of displaying the obtained data in the relevant documents. Special attention is drawn to the organizational problems of the work of investigative operational groups, which, in practice, are formed at random. One of the ways to optimize this investigative action and the fixation of the obtained information is to form investigative-operational groups, taking into account the psychological compatibility and teamwork of participants.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rinat R. Akhmetzakirov ◽  
Idris M. Gilmanov ◽  
Muhamat M. Gilmanov

The United Nations obliges the national legislator to pay particular attention to issues of jurisdiction through the International Documents. These obligations are specified in clause 1 of Article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in clause 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is the duty of states to guarantee rights to a fair public hearing by a competent court without delay. Jurisdiction issues, i.e. competencies of criminal courts in the Russian Federation, are regulated by Article 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The rules of this article are of great importance. Thus, the fulfillment of the requirements of Article 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation consists in the fact that if the rules of this article are violated, this automatically leads to the sentence cancellation and the re-examination of the criminal case.  Similar serious attention is paid to the legislator of the Republic of Estonia. The legal system of this country is part of the Romano-German legal family, having peculiar differences. In order to alleviate the workload of the courts of first instance, offenses were singled out in the Criminal Code as an independent form of punishment, and the simplified (summary) proceedings were also stipulated for application.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Руслан Долотов ◽  
Ruslan Dolotov

The article is devoted to the practice of parole. The main goal of the study is to determine if is it properly to include a period of house arrest in six months term of imprisonment, necessary for the creation of the right to parole. The article proves that in practice they judge from the following conclusion: as the period of house arrest is included in the period of detention, and the detention period is included in the term of imprisonment, so when a real served term for parole is determined it is necessary to include in it the period of house arrest. The author explains that such conclusion is flawed since it is based on a dogmatic rather than systemic interpretation of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation without understanding the role which plays set by the legislator six months term in case of parole in the system of criminal law measures.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-188
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viktor I. Kachalov

Introduction. 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, adopted by the State Duma on November 22, 2001 by Federal Law No. 174-FZ. The development of criminal procedure legislation in these years was not always consistent, often characterized by chaotic and hasty measures. Nevertheless, the main factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, as well as the key trends in the legal regulation of criminal procedure legal relations, have remained fairly stable for twenty years. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The object of the study is the norms of criminal procedure law that have emerged and developed during the period of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation since 2001. The methodological basis of the study is the general dialectical method of scientific knowledge, which allowed us to study the subject of the study in relation to other legal phenomena, as well as general scientific methods of knowledge (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, and modelling) and private scientific methods of knowledge (formal legal, historical-legal, and comparative-legal). Results. Among the variety of various factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, there are several main ones: 1. The impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal proceedings. Having ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms in 1998, Russia voluntarily assumed obligations in the field of ensuring citizens rights and freedoms, as well as creating the necessary conditions for their implementation. Among the most important criminal procedure norms and institutions that have emerged in the system of criminal procedure regulation under the influence of the positions of the ECHR, the following are notable: a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, the rights of participants in the verification of a crime report, the disclosure of the testimony of an absent witness at a court session, and alternative preventive measures to detention. 2. Optimisation of procedural resources and improvement of the efficiency of criminal proceedings. From the very beginning of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, there was a special procedure for judicial proceedings, which is a simplified form of consideration of criminal cases, provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In 2009, this procedure was extended to cases with concluded pre-trial cooperation agreements (Chapter 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), and in 2013, the institute of abbreviated inquiry appeared in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Chapter 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). 3. Social demand for increasing the independence of the court, and the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings. Society’s needs to improve the independence of judges, increase public confidence in the court, transparency and quality of justice led to the reform of the jury court in 2016 (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 190-FZ). As a result of the reform, the court with the participation of jurors began to function at the level of district courts, the jurisdiction of criminal cases for jurors was expanded, the number of jurors was reduced from 12 to 8 in regional courts and 6 in district courts. However, practice has shown that sentences handed down by a court on the basis of a verdict rendered by a jury are overturned by higher courts much more often than others due to committed violations, which are associated, among other things, with the inability to ensure the objectivity of jurors. In the context of a request for an independent court, Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the independence of judges (Federal Law of 2 July 2013 N 166-FZ) was adopted. 4. Reducing the degree of criminal repression. In the context of this trend, institutions have emerged in the criminal and criminal procedure laws that regulate new types of exemption from criminal liability. In 2011, Article 281 “Termination of criminal prosecution in connection with compensation for damage” was adopted, concerning a number of criminal cases on tax and other economic crimes (Federal Law of 7 December 2011 N 420). In 2016, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation introduced rules on the termination of a criminal case or criminal prosecution in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine (Federal Law of 3 July 2016 N 323-FZ). 5. Digitalisation of modern society. The rapid development of information technologies and their implementation in all spheres of public life has put on the agenda the question of adapting a rather archaic “paper” criminal process to the needs of today, and the possibilities of using modern information technologies in the process of criminal proceedings. Among the innovations in this area, it should be noted the appearance in the criminal procedure law of Article 1861 “Obtaining information about connections between subscribers and (or) subscriber devices” (Federal Law of 1 July 2010 N 143-FZ), Article 4741 “The procedure for using electronic documents in criminal proceedings” (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 220-FZ), the legal regulation of video-conferencing in criminal proceedings (Federal Law of 20 March 2011 N 39-FZ), and the introduction of audio recording of court sessions (Federal Law of 29 July 2018-FZ N 228-FZ), etс. Currently, the possibilities of further digitalisation of criminal proceedings, and the use of programs based on artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings, ets. are being actively discussed. Discussion and Conclusion. The main factors determining the vector of development of modern criminal justice should, in our opinion, include the impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal justice; optimisation of procedural resources and the need to improve the efficiency of criminal justice, social demands for strengthening the independence of the court, adversarial criminal proceedings; the needs of society to reduce the degree of criminal repression, and digitalisation of modern society.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 129-134
Author(s):  
I.V. Fatyanov ◽  

The article examines the ambiguity in the interpretation of article 76.2 of the Criminal code and article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation to establish terms of compensation for the damage and (or) smoothing caused by the crime harm. The author substantiates the argument about the fallacy of considering this condition only formally, the author focuses on the mandatory establishment in this case of the characteristics of the identity of the guilty person and the measure of public danger of the committed act. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the approach proposed by the author to the study of the problem of establishing such a condition. In particular, the author considers it essential to solve such a problem to study the legal nature of compensation for damage and compensation for damage when a criminal case (criminal prosecution) is terminated on this basis. The author defines the specifics, identifies the main purposes of such a legal phenomenon in the context of a legal problem. The article concludes that if the preliminary investigation body and (or) the court (justice of the peace) the lack of property harmful consequences from the crime, the failure to make reparation is not to be considered as an obstacle to the termination of criminal proceedings on the grounds provided by article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, article 76.2 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. As a conclusion, the scientific work has prepared a specific text of the interpretation of the condition in the relevant explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which will exclude ambiguity on this issue from the law enforcement officer.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 62
Author(s):  
Laysan R. Yaminova ◽  
Idris M. Gilmanov ◽  
Muhamat M. Gilmanov

The legislator of Armenia is actively working on the planned implementation of the UN International Document requirements. In particular, to ensure guarantees of citizen rights to a fair public hearing by a competent court without delay and red tape. This follows from the article 14, paragraph 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The legal system of Armenia is the part of the Romano-German legal family, but with distinctive features. In our opinion, in order to alleviate the workload of the trial courts, the Article 19 of the Criminal Code of the RA “Categories of Crimes” needs to have misconduct as an independent form. For the same purpose, it is necessary to provide for simplified (total) production in the CPC of this country, which, unfortunately, is absent in current legislation. For developments in these areas, you can analyze the article 15 of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The jurisdiction of criminal courts in Russia is regulated by the article 31 of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Violation of this article rules leads to the annulment of the sentence and a criminal case re-examination.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document