scholarly journals Crime Subject Under Clause “a” Part 3 Article 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: 16 or 18 Years?

Narkokontrol ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 8-10
Author(s):  
Elena G. Bykova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Russian Federation

Purpose: legal analysis of theoretical and practical aspects of determining the age of criminal responsibility for inducing a person under the age of 18 to use narcotic drugs. Methodology: the fundamental method was dialectical. When studying the regulations governing the issues of bringing minors to justice, the formal legal method was used. The hypothesis about the correctness of the wording of paragraph «a» of Part 3 of Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Analyzed judicial practice and scientific publications on the issue under study. Conclusions: the author concluded that the absence of a legislative limitation makes it possible to assess according to paragraph «a» of Part 3 of Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation actions of a person aged sixteen to eighteen years. Scientific and practical significance: the scientific significance of the research is expressed in the development of scientifically grounded proposals containing the answer to the question about the age of the person involved in paragraph «a» of Part 3 of Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The noted problem can be further disclosed in detail in scientific research. Practical significance is determined by the fact that the conclusion reasoned by the author can serve as a guideline in the investigation and consideration of criminal cases under paragraph «a» of Part 3 of Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the formation of a unified approach.

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.

Theft and Fraud Committed Using Electronic Payment Systems (Regional Judicial and Investigative Practice)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 66-79
Author(s):  
S. L. Morozov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Payment Systems ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Electronic Payments ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The advent of the electronic currency and the effecting of electronic payments has caused new forms of thefts and types of acquisitive crimes. The judicial investigative practice of criminal cases of embezzlement committed using bank cards and other types of electronic payments has encountered problems with the qualification of such acts. The author identifies the most common enforcement problemsand their causesby a retrospective study of judicial practice, the changing norms of the criminal law. At the same time, a ten-year period of work of the judicial investigating authorities was studied. On the basis of traditional general scientific methods of cognition, as a result of a system-legal analysis of the considered set of specific situations, the author gives an author's view of the complex of causes that cause a lack of uniformity in judicial investigative practice. Using the hermeneutic approach, the author paid special attention to the application by the courts of the interpretation of the criminal law by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in different years. In conclusion, ways of resolving contentious issues of qualification of thefts and fraud in the field of electronic means of payment are proposed. It has been ascertained that high-quality and uniform law enforcement can provide additional clarification on the delimitation of related and competing theft from the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. It is concluded that in general, the current concept of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation does not contain contradictions with the novels of the criminal law, but can be improved. The rationale and edition of possible additions to the relevant decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are given.

scholarly journals The Establishment of Criminal Responsibility for Retail Sale of Alcoholic Products to Minors: An Analysis of the Feasibility

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 150-158
Author(s):  
K. V. Dyadyun
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Retail Trade ◽  
Retail Sale ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper analyzes the objective and subjective features of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The problems of interpretation and application of this norm are investigated, taking into account the goals and objectives underlying its creation. Special legislation regulating the sphere under study is considered. The studied imperfections of regulation of the subject of the crime (the relationship between the concepts of alcoholic and alcohol-containing products), problems of distinguishing acts from related compounds (article 151 of the Criminal Code), the complexity of the classification. The analysis of crime-forming features is presented: "repeatability", "retail", and "sale". Imperfections of the legislative and law enforcement approach in this aspect are revealed. In particular, the key features and correlation of the concepts of wholesale and retail trade are analyzed; the problems of assessing what was done with remote methods of selling alcohol; the content aspects of the categories "duplicity and repetition" in the context under study. The question of the expediency of replacing the term "sale" with "illegal sale" in the disposition of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is studied. The regulation of features of the subject of the studied elements is considered, and existing problems are identified. The question of the expediency of norms with administrative prejudice in the criminal law was raised. Some problematic aspects of sentencing for retail sale of alcoholic products to minors are identified; and issues of establishing the subjective side of the elements. The paper analyzes the opinions of various authors regarding the possibility of improving the norm of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the study of statistical data and materials of judicial practice. The author indicates the need for an integrated approach in the fight against alcohol abuse among young people. The conclusion is presented regarding the validity of the existence of the studied norm in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the current version.

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.

scholarly journals Problems of Protecting the Rights of a Private Prosecutor in Defamation Cases

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 651-660
Author(s):  
Natalya Artebyakina ◽  
Tatyana Makarova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Local Governance ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
False Information ◽  
Justices Of The Peace ◽  
The Russian Federation

The growing complexity of public relations creates a need for the criminalization of some acts and de-criminalization of others. Defamation is one of the offenses affected by this trend. Some time after its de-criminalization, the crime of defamation was brought back to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. However, there is no actual legal mechanism in Russia that victims of defamation could use to fully protect their rights. The authors point out a trend for acquittals in criminal proceedings initiated after the complaints of private prosecutors when they concern deliberately false information that besmirches the honor and dignity of other people and harms their reputation, when these complaints are filed with the governmental, including the law enforcement, authorities. They present their research of court statistical data regarding cases heard by Justices of the Peace under Part 1, Art. 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation between 2014 and the first half of 2018. The authors have analyzed the practices of Justices of the Peace in Ulyanovsk Region on criminal cases initiated under Part 1, Art. 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. They use the examples of specific criminal cases to prove that judges use clauses of Art. 33 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Art. 6 of the Federal Law «On the Procedure of Handling Applications of Citizens of the Russian Federation» when deciding cases based on Part 1, Art. 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and protect the right of citizens to appeal to the governmental (including law enforcement) authorities; they point out that an appeal to governmental or local governance cannot be viewed as spreading deliberately false information. In this case, private prosecutors have no opportunity to protect their rights even if it is proven that the information is deliberately false, and they also have to bear additional expenses connected with the recovery of procedural costs. Besides, the research includes a comparative legal analysis of legislation on defamation in a number of foreign countries (the USA, China, the UAE and others) as well as the historical-legal analysis of the development of Russian legislation on liability for defamation.

Exemption from Criminal Responsibility by Virtue of Reconciliation with Injured Party in Case of Neonaticide Committed by a Mother

10.12737/7632 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Денис Гарбатович ◽  
Denis Garbatovich
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Child Victims ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Face ◽  
Newborn Child ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
First Time

The article deals with the grounds on which a person may be relieved of criminal responsibility in connection with reconciliation with the victim. In accordance with Article 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that is based on the simultaneous implementation of the following conditions: 1) for the first time a crime of small or average gravity; 2) reconciliation with the victim; 3) compensation of harm caused to the victim. The face in the presence of the above conditions are not necessarily subject to unconditional exemption from criminal liability, this right depends on the discretion of a law enforcement official. Through an analysis of the norms of criminal law, judicial practice addresses the question whether it is permissible to exempt from criminal responsibility in connection with reconciliation with the victim´s mother, who killed her newborn child. Victims can be considered the closest relatives of the murdered child (father, grandparents)who are also relatives and friends in relation to the mother-killer. Victims may initially not interested in bringing her to justice and appropriate compensation to victims can be represented as some Convention and formality. Mother release from criminal responsibility for the murder of a newborn child in such circumstances, does not comply with the principle of justice, and not adequately solves the problem of the criminal code of the Russian Federation for the protection of the rights and freedoms against crime. Therefore, in the presented work provides General guidance on when such exemption from criminal liability is possible, and when it is not desirable.

scholarly journals On violation of the logic of the legal mechanism of bringing to justice for beatings and additional measures for their prevention

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (3) ◽  
pp. 178-185
Author(s):  
Aleksey Drozd ◽  
Aleksandr Ravnyushkin
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Public Prosecution ◽  
Protective Orders ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Mechanism

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.

TO THE QUESTION OF THE RELATION OF MAN TO ANIMALS IN MODERN RUSSIA: THE CRIMINAL, LEGAL AND MORAL ASPECT

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 128-132
Author(s):  
MIKHAIL KOLTSOV ◽  
◽  
ELENA POPOVA
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Logical Method ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Cruelty To Animals

This article examines the existing problems that arise in the case of applying the provisions of the current version of article 245 of the criminal code of the Russian Federation. Based on the analysis of the theory and judicial practice of this sphere of public relations, the authors reveal the conditions for criminal responsibility for the criminal offense provided for in this article. In addition, the article contains comparative characteristics of Russian and foreign legislation in terms of liability for cruelty to animals. The following methods were used in the article: logical method of cognition, comparative legal method of research, as well as formal legal method, which allowed to reveal the essence and signs of cruelty to animals, the method of interpretation of legal norms. The use of these methods allowed us to understand the institutions of criminal law and determine the main directions of development. The authors suggest possible ways to solve problems that arise in the process of proving the fact of criminal infringement under article 245 of the criminal code of the Russian Federation, and reveal ways to eliminate gaps in legislation.

Legal and Actual Characteristics of the Institute Exemption from Criminal Liability

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 83-92
Author(s):  
V. K. Andrianov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Theory Of Law ◽  
First Time

Analysis of judicial practice shows that the greatest difficulties and errors in the courts and the prosecutors and investigators in the application of exemption from criminal liability, related to the issues of legal facts. It is no coincidence that most of the content of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 27 June 2013 No. 19 is devoted to clarifying questions about legal facts provided for by the norms of Chapter 11 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The purpose of this article is the legal and factual analysis of the release of the institute of criminal responsibility, which is in the general theory of law recognized by specific methodological direction in the explanation of legal phenomena In the article we developed a number of questions of legal conditions and facts with which the criminal law links the exemption from criminal liability: on the concept of the person who committed the crime for the first time; on exemption from criminal liability in the event of the commission of an unfinished crime and a crime of complicity; on the types of legal facts serving as the basis for such consequences; the amount of positive post-criminal behavior required for release; competition between the grounds for exemption from criminal liability; on the role of other social circumstances, when making the appropriate decision, etc.

scholarly journals Appropriate Correspondence with the Needs of Enforcement Practice: Myth or Reality

2019 ◽  
pp. 134-141
Author(s):  
N. A. Danilova ◽  
M. A. Grigoryeva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Industrial Safety ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Hazardous Production ◽  
The Russian Federation

The modern features of the formation of judicial investigative and prosecutorial and supervisory practice are analyzed, attention is focused on how the decisions of the highest court exert influence on these processes. The authors analyze the shortcomings of the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 25, 2018 No. 46 “On some issues of judicial practice in cases of crimes against constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen (Articles 137, 138, 138.1, 139, 144.1, 145, 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation )» and dated November 29, 2018 No. 41 “On judicial practice in criminal cases concerning violations of labor protection requirements, safety rules during construction or other works, or industrial safety requirements of hazardous production facilities”.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document