scholarly journals Some Issues of Qualification of the Hijacking of an Aircraft, a Sea-Going Ship, or a Railway Train (Article 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-376
Author(s):  
Denis Kraev

The article is devoted to the problems of qualification of hijacking of an aircraft, a sea-going ship, or a railway train, provided for by Art. 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Despite the fact that Art. 211 has been present in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation since its adoption, it should be noted that there is a lack of theoretical research on its analysis, as well as the existence in court practice of the difficulties of applying this norm (in addition, Federal Law No. 130 of May 5, 2014 -FZ in Art. 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation a new Part 4 was introduced, providing for liability for the combination of hijacking of a ship of air or water transport or railway rolling stock with a terrorist act or other terrorist second activity that, in the absence of specific explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, has created additional challenges for law-qualification). This determines the relevance of the chosen topic. Analyzing the current legislation, the provisions of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 9, 2008 No. 25 “On judicial practice in cases of crimes related to violation of the rules of the road and the operation of vehicles, as well as their unlawful seizure without the purpose of theft”, scientific positions and court decisions on these issues, the author comes to the following conclusions that seem interesting for theory and practice. Small boats of water transport relate to the subject of hijacking of a ship of air or water transport or railway rolling stock, and the commission of a crime under Part 4 of Art. 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and the associated terrorist act, requires qualification in the aggregate of Part 4 of Art. 211 and Art. 205 of the Criminal Code. Military aircraft and boats, submarines, etc.) are also the subject of a crime under Art. 211 of the Criminal Code. The of hijacking of an aircraft, a sea-going ship, or a railway train, as well as the seizure of such a ship or train for the purpose of hijacking, associated with the murder, assault on the life of a law enforcement officer, person conducting justice or preliminary investigation, a state or public figure are qualified in the aggregate of Art. 211 and Art. 105, Art. 277, Art. 295, Art. 317 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. When of hijacking of an aircraft, a sea-going ship, or a railway train, as well as hijacking such a ship or train for the purpose of hijacking, committed with the use of violence dangerous to the life or health of the victim, or with the threat of such violence, in addition to item “c” of Part 2 of Art. 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of additional qualification in parts 1, 2 of Art. 111, Art. 112, Art. 115, Art. 117, Art. 119 of the Criminal Code is not required. The of hijacking of an aircraft, a sea-going ship, or a railway train is often fraught with violation of the traffic safety rules and operation of the relevant transport provided for in Art. 263 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: the deed is covered by Art. 211 of the Criminal Code, if the violation specified in Art. 263 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation expressed itself in theft; if not, qualification is possible in the aggregate of art. 211,263 of the Criminal Code.

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 46-51
Author(s):  
Andrey L. Ivanov ◽  

The article substantiates the solution of some of the issues of qualification of murder discussed in theory and practice in order to use human organs or tissues, the results of a study of judicial practice, in which clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this topic were applied.


Author(s):  
Алена Харламова ◽  
Alena Kharlamova ◽  
Юлия Белик ◽  
Yuliya Belik

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


Author(s):  
Yuriy Magnutov

The article touches upon both the doctrinal and the legal and technical problems in determining the signs of the extremist community as a form of group extremist activity. The analysis of scientific approaches, as well as interpretative acts of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which allowed to correlate the features of an organized group, a criminal and extremist community. The study showed that within the extremist community, taking into account the legislative wording and recommendations of the highest judicial authority, there is a mixture of signs of an organized group and a criminal community. In order to remove the identified intra-industry conflict, on the basis of the results obtained, changes to art. 2821 of the Criminal code, which provide a legitimate basis for recognizing an extremist community as a kind of criminal community.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 113-116
Author(s):  
Stanislav V Rozenko ◽  
Ksenia A Murzina

The article considers the problems of determining a fraud in the Russian criminal law. The relevance of the topics currently defined by the presence of problems of qualification of fraud resulting from new approaches to the criminalization of theft. The subject is article 159 of the criminal code. Tasks of the article: suggestion when you know the subject of the crime under-ruined article 159 of the criminal code, in accordance with the current changes of the civil legislation of the Russian Federation, people's property, which includes rights of property; to add to article 159 of the criminal code a qualified sign of the Commission of a fraud committed by a group of individuals that alows you to qualify actions of guilty, in the case of lack of proof of their collusion, as a more serious crime than fraud committed by more than one individual; it seems necessary to define in the explanation of the resolution of Plenum of the Supreme Court position on the percenage of the causes of harware damage with the income of the victim or the aggregate income of the family of the victim, taking into account the number of family members.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 68-73
Author(s):  
V. N. Shikhanov ◽  

The article analyzes the expected positive and possible negative consequences of the implementation of the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russia to ban the activities of the international public movement “Prisoner criminal unity” in the Russian Federation. The organization is recognized as extremist. The author considers possible options for criminal-legal assessment of the activities of adults who coordinate minor adherents of this subculture, legal assessment of the collection and storage of material and financial resources (the so-called “obshchak”), which are intended to Finance the activities of the “AUE” movement or its members. Special attention is paid to the issues of legal influence on teenagers who are in one way or another committed to the“AUE”-ideology. Based on criminological theory and practice, the author draws attention to a number of issues on which it is necessary to develop a clear position in order to avoid negative side effects from the application of the norms of the Codec of the Russia on administrative offenses and the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. Among these consequences, the risks of dramatization of evil and stigmatization with subsequent polarization of young people, excessive expansion of the boundaries of criminal repression for ideological reasons, and an increase in the mood of sympathy or imitation for those who will be brought to criminal responsibility for adhering to the criminal subculture are highlighted. According to the author, the window of opportunities for countering the criminal subculture should be used with great care, so as not to repeat the mistakes and excesses that were previously made in countering extremist activities and for the sake of eliminating which the Prosecutor General’s office of the Russian Federation, together with the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in September 2018, were forced to significantly adjust law enforcement practice.


Author(s):  
Irina E. Belova

We research the issue of the current law enforcement practice of considering cases of joint bankruptcy of spouses in the framework of insolvency procedures of individuals. We emphasize that at the legislative level, joint bankruptcy of spouses and multiple persons on the debtor’s side is not provided for. Initially, this resulted in a lack of courts’ uniform approach, which has become a subject of discussion in the scientific literature. In this context, we pay attention to the importance of adoption by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of position on the combining admissibility of spouses’ banknote cases. In turn, the permissibility of combining cases did not resolve the issue of possibility of accepting a joint bankruptcy application, which again led to discrepancies in judicial practice. Special attention is paid to the admissibility of combining cases, which is the right of the court, and not its duty. We note that the arbitration courts, when solving this issue, study such circumstances as the subject composition of the persons participating in the cases of debtors, the volume and nature of prop-erty that is part of the bankruptcy estate of each debtor’s property, the per-formance of duties of financial manager by the same person. Despite the de-veloping judicial practice of joint bankruptcy of spouses, justified by the ex-planations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, we believe that it expedient and necessary to establish the grounds, procedure and conditions for joint bankruptcy of individuals who are spouses at the legislative level.


Author(s):  
A. Ya. Asnis

The article deals with the criminological grounds and background of the adoption of the Federal law of April 23, 2018 № 99-FZ, which introduced criminal liability for abuse in the procurement of goods, works and services for state or municipal needs (Art. 2004 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and for bribery of employees of contract service, contract managers, members of the Commission on the implementation of the procurement of persons engaged in the acceptance of the delivered goods, performed works or rendered services, other authorized persons, representing interests of customer in the scope of the relevant procurement (Art. 2005 of the Criminal Code).The author formulates private rules of qualification of the corresponding crimes and differentiation of their structures from structures of adjacent crimes and administrative offenses. The necessity of changing the position of the legislator regarding generic and direct objects of these crimes, the adoption of a special resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to explain the practice of applying the relevant innovations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-84
Author(s):  
N. N. Korotkikh

The article analyzes some of the controversial, in the opinion of the author, recommendations of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 of 15.05.2018 «On the practice of the courts applying the provisions of paragraph 6 Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation». Lowering the category of crime always requires clear criteria by which the actions of the defendant could be qualified with a change in the gravity of the crime. Based on examples from judicial practice, the thesis is substantiated that “taking into account the factual circumstances of the case” and “the degree of its public danger” are evaluative e criteria and do not always allow to decide the validity of the application of part 6 article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The discrepancy between some of the recommendations contained in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is shown. It is concluded that it is impossible to exempt a person from criminal liability on the grounds specified in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. 02018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yury Volgin ◽  
Irina Gaag ◽  
Alexander Naumov

The paper deals with the qualification of criminal violations of safety rules in coal mining enterprises in the light of recent changes in Art. 216 and 217 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the adoption of a new Resolution of the Plenum of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on violations of safety rules during operations. Firstly, the old and new editions of Art. 216 and 217 of the Criminal Code are compared. After that, the distinctive features of the articles under consideration are examined with the help of the new Plenum Resolution, federal laws and bylaws. Finally, the case law on this issue has been reviewed since 2016 with consideration of specific examples. In the paper, the authors do not address the issues of qualifying violations of safety rules at coal mining enterprises under Art.143 of the Criminal Code as it has not been changed. At the end of the study, the authors formulate the qualification rules taking into account the latest changes, without proposing any changes to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and other regulatory legal acts that do not include the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, i.e. the results of the study can be used in practice. The problem is that there is a lack of research of the changes we are considering in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and even more in relation to the coal mining industry.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document