scholarly journals On the Appropriateness of the Use of the Term “Inducement” in Article 2301 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-444
Author(s):  
A. V. Syntin

The problem of prohibited substances (methods) abuse in sport has existed for quite a long time. On the one hand, by criminalizing certain anti-doping rules violations, legislation expanded the liability limits of coaches, sports medical personnel, and of other specialists in the field of sports, which can be regarded positively. On the other hand, it made certain mistakes which impeded the effectiveness of these laws enforcement. Among other things, there is a problem with definition of the term “inducement”. The term itself is defined in the note to article 2301 of the Russian Federation Criminal Code, but there is a controversy in demarcation of inducement. methods. While deception, the use of violence and instructions as inducement methods are socially dangerous at substantial level and can be regarded as methods of committing the crime, the provision of information or the prohibited substances themselves (means of using methods) cannot be regarded as methods of committing the crime. Such a definition of inducement means also leads to contradictions with the corpus delicti under Article 2302 of the Russian Federation Criminal Code. In addition, there are also different interpretations regarding the methods of inducement, coercion, involvement in the other corpus delicti, which, all together with the lack of a unified interpretation of the terms affects the possibility of bringing the guilty persons, especially coaches, sports medical personnel and other specialists in the field of sports, to criminal responsibility. The survey conducted among lawyers also has revealed difficulties in distinguishing these terms in practice. Based on the criminal legislation analysis, the author comes to the conclusion that the amendments in the Russian Federation Criminal Code are necessary.

Author(s):  
Василий Некрасов ◽  
Vasiliy Nekrasov

The article analyzes the issues of differentiation of responsibility and norm design technique on inchoate crime in the criminal legislation of the Republic of Belarus. The author examines the legislative definition of preparation for a crime, attempted crime and voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose. As a result of the study the author has found out the main methods and means of legislative technique, used by the Belarusian legislator. These are abstract and casuistic methods, the terminology of the criminal law and several others. Comparison of legal regulation of norms on unfinished crime in the Criminal code of the Republic of Belarus and the Criminal code of the Russian Federation has allowed to identify gaps made by the legislators of both countries in application of specific tools and techniques of legislative drafting. Court practice of the Republic of Belarus in cases of preparation for a crime and attempted crime also was analyzed in present article. The author has evidentiated the means of differentiation of the responsibility for committing inchoate crime, used by the Belarusian legislator. The definitions “inchoate crime” and “stage of the crime” were also analyzed in present study. As a conclusion the author has made the recommendations for improving the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on regulation of criminal responsibility for an inchoate crime.


Author(s):  
Александр Викторович Сенатов

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.


Author(s):  
Bozhchenko A.P. ◽  
Ismailov M.T. ◽  
Gomon A.A. ◽  
Griga E.S. ◽  
Khrustaleva Yu.A.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the current criminal legislation of the Russian Federation in relation to crimes that provide for liability for causing harm to human health, in order to improve expert and legal tools for determining adverse consequences for human health and life. Research material: the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and its comments. Research methods: selection and fixation of information, grouping of data, comparison, analysis and generalization of the identified patterns. As a result of the conducted research, a complete list of articles providing for liability for causing serious (51 in total), moderate (30) and minor harm to health (27) was determined. There are articles in which the severity of the harm to health is not specified (10) or the vague term "significant harm" is used (1). A number of articles (26) have been identified, in which the term "harm to health" is used instead of the term "violence", which is specified in the Decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or comments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as "harm to health". It is concluded that the concept of harm to health formed in the criminal legislation is broader than the one established in forensic medicine. In the current legislation, there is an abundance and heterogeneity of terms used to describe independent types of adverse effects on human health and life. Unification of the concept of harm caused to human health is required. An original definition of this concept is proposed.


2021 ◽  
pp. 96-103
Author(s):  
N. Yu. Borzunova ◽  
O. S. Matorina ◽  
E. P. Letunova

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.


Author(s):  
Michail Sagandykov ◽  
Galia Shafikova

The relevance of the study is based, on the one hand, on high public danger of crimes in the sphere of labor relations and, on the other hand, on a very low interest of law enforcement, control and supervision bodies in these crimes. The authors show that modern criminal legislation in the sphere of protecting labor rights has a high potential in comparison with both Soviet and foreign criminal law norms. At the same time, this potential, primarily expressed in Chapter 19 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, remains untapped. Many norms, including Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation «Violating the Equality of Rights and Freedoms of Man and Citizen», are virtually never used against discrimination in the labor sphere, although such discrimination is quite common. No such cases have been found in court statistical data, thus it is impossible to provide a comprehensive criminological description of these crimes. The norm of Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is seldom used by law enforcers because it is legally ambiguous. In this connection the authors suggest complementing the disposition of Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with such factors of discrimination as «age» and «marital status». The latter factor will make it possible to provide extra protection to pregnant women and women with children under three years old against unmotivated refusal of employment and firing. The authors argue that such actions of the employer should constitute an aggregate of crimes and should be punished simultaneously under Art. 136 and 145 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the authors think that it is not appropriate to make the disposition of Art. 136 a blanket one due to vague grounds for discrimination in special legislation, including labor legislation. The obtained results could be used for the improvement of Russian legislation based on theoretical research and the practice of law enforcement.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-52
Author(s):  
Denis A. Pechegin

A monetary system is a historically established model of organized monetary circulation that includes the national monetary unit (legal tender), the types of banknotes, and the order of their issue and circulation. This model is normatively fixed, since it is a core component of the national economy. At the same time, the security of a monetary system is a primary strategic goal in the economy of a nation. The achievement of such a goal is possible by solving specific tasks related, inter alia, to the prevention of criminal actions in the analyzed area. As key elements of crimes against the monetary system, national criminal legislation should highlight property obtained by criminal means, including laundering of funds (Articles 174 and 1741 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), counterfeiting (Article 186), and the illegal turnover of payment funds (Article 187). Given the dynamics of changes taking place in society and the state, the structures of criminal elements are likewise subject to transformation, especially with regard to the development of digital financial technologies. The legal vacuum of the new sphere of public relations, its subordination to algorithms and programs on the one hand, and the blank nature of these norms of criminal law, on the other, as well as the imperfections of procedural mechanisms focused on regulating analog public relations, as opposed to digital, on the other, form barriers to legal influence. This article is devoted to the analysis of these and other problems of the legislative regulation of crimes that encroach upon the monetary system via digital economic relations.


2019 ◽  
pp. 37-39
Author(s):  
A.A. Zhiksembaev ◽  
Z.I. Sagitdinova

The paper presents the author's assessment of the latest novels of the criminal law in the field of offsetting the time of detention in the term of the sentence imposed. The attention is drawn to the incompatibility of several provisions of the Article 72 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with the principle of justice, that is a consequence of the lack of a systematic approach to amending and supplementing the criminal law. On the one hand, the article 72 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the new edition improved the situation of convicted persons, but on the other hand, the recent changes and additions put a number of convicts in an unequal position.


Author(s):  
Сергей Владимирович Тасаков ◽  
Владимир Сергеевич Тасаков

В статье рассматриваются основания смягчения уголовного наказания в уголовном законодательстве Российской Федерации. Основания смягчения уголовного наказания направлены на снижение бремени уголовного наказания, что в свою очередь опосредованно влияет на процесс реализации уголовной политики. Проводится различие терминов «смягчение» и «освобождение» от уголовной ответственности и ее «исключение». Исследуются межотраслевое содержание системы оснований смягчения уголовного наказания, а также признаки системы оснований смягчения уголовного наказания и классификация оснований смягчения уголовного наказания. Дается доктринальное определение системы оснований смягчения уголовного наказания. The article discusses the grounds for mitigating criminal punishment in the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. The grounds for mitigation of criminal punishment are aimed at reducing the burden of criminal punishment, and that, in turn, indirectly affects the process of implementation of criminal policy. A distinction is made between the terms “mitigation” and “exemption” from criminal responsibility and its “exclusion”. The intersectoral content of the system of grounds for mitigation of criminal punishment, as well as signs of the system of bases for mitigation of criminal punishment and the classification of the grounds for mitigation of criminal punishment are investigated. A doctrinal definition of the basis for the mitigation of criminal punishment is given.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 93-100
Author(s):  
E. Ju. Chetvertakova ◽  

The complex nature of the act of the illegal acquisition of narcotic substances, creates problems in determining the boundaries of the intrusion and determining the stage of the crime, which leads to a lack of uniformity in the application of the provisions of Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The purpose of this article is to identify the problems that arise during the qualification of illegal acquisition of narcotic drugs, and to suggest ways to solve them. Tasks: analysis of the concept of the acquisition of narcotic drugs, the establishment of signs that are part of the objective side of the encroachment, the definition of the boundaries of the objective element to differentiate the stages of the crime. The article is based on an analysis of criminal legislation, doctrinal provisions and judicial practice. The author concludes that the acquisition of a narcotic substances is an act as a result of which a person is able to possess, use and dispose of the drug at his own discretion. The moment of completion of the crime should be associated with the possibility of disposing of the drug received. The seizure of narcotic drugs from the purchaser in the course of law enforcement intelligence operations cannot be considered as a completed crime. When determining the initial stage of the actus reus, the method of committing the crime should be taken into account. The conclusion is substantiated that it is inadmissible to use by analogy the explanation of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the content of the sale of narcotic drugs when interpreting the sign of illegal acquisition.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Bokovnya

The article studies the problem of punishment purposes in terms of increasing the importance of social justice and more consistent protection of the rights of victims from criminal acts. It substantiates a model of the hierarchical construction of purposes of criminal punishment based on analysis of the historical laws concerning the purposes of punishment and a comparative study of the legislation of modern states. According to the author, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should first outline the purposes of criminal legislation or criminal responsibility, and in terms of it should already specify the purposes of punishment and other measures of a criminal and legal nature. The RF Criminal Code should regulate the purposes of all measures of criminal and legal character. He also considers as reasonable the concrete definition of the content for purposes of restoring the social justice by indicating in the law the fact that punishment and other ways of criminal and legal character contribute to its restoration. The article also substantiates a proposal of regulating the property damage. The article also substantiates a proposal for regulating property damages and moral damage compensations as a different measure of criminal and legal character.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document