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 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 Criminal misdemeanor: assessment of embodiment forms and prospects of existence

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-348
Author(s):  
V.V. Kosterin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Record ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Points Of View

Recently there has been a discussion in criminal law science about the inclusion in the criminal block of a new institution – a criminal misdemeanor – a wrongful act, in relation to which special, less strict rules for determining the amount of punishment are applied and, presumably, the concept of a criminal record does not apply. The article examines the prospects for introducing the category of “criminal misdemeanor” in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, provides an assessment and comments on the reform proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, examines various scientific points of view on the institution and approaches to formulating the definition, predicts the main directions of development of the new institution. The most controversial issues of a possible reform are: 1) the concept and place of a criminal misdemeanor (as an independent tort or a subtype of minor crimes); 2) the method of consolidation (in the form of a chapter of the criminal code or an independent code of criminal misdemeanors); 3) types of punishment (fine, correctional labor, arrest); 4) the occurrence of a criminal record (conditions, terms, duration); 5) ways of securing new punishments (in the form of independent articles of the criminal code or additional wording of existing articles, indicating a smaller amount of punishment if applied to a person who has committed a criminal misdemeanor).

scholarly journals FEATURES OF QUALIFICATIONS FRAUD IN THE CRIMINAL LEGISLATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 113-116
Author(s):  
Stanislav V Rozenko ◽  
Ksenia A Murzina
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

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.

scholarly journals Sports crimes: issues of systematic approach, criminalization and qualifications

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 02009
Author(s):  
Oleg Alexandrovich Dizer ◽  
Irina Gennadievna Bavsun ◽  
Andrey Viktorovich Zarubin ◽  
Vladimir Nikolaevich Safonov ◽  
Georgy Yurievich Sokolsky
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Specific Object ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The study prerequisites are the fragmentation in the current criminal legislation of criminal law standards protecting the field of sports, as well as the issues of criminalization of acts in sports and the qualification of sports crimes. The study aims to solve the issues of systematization of regulatory provisions, the object of which is social relations in sports, taking into account the characteristics of the generic and specific objects, the degree of encroachment danger. The methods included the dialectical method, abstraction, analysis, synthesis, deduction, formal legal method, method of comparative jurisprudence. The results and novelty of the study reside in the conclusions about the advisability of identifying a separate specific object of criminal law protection (social relations in sports), which would systematize related and close acts not only in professional sports but also at all levels of official sports competitions. In this context, the issues of criminalization and qualifications of causing harm to life and health of an individual in violation of the sport rules, exerting unlawful influence on the result of an official sports competition, actions provided for in Art. 230.1 and 230.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the synchronization of the subject of the latter with the subject of Art. 234 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Based on the foregoing, the recommendation of isolating a separate chapter in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and issuing a separate Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on crimes in sports is substantiated. Such measures will be able to optimize the criminal law protection of such an important sphere of public life as sports. In addition, this will make it possible to bring the quality of domestic criminal legislation and sports legislation to the international level and significantly increase the prestige of the Russian Federation.

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 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 Efficiency of practical application of criminal law prohibition in the sphere of economy of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (4) ◽  
pp. 118-123
Author(s):  
Vladimir Tunin ◽  
Natal'ya Radoshnova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Economic Crime ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Crimes

The article considers the practical effectiveness of the criminal law prohibition in combating economic crime in the Russian Federation. 22nd Chapter of the Criminal code currently includes 58 articles. This is maximum number of articles in relation to other chapters of the criminal code, in the same Chapter of the Criminal code. Accordingly the need for such a number of prohibitions in the economic sphere should be confirmed by judicial practice. However, a completely different picture emerges. Based on the analysis of the statistical reports of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the authors conclude that the enforcement practice in cases of economic crimes is insufficient.The authors express their opinion on the reasons for the ineffectiveness of the practical application of the articles constituting the 22nd Chapter of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation, and suggest ways to address them.

scholarly journals Problems of proving guilt in criminal cases in connection with tax evasion

2019 ◽  
pp. 170-176
Author(s):  
V. V. Dubrovin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The establishment of an intentional form of guilt and its specific type is mandatory for the implementation of the provisions of Art. 8 of the Criminal Code. In criminal proceedings in connection with tax evasion, a direct intent should be established in the act of the accused, otherwise the provisions of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 28, 2006 No. 64 “On the practice of criminal law on liability for tax offenses”. One of the proofs of direct intent in the act of the accused may be the decision of the tax authority to prosecute for the tax offense, made according to the results of tax control measures (in-house or on-site tax audits). In the event that it establishes an imprudent form of the taxpayer’s guilt in committing a tax offense, in proving the guilt of the accused in the course of criminal proceedings there may be an intractable contradiction.

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
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Water Transport ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Rolling Stock ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Railway Rolling Stock

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document