scholarly journals STRATEGIES FOR REGULATING CRYPTOCURRENCY IN THE RUSSIAN LEGISLATION: FORECAST FOR THE FUTURE

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. L. Sidorenko
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Electronic Money ◽  
Virtual Currency ◽  
Legal Control ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Future Evaluation

The paper discusses the future development of the cryptocurrency in the Russian Federation. At present, it can be defined as a new financial instrument based on distributed registry technology (Blokchein). It is the lack of server storage and a single issuer, the relative anonymity (pseudonymity) and mobility calculations allow us to consider financial cryptocurrency to be a technology of the future. Evaluation of the prospects for the development of the regulatory and protective law of the Russian Federation, the author begins with an assessment of the world's leading strategies for regulating the virtual currency: permissive, prohibitive and observant. The author argues the problem of searching for the optimal model of the cryptocurrency legalization, considering it to be a kind of a computer program: means of exchange, a monetary symbol, a cashless cash, an electronic money and a security, a commodity, other property, property right, etc. Particular attention is paid to the critical analysis of the draft federal law on the declaration of a crypto currency by a surrogate and the introduction of a new composition in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - article 187.1 "Turnover of money surrogates" with the establishment of responsibility in the form of a fine of up to 500 thousand rubles or imprisonment for up to four Years for production, purchase for sale, as well as the sale of money surrogates. As one of the developers of the draft law on legalization of the cryptocurrency in the Russian Federation, the author of this paper identifies the most important aspects that need in legal control. They are identification of exchange sites and the user, verification of transactions based on documents, data and information (validation), determination of the beneficial owner, Relations and monitoring of transactions with the cryptocurrency in accordance with the risk profile.

scholarly journals Novels of the Criminal Code on responsibility for abusesin public procurement: background and problems of qualification

2018 ◽  
pp. 34-43
Author(s):  
A. Ya. Asnis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Service Contract ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Contract Managers

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.

PUNISHMENT FOR SLANDER

2021 ◽  
pp. 50-63
Author(s):  
Tatyana A. Plaksina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Legal Response ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Previous Edition ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Explanatory Memorandum ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
High Share

Federal Law No. 538-FZ of 30 December 2020 substantially tightened the sanctions of the libel article, which previously contained only fines and compulsory labour, by including com-pulsory labour, arrest and imprisonment in most of them. The explanatory memorandum to the bill explained the changes by the need to provide the court with the choice of fair punish-ment, without specifying this provision in detail. As part of the research described in the article, statistics for the Russian Federation for 2013-2020 were taken from the reports of the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to study the practice of punishment for defamation. The analysis showed that law enforcers used the potential of sanctions of Article 128-1 of the Criminal Code in their previous edition to a very limited extent. This was reflected in the high share of fines among penalties imposed, as well as in insignificant amounts of fines even for qualified and especially qualified types of libel, despite the fact that sanctions provide for high maxi-mum fine limits - from RUB 500,000 in part 1 of Article 128-1 of the Criminal Code to RUB 5 million in part 5. In particular, the share of fine among penalties imposed for simple libel was over 85%, and the average fine was equal in 2018 to RUB 11,500. - 11.5 thousand roubles, in 2019 - 13.7 thousand roubles, in 2020. - 16.3 thousand roubles. In 2018, the average fine for public libel (part 2, article 128-1 of the Criminal Code) was 19,500 rubles; in 2020 - 23,100 rubles. - The sanction allowed for a fine of up to 1 million roubles, while the sanction allowed for a fine of up to 1 million roubles. Moreover, over a quarter of those convicted for especially qualified defamation under part 5 of article 128-1 of the Criminal Code were sentenced to a fine of 5,000 rubles, i.e., one thousand times less than the maximum limit established by the sanction. Only in single cases of slander convictions, the fine exceeded 100 thousand rubles. The establishment of custodial sentences for qualified and especially qualified types of defamation seems excessive: a verbal crime against a person's honour and dignity does not require such a harsh criminal legal response. Moreover, the legislator has designed sanctions with too broad a framework, fraught with the risk of arbitrariness in sentencing and the for-mation of contradictory judicial practice (for example, under part 5 of article 128-1 of the RF Criminal Code, both a fine of 5 thousand rubles, and imprisonment for the period of 5 years can be imposed). The inclusion of arrest in the sanction cannot be considered justified, as this type of punishment has not been introduced yet. The optimum way to improve the sanctions for the part 2 to 5 parts of Article 128-1 of the Criminal Code of the RF would be to enhance them with correctional labour and restriction of freedom. These types of punishments corre-spond to the typical level of public danger of qualified and especially qualified types of slan-der and perpetrators of such deeds. Their inclusion in the sanctions would compensate for the disadvantages of the latter, related to the restrictions enshrined in the law on imposing com-pulsory works and large fines.

About the Thefts Provided by item «g» of Part 3 of Article 158, Articles 1593, 1596 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 86-98
Author(s):  
E. V. Peysikova ◽  
◽  
Yu. I. Antonov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article is devoted to the analysis of judicial practice in cases of the thefts provided by item «g» of part 3 of article 158 and articles 1593 and 1596 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The article notes the challenges in applying these rules in practice; demonstrates their restrictive features with regards to the doctrine of Criminal law. The article is written for the purpose of uniform application of these norms in practice after entry into force of the Federal Law of 23 April 2018, № 111-FZ.

ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY BY LEGAL MEANS

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 129-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Назаренко ◽  
Gennadiy Nazarenko
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Not Given ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Official Status

In the article anti-corruption policy is considered in criminal law and in the preventive aspects. The definition of anti-corruption policy by legal means is given. It is shown that the most significant and effective tool in this direction (kind) of policy is the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. However, the preventive potential of criminal law is not enough. The law does not cover a lot of corruption manifestations, which are involved in the use of any official status, its authority and opportunities. Up to the present time criminal law is not given with the accordance of the Federal Law «On combating corruption» from 25.12..2008 №273-FZ (as amended on 22.12.2014). Criminal law measures applied to corrupt officials, have palliative nature: they are based on the concept of limited use of criminal law and mitigation of punishment. The author makes a reasonable conclusion that more effective implementation of anti-corruption policy requires the adoption of new criminal law which contains the Chapter on corruption crimes, sanctions of which must include imprisonment as punishment as well as confiscation of property or life deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or to be engaged in certain activities.

scholarly journals RATIO OF THE LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL STATUS OF THE HEAD OF INVESTIGATIVE BODY

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-165
Author(s):  
T. Yu. Popova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Sense

Article is devoted to search of author's determination of the criminal procedure status of the head of investigative body. Determination of the status is given in it is general legal sense, types of legal statuses, such as the general (constitutional), special (patrimonial), individual, the status of the foreigner and branch legal statuses are allocated. The discussion about a ratio of legal status and a legal status on the basis of which conclusions the author has divided concepts of legal and procedural status per se is given. Are carried to number of elements of legal status of the head of investigative body: the rights and duties provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and specified departmental standard legal by acts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, SK of Russia and FSB of Russia; the criminal liability regulated by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the disciplinary responsibility provided by subordinate regulations for non-execution or inadequate execution of the procedural powers; procedural and administrative accountability of activity of the head of investigative body to the head of higher investigative body. Elements of the criminal procedure status of the designated participant of criminal trial, according to the author, are the rights and duties provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; the accountability of activity of the head of investigative body to the head of higher investigative body regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The author has also mentioned a discussion about existence of criminal procedure responsibility of participants of criminal legal proceedings. In article the maintenance of each of elements of the status and justification of reference of each of them to this or that type of the status is opened. Proceeding from the considered structure, the concept of the criminal procedure status of the head of investigative body as the position of the head of the investigative body including his procedural laws, duties and accountability to the head of higher investigative body regulated only by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is formulated.

scholarly journals Another example of the situational nature of changes in domestic criminal and criminal procedural legislation or a vital short story?

2020 ◽  
pp. 79-83
Author(s):  
Nikolay Letelkin ◽  
Dmitry Neganov
Keyword(s):  
Short Story ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The State ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Corona Virus ◽  
The Russian Federation

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).

scholarly journals PECULIARITIES OF SUPERVISION OVER THE RECEPTION, REGISTRATION AND AUTHORIZATION OF CRIMES UNDER ARTICLE 145.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION BY THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-540
Author(s):  
M.A. Gabdullina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Complete Failure ◽  
Employer Liability ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The Constitution of the Russian Federation protects the right to work for remuneration not below the statutory minimum wage. Non-payment of wages is one of the most serious violations of worker's rights. In this regard, the current legislation provides for different types of employer liability for violating these provisions: civil, administrative and criminal. The Federal law “On amendments to article 145.1 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation” dated 23.12.2010 No. 382-FZ tightened criminal liability for non-payment of wages. Thus, in particular, this law introduced criminal liability for partial non-payment of wages, while the former wording of article 145.1 of the Criminal code established liability only for its complete failure. In practice, this norm has not previously been brought to criminal liability for partial non-payment of wages. The paper deals with the issues of powers of the Prosecutor at the stage of reception, registration and resolution of reports on crimes provided for by article 145.1 of the criminal code. The problematic issues arising from the investigative authorities in conducting procedural checks on the specified categories of messages are analyzed. Suggestions on the improvement of criminal-procedural legislation are made.

scholarly journals DETERMINATION OF THE TIME OF CONTENTS UNDER DEFENSE IN THE TERM OF PURCHASED PUNISHMENT DEPENDING ON THE CONDITIONS OF INSULATION. CRITICAL THINKING OF CHANGES IN THE CRIMINAL LAW

2019 ◽  
pp. 37-39
Author(s):  
A.A. Zhiksembaev ◽  
Z.I. Sagitdinova
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One

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.

scholarly journals Recidivism as Legal Background for the Differentiation of Criminal Liability: Conceptual Approaches of Russian and Foreign Legislators

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-371
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Zharkikh ◽  
Afet Maksimov ◽  
Leonid Prokhorov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Correctional Institution ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
General Role ◽  
The World ◽  
The Russian Federation

The authors examine key stages of the development of theoretical views and concepts of the essence of recidivism lying at the basis of the emergence of professional and organized crime, whose genesis trends pose a special danger for the global community in the 20th and the 21st centuries. It is noted that the problems of counteracting repeat offences were discussed by scholars of different periods of the development of criminological and criminal law doctrines. Besides, the authors state that in contemporary lawmaking practice in the world there are several radically different approaches to the assessment of repeat offences in terms of the differentiation of criminal liability and individualization of punishment. A heightened danger of repeat offences dictates special approaches of lawmakers to the differentiation of criminal liability, to determining its limits in the norms of the Special Parts of criminal legislation in cases of recidivism. The authors describe key stages of the development of the institute of repeat offences and its influence on the differentiation of criminal liability and individualization of punishment in the Russian legislation. They examine key functional roles of the institute of repeat offences: ensuring the differentiation of criminal liability depending on recidivism, determining the limits of its use and the conditions of release; regulation of the algorithm of the individualization of punishment for repeat offences; determining the type of correctional institution to which the offender is allocated in cases of recidivism; execution of punishment. There are two key approaches to assessing repeat offences in terms of the differentiation of criminal liability and the individualization of punishment in the lawmaking practice in the world. The first approach to determining the limits of punishment in case of a repeat offence is based on assessing the personality of the offender, while the second presupposes shifting the emphasis from the personality of the offender to the committed crimes, to recidivism. The authors specifically stress that while the general role of the institute of repeat offences is positive, there are some contradictions in the system of the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regarding the lawmakers’ approach to its regulation that have an impact on the differentiation of criminal liability. These contradictions are connected with considerable changes in the contents of Part 2, Art. 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation introduced by the Federal Law of Dec. 8, 2003 № 162-ФЗ. It states that the term of punishment of any type of repeat offence cannot be under one third of the maximum term for the strictest type of punishment, and it should be restricted by the limits of the sanction in the corresponding article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Consequently, the introduction of this criminal law norm in the legislative system neutralized the requirement of Part 5, Art. 18 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which repeat offences lead to stricter punishments on the basis and within the limits provided in the Code, while the preventive role of the analyzed criminal law norm that it played in the previous version is lost. In this connection, the authors formulate recommendations on improving the contents of Part 2, Art. 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and present its version.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document