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 On the issue of determination of the procedural status of the new witness for the prosecution in criminal procedure

2019 ◽  
pp. 225-228
Author(s):  
Fyodor M. Kobzaryov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

The main approaches to definition and to the content of the procedural status of the person with respect to which, the criminal case is allocated in separate legal proceedings in connection with conclusion of the pre-trial agreement with it concerning cooperation are considered in the article; provisions of the Federal law as of 10/30/2018, #376-ФЗ "On amendments to the Code of Penal Procedure of the Russian Federation" are analysed; according to them, the status of this person is defined, and suggestions for improvement of the legal status of the new participant of criminal procedure are proved.

scholarly journals Actual Problems of Exemption from Criminal Liability for Tax Crimes in Connection with Compensation for Caused Damage

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 135-142
Author(s):  
E V Barkalova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Points Of View

In this article are analyzed the problems of determination of the amount of damage caused by commission of tax crimes. The author delineates the concepts of «damage» as the circumstance to be proved, in cases of commission of tax crimes and as a part of the grounds for exemption from criminal liability for commission of tax crimes under the art.76.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and art. 28.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Various scientific points of view and judicial-investigative practice on application of the mentioned above grounds for exemption from criminal liability are considered.

scholarly journals STRENGTHENING OF LAWYER INDEPENDENCE IN CRIMINAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 179-188
Author(s):  
I. N. Chebotareva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article is devoted to changes analysis made in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation by the Federal law No. 73-FZ of April 17, 2017 regarding strengthening of lawyer legal status in criminal legal proceedings. Additional guarantees of lawyer’s independence rendering qualified legal aid in criminal legal proceedings brought by this law are revised. It is possible to call this law "lawyer law" because it is devoted to questions of legal regulation improvement of lawyer’s status in criminal legal proceedings. And in fact is a reduction of existing Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in compliance with legal positions created by earlier Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. On the basis of changes analysis of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation conclusions on strengthening of guarantees of lawyer independence rendering legal aid in criminal legal proceedings and some critical remarks on the matter are stated. Three blocks of questions which cover changes are allocated: the introduction of the defender in criminal case, lawyer secret, and participation of the defender in proof. Changes concern the following questions: formal obstacles for the defender introduction in criminal trial are eliminated; interrogation of the lawyer is possible only according to the petition of protection side; the person called for questioning which isn't subject to interrogation doesn't acquire the status of witness; search, survey and dredging concerning the lawyer can be carried out only under the judgment at observance of established guarantees; additional guarantees in petition satisfaction declared by the lawyer are established; procedural funds of use of expert help are deposited by the defender.

scholarly journals Classification of crimes in designing criminal procedure regulations

2019 ◽  
pp. 130-137
Author(s):  
A. G. Kulev ◽  
L. O. Kuleva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Great Influence ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Substantive Law

The rules on categorization of crimes are substantive and legal by their nature. Nevertheless, they have a great influence on the state and development of criminal procedural matter. It is proposed to divide the provisions of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, which reflect the provisions of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, into two groups. The first group includes the norms of criminal proceedings that are a kind of logical continuation of criminal law regulations related to exemption from criminal liability and punishment. The second group consists of strictly procedural rules that are not directly dependent on the substantive law: the composition of the bench, jurisdiction and competence of criminal cases, bail hearing, negotiations control and recording, the return of a criminal case to the prosecutor. Particular attention is given to the possibility for the court to change the classification of crimes. Based on the studied theoretical sources and court practice, the authors make suggestions aimed at improving the existing criminal procedure legislation and optimizing its application in the framework of the issues raised.

scholarly journals The Perpetrator of the Crime in Complicity and without Complicity: A Universal Role in the Diversity of Legal Constructions

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
D. M. Molchanov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Main Element ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Sense

A comprehensive study of the perpetrator’s role leads to the following conclusions: “perpetrator of the crime” is a universal term used to describe an act that constitutes an objective element of the crime committed both in complicity and without complicity. Four alternatives to the actions of the perpetrator exist: executor who performed the objective element alone, an accomplice who performed the objective element with other accomplices, an indirect perpetrator, an indirect accomplice. Other ways to qualify person’s act as a perpetrator are based not on the law, but on the recommendations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation that de facto acquired the status of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (joint participation in the organized group, joint participation in a crime with “technical distribution of roles”). The main element of the act of the perpetrator includes the fulfillment of the objective element described in the disposition of the article of the Special Part. The content of the objective element of a particular crime does not depend on the existence of complicity, hence the term “perpetrator” is applicable to any crime and has a universal value. It is impractical to describe in the law the same acts in different terms. “Technical distribution of roles” is a doctrinal term. Its content is disclosed in some resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF. Extensive interpretation of the term “perpetrator” in crimes with “technical distribution of roles” is a forced measure on the part of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, since the term “the group of persons in conspiracy” is interpreted restrictively. This interpretation complicates the application of the criminal law and does not allow us to adequately assess the greater risk of crimes committed in complicity. The term “technical distribution of roles” does not have a universal (acknowledged) interpretation in jurisprudence, which also makes it difficult to apply the law. Joint participation in a legal sense in crimes committed by an organized group is a construct that is not based on law applied to crimes with a special subject, which contradicts part 4, Art. 34 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Digital Currency and Novelties in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Topical Issues

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 381-386
Author(s):  
IRINA S. MOCHALKINA
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
General Concept ◽  
Dialectical Logic ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Digital Currency ◽  
The Russian Federation

Introduction: the article analyzes the concept and legal nature of digital currency and certainnoveltiesrelated to digital currency, which were put forward in the last few years so as to be introduced in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Aims: to study and summarize legislative initiatives related to digital currency; to define the concept and essence of digital currency; to establish its place in the civil rights system; to analyze the possibility of recognizing digital currency as an object and (or) a means of committing crimes. Methods: historical, comparative-legal, empirical methods of description and interpretation; theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic; legal-dogmatic method, and interpretation of legal norms. Results: having analyzed the development of Russian legislation regulating the legal status of new digital objects of economic relations we see that the features that make up the general concept of digital currency do not allow us to determine the range of objects that fit this legislative definition; moreover, these features do not allow us to define digital currency as an object of civil rights and identify which operations and transactions with it are legal. Due to the above, it is impossible to establish criminal liability for committing acts involving digital currency. Conclusions: we have revealed certain tendencies toward legalization of digital currency on the one hand, and prevention of its use for payment for goods and services, including the imposition of criminal-legal prohibitions, on the other hand. The concept of digital currency needs to be revised: its definition should not contain a reference to the operator and the nodes of the information system. The most correct solution seems to be the introduction of the concept of cryptocurrency to denote a decentralized means of expressing value; as for digital currency, it should be understood as centralized funds, for example the digital ruble. Digital currency must be recognized as an object of civil rights, being classified as other property. This will help to minimize the difficulties in recognizing it as a subject or means of crime and introduce socially determined prohibitions into the criminal law. Keywords: digital currency; digital rights; cryptocurrency; amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; novelties in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; crimes against property; crimes in the field of economic activity; theft

scholarly journals To the Characteristics of Person Occupyting the Highest Position in the Criminal Hierarchy: Criminalistic and Criminal Procedure Aspects

2021 ◽  
pp. 60-68
Author(s):  
Nikolay Lebedev ◽  
Sergey Nider
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Actual State ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Court Practice

The authors use the analysis of investigation-court practice and doctrinal positions of researchers to raise the issue of determining the subject of the crime under Art. 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors describe a number of problems regarding the possibility of establishing and proving the guilt of a person who went through the criminal world’s ritual of “coronation” and thus acquired the status of a “thief in law”. The authors also present their own opinion on the fallacy of the lawmakers’ decision that occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy is an independent corpus delicti as it does not meet the obligatory criterion of public danger and, consequently, cannot be called a crime. The authors also believe that the abovementioned corpus delicti is, in essence, neither the action nor the inaction, but is an (actual) state, thus it cannot be called a deed and, correspondingly, a crime.

scholarly journals Special Subject of Crime as an Object of Criminological Determination

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 980-991
Author(s):  
Andrey Makarov ◽  
Aleksandr Protasevich ◽  
Aleksandra Zhukova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Personal Gain ◽  
Relevant Today ◽  
Official Position ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

Currently, many authors pay attention to the criminological description of the object of their research. This approach is absolutely justified. It is better to examine the institutes of criminal law in correlation with the interdisciplinary spheres of knowledge. The article presents an analysis of adjacent but not equal legal categories of the subject of crime and the personality of a criminal. This research is relevant today because crimes committed by persons with characteristics of a special subject in general, and with the use of their official position in particular, have a higher degree of public danger. It is connected with a wide area of official interests of public officers. Their criminal offences destabilize the normal work of governmental bodies. Corruption, abuse of office, general crimes committed for personal gain act as negative social and legal phenomena that widen the range of persons in criminal statistics referring to special subject. A heightened degree of public danger in the actions of public officers is a factor that influences current criminal legislation. An example is the abuse of public office as a circumstance that aggravates criminal liability. The contents of the norms in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation could be named a legislative reaction of the authorities to the growing level of misuse of office. The current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation mentions the misuse of office with mercenary motives or for personal gain, acting as an aggravating circumstance for the main crime, over 60 times. Taking into account that the contemporary condition and scale of the self-determination of crime according to the characteristic of a special subject are developing interconnected systemic causes and conditions, it is possible to discuss the necessity of criminological prevention of crimes with a special subject — a criminogenic person who has specific functions (as a rule, a representative of authorities).

The Main Signs of the Duality of the Specialist Position in Criminal Proceedings

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (10) ◽  
pp. 59-74
Author(s):  
L. K. Bondarenko
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Semantic Analysis ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Special Knowledge ◽  
The Russian Federation

The author examines the problem of the special knowledge functioning in criminal proceedings. By synchronizing the institutions of the criminal procedure that regulate the legal relationship between the knowledgeable persons and the institution of criminal law regulating the responsibility of these participants in the commission of a crime against justice, the author demonstartes asymmetry between the rights and duties of a specialist. The subject of the study is constituted by the contradictions between the institutions of procedural and substantive law, namely, the discrepancy between the procedural complex (rights, duties, functions) of a specialist to the course of his criminal responsibility. For this purpose, a comparison is made between the rights and obligations of knowledgeable persons, based on the criteria of: a) the scope of procedural functions; b) the specificity of procedural rights and obligations; c) actual forms of special knowledge acceptable as evidence. On the basis of the revealed contradictions, the situation of competitiveness of special knowledge is investigated; the legal significance of the forms of special knowledge is determined. The author proposes a systematic solution, namely: 1) to clarify the procedural status of a specialist: to add the definition of “forensic specialist” to Art. 58, 61, 71, 74, 80, part 4 of Art. 164, art. 168, 251, 270, 271 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; 2) to clarify the epistemological aspects of the research functions of a specialist in accordance with Part 3.1 of Art. 74, art. 80; Part 1.2 of Art. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; 3) to establish a mechanism for the responsibility of a specialist for giving a deliberately false opinion: to add to Art. 58 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, part 5 by analogy with part 5 of Art. 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; to supplement the text of Part 1 of Art. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; to correct the content of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Or release the specialist from criminal liability for the opinion expressed by him (even if it is deliberately false). The author proves that the proposed measures will promote adversarial evidence, increase the specialist’s subjective responsibility for the conclusion given by him, which corresponds to the institution of proving.The main research methods are: general scientific methods, review and analysis of legislative sources, contextual method, semantic analysis and formal logical analysis.

scholarly journals The Adversarial System in Criminal Procedure: Norms and Implementation

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 4039-4042
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Adversarial System ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Modern System ◽  
The Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

The research is devoted to the analysis of the essence and place of the adversarial system in modern criminal procedure regulation. The existing acute debatability regarding the procedural status of the adversarial system in the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation necessitates the appeal of scholars to this category. The purpose of identifying the true procedural nature of the adversarial system and the boundaries of its implementation is directly related to the determination of the correct place of this procedural category in the modern system of criminal procedure regulation. The analysis of modern scientific views on the procedural status of the adversarial system indicates the presence of diametrical views on the compliance of the adversarial system with the characteristics of an independent industry-wide principle. A controversial opinion about the extension of the principle of adversarial practice to the pre-trial stages of Russian criminal proceedings is noted. According to the authors, the current law enforcement practice confirms the implementation of the "pure" adversarial system only in the judicial stages of the criminal process. Taking into account the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the work provides an argumentation of the authors’ position on the advisability of changing the status and, accordingly, the place of the adversarial system in the structure of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation from the "industry-wide principle" to the "general condition of the trial".

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document