scholarly journals Criminal Liability for Knowingly Unlawful Sentence, Decision or Other Judicial Act

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 93-102
Author(s):  
Pavel Metelsky ◽  
Nadezhda Verchenko

Introduction. The publication is devoted to the corpus delicti, provided for by Art. 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which, being, in fact, a special type of official abuse, stands out as the direct object of a criminal assault and a special subject, since it can be committed exclusively by professional judges. The main features of the objective and subjective parties, qualifying signs of the offense are revealed, some problems that arise when applying this criminal law are outlined. Purpose. The goal is to analyze the design features of the crime and issues that arise when applying this rule. Methodology. The method of a formal legal analysis of the norms of the criminal law and theoretical provisions on problems directly related to the application of this rule was used. Results. The public danger of a criminal act that undermines the very foundations of justice is obvious, in connection with which it stands out as an independent crime by all the Russian Criminal Codes, starting in 1922, the history of criminal responsibility for its commission can be traced in our country in general since the 16th century. The current criminal law prohibition is characterized by considerable complexity, due to both the blanket nature of the disposition of the norm itself and the presence of discrepancies in the understanding of the signs embodied in it. Conclusion. The implementation of criminal liability for this crime involves the establishment of not only circumstances directly related to the corpus delicti that lie in the criminal law field. The subject of an infringement, a judicial act, must be subjected to procedural review without fail, after which, subject to the consent of the Higher Qualification Collegium of Judges of the Russian Federation, in fact, and the mechanism of criminal prosecution is “launched”. That is, a truly “multi-way” combination of actions is necessary, carried out in several stages, and the problem itself to some extent becomes interdisciplinary, going beyond only criminal law.

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-366
Author(s):  
Elena Kalashnikova

The article is devoted to theoretical justification for the introduction of criminal prohibitions on criminal assault in the illicit movement of goods, specified in article 226-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; the principles and bases of criminalization of smuggling in connection with her increased public danger. The analysis of the main components of social conditionality of criminal responsibility allows us to establish the validity of the introduction of new or existing criminal law norms. The article considers the public danger of smuggling (art. 226-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as an obligatory sign of a crime, revealing its social nature and social conditionality of the criminal liability under article 226-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, depending on the extent and nature of public danger of the given kind of crimes. The social assessment of an act as a crime is based on its social danger, which is legally established in a normative legal act (Federal law) adopted in accordance with the established procedure and included in the criminal code of the Russian Federation. Attention is drawn to the fact that the public danger of smuggling is a threat to the foreign economic security of Russia. At the same time, there is a public danger of illegal movement across the customs border of the EEU (the customs border of the Customs Union within the framework of the EEU) of items specified in art. 226-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is primarily concerned with causing harm to market economic relations developing in the EEU area, which forms a single customs territory, as well as causing material damage to the state in the form of unpaid customs payments, death or damage to particularly valuable wild animals and aquatic biological resources as contraband items. Smuggling as a negative social phenomenon includes the organization of activities related to violation of the customs and border regime. In the context of globalization and the development of market relations, smuggling is still the most common and most dangerous of customs crimes. Accordingly, the existence of a criminal law ban on its Commission remains socially conditioned, since it is a deterrent that allows the state to respond adequately to these types of criminal behavior.


Author(s):  
A. A. Kashkarov ◽  
D. A. Poshtaruk

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.


Author(s):  
Kirill Alekseevich Berchanskiy

The subject of this research is the legal norms that regulate the procedure of determining priority of patients (triage) in the Russian Federation, as well as the grounds for bringing to criminal responsibility of the representatives of medical profession for causing death during this process. The object of this research is the social relations arising in terms of prioritizing  treatment  of patients under the circumstances of severe shortage of medical resources, namely in case of mass infection. Analysis is conducted on the established by Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation conditions that exclude criminal nature of the act. The conclusion is made that on their inapplicability in similar circumstances. The author examines the nature of the process of medical sorting  – allocation of patients according to certain characteristics and order of their treatment, regulatory norms, as well as analyzes  the trends in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the fact that the Russian criminal law science does not feature special research dedicated to triage, the article provides a brief overview of the works of foreign legal scholars along with similar positions of national scholars, as well as determines the circumstances that affect the criminal nature of patient's death that takes place in the conditions of severe shortage of resources. The novelty lies in the cross-sectional study of the norms of Russian criminal law and the corresponding norms of medical law, based on which the author develops solution to the problem that did not previously receive due coverage in the Russian science. The author answers the question regarding criminal responsibility for the death of one of the two patients when it is not feasible to provide simultaneous medical treatment to both. It also The article also describes potential amendments to the sectoral medical legislation for the purpose of consolidation of legal status of medical professionals, protect their rights from unsubstantiated criminal prosecution,  protect rights of the patients, and maintain ethical well-being of medical profession.


Author(s):  
Andrey V. Arkhipov ◽  
◽  

The article examines the history of the emergence and development of Russian legislation on criminal liability for fraud. It is noted that for the first time fraud is mentioned in the legal acts of the second half of the 16th century - the Codes of Justice of Tsars Ivan IV and Fyodor Ioannovich. Initially, fraud was most often understood as a deft but petty theft, in which de-ception was used to facilitate its commission. The understanding of fraud as the theft of other people's property, committed by deception, began to be formed only in the second half of the 18th century with the publication on April 3, 1781 by Empress Catherine II of the Decree "On the court and punishments for theft of different kinds and the establishment of working houses in all the gubernias." In the 19th century, the clarifying process of the content of the term "fraud" continued. It was reflected in the first codified criminal laws of the Russian Empire - Code of crimi-nal and corrective penalties of Russia of 1845 and the Charter on Punishments imposed by the justices of the peace of 1864. A significant contribution to the development of the Russian criminal law on liability for fraud was made by a group of legal scholars involved in the de-velopment of the Criminal Code of the Russian Empire, in which the whole Chapter 33 (Arti-cles 591-598) contained the rules on liability for fraud. Although the 1903 Criminal Code was not fully enacted, it had a significant impact on the formation of criminal law on liability for fraud in subsequent regulations. During the Soviet period, the legislation on the responsibility for fraud continued to develop. For the first time, abuse of trust was mentioned as a method of crime, along with deception. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the adoption in 1993 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law 10 of 01.07.1994 made signifi-cant changes to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1960 that served as the basis for the system of crimes against property in modern Russia.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (12-3) ◽  
pp. 230-234
Author(s):  
Natalia Martynenko ◽  
Anatoly Maydykov

The article analyzes the ideas of the Russian scientist in the field of criminal law Ivan Yakovlevich Foinitsky (1847-1913) on the establishment of criminal liability for kidnapping. The influence of I.Y. Foinitsky's ideas on the modern concept of criminal law protection of a person from abduction is shown. It is concluded that the norm on responsibility for the abduction of a person existing in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, its location in the structure of the norms of the Special Part, in many respects includes the provisions laid down by I.Y Foinitsky.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (03) ◽  
pp. 259-264
Author(s):  
Viktor Shestak

This research proves the failure to address theoretically fundamental issues of robots' legal capacity and cyber security and as a result crudity of issues concerning criminal liability of robots for their actions. The proposals of a number of Spanish scientists on the possibility of non-proliferation of the sphere of criminal law on robots in connection with the existing possibility of criminal prosecution of legal entities in Spain have been worked out. In retrospect, the Spanish concepts of criminal responsibility of artificial intelligence were studied: their novels, shortcomings and problems of application in modern conditions were revealed.


10.12737/7254 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Оксана Макарова ◽  
Oksana Makarova

In recent years in our country the steady tendency to increase of authority of the state in the sphere of business and strengthening of economic security is observed. The state finds new opportunities of effective counteraction of crime in the economic sphere, including by means of liberalization and a humanization of the criminal legislation. Among the main acts aimed at the improvement of criminal law, can be called the Federal law of December 7, 2011 No. 420-FZ “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation” which provides the special basis of release from criminal liability for commission of crimes in the sphere of economic activity. The specified basis is fixed in the new Article 761 “Exemption from criminal liability in cases of crimes in the sphere of economic activity” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In the explanatory note to this document it is noted that “such addition of the criminal law is caused by the necessity of its further humanization and counteraction to abuses in the field of investigation of economic crimes”. In the article mentioned Article 761 thoroughly analyzed in conformity with the requirements of the legal techniques and modern economic realities. The special attention is paid to the conditions of release from criminal responsibility provided for in second part of Article 761, given their critical assessment. It seems to the author that the legislator, providing special possibility of the exemption from criminal liability in cases of crimes in the sphere of economic activity had departed from the constitutional principle of equality of citizens before the law and court, having allowed thereby an inequality between the persons who have committed a crime.


Author(s):  
Maksim Lapatnikov ◽  
Nikolay Letelkin

The issues of determining the essence of criminal liability as a central category of criminal law, its foundations, moments of emergence and termination are traditionally in the focus of legal science. But no less acute, it seems, is the question of the relationship between prosecution as an accused and criminal liability, as well as, in general, an analysis of the very concept of “bringing to criminal liability”. Addressing this topic, the presentation is relevant and necessary in order to analyze the theoretical and normative ideas about the above phenomena in the context of an adversarial model of justice, to which, based on federal sources (part 3 of article 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation; article 15 of the Criminal procedure code the Russian Federation is striving for our country The presented scientific article is the first part of the author’s research on this topic.


Author(s):  
V.E. Zvarygin ◽  
D.S. Nazarova

Illegal activities in the field of procurement of goods, works and services pose a threat not only to economic, but also to national security. The solution to this situation is possible only with an integrated approach, consisting not only in improving the efficiency of the regulatory authorities, but also in optimizing the current legislation. Article 107 of the Federal Law dated 05.04.2013 “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, work, services for the provision of state and municipal needs” provides the criminal liability of persons guilty of violating the laws of the Russian Federation and other regulatory legal acts on contract system in the field of procurement. However, until recently, the onset of criminal liability remained only “on paper”. The turning point in the criminal law regulation of relations in the field of public procurement was the year 2018, when federal laws were adopted that introduced amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by criminalizing illegal acts in this sphere of public relations. One of the controversial articles by the structure of the criminal law elements is Article 200.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which established criminal liability for giving a knowingly false expert opinion in the field of procurement of goods, works and services.


Author(s):  
E. V. Blagov

The article considers the reason, adequate cause, justifying exemption from criminal responsibility. In the criminal law literature there are numerous decisions on this issue, but their main body alone can not explain why a person is exempted from criminal responsibility. The author concludes that the basis for such liberation must be sought in the personality of the culprit. Under current criminal legislation, justifying the exemption from criminal responsibility can only be elimination or significant reduction in the public danger of the person who committed the crime. In the future, it is necessary to formulate the relevant provisions of the criminal law so that the basis for this exemption is only elimination of the public danger caused by the individual. Accordingly, Art. 76. 2 and part 1 of Art. 90 are subject to exclusion from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and, on the contrary, inclusion in the chapter on the exemption from criminal responsibility of the relevant provisions of Art. 80.1 and part 1 of Art. 81 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document