scholarly journals Judicial fine: problems of substantive basis and law enforcement practice

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 154-163
Author(s):  
Alexandra V. Boyarskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Complex Analysis ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage ◽  
The One

The subject of the article is the grounds for exemption from criminal liability with the appointment of a judicial fine are being considered.The purpose of the article is to reveal the systemic links between Art. 76.2 and 75-76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as well as prospects of judicial fine in criminal law.The methodology of research includes methods of complex analysis, synthesis, as well as formal-logical, comparative legal and formal-legal methods.Results, scope of application. The author analyzes the practice of applying Art. 76.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on criminal cases concerning crimes with a formal composition, when the defendants did not make any compensation for damage or other reparation for damage caused by the criminal act.The author notes that the institution of release from criminal liability with the appointment of a judicial fine is controversial. On the one hand, it has positive aspects, as it directly and unambiguously aims at compensation for damage or other smoothing of the harm caused by the crime. Сriminal legislation of the Russian Federation should more actively provide for the interests of the victim.However, fine also has a number of shortcomings related to the contradictory nature of his normative definition. The institution in question does not have its own substantive legal basis, it is applied to the same range of cases as the grounds for exemption from criminal liability provided for in Art. 75, 76 and partially Art. 76.1 of the Criminal Code. Consequently, its appearance can make a system of measures that stimulate positive postcriminal behavior only more contradictory.The introduction of this institution can contribute to an increase in manifestations of corruption. Judicial fine is appointed only by the court, but the court to exercise its functions in this case does not have the ability to verify the truthfulness of the information on the participation of the accused in the committed crime. So, there is a risk of applying this institution to persons who should be brought to criminal responsibility.This institution is available primarily for wealthy suspects (accused persons) who are capable to reimburse the damage caused by crime immediately and, in addition, within the time limits established by the court to pay a judicial fine.Conclusions. The author comes to the conclusion that the exemption from criminal liability with the appointment of a judicial fine is a truncated form of active repentance.

PROPERTY-RESTORATION LINE IN DEPENALIZATION CRIMINAL POLICYOF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

2020 ◽  
pp. 17-22
Author(s):  
T. R. Sabitov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Monetary Compensation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage

The article analyzes the latest trends in Russian criminal policy related to its property-restoration focus. The author aims to emphasize the fact that criminal policy in Russia has significantly changed in its quality. The new rules on exemption from criminal liability increasingly emphasize receiving monetary compensation as a condition for such exemption. The articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are analyzed: on liability for non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, allowances and other payments; on exemption from criminal liability in connection with compensation for damage; on exemption from criminal liability with a fine; on liability for tax and other crimes. Considering the new criminal law norms on exemption from criminal liability, the author comes to the conclusion that these norms are increasingly contrary to the principle of personal responsibility, since the legislator increasingly proceeds from the task of restoring property interests than from the criterion of the presence or absence of public danger.

PROPERTY-RESTORATION LINE IN DEPENALIZATION CRIMINAL POLICYOF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

2020 ◽  
pp. 17-22
Author(s):  
T. R. Sabitov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Monetary Compensation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage

The article analyzes the latest trends in Russian criminal policy related to its property-restoration focus. The author aims to emphasize the fact that criminal policy in Russia has significantly changed in its quality. The new rules on exemption from criminal liability increasingly emphasize receiving monetary compensation as a condition for such exemption. The articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are analyzed: on liability for non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, allowances and other payments; on exemption from criminal liability in connection with compensation for damage; on exemption from criminal liability with a fine; on liability for tax and other crimes. Considering the new criminal law norms on exemption from criminal liability, the author comes to the conclusion that these norms are increasingly contrary to the principle of personal responsibility, since the legislator increasingly proceeds from the task of restoring property interests than from the criterion of the presence or absence of public danger.

scholarly journals Termination of a criminal case (criminal prosecution) as a result of voluntary compensation for damage caused by a crime in the russian criminal court legal proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3B) ◽  
pp. 645-651
Author(s):  
Artem Igorevich Neryakhin ◽  
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov ◽  
Vasily Dzhonovich Potapov ◽  
Denis N. Stacyuk ◽  
Tatiana Ivanovna Bondar
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage

The authors study the controversial issues of termination of a criminal case (criminal prosecution) on the condition of voluntary compensation for the damage caused by the crime by the suspect (accused) during the preliminary investigation. The thesis is proved that in Russian criminal proceedings the procedure for voluntary compensation for damage caused by a crime is quite clearly regulated, and if the suspect (accused) voluntarily compensated for the property damage caused, then their actions will be evaluated within the current legal framework, when the fact of compensation for damage creates grounds for exemption from criminal liability and termination of the criminal case (criminal prosecution) in accordance with Articles 75, 76, 761, 762 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 25, 251, 28, 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Differentiation of criminal liability depending on the signs of the subject of the composition of a transport crime

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Valeriy F. Lapshin
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Motor Vehicles ◽  
Direct Control ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Structural Methods

Subject of research: signs of the subject of the offenses under Art. 264 and 2641 of the Criminal Code of Russia (hereinafter the Criminal Code). Purpose of the study: formulation of proposals on the content of the category "subject of traffic crimes", depending on which a qualitative differentiation of responsibility for crimes involving the use of motor vehicles is ensured. List of methods and objects of research. To obtain the results of the research, the methods of cognition used in the humanities (legal) sciences were used. The method of content analysis was used in the study of the content of Art. 264, 2641, 109 and 118 of the Criminal Code, as well as Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 9, 2008 No. 25. The dialectical method was used in the study of opinions on the qualification of some transport crimes. Logical and systemic-structural methods were applied in the study of the typical degree of social danger of the criminal's personality. Conclusions based on the results of the study: 1) the subject of the offenses under Art. 264 and 2641 CC is special. It is determined on the basis of the existence of an official right to drive a vehicle and the corresponding obligation to comply with the relevant safety rules; 2) the instructor possesses the characteristics of a subject of corpus delicti of transport crimes in cases when he had a real opportunity to drive a training vehicle and (or) exercised direct control of it together with the student.

scholarly journals PROBLEMS OF CRIMINAL - LEGAL ASSESSMENT OF REHABILITATION NAZISM AS AN INTERNATIONAL CRIME

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 882-890
Author(s):  
V.V. Rovneyko
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Basic Concepts ◽  
Definition Of

The article deals with the problems of international law and criminal law related to the establishment of criminal liability for attempts to "rehabilitate Nazism" and the definition of signs of the corpus delicti for in Article 354 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In the article there are analyze correspondence of the signs of the corpus delicti by the nature and degree of crime public danger, and also concludes about necessary to conclude an international cooperation agreement for countering Nazism, adopt a national law defining the basic concepts and directions for such counteraction, as well as change the content of Article 354 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in order to bring the nature and degree of public danger into line with those that a crime against the peace and security of mankind should possess, and that the scope of application of this article in attempts to rehabilitate Nazism was not limited only to the content of the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which, for all its indisputable significance, is not the only one international and court act condemning the crimes of the Nazis and their accessories.

scholarly journals КВАЛИФИКАЦИЯ НАРУШЕНИЙ ТРЕБОВАНИЙ В ОБЛАСТИ ТРАНСПОРТНОЙ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ С УЧЁТОМ ОСОБЕННОСТЕЙ СУБЪЕКТИВНЫХ ПРИЗНАКОВ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЯ, ПРЕДУСМОТРЕННОГО СТАТЬЁЙ 2631 УК РФ

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-145
Author(s):  
Е.А. Князева
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Group ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Transport Infrastructure ◽  
Transport Safety ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

В представленной научной работе анализируются проблемы квалификации субъективных признаков статьи 2631 УК РФ. Установлено, что данная норма была изменена в части субъекта преступления, а именно – была введена уголовная ответственность за несоблюдение требований в области транспортной безопасности пассажирами и иными лицами, т.е. лицами, обладающими признаками общего субъекта преступления. В качестве квалифицированных признаков анализируемой нормы была введена уголовная ответственность за групповое совершение данного преступления при наличии неосторожной формы вины, а именно – группа лиц по предварительному сговору и организованная преступная группа. Мы считаем, что введение соучастия в такого рода преступлениях представляет серьёзную проблему для последующего применения статьи 2631 УК РФ на практике, поскольку квалифицировать в случае нарушений указанных в рассматриваемой нами норме специальных правил по указанным в частях третьей и четвёртой признакам будет практически невозможно. Нам видится, что основная проблема ответственности соучастников за нарушение требований в области транспортной безопасности со-стоит в необходимости установления двух важных моментов: 1) ограничение круга специальных субъектов анализируемого состава преступления и его отражение на ответственность других соучастников; 2) оценка уголовно-правовой характеристики роли субъекта и других соучастников преступления. Сделан вывод о том, что соучастие по исследуемой нами норме возможно лишь в тех случаях, когда исполнителем данного преступления является специальный субъект. Остальные лица подлежат уголовной ответственности как организатор, подстрекатель или пособ-ник. Полагаем, что следует исключить данные квалифицированные признаки из исследуемого нами состава и говорить о неосторожном сопричинении, а не о со-участии. Ключевые слова: квалификация, нарушение требований, неосторожное со-причинение, неосторожная форма вины, соучастие, субъективная сторона преступления, субъект преступления, транспортная безопасность, транспортная инфраструктура. The present research work analyzes the problems of qualifying the subjective characteristics of Article 2631 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It was established that this provision was changed in terms of the subject of the crime, namely, criminal liability was introduced for non-compliance with the requirements in the field of transport safety by passengers and other persons, i.e. persons possessing the characteristics of a common subject of a crime. As qualified features of the analyzed norm, criminal liability was introduced for the group commission of this crime in the presence of a careless form of guilt, namely, a group of persons by prior conspiracy and an organized criminal group. We believe that introduction of complicity in this type of crime is a serious problem for the subsequent application of Article 2631 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in practice, since it will be practically impossible to qualify in case of violations of the rules specified in the norm under consideration by the signs indicated in parts three and four. We see that the main problem of responsibility of accomplices for violation of requirements in the field of transport security is the need to establish two important points: 1) limiting the range of special subjects of the analyzed corpus delicti and its reflection on the responsibility of other accomplices; 2) assessment of the criminal law characteristics of the role of the subject and other accomplices in the crime. It is concluded that complicity according to the norm we are investigating is possible only in cases where the perpetrator of this crime is a special subject. The rest of the persons are subject to criminal liability as organizer, instigator or accomplice. We believe that it is necessary to exclude these qualified signs from the composition we are studying and talk about careless complicity, and not about complicity. Keywords: qualification, violation of requirements, careless submission, careless form of guilt, complicity, the subjective side of the crime, the subject of the crime, transport security, transport infrastructure.

scholarly journals On the construction of the purpose of punishment in criminal law

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-53
Author(s):  
S. A. Borovikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Special Part ◽  
Clear Guideline ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The One

The subject of consideration of this paper is the study of the purposes of punishment enshrined in article 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Attention is drawn to the similarities and differences in the approaches used to determining the purpose of criminal punishment in the laws of different countries and historical periods, the need for a critical assessment of the existing legislative decision. In the course of a comparative analysis the conclusion is formulated that the current version of the purposes of punishment in criminal law is overly broad, which creates the illusion of its achievement and in some cases the competition of its parts among themselves. So the first of those mentioned in article 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation the purpose of restoring social justice is a quality that should be inherent in punishment. The second of the purposes stated in the law – the correction of the convict – is one of several ways to achieve it. However the very purpose of the punishment is not to correct the convict. The third of these purposes – the prevention of crimes – is most consistent with the purpose of punishment, but it is quite lengthy and requires clarification. In addition it does not contain a clear focus on a person who can or has committed a crime. According to the results of the analysis it is proposed to carry out an adjustment of the purposes of criminal punishment in the law. The purpose of punishment should be one and have a common focus. In this regard it is proposed to define as the purpose of punishment – retention persons from committing crimes. The single and understandable purpose of punishment on the one hand will be a clear guideline in constructing the type and size of both the main and additional punishments in the sanctions of the articles of the Special Part, and on the other will allow the courts to choose the punishment that most corresponds to the intended result.

Resolution No. 48 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 26, 2019, “On the Practice of the Courts’ Application of Legislation on Liability for Tax Crimes”: An Analysis of the Main Novels

2021 ◽  
pp. 18-24
Author(s):  
Igor O. Tkachev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Current Version ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article provides a critical analysis of a number of provisions of the Resolution No. 48 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 26, 2019, “On the practice of the courts’ application of legislation on liability for tax crimes”. The author notes that the current version of the decree allows considering tax evasion as a formal crime. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation laid down the preconditions for classifying tax evasion as a continuing crime, which would significantly reduce the number of criminal cases terminated due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal liability. The author also draws attention to the refusal of the Supreme Court to define the category “concealment of funds or other property” for the purposes of applying Art. 199.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It is noted that such a refusal may lead to a broader interpretation by the courts of this criminal law norm.

QUALIFYING SIGNS GENERAL CHARACTERISTIC AND THEIR IMPORTANCE IN CORPUS DELICTI STRUCTURE PLANNING

2019 ◽  
pp. 66-75
Author(s):  
Mikhail Alekseyevich Avdeyev ◽  
Anastasiya Sergeyevna Shtrants
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
General Characteristic ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Dual Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One ◽  
Objective Side

We consider qualifying signs of the crime as one of the forms of differentiation of criminal liability, reflecting the qualitative characteristics of the criminal act. Also we analyze the doctrinal approaches to the two most controversial issues of the theory of criminal law concerning the nature and content of qualifying signs: their correlation with the circumstances aggravating the punishment, as well as a constructive connection with the corpus delicti. We draw a conclusion that such qualifying signs as the criminal law category have a dual nature. On the one hand, they are comparable to the aggravating circumstances listed in article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, on the other hand, they are expressed in the norms of the Special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as constructive signs of corpus delicti the strengthening of the level of criminal repression in relation to the basic composition of the relevant crime. In particular it is a constructive connection with the corpus delicti expresses the most popular in the literature classification of qualifying signs of the circumstances relating to: the object and the objective side, the subject and the subjective side of corpus delicti. We propose interpretation of the concept of qualifying signs, which are indicated by the circumstances, which is a constructive element of the corpus delicti, which indicate increased relative to the basic corpus delicti of public danger of the act and the identity of the person committing the act.

scholarly journals On exemption from criminal liability for unlawful restriction of competition (the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Evgen'evna Derevyagina
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The subject of this research is the notes to the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Article 14.32 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses; foreign antimonopoly legislation on exemption and mitigation of liability for cartels; decisions of the plenums of higher judicial instances of the Russian Federation regarding the grounds and procedure for exemption from liability for cartel agreements; draft of the federal law on introducing amendments to the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and antimonopoly practice on cartels. The article aims to examine the grounds for exemption from criminal liability for cartel agreements, including in comparative-legal and interdisciplinary aspects. The novelty of this research consists in establishing extension of the grounds for exemption from liability in the Russian legislation to all cartel participants (unlike foreign legislation, according to which the cartel facilitator is not exempt from liability). This article is firs to provide interpretation to scantily studied questions of the procedure for realization of the conditions of exemption from criminal liability: the instance, when the cartel participant is still able to declare the restriction of competition to law enforcement agencies, and other measures of reparation of the inflicted damage. The author proposes a method for unification of the the grounds for exemption from liability stipulated by the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Article 14.32 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses. The acquired results can be applied in the activity of law enforcement agencies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document