scholarly journals CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF SUBSUMPTION OF MALFEASANCE

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-69
Author(s):  
Evgeny Evgenyevich Zabuga
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Russian Federation

The subject. The article deals with subsumption of malfeasance, judicial characterization of such white-collar crimes.The purpose of the paper is to answer the question of admissibility of qualification of ho-mogeneous actions of a person according to two separate art. 285 and 286 of the Criminal Сode of the Russian Federation.The methodological basis of the research includes general-scientific methods (analysis and synthesis, system-structural approach) as well as academic methods (formal-legal method, method of interpretation of normative legal and judicial acts).Results and scope of application. Within the meaning of paragraph 15 of the Resolution of Plenum of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, it is absolutely clear that legal actions of an official, which were not caused by official necessity, must be qualified under art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.Not only legally, but even from the point of view of ordinary logic, the qualification of ho-mogeneous actions by different criminal law norms is unacceptable.Due to the fact that art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not a crime of corruption by its characteristics, art. 285 of the Сriminal Сode of the Russian Federation cannot be regarded as a special case of abuse of power.Conclusions. This is unacceptable to qualify the homogeneous actions of a person according to two separate articles – art. 285 and 286 – of the Criminal Сode of the Russian Federation. It is necessary to add the Resolution of Plenum of Russian Supreme Court from October 16, 2009, No. 19 by the provisions more specifically delimiting qualification of malfeasance crimes according to art. 285 and 286 of the Criminal Сode of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals COMPETENCE OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENTS: DEBATABLE ISSUES

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 117-128
Author(s):  
Yury Blagov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Material Resources ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
History Of ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Russian Federation

Subject. The article is devoted to the discussion issues of competence of local self-government.The purpose of this paper is to show that the federal government passes such laws in order to build a single “power vertical” from a rural settlement to a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and above, since from his point of view it is easier to carry out public administration.The methodology. The author uses a dialectical method, a method of analysis and synthesis, a formal legal method, a comparative legal method.Results, scope of application. The competence of local self-government bodies consists of two parts: compulsory competence and optional competence. The compulsory competence includes issues of local importance of municipalities and certain transferred state powers. The optional competence of local self-government bodies includes the rights of local self-government bodies to resolve issues not related to issues of local importance of municipalities and other issues not within the competence of local government bodies and not excluded from their competence by federal and regional legislatures. Certain transferred state powers should not prevail over the powers related to the solution of issues of local importance and determine the functional purpose of local self-government bodies as such. It can be assumed that by their nature they should be related to the immediate interests of the local population.The rights of local self-government bodies to resolve issues not related to issues of local importance of municipalities are neither issues of local significance nor transferred by separate state powers. The meaning of their consolidation in Federal Law No. 131-FZ is to transfer to the local self-government authorities of powers which the state authorities cannot perform, but without the transfer of the corresponding material resources and financial resources that local governments should seek independently. The author offers his own solutions of this problem.The author criticizes the institution of redistribution of powers, since this institution contradicts the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the European Charter of Local Self-Government and comes to the conclusion that the issues of local importance of different types of municipalities overlap, as well as duplicate part of the powers of state authorities of the subjects of the Russian FederationConclusion. The new attempt to build a single vertical of power, which has been repeatedly undertaken in the history of Russia, is doomed to failure with all the ensuing consequences, especially acute during the economic crisis.

scholarly journals Criminal liability for illegal implementation of medical and pharmaceutical activity: comparative analysis of legislation of the post-Soviet states

2021 ◽  
pp. 35-45
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Dmitrievna Sungurova
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Pharmaceutical Activity ◽  
The Russian Federation

The goal of this research consists in comparison of the normative legal acts that regulate the questions of criminal liability for illegal implementation of medical and pharmaceutical activity in Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and the Russian Federation. The article employs the general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, generalization. For identification of differences in the content of the corresponding legal norms, the author applies the comparative legal method, which consists in comparative analysis of the normative legal acts of the post-Soviet states. The research materials contain the norms of criminal law, as well as normative legal acts in the sphere of licensing. The novelty of this work consists in the fact that pursuit of ways to improve the national criminal law, the author assesses the possibilities of reception of certain provisions of the foreign legislation. The article explores the approaches towards systematization of crimes for illegal conduct of medical and pharmaceutical activity in the Criminal Code. The conclusion is made on the three approaches of the legislators towards establishment of origin of the object of crime. Analysis is performed on the current state of the practice of constructing criminal law sanctions of the norms on liability for illegal implementation of medical and pharmaceutical activity. The common feature of the Russian, Belarusian, Armenian, Kazakh, Azerbaijani, and Kyrgyz law consists in imposition of a fine as the basic punishment. The size of penalties are compared. It is proposed to expand the sanction of the Article 235 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with an additional penalty in form of revocation of right to hold a certain post or conduct a particular activity for a certain period of time.

scholarly journals Points at Issue With the Definition of Forgery (the Case Study of Article 326 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Evgeniy Mikhailovich Trubin ◽  
Stanislav Igorevich Golubev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Single Point ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Analysis System ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
State Registration

The object of the research is the definition of forgery as it is used by the legislation, in particular, in Article 326 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors see the following problems: no legal definition, no single point of view in the doctrine of criminal law and incoordinations with other terms used in law. The wording 'forgery or counterfeiting state registration sign' used in Article 326 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation makes the situation even more complicated. Thus, the subject of this research is different doctrinal interpretations of the term 'forgery' and judicial practice. The methodological framework of the research covers such methods as analysis and synthesis, comparative law analysis, system-structured and formal law approaches, theoretical prognistic method and interpretation of legal provisions. The novelty of the research is caused by the fact that the author offer their own definition of the term 'forgery' and concludes that forgery and forgery documents/items are compatible and intersecting terms. The authors also conclude what criteria of truth and authenticity can be used to describe items/documents as forgery-counterfeiting, forgery but not counterfeiting and counterfeiting but not forgery. They also make recommendations on what amendments should be made in the applicable law. 

scholarly journals Problems of Applying Special Grounds for Exemption from Criminal Liability for Kidnapping

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana Bersh ◽  
Anna Khristyuk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Practical Interest ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Mere Presence ◽  
The Russian Federation

Despite the positive attitude towards the presence of compromise norms in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, containing the possibility of exemption from criminal liability for a committed crime, their mere presence seems insufficient. It is important to introduce a mechanism for the functioning of the norms, which will describe in detail all the stages necessary for their application. The article discusses controversial issues of insufficient legislative regulation of exemption from criminal liability on the basis of the application of a note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The opinions of scientists concerning the application of special grounds for exemption from criminal liability for kidnapping are generalized, the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding the understanding of the term “voluntary release of the kidnapped” is considered. A number of controversial issues that have not been taken into account by the legislator, which require mandatory regulation, are cited. The article examines the existing judicial practice of applying the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A lack of uniformity in the law enforcement activities of the judiciary was revealed. Supplements are proposed to the new resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 24, 2019 No. 58 to increase the effectiveness of the application of the considered grounds for exemption from criminal liability. As a result, a proposal was put forward that is aimed at improving the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The issues raised in the article are of scientific and practical interest.

scholarly journals Тhe institute of confiscation of property in Russian criminal law. Lessons of combating proceeds of crime in the assessment of the Supreme Сourt of the Russian Federation

2018 ◽  
pp. 22-30
Author(s):  
Yu. K. Krasnov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Plenary Session ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

Introduction. May and June 2018 saw intensi­fied discussions in Russia around the issue of confis­cation of property obtained by criminal means. These discussions arose after several initiatives of legisla­tors who advocated the strengthening of the role of this institution of criminal law in the legal practice in Russia and after the Supreme Court of the Rus­sian Federation summarized the experience of the use of confiscation in the practice of Russian courts and formulated some recommendations for the courts in the decision of the plenary session of June the 14th .  Materials and methods. The article uses a number of research methods and techniques to ana­lyze the problem such as analysis that allows isolat­ing the trends in the development of the institution of confiscation; comparison which allows evaluating homogeneous processes at different stages of the in­stitute of confiscation of property acquired by crimi­nal means, and generalization which is necessary to summarize the results of the research.  Research results. The use of the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means in the legal practice of Russia has passed several stages. The modern stage began after the institution was restored in the criminal code of the Russian Fed­eration by the Federal law of July 27, 2006 № 153FZ and section VI of the Criminal Code was supple­mented by Chapter 15.1 “Confiscation of property”. This Chapter contains the legislative definition of the confiscation of property (article 104.1 of the Crimi­nal Code) and an indication of the subject of confis­cation, its types and conditions.  Based on the decisions of the plenums of the Su­preme Court of the Russian Federation the article analyzes the practice of this institution in the activi­ties of Russian courts. 12 years of experience in the application of Chapter 15.1 of the Criminal Code, showed that, despite the repeated explanations of the Supreme Court, which dealt with individual crimes, some of the controversial issues remained unre­solved. In this regard the Plenum of the Supreme Court introduced a number of proposals to improve the legal framework of this institution in the draft Resolution.  On June 14th , 2018 the next plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ad­opted a new detailed resolution on the practice of application of Chapter 15.1 of the Criminal Code and proposed detailed recommendations to improve the application of the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means in the Russian Federation, which are considered and commented on in the article.  Discussion and conclusion. Legal literature discussed the innovations in the Russian legislation related to the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means caused in a very active mode. The views of the authors of articles on this is­sue can be divided into two parts with each havinga lot of supporters. According to the first of them the new place of confiscation of property among the mea­sures of criminal law is justified.  Supporters of the opposite point of view sup­port the exclusion confiscation of property from the system of measures of criminal law as they believe that the legal nature of the confiscation of property belongs to a form of criminal punishment. This is the opinion of the judges. Two-thirds of the judges believe that the confiscation of property should be considered as an additional form of punishment.

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 A New Kind of Exemption from Criminal Responsibility: the Theoretical, Legislative and Enforcement Aspects

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-166
Author(s):  
N A Egorova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Difference

Questions about the place of norms about exemption from criminal responsibility with the appointment of a judicial fine in the system of criminal law institutions, the difference of judicial fine from other criminal law measures, the grounds for exemption from criminal responsibility under article 76.2 of the Criminal code, and the appointment of a judicial fine are considered. It is stated that the basis of a judicial fine may only be established by court fact of the crime of a certain category, therefore it is difficult to explain the appointment of this measure to a person suspected of committing a crime; the purpose of restoring social justice when releasing from criminal responsibility with the appointment of a judicial fine is not achieved. A critical analysis of the resolution of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from June 27, 2013 No. 19 «About application by courts of the legislation regulating the grounds and procedure of exemption from criminal responsibility» (new edition) in the explanation concerning the mentioned exemption from criminal responsibility is done. It is concluded that the appearance of the considered norms in the Russian criminal law reflects not only the search of more flexible methods of criminal law impact and new criminal law measures, but also about the failure of the state and society in solving the problem of crime prevention. Legal regulation of judicial fine in the future should be more detailed, the scope of application of article 76.2 of the Criminal code is narrower, and the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation should pay more attention to the interpretation of article 76.2, 104.4 and 104.5 of the Criminal code.

scholarly journals System of offences associated with securities fraud in the Russian Federation (Part 2)

2021 ◽  
pp. 13-21
Author(s):  
Elina Leonidovna Sidorenko ◽  
Ekaterina Aleksandrovna Khalizeva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Securities Fraud ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
System Operator ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
State Registration

This article is a sequence of research conducted by the authors on the topic of offences related to digital securities fraud (Part 2). It completes the design of the system of such offences, determining the “subsystem” that considers the economic nature of the Central Securities Depository. For this purpose, analysis is conducted on the articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that form the system of offences related associated with the fraud of non-digital securities (Articles 185-186) from the perspective of their applicability to digital securities and peculiarities of such application. The research is based on the systemic approach, comparative-legal method, logical techniques of analysis and synthesis of information, as well as the method of deduction. The authors conclude on applicability of the Articles 185, 185.1, 185.2 and 185.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to unlawful acts related to digital securities, taking into account the specificity of their legal regulation, namely the absence of necessity of state registration of stocks in the form of digital financial assets, the registration of rights to central securities depository by the information system operator that issued them, etc. Summarizing the results of this research with the results acquired in the Part I, the authors form the system of offences associated with the digital securities fraud, which includes the aforementioned elements, as well as the elements stipulated in the Article 187.1 “Organization of illegal trafficking of digital Rights” of the Draft Federal Law “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation”. The Russian legal science unfortunately does not give due attention to examination of this problem, and such system is developed for the first time. The authors anchor hopes that the system of offenses they have designed would be effectively used in the law enforcement practice in the context of classification of unlawful action associated with central securities depository.

scholarly journals Administrative oversight: improving compliance practices

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 03001
Author(s):  
Aleksander Nikolaevich Varygin ◽  
Irina Alekseevna Efremova ◽  
Vladimir Gennadievich Gromov ◽  
Pavel Anatolievich Matushkin ◽  
Anastasia Mikhailovna Shuvalova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Treatment ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Administrative Supervision ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
General Scientific ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Oversight

The main purpose of the research is to determine the goals, objectives and functions of administrative supervision and develop proposals for improving the legislation of the Russian Federation regulating issues related to the implementation of administrative supervision. Research methods: general scientific methods (analysis and synthesis, logical methods) and private scientific methods of cognition (formally-legally, specifically-sociological etc.). Outcome: the author’s version of the administrative supervision goals and objectives set out in the regulatory documents of the Russian Federation is proposed: 1. Administrative supervision is established to prevent the commission of crimes and other offences by persons. 2. The administrative supervision focuses on implementation by the internal affairs bodies of supervision over the observance by supervised persons of temporary restrictions on their rights and freedoms, as well as over the fulfillment of their duties stipulated by the related federal law; identification of violations by those under the supervision and taking measures in accordance with the law; individual preventive treatment of such persons. The novelty of the study is due to an integrated approach to the research into the goals, objectives and functions of administrative supervision and the developed proposals for improving the Russian legislation regulating issues in that area.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document