scholarly journals Theoretical Aspects of Differentiation of Criminal Liability for Taking Bribes

Author(s):  
Anna Aleksandrovna Amosova

The paper analyzes theoretical approaches to the differentiation of criminal liability for accepting a bribe. It also discusses the opinions of legal schol-ars, as well as the content of the current legislation as part of this study, taking into account all the changes made to it. The study notes that the im-provement of the norms of Chapter 30 of the Crimi-nal Code of the Russian Federation and the devel-opment of their system is associated with the ratifi-cation of a number of international treaties by the Russian Federation, but requires further adjustment, taking into account the principles of criminal law. The author concludes that the basis for the differen-tiation of criminal liability for accepting a bribe is the typical degree of public danger of the deed and the person who commits this criminal act. At the same time, the establishment of differentiated criminal liability is the sphere of activity of the legislator, and individualization is the sphere of activity of the law enforcement officer, which corresponds to the im-plementation of such fundamental principles of criminal law as fairness and humanism in the admin-istration of justice in criminal cases. Based on the results of the study, the author concludes the need to further improve the differentiation of criminal liability for accepting a bribe, in particular, the divi-sion of officials who have committed this crime, based on the nature of their official functions. The author considers it possible to take into account the consequences that have occurred or could have occurred as a result of a person receiving a bribe.

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 31-41
Author(s):  
DANILA ILIN ◽  

The article presents the results of a study of the problems of criminal legal assessment of criminal attacks on the health care system during the COVID-19 pandemic. The social background of such crime and its criminological characteristics are studied. Given the fact that most of criminal law, aimed at preventing crime, reducing the capacity of the state in the fight against novel coronavirus infection treated in depth by the legal and regulatory framework is impeding the spread of the pandemic COVID-19, and analyzed Federal laws, decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, decisions and orders of the Government of the Russian Federation, orders of the Ministry of health of Russia and other state bodies governing the functioning of public authorities, medical institutions and organizations, the rights and obligations of citizens and legal entities, this includes measures for the prevention of this disease in various areas of social life that are additionally regulated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The task of optimizing the criminal law provision of health care during the COVID-19 pandemic is formulated, taking into account the actual situation with the spread of this infection and the practice of countering it. As part of this task, based on a critical analysis of existing approaches in the science of criminal law, we formulate our own concept of crimes that infringe on the health system during the COVID-19 pandemic, characterize the problem, study their legal and social nature, and systematize such crimes. On the basis of the obtained data, a General description of crimes that encroach on the health system during the COVID-19 pandemic is given, their criminal-legal features are considered, theoretical approaches to determining their essence are studied, and the author's position on this issue is formulated. The author's classification of crimes that hinder the provision of health care during the COVID-19 pandemic is given. Groups of such crimes are consistently considered. A General description of their objective and subjective characteristics is given. Proposals for improving the interpretation of the relevant criminal law norms in science and law enforcement practice have been developed, and suggestions for their improvement have been substantiated and formulated. The article is addressed not only to scientists and practitioners of law enforcement agencies, but also to doctors who often work in conditions of a lack of legal knowledge about their rights and obligations, the qualification of certain acts from the point of view of criminal law, the grounds and limits of criminal liability for those that constitute a crime, and algorithms for actions in case of detection of such acts.


2020 ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Nadezhda Tydykova

The article discusses the concept of “change of situation” as the basis for release from punishment. The author adheres to the position of the need to use in the law only those concepts that are revealed through signs that are understandable to everyone. Article 80.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is examined as a norm that does not meet this criterion. The author claims that the content of this norm does not allow a clear idea of the content of the concept. As evidence, numerous examples from law enforcement practice are given, illustrating the inconsistancy of understanding the studied Institute of criminal law by investigative personnel and the judiciary. Each law enforcement officer, due to the lack of clear wording, is forced to interpret the norm independently, filling it with arbitrary content. This approach, of course, is unacceptable. Moreover, the interpretations often used are far from the main idea of the institution of release from punishment due to change in a situation and allow confusion or substitution of the term with other criminal law terms. In some cases, the courts consider it possible not to show specific circumstances at all, though they indicate a change in situation after the commission of the crime. Examples are given from practice where, instead of bringing arguments about change in situation, the law enforcement officer simply lists circumstances mitigating the punishment, names circumstances that should be taken into account when sentencing, names signs of active remorse or reconciliation with the victim. The author considers this state of affairs unacceptable and proposes, as alternative options for solving the problem, either introducing appropriate amendments to Article 80.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to clarify the concept, or rejecting this institution of criminal law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 35-44
Author(s):  
L. A. Shmarov ◽  

Based on the analysis of citizens’ claims against medical organizations, as well as on the basis of the analysis of the courts’ consideration of such claims, significant differences were found in the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage under various conditions related to both the condition of the victim of medical assistance rendered with defects and on the number of patients. It was shown that it is necessary to further accumulate material in order to obtain a more objective picture of satisfied claims and unification in the Russian Federation. Similar calculations can be carried out for other situations related to the possibility of causing moral harm, for example, disseminating information defaming the honor and dignity of a citizen, or compensating moral harm caused by unlawful actions of a law enforcement officer during criminal proceedings. Using the established average values, the court can, on the basis of established factual circumstances, calculate the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage in a particular case.


Author(s):  
Dmitry Ovchinnikov

Currently, the economic sector of public relations is characterized by exceptional criminality. One of the main phenomena responsible for this is illegal money cashing. Almost every business entity considers it acceptable and even necessary to resort to various criminal schemes for obtaining unaccounted cash and tax evasion. The very type of this crime has actually become a thriving and profitable business, which consists in providing services for withdrawing funds from legal circulation. While the existing judicial and investigative practice in the issue of countering this phenomenon has not yet developed a clear answer about the need for appropriate qualifications. There are about a dozen articles of the criminal law in which law enforcement officers try to find the correct legal assessment, and at present, article 172 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation “Illegal banking activities” deserves special attention.


2021 ◽  
Vol 234 (11) ◽  
pp. 12-15
Author(s):  
ANATOLY A. MEDVEDEV ◽  

The article discusses the issue of the execution of punishment in the form of restriction of freedom, problematic issues faced by a law enforcement officer. The purpose of the study is to identify problematic issues of the implementation of the restriction of freedom and to suggest possible ways of solving them. The methodological basis of the research was formed by the analysis, synthesis and formallogical methods. As a result of the work carried out, some problematic issues arising in the execution of restrictions on freedom have been studied, in particular, the calculation of the term of punishment, bringing the convicted person to criminal responsibility for committing a crime provided for in part 1 of Article 314 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The state of law enforcement in the issues under consideration is analyzed. As a result of the study, the need to amend the legislation of the Russian Federation for resolving the problematic issues indicated in the article has been substantiated. Key words: convict, punishment, restriction of freedom.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 214-222
Author(s):  
G. N. Kucherov

The paper discusses the issues of choosing the most effective model of criminal proceedings termination, analyzes the proposed in the scientific literature model of refusal of the discretion of the law enforcement officer when making an appropriate procedural decision. The author, based on the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, studies the relationship between the principle of justice and the legality of procedural decisions to terminate a criminal case and criminal prosecution. The author concludes that the discretionary model of legal regulation of a criminal case and criminal prosecution termination is an effective means of achieving the purpose of criminal proceedings, allowing the law enforcement officer to make a fair decision, given the nature, degree of social danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission, information about the identity of the person who committed the crime. Refusal of the discretion of the law enforcement officer in the matter of terminating a criminal case will not only not contribute to the humanization of legislation, but will mark the victory of formalism over justice in criminal proceedings.


Author(s):  
Ludmila Tarasova

The relevance of the problems of interpretation and enforcement of prosecution for failure to report the person (s) preparing, committing and committing the crimes provided for in the disposition of the norm and not prosecuting for failure to report the acts provided for by Article 205.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, provided there is no information about the person (persons) who committed it, contributes to the effectiveness of countering terrorism. Evaluating the generally positive norm of the Criminal Law provided for in Article 205.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is proposed to change the name to “Failure to report a terrorist crime”, which will eliminate discrepancies with the disposition of the norm; information about a committed or committed crime, listed in the disposition of this provision, fixing in the disposition of criminal liability for failure to report grave and especially grave crimes. It is recommended in the comments to the article to clarify the concepts:“reliable information”, “the source of information” and “the method of obtaining such information”.


Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 87-102
Author(s):  
D. A. Kokotova

The current version of part 2 of article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which appeared because of changes made to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1998, is rightly criticized for uncertainty. In the literature, various proposals are made to change the rules for determining the forms of guilt. The existing regulation needs adjusting, since it does not ensure the achievement of the initial goal of improving law enforcement, which was originally intended in part 2 of article 24, and does not comply with the principles of equality and legal certainty. The need to ensure compliance with these principles and achieve the original goal of the rule under consideration requires rejecting proposals to "legalize" the discretion of the law enforcement officer, the possibility of which arose due to the uncertainty of the current version of part 2 of article 24. Due to this uncertainty, compliance with the provisions of the Special part will not solve the existing problems. Unifying negligent crimes into a separate chapter, dividing the crimes in the existing chapters by paragraphs, depending on the form of guilt, is too difficult a way if we are talking about improving the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Clear automatic consolidation of the possibility of both forms of guilt does not provide the required differentiation of punishment.Restoring the original version of part 2 of article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is an acceptable and easiest way, but there is a reason to believe that the rule changed in this way will fail to ensure that the law enforcement officer follows it. The inclusion of a form of guilt clause in the description of each body of a crime might be an effective means of limiting the discretion of the law enforcement officer, but this method is difficult to implement. It combines the features of these two methods of fixing the rule in the form of a list of crimes involving a particular form of guilt, by analogy with how the age at which criminal responsibility begins is now established.


Author(s):  
Mihail Alaf'ev

Numerous changes in the criminal law associated with the emergence of new norms providing for responsibility for criminal liability inevitably raise the question of the validity of criminalization. Its positive solution is possible only if the new criminal law prohibition is established in accordance with the principles of criminalization, one of which is the relative prevalence of the act. The article is devoted to the assessment of the prevalence of petty bribery in order to determine the correctness of the legislative decision to establish independent criminal liability for this crime (Article 2912 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The main method of research is a statistical method that allows us to establish the prevalence of bribery in the amount not exceeding 10 thousand rubles at the time of the adoption of this legislative decision, and also during the period of validity of article 2912 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the share of the analyzed crime in the structure of bribery and corruption offences. In addition, the author analyzed 120 sentences of courts for petty bribery. As a result of the research, the author concludes that petty bribery is a fairly common offence in the structure of both bribery and corruption crimes, which indicates its public danger and the validity for the criminal prohibition of its commission. It was established that the establishment of a separate norm on liability for petty bribery allowed law enforcement agencies focusing the efforts to counteract bribery in the amount of more than 10 thousand rubles.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
pp. 96-101
Author(s):  
N. YU. SKRIPCHENKO ◽  

The article is devoted to the criminal law means of countering the illegal production and circulation of medicines, medical devices and dietary supplements. The importance of the pharmaceutical industry has increased in the face of the global pandemic of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19), and the demand for medicines has led to an increase in the turnover of counterfeit medicines and medical devices. Among the criminal law means that prevent the appearance of counterfeit and substandard medicines on the market, a special place is occupied by criminal repression, the possibilities of which have significantly expanded in recent years. So in 2014, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was supplemented with three articles providing for liability for the illegal production and circulation of counterfeit, substandard medicines and Сетевой научно-практический журнал частного и публичного права 97 Стратегическая роль фармацевтического производства определяется не только экономической привлекательностью выпускаемого продукта, спрос на который ежегодно растет в связи увеличением численности населения, повышением продолжительности жизни, популяризацией здорового образа жизни, но и его ведущей ролью при реализации мер, направленных на повышение рождаемости, сдерживание заболеваемости и снижение смертности. Ключевое значение фармацевтической отрасли стало заметным в условиях мировой пандемии COVID-19, вызываемой коронавирусом SARS-CoV-2. Слабый рост реальных доходов населения ориентирует потребителя на поиск более бюджетных лекарственных препаратов, снижая требовательность к их качеству. При этом подстегиваемый коронавирусной паникой растущий спрос на лекарственные средства и ослабление государственного контроля за фармрынком в форме разрешения онлайн-продаж безрецептурных препаратов через интернет-аптеки определяют увеличение оборота фальсифицированных лекарственных средств и медицинский изделий. Отмечая расширение нелегального рынка медицинских препаратов, который по масштабам сопоставим с оборотом наркотиков, представители уголовно-правовой науки обращают внимание на то, что в отличие от наркоторговли потребителем некачественного лекарства может стать любой, независимо от социального статуса и уровня доходов1 . При этом повышенная общественная опасность криминального оборота лекарственных препаратов определяется не только экономическими потерями государства, легальных производителей (которые несут и репутационный урон), потребителей, но и реальной угрозой не только здоровью, но и жизни человека (а с учетом масштабов и распространения – населения), поскольку применение подделок может не только стать непосредственной причиной наносимого вреда, но и повлечь нарушение схемы лечения, что особенно критично в случаях использования пациентами жизненно необходимых препаратов2. Среди средств, препятствующих появлению на рынке фальсифицированных и недоброкачественных медикаментов, особое место занимает уголовная репрессия, возможности которой в последние годы заметно увеличились. Так, Федеральным законом от 31.12.2014 № 532-ФЗ «О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные акты Российской Федерации в части противодействия обороту фальсифицированных, контрафактных, недоброкачественных и незарегистрированных лекарственных средств, медицинских изделий и фальсифицированных биологически активных добавок»3 УК РФ был дополнен тремя статьями, предусматривающими ответственность за незаконное производство лекарственных средств и медицинских изделий (ст. 235.1 УК РФ), обращение фальсифицированных, недоброкачественных и незарегистрированных лекарственных средств, медицинских изделий и оборот фальсифицированных биологически активных добавок (ст. 238.1 УК РФ) и подделку документов на лекарственные средства или медицинские изделия или упаковки лекарственных средств или медицинских изделий (ст. 327.2 УК РФ). До этого момента виновных в производстве недоброкачественных и фальсифицированных лекарств привлекали к ответственности по ст. 238 УК РФ «Производство, хранение, перевозка или сбыт товаров, не отвечающих требованиям безопасности», при этом подавляющее большинство уголовных дел прекращалось по нереабилитирующим основаниям, так как деяния, предусмотренные ч. 1 ст. 238 УК РФ, являются преступлениями небольшой medical devices, forgery of documents for medicines or medical devices (Articles 235.1, 238.1, 327.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The implementation of the new norms in practice posed the questions of not only differentiating the relevant acts from related and competing acts, but also defining the key features of the offenses for law enforcement officials. The article indicates certain provisions that require permission at the legislative level and clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document