ARTICLES OF THE CRIMINAL LEGISLATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION CONCERNING ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES FOR HUMAN HEALTH AND LIFE

2021 ◽  
pp. 20-26
Author(s):  
Bozhchenko A.P. ◽  
Ismailov M.T. ◽  
Gomon A.A. ◽  
Griga E.S. ◽  
Khrustaleva Yu.A.
Keyword(s):  
Human Health ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Health It ◽  
Original Definition ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article is devoted to the analysis of the current criminal legislation of the Russian Federation in relation to crimes that provide for liability for causing harm to human health, in order to improve expert and legal tools for determining adverse consequences for human health and life. Research material: the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and its comments. Research methods: selection and fixation of information, grouping of data, comparison, analysis and generalization of the identified patterns. As a result of the conducted research, a complete list of articles providing for liability for causing serious (51 in total), moderate (30) and minor harm to health (27) was determined. There are articles in which the severity of the harm to health is not specified (10) or the vague term "significant harm" is used (1). A number of articles (26) have been identified, in which the term "harm to health" is used instead of the term "violence", which is specified in the Decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or comments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as "harm to health". It is concluded that the concept of harm to health formed in the criminal legislation is broader than the one established in forensic medicine. In the current legislation, there is an abundance and heterogeneity of terms used to describe independent types of adverse effects on human health and life. Unification of the concept of harm caused to human health is required. An original definition of this concept is proposed.

scholarly journals On the Appropriateness of the Use of the Term “Inducement” in Article 2301 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-444
Author(s):  
A. V. Syntin
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Medical Personnel ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The problem of prohibited substances (methods) abuse in sport has existed for quite a long time. On the one hand, by criminalizing certain anti-doping rules violations, legislation expanded the liability limits of coaches, sports medical personnel, and of other specialists in the field of sports, which can be regarded positively. On the other hand, it made certain mistakes which impeded the effectiveness of these laws enforcement. Among other things, there is a problem with definition of the term “inducement”. The term itself is defined in the note to article 2301 of the Russian Federation Criminal Code, but there is a controversy in demarcation of inducement. methods. While deception, the use of violence and instructions as inducement methods are socially dangerous at substantial level and can be regarded as methods of committing the crime, the provision of information or the prohibited substances themselves (means of using methods) cannot be regarded as methods of committing the crime. Such a definition of inducement means also leads to contradictions with the corpus delicti under Article 2302 of the Russian Federation Criminal Code. In addition, there are also different interpretations regarding the methods of inducement, coercion, involvement in the other corpus delicti, which, all together with the lack of a unified interpretation of the terms affects the possibility of bringing the guilty persons, especially coaches, sports medical personnel and other specialists in the field of sports, to criminal responsibility. The survey conducted among lawyers also has revealed difficulties in distinguishing these terms in practice. Based on the criminal legislation analysis, the author comes to the conclusion that the amendments in the Russian Federation Criminal Code are necessary.

scholarly journals Features of Mental Elements of Bribery Facilitation

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vadim Zamaraev
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Factors ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article provides a description of relevant features of the mental elements of the crime regulated by Article 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The paper also examines the general actor of the specific corruption act by applying a criminological approach and analyzing the empirical base for this category of criminal encroachment. The author researches the "physical" and "intellectual" bribery facilitation ways defined in the literature. Detailed attention is paid to optional features of the mental elements of mediation in bribery, such as: "motive" and "purpose" of the crime. The author proposes his definition of the mental elements of mediation in bribery, and provides the list of the social factors that influence the commission of a crime under Articles 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation having studied law enforcement practice and interviewed representatives of the general population of the Russian Federation. The results of this study can be used for further improvement of the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation, in terms of amendments and additions to the qualifying factors of bribery facilitation and the introduction of appropriate explanations in the current resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 24 of 09 July 2013 "On judicial practice in cases of bribery and other corruption-related crimes".

Criminal-Legal Characteristics of Encroachment on the Health, Personal Integrity, Honor and Dignity of a Representative of the Authorities

2021 ◽  
pp. 96-103
Author(s):  
N. Yu. Borzunova ◽  
O. S. Matorina ◽  
E. P. Letunova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Personal Integrity ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The authors of the article consider the criminal- legal characteristics of crimes against representatives of the authorities, in particular, encroachment with the purpose of causing harm to the health, personal integrity, honor and dignity of a representative of the authorities. The definition of the term “representative of the authorities”is given. The main characteristics of a representative of the government are analyzed. Statistical data on the number of convictions and types of punishments in accordance with the provisions of articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 318, 319) are summarized. Examples of judicial practice are considered. The ways of improving the criminal legislation are proposed.

scholarly journals The Potential of Criminal Law in Protecting Labor Rights of Citizens (Using the Example of Article 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 836-844
Author(s):  
Michail Sagandykov ◽  
Galia Shafikova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Theoretical Research ◽  
Labor Rights ◽  
Labor Legislation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The relevance of the study is based, on the one hand, on high public danger of crimes in the sphere of labor relations and, on the other hand, on a very low interest of law enforcement, control and supervision bodies in these crimes. The authors show that modern criminal legislation in the sphere of protecting labor rights has a high potential in comparison with both Soviet and foreign criminal law norms. At the same time, this potential, primarily expressed in Chapter 19 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, remains untapped. Many norms, including Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation «Violating the Equality of Rights and Freedoms of Man and Citizen», are virtually never used against discrimination in the labor sphere, although such discrimination is quite common. No such cases have been found in court statistical data, thus it is impossible to provide a comprehensive criminological description of these crimes. The norm of Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is seldom used by law enforcers because it is legally ambiguous. In this connection the authors suggest complementing the disposition of Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with such factors of discrimination as «age» and «marital status». The latter factor will make it possible to provide extra protection to pregnant women and women with children under three years old against unmotivated refusal of employment and firing. The authors argue that such actions of the employer should constitute an aggregate of crimes and should be punished simultaneously under Art. 136 and 145 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the authors think that it is not appropriate to make the disposition of Art. 136 a blanket one due to vague grounds for discrimination in special legislation, including labor legislation. The obtained results could be used for the improvement of Russian legislation based on theoretical research and the practice of law enforcement.

Limits of punishability of theft of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances

2019 ◽  
pp. 16-21
Author(s):  
Ольга Александровна Беларева
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Uniform System ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
Official Position ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Broad Interpretation ◽  
The One ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

В статье рассматриваются вопросы влияния формы хищения, его квалифицирующих признаков на определение законодателем пределов наказуемости хищения наркотических средств. Автор выделил некоторые недостатки, допущенные при конструировании уголовно-правовой нормы, предусматривающей ответственность за хищение наркотических средств. В статье рассмотрены некоторые конкретные ситуации, демонстрирующие парадоксальность решения законодателя отказаться от конкретизации форм хищения при квалификации по ст. 229 УК РФ и установить единую систему квалифицирующих признаков для всех способов изъятия наркотических средств. Критическую оценку получило расширительное толкование Верховным судом РФ квалифицирующего признака «с использованием служебного положения». С одной стороны, такое понимание данного признака ставит под сомнение возможность квалификации по ч. 1 ст. 229 УК РФ хищения наркотических средств в форме присвоения или растраты, поскольку сразу переводит на квалификацию по п. «в» ч. 2 ст. 229 УК РФ. С другой стороны, при таком подходе присвоение и растрата наркотических средств становятся более опасным хищением, чем открытый ненасильственный грабеж. Автор также отмечает, что возможности суда по учету степени общественной опасности хищения наркотических средств в форме разбоя существенно ограничены. Единые пределы наказуемости не позволяют в должной мере учесть признаки, повышающие степень опасности такого хищения. Автор приходит к выводу, что ст. 229 УК РФ нуждается в корректировке, как в части формулирования диспозиций, так и в части пересмотра санкций, с учетом существенно различающегося характера и степени общественной опасности предусмотренных в ней деяний. The article deals with the influence of the form of theft, its qualifying features on the determination by the legislator of the limits of punishability of theft of narcotic drugs. The author highlighted some shortcomings in the construction of criminal law, providing for liability for theft of drugs. The article deals with some specific situations that demonstrate the paradoxical decision of the legislator to refuse to specify the forms of theft in the qualification of Art. 229 of the Criminal Code and to establish a uniform system of qualifying signs for all seizures of narcotic drugs. Critical assessment received broad interpretation by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation qualifying feature “using official position”. On the one hand, this understanding of this feature casts doubt on the possibility of qualification under part 1 of article 229 of the criminal code of theft of drugs in the form of appropriation or embezzlement, as immediately translates to the qualification under pt. 2 of Art. 229 of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, with this approach, the appropriation and embezzlement of drugs become more dangerous theft than open nonviolent robbery. The author also notes that the court's ability to take into account the degree of public danger of theft of drugs in the form of robbery is significantly limited. Uniform limits of punishability do not allow to take into account properly the signs increasing degree of danger of such plunder. The analysis of questions of punishability of theft of narcotic drugs convinces that Art. 229 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation needs correction, both regarding formulation of dispositions, and regarding revision of sanctions, taking into account essentially differing character and degree of public danger of the acts provided in it.

Restoration of Social Justice as a Goal of Criminal Punishment

2021 ◽  
pp. 13-17
Author(s):  
Lev M. Prozumentov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
First Time

The restoration of social justice as the goal of criminal punishment has already been in the focus of attention, though the Russian criminal legislation has included it for the first time. The legislator has not defined what is meant by “restoring social justice”, although the term “justice” can be found in Part 1 of Art. 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in Clause 1 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of January 11, 2007 “On the practice of imposing criminal punishment by the courts of the Russian Federation”. This circumstance has led to an ambiguous interpretation of the term in research and practice. Some researchers do not distinguish the categories of goal and principle of social justice and consider the goal of restoring social justice through the principle contained in Art. 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. through the correspondence of punishment to the nature and degree of social danger of the crime. In criminal law, there are other approaches to this goal, which are analyzed in this article. The author concludes about the “utopian” character of this goal and its unattainability in real life.

Problems of Qualifying the Acquisition of Narcotic Substances on the Basis of Actus Reus

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 93-100
Author(s):  
E. Ju. Chetvertakova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Objective Side ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

The complex nature of the act of the illegal acquisition of narcotic substances, creates problems in determining the boundaries of the intrusion and determining the stage of the crime, which leads to a lack of uniformity in the application of the provisions of Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The purpose of this article is to identify the problems that arise during the qualification of illegal acquisition of narcotic drugs, and to suggest ways to solve them. Tasks: analysis of the concept of the acquisition of narcotic drugs, the establishment of signs that are part of the objective side of the encroachment, the definition of the boundaries of the objective element to differentiate the stages of the crime. The article is based on an analysis of criminal legislation, doctrinal provisions and judicial practice. The author concludes that the acquisition of a narcotic substances is an act as a result of which a person is able to possess, use and dispose of the drug at his own discretion. The moment of completion of the crime should be associated with the possibility of disposing of the drug received. The seizure of narcotic drugs from the purchaser in the course of law enforcement intelligence operations cannot be considered as a completed crime. When determining the initial stage of the actus reus, the method of committing the crime should be taken into account. The conclusion is substantiated that it is inadmissible to use by analogy the explanation of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the content of the sale of narcotic drugs when interpreting the sign of illegal acquisition.

scholarly journals Criminal infraction as a mean of differentiating criminal responsibility and punishment

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
pp. 62-67
Author(s):  
E. A. BABAYANTS ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

Discussions caused by the initiative of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the introduction of a new category of offenses – criminal infraction which can occupy an intermediate link between an administrative offense and a criminal offense – do not stop. The article reveals the concept of a criminal infraction, lists its main features, considers the feasibility of introducing this category into domestic criminal legislation. A brief analysis of the legislation of a number of foreign countries is also given, the possibility of applying such experience in Russian conditions is assessed. The conclusion is formulated that it is necessary to recognize as fair the arguments challenging the necessity of adopting the draft law in the form in which it was submitted for consideration by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Attention is drawn to the fact that in those countries where the category of criminal offense was introduced, a fundamental reform of the criminal legislation was required: a total revision of the norms of the existing criminal legislation or the adoption of a separate Code of criminal infractions (for example, in Kyrgyzstan). Based on this the draft law under consideration appears to be a half-measure, which will lead to the complication of the existing legal regulation. The most correct way to resolve the problem under consideration would be to reduce the number of minor offenses in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

scholarly journals ABOUT MATERIAL SIGN OF EMBEZZLEMENT

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 212-218
Author(s):  
V. V. Narodenko
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Literal Interpretation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Bank Accounts ◽  
Material Things ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article describes provisions which are in the first note to Article № 158 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation and also signs of embezzlement enshrined in criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. Literal interpretation of the specified provisions of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation leads to a conclusion that things having physical expression and sign of corporality can act as a subject of embezzlement. Meanwhile the author of the article criticizes provisions of the criminal law. The author states thesis that despite the instruction in the Criminal code of the Russian Federation on obligation of harm causing to the owner by embezzlement, not only things but also other property can be as a subject of specified criminal encroachment. The article also describes arguments about illegal withdrawal of separate non-material things. Analyzing judgments it is possible to say that practice interprets the first note to Article № 158 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation in broad. It is necessary to understand as property not only things but also other benefits, in particular, non-cash money on bank accounts, paperless securities. Thus, despite difficulties, illegal actions for withdrawal of specified benefits judicial and investigative practice are qualified as embezzlement. These conclusions can be extended to situations connected with illegal withdrawal of other objects which are property but without material expression. The author suggests changing the existing definition of «embezzlement» and replacing the concept "owner" with the uniformed term “possessor of a right”.

scholarly journals Malfeasances: features of law enforcement.

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-337
Author(s):  
M.P. Pronina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Assessment ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article deals with the problems of law enforcement in the group of malfeasances. Official crimes are most dangerous due to the fact that they undermine the prestige of the authorities and directly violate the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations. In this regard the legislator has established criminal liability for officials who abuse their functional duties. In particular the author studies the problems of qualification arising in the legal assessment of crimes enshrined in Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, due to the highest level of their blanketness and evaluativeness. Examples of judicial and investigative practice on competition issues of general and special rules are given. Difficulties are revealed in the legal assessment of the actions of officials when determining the signs of abuse of office, enshrined in Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Arguments are presented that are a clear demonstration of the fact that the solution to the identified problems of applying the norms of the criminal law lies in the plane of reducing the level of conflict of laws of criminal legislation. Practical proposals are being made to include amendments to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 09.07.2013 No. 24 “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and other corruption crimes” (clause 12.1) and Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 16.10.2009 No. 19 “On judicial practice in cases of abuse of office and abuse of office” (p. 21.1). The solution of the stated problems in the field of application of the norms of the criminal law consists in the development of a uniform practice of application of the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, reduction of the level of gaps in criminal legislation, the development of methodological and scientific recommendations with the participation of law enforcement officials and scientists, the preparation of draft laws and plenums of the Supreme Court aimed at elimination of gaps and gaps.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document