scholarly journals Comparative legal characteristics of some tax crimes in the Republic of Kazakhstan and Ukraine

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-215
Author(s):  
Dmytro Sanakoiev ◽  
Bagdat Seitov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
The State ◽  
Economic Crime ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Economic Opportunities ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Criminal Legislation

In this paper, the author’s conducted a comparative legal analysis of a number of tax crimes under the criminal legislation of Kazakhstan and Ukraine. The authors note that in contrast to general crime, the feature of tax crimes is their high latency, expanding the means of their implementation, which increases public danger and the effectiveness of combating them, affects the state of economic security, reducing economic opportunities due to lack of public funds. . The study of the systemic links between tax crimes remains a relevant area of research, as it is their understanding as a component of economic crime that opens up effective ways to ensure economic security. In contrast to general criminal crimes, the features of tax crimes are their high latency, the variety of ways to commit them, which increases the public danger and the effectiveness of countering them, affects the state of economic security, reducing the economic opportunities of society due to the non-receipt of funds for state needs in the budget. The study of the systemic links of tax crimes remains an urgent area of scientific research, since it is their understanding as a component of economic crime that opens up effective ways to ensure economic security. The peculiarities of bringing a person to criminal responsibility and release from it under the conditions of compromise have been studied. The authors came to the conclusion that today it is impossible to talk about the existence of a single approach to the issue of illegal actions in the field of taxation, which would require bringing the perpetrator to justice. The author’s believes that to protect the economy and ensure economic security of the States adequate replenishment of the budget at the expense of tax revenues further modernization of the criminal law and offers the author's articles 244, 245 of the Criminal code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

scholarly journals Social Conditionality of Criminal Liability for a Crime Under Art. 226-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-366
Author(s):  
Elena Kalashnikova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
The State ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Russian Federation

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

scholarly journals Public Interest Opposite the Freedom of Contractual Will in Administrative Contracts in the Republic of Albania

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (s2) ◽  
pp. 37-48
Author(s):  
Artan Spahiu
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The State ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Administrative Contract ◽  
The Public ◽  
General Arrangement ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
The Republic

Abstract The protection of the public interest is the main principle governing the activity regulation of the administrative bodies. This activity, traditionally, has been developed through administrative acts, as an expression of the unilateral and authoritarian willpower of public authority, which creates legal consequences. The administrative act has been and remains the most important instrument for the administration bodies to accomplish their mission, but it is no longer effective. Particularly this lack of efficiency is noticed in recent years when the development of the economy and the needs of the evergrowing society have prompted the administration to adapt its activity by making use of other mechanisms “borrowed” from private law. An important part of public activity can also be achieved through the contract as a way that brings the state closer to the private, mitigating its dominant position and leaving space for the efficiency of private activity to fulfil public engagements. Such contracts today are known as “administrative contracts” or “public contracts”. The terms mentioned above are instruments that establish legal relations, for the regulation of which the principle of public interest is opposed and competes with the principle of freedom of the contractual willpower. The regulation of these types of contracts is reached through the private law, which constitutes the general normative framework of contracts (lex generalis) even for the administrative contracts. But this general arrangement will have effect for as long as it does not contradict the imperative provisions of the specific act of public law (lex specialis), which regulates the administrative procedure for the completion of these contracts. This paper aims to bring to the spotlight the way our legislation predict and regulates administrative contracts, by emphasising particularly the features of their dualistic nature. The coexistence and competition of the principles of the freedom of contractual willpower and the protection of the public interest, evidenced in administrative contracts, is presented in this paper through the legal analysis of the Albanian legal framework which regulates these contracts. Under the terms when the role of the state in providing public services tends to increase and our legislation aims the harmonization in accord with the European legislation, it is necessary to improve the administrative contract regulation and extend its scope of action.

scholarly journals CRIMINAL LEGISLATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND RUSSIA: COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF TYPES OF PUNISHMENTS AND THEIR CONTENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 72-77
Author(s):  
A. P. Skiba ◽  
A. V. Kovsh ◽  
A. N. Myakhanova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The types of punishments in the Republic of Korea and the Democratic peoples Republic of Korea have significant specifics in comparison with Russia and differ from each other. Their criminal law regulations are laconic in comparison with the Russian approach. Under the Criminal Code of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, there is a clear emphasis on regulating punishments involving deprivation of liberty and restriction of the rights of a convicted person, and under the Criminal Code of the Republic of Korea, punishments with economic content. The author provides a translation of the provisions of Article 27 of the Criminal Code of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and Article 41 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Korea regarding the list of types of punishments.

Exemption from Criminal Responsibility in Cases over Crimes in the Field of Economic Activity

10.12737/7254 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Оксана Макарова ◽  
Oksana Makarova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
The Russian Federation

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

scholarly journals The Basis for Exemption from Criminal Responsibility

2018 ◽  
pp. 161-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. V. Blagov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Main Body ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Criminal Legislation

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

scholarly journals Fine in the System of Punishments for Crimes against Property and Some Issues Related to the Enhancement of Its Effectiveness

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-479
Author(s):  
I.V. Azarova ◽  
◽  
I.V. Dvoryanskov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The State ◽  
Fine Property ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Penal Sanctions

The article analyzes the place and role of fines in the system of criminal penalties and looks intosome trends in its establishing by the legislator and application by the court. We investigate property protection issues that have always been in the focus of attention of legislators and legal science and that have never lost their relevance, because they relate to the inviolable vital interests of an individual, society and the state. In the framework of the topic under consideration, we undertake to explain our viewpoint on three basic terms: “fine”, “property” and “punishment effectiveness”. We conclude that property should be considered (among other things in the establishment ofthe elements of a crime) as a complex multifaceted phenomenon associated with ensuring the security of individuals, society and the state from various threats, including those of an intangible nature. We analyze fine as a penalty and fine imposed by the court as a criminal law measure in the aspect of legal regulation and application practice.We carry out comparative analysis of the rules on the protection of property and the application of penalties in the form of a fine for encroachment upon it on the example of the criminal legislation of the Republic of Belarus.As a result, we conclude that the importance of fine in the structure of penal sanctions is increasing; we note that there is a trend to increase the use of a court imposed fine as an exemption from penal sanctions. At the same time,we point outthat this approach used bylegal professionals does not fully fit in with the legally established principle of social justice as the goal of punishment.Crimes against property should be considered as a threat not only to property, but also to the life and health of people (Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), moral, spiritual and other values of an individual and society. We believe this approach should be used both in legislative and law enforcement practice, including cases of applying a court imposed fine.

scholarly journals RULES ON INCHOATE CRIME IN THE CRIMINAL LEGISLATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS

2016 ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Василий Некрасов ◽  
Vasiliy Nekrasov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Tools And Techniques

The article analyzes the issues of differentiation of responsibility and norm design technique on inchoate crime in the criminal legislation of the Republic of Belarus. The author examines the legislative definition of preparation for a crime, attempted crime and voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose. As a result of the study the author has found out the main methods and means of legislative technique, used by the Belarusian legislator. These are abstract and casuistic methods, the terminology of the criminal law and several others. Comparison of legal regulation of norms on unfinished crime in the Criminal code of the Republic of Belarus and the Criminal code of the Russian Federation has allowed to identify gaps made by the legislators of both countries in application of specific tools and techniques of legislative drafting. Court practice of the Republic of Belarus in cases of preparation for a crime and attempted crime also was analyzed in present article. The author has evidentiated the means of differentiation of the responsibility for committing inchoate crime, used by the Belarusian legislator. The definitions “inchoate crime” and “stage of the crime” were also analyzed in present study. As a conclusion the author has made the recommendations for improving the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on regulation of criminal responsibility for an inchoate crime.

scholarly journals Objective Signs Of The Conclusion Of Transactions Contrary To The Interests Of The Republic Of Uzbekistan

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (05) ◽  
pp. 59-67
Author(s):  
Shodmon Alisherovich Ashurov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Final Section ◽  
The State ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Significant Damage ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Negative Factors ◽  
Economic Foundations

This article provides a legal analysis of the corpus delicti of transactions, contrary to the interests of the Republic of Uzbekistan, and examines in detail the objective signs. In particular, such concepts as object, subject, interests, types of criminal object, damage and its types are analyzed. The opinions and approaches of foreign and domestic scientists on this matter were also taken into account. In addition, it is noted that the public danger of making transactions contrary to the interests of the Republic of Uzbekistan lies in the fact that when committing a crime, not only the rights of individuals are violated, but also damage to society as a whole. In addition, during the transitional period of the life of society and the state, the number of crimes of this kind grows rapidly and can cause significant damage to the economic foundations of the state. The final section contains suggestions and recommendations for eliminating negative factors.

Signs characterizing the person occupying the highest position in criminal hierarchy

2020 ◽  
pp. 75-80
Author(s):  
Александр Викторович Сенатов
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation

В связи с изменениями, внесенными Федеральным законом Российской Федерации от 01.04.2019 № 46-ФЗ «О внесении изменений в Уголовный кодекс Российской Федерации и Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации в части противодействия организованной преступности» в уголовном законодательстве появилась ст. 210, предусматривающая уголовную ответственность за занятие высшего положения в преступной иерархии. Данное преступление имеет специальный субъект, обладающий дополнительными признаками, которые должны быть закреплены в законе. Однако в уголовном законодательстве, а также постановлениях Пленума Верховного суда Российской Федерации отсутствует определение данного понятия, а также признаки, в соответствии с которыми необходимо привлечь лицо к уголовной ответственности. В статье проанализированы научные определения «преступная иерархия», «иерархическая лестница уголовно-преступной среды», лицо, занимающее высшее положение в преступной иерархии, а также выделены конкретные признаки, характеризующие специальный субъект, закрепленный ст. 210 УК РФ. Рассматривается опыт борьбы с организованной преступностью в Республике Грузия, а также материалы следственной практики в отношении лица, привлекаемого к уголовной ответственности по признакам состава преступления, предусмотренного ст. 210 УК РФ. Due to the changes made by the Federal law of the Russian Federation of 01.04.2009 No. 46-FZ “On modification of the criminal code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation regarding counteraction of organized crime” to the criminal legislation there was Art. 210 providing criminal liability for occupation of the highest position in criminal hierarchy. This crime has a special subject with additional features that must be enshrined in the law. However, in the criminal legislation, as well as the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme court of the Russian Federation, there is no definition of this concept, as well as signs according to which it is necessary to bring a person to criminal responsibility. The article analyzes the scientific definitions of “criminal hierarchy”, “hierarchical ladder of criminal environment”, the person occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, as well as the specific features, fixed Art. 210 of the Criminal Code. The article also discusses the experience of combating organized crime in the Republic of Georgia, as well as materials of investigative practice in relation to a person brought to criminal responsibility on the grounds of a crime under Art. 210 of the Criminal Code.

scholarly journals Legislation of the Republic of Serbia in the Field of Prevention of Corruption on Public Procurement

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-158
Author(s):  
Jelena Kostić ◽  
Marina Matić Bošković
Keyword(s):  
Public Procurement ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Financial Control ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
State Budget ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The public procurement as a process by which governments, as well as other bodies governed by public law, purchase products, services, and work, create the cost to the state budget, and taxpayers. The high value of transactions and close interaction between public officials and businesses expose public procurement to corruption risk. According to the Serbian legislation, violation of public procurement rules can be qualified as misdemeanour or crime. The specific crime of abuse in public procurement has been introduced in the criminal legislation by 2012 amendments to the Criminal Code. In addition to the repressive response to the corruption in public procurement, the potential abuses can also be prevented by other measures. To prevent irregularities and decrease vulnerabilities to corruption, a new Law on Public Procurement was passed in December 2019. Therefore, in this paper, authors analyse criminal provisions aimed to deter possible offenders, but also assessed other non-criminal provisions and the functioning of control mechanisms, such as supreme audit and internal financial control in the Republic of Serbia. In the paper, authors strive to make recommendations for improving the prevention and repression mechanisms against abuse in public procurement procedures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document