scholarly journals RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AT DISPUTE AMONG «LIMITATION» TERMS

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 123-133
Author(s):  
Vira Navrotska ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Close Connection ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Civil Lawsuit ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Force

It is stated, that within the resolution of claims in criminal proceedings, the relevant provisions of other branches of law (in particular, civil and civil procedural) should be applied in their close connection with criminal procedural and substantive norms. The position on the need to ignore the statute of limitations for criminal liability within the consideration of a civil lawsuit, has been criticized. It is also substantiated, that within the consideration of a civil lawsuit, both the statute of limitations and the statute of limitations for criminal liability should be taken into consideration. It is proved, that in process of setting the statute of limitations and the statute of limitations for criminal liability, the legislator was guided by different goals, wanted to achieve different interests, was «bound» by various restrictions. It is argued, that the statute of limitations for criminal liability and the statute of limitations are different in their nature, they arise under different legal relationships, they differs by the grounds for their arisen. The position of the Supreme Court, under which within the consideration of a civil lawsuit in criminal proceedings the court is not entitled to make a decision to refuse to satisfy it due to the expiration of the statute of limitations under the Civil Code of Ukraine, has been criticized. It is argued, that in order for a violated right to be protected within the consideration of a joint (civil) lawsuit, it is required, at least, that: a) since the day of the criminal offense committing and until the entry into the legal force of the sentence, the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has not expired; b) the claim for protection of a civil right or interest may be satisfied within the limitation period (the exception is legal relations to which the statute of limitations does not apply).

scholarly journals Consequences of failure to pay a court fine

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 639-650
Author(s):  
Nina Yu. Skripchenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legislative Regulation

The article discusses issues that arose during enforcement of the new grounds for exemption from criminal responsibility, enshrined in 2016, in connection with a court fine (Article 76.2 of the Criminal Code). Despite the criticism of its legislative regulation, demand for a new way of ceasing criminal prosecution began to appear in connection with the non-payment of a fine. Having determined the voluntary execution of a court fine, the legislator did not settle the issue of the further execution of the fine in cases where there are valid reasons for non-payment. After analyzing the existing proposals to solve this problem, the author confirms that the elimination of the gap would be facilitated by the legislative obligation of the bailiff to establish the circumstances by which the judicial penalty is not paid, as well as the addition of the list of decisions made by the bailiff to suspend enforcement proceeding. Analysis of judicial practice showed that Art. 76.2 of the Criminal Code began to be applied in cases where the court has justification for implementing less onerous grounds for the defendant to be exempt from criminal liability. Legislative duplication of the conditions under which criminal prosecution can be terminated for various reasons calls into question the wide alternative of the latter, as well as the embodiment of the idea of humanizing criminal law, which is the basis for securing a new ground for exemption from criminal liability. The article substantiates the proposal to supplement the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court dated June 27, 2013 with a provision allowing the release of a person from criminal responsibility with a judicial fine in cases where the court has no basis for suspending criminal prosecution for unconditional types of exemption from criminal liability. The author draws attention to the gap in the legislation, part 3 of Article 78 of the Criminal Code, which is related to the renewal of the statute of limitations for criminal liability when an individual avoids paying a court fine.

scholarly journals Environmental Pollution: Assessing the Criminal Liability of Corporations

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 194
Author(s):  
Hariman Satria
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Pollution ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Employee Relation ◽  
Toxic Wastes ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court sentenced PT Dongwoo Enviromental Indonesia (PT DEI) for disposing of hazardous and toxic wastes polluting the environment. Meanwhile, PT Adei Plantation & Industry (PT API) was charged with crime for the destruction of land damaging the environment. The research method used is normative legal research, which focuses on two approaches: case approach and conceptual approach. The results show that, first, PT DEI and PT API are charged criminally represented by the board as functioneel daderschap or directing mind and will. Second, PT DEI is charged with subsidized charges, while PT API is charged to alternative charges. Third, PT DEI and PT API are said to have committed a criminal act because management either the directors or regular employees commits a criminal offense for and on behalf of the corporation or in favor of the corporation. Fourth, to prove a corporation fault is through the aggregation of management mistakes or controlling personnel or regular employees in the corporation structure. Fifth, the principal penalty imposed on PT DEI is a fine of Rp 1.500,000,000. Similarly, PT API is fined Rp 650.000.000. Sixth; PT DEI is charged to additional crime in the form of deprivation of profits and closure of the company while PT API is an improvement due to crime. Seventh, with the closing of the company, the judges did not order the executors to liquidate the assets of PT DEI. Eighth, the imposition of the company's closing sanctions should take into account the impacts, such as the termination of employee relation and the interests of shareholders.

The Nature of the Institution of Confiscation of Property and its Application

2021 ◽  
pp. 93-104
Author(s):  
Vladimir K. Andrianov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Difficult Problem ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

Legislative reform in respect of forfeiture, having returned it in 2006 in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but in an altered status – other measures of a criminal-legal nature – after its exclusion in 2003 as a form of punishment, made a confiscation as one of the most difficult problem and controversial in the doctrine of criminal law. This is due not only to the attribution of confiscation of property to the category of other measures of a criminal-legal nature as in itself still insufficiently defined and highly controversial, but also by the inter-sectoral nature of the problem of confiscation, regulated not only by the norms of criminal, but also by criminal procedural legislation, as well as interconnected with measures of civil law – the return of property to the rightful owner, and compensation for any damage. Understanding the complexity of the legal nature of the confiscation of property lead to quite frequent changes in the Chapter 151 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (19 of federal laws on amendments), as well as cause a lot of questions of their use in practical lawyers. This is evidenced by the resolution adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 14, 2018 No. 17 «On some issues related to the use of confiscation of property in criminal proceedings». The target of this article is to study the confiscation of property as another measure of a criminal-legal nature by resolving theoretical and applied issues of the application of Chapter 151 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. An important role in the research process was played by work on the problems of other measures of a criminal-legal nature, confiscation of property, as well as published court practice. The methodological basis of the study were the principles of the dialectical method of cognition, as well as general scientific and private scientific methods (sociological, system-structural and formal-logical) methods. In the proposed publication, based on the analysis of special scientific literature and legal positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, such complex issues as the legal nature of confiscation in terms of its generic and specific characteristics, correlation with criminal punishment and criminal liability are considered, and specific recommendations are given on topical issues of application of the Chapter 151 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AGREEMENTS THAT ARE QUALIFIED AS FRAUD CRIME

Cepalo ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-22
Author(s):  
Joko Sriwidodo
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Civil Case ◽  
Library Research ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
The Supreme Court

An agreement is a legal act in which a person promises to another person or more or in which two people promise to carry out something, as is also stated in Article 1313 of the Civil Code. Contract cases are the civil case domain, but they can become criminal offenses if what is promised is fictitious or a lie. However, the reality is that currently, in practice, many practitioners are confusing it so that the reporting party criminally reports many cases of this Agreement. The purpose of this research is to find out to what extent a case agreement can be reported criminally. The problems studied in this study are: (1) what is the significance of an agreement according to Indonesian Law? (2) what is the significance of an agreement as a criminal offense of fraud? In this research, the researcher provides an overview of the Agreement's significance according to national law and the meaning of the Agreement as a criminal offense of fraud, as we know that an agreement is a civil case domain but can be included in a criminal case if the elements as mentioned above are fulfilled. In Article 378 of the Criminal Code, as happened in the case of default as stated in the Supreme Court Jurisprudence No. 1689 K/Pid/2015, which gave a verdict that the defendant had violated Article 378 of the Criminal Code jo. 55 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code. This research is normative legal research conducted through library research by conducting studies and analyzing primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. And in writing this research, too, the researcher carried out observational activities of the practices carried out in the field.

Scientific Commentary on the Review of Judicial Practice on Some Issues of the Application of Legislation on Business Entities

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
V. K. Andreev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
Law Making

The article discusses the forms of clarification on matters of judicial practice by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Presidium of the Supreme Court, as well as in the Review of judicial practice on some issues of the application of legislation on business companies dated December 25, 2019. Clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on issues of judicial practice are characterized as the positions of the courts identified in the course of studying and summarizing the judicial practice of the corresponding category of cases, which are acts of individual regulation of public relations. Focusing on Art. 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Section 6, Art. 12 of the APC RF shows the validity of dividing wrong into two types of wrong: the «moderate» type of «judicial law-making and the position of the court» and the «radical» type of «judicial law-making», when the court develops the rule of law, which contradicts the constitutional principle of separation of powers. When resolving corporate disputes, it is necessary to investigate whether the charter of a non-public company does not contain the rights and obligations of its participants, which they themselves created by making a unanimous decision and including them in the charter of the company (paragraph 3 of Art. 66.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 3 of Art. 14 of the Law about LLC).

scholarly journals Circumstances to Be Clarified under the Investigation of Interference into Law Enforcement Officer’s Activity

2021 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-103
Author(s):  
V. O. Gusieva
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Enforcement Officer ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
Procedural Costs ◽  
Detailed List ◽  
Law Enforcement Officer

The author has substantiated the need to establish the circumstances to be clarified and has determined their significance during the investigation. It has been emphasized that the circumstances to be clarified include the circumstances to be proved in criminal proceedings, criminal and forensic characteristics of a criminal offense. In order to determine the circumstances to be clarified during the investigation of interference in the activities of a law enforcement officer, the author has studied the circumstances to be clarified within the group of criminal offenses related to obstruction of the activities of a law enforcement officer, as well as during the investigation of interference in the activities of a forensic expert. Taking into account the specified scientific provisions, the author has defined a detailed list of circumstances to be clarified during the investigation of interference in the activities of a law enforcement officer. It has been established that the circumstances to be clarified during the interference in the activities of a law enforcement officer include: 1) circumstances related to the criminal offense, namely: time, place, situation and traces of a criminal offense, methods of its commission (preparation, direct commission and concealment), tools and means used during the interference, the scope of procedural costs; circumstances that are the basis for ceasing criminal proceedings; the reasons and conditions that contributed to the commission of a criminal offense; 2) circumstances related to the identity of the victim, including: socio-demographic characteristics of the victim, place of work, position held; official and functional responsibilities, the victim’s belonging to a law enforcement agency during the commission of a criminal offense against him; the type and scope of damage caused to the victim; 3) circumstances related to the identity of the offender, namely: socio-demographic data of the offender, physiological and psychological condition, gender, citizenship, financial status, place of work, the record of criminal conviction and the facts of bringing to administrative liability; the presence of dependent disabled people; the presence of guilt in the form of direct intent, the purpose of the action; circumstances that aggravate or mitigate the punishment of the offender are grounds for releasing from criminal liability or punishment that exclude criminal liability; presence of accomplices.

scholarly journals Glosa do wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 17 października 2018 r. (II KK 73/18)

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 291
Author(s):  
Cezary Kulesza
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Complex Behaviour ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Bank Employees ◽  
The Impact

<p class="PreformattedText">The gloss refers to the problem of the impact of bank employees’ performance on borrowers’ liability for fraud. The author approves the view formulated in the thesis of the Supreme Court that the employees of the injured bank were obliged to exercise special diligence in checking the accuracy of the documents submitted by the accused necessary to obtain a loan. The position taken by the Supreme Court in the commented judgement can be considered as at least a partial departure from the previous jurisprudence of the Supreme Court accepting that the victim’s contribution to the occurrence of fraud is not relevant to the responsibility of the perpetrators. The author, starting from the results of victimological research, accepts the view that the basis of criminal liability for fraud is the complex behaviour of the perpetrator (extraneous) and representatives of the injured bank (intraneus) and their mutual activity. In the last part of the commentary, the author indicates the specific obligations of banks when granting loans. He also emphasizes the inclusion in civil law of the victim’s contribution to damage as a basis for its mitigation.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document