scholarly journals About Some Problems of Criminal liability Regulation for Terror Crimes

The article is devoted to the problem of criminal legal responsibility regulation for terror crimes. The authors analyze the legislative design of such crime compositions, provided by Ch. 24 of the current RF Criminal Code, first of all, the novels included in the Criminal Law in 2013 - 2017, the sanctions on criminal law norms, as well as the effectiveness of their implementation in practice. Critical remarks are made and proposals are introduced aimed at criminal legislation, as well as law enforcement practice improvement. The authors raise the problems of punishment imposition for committed crimes, in particular, criticize the legislator’s position on the imposition of less stringent sanctions for more dangerous forms of assistance to terrorists, and on the imposition of stricter sanctions for less dangerous forms of assistance to terrorism. Judicial practice is analyzed with the purpose to reveal the effectiveness of individual article provision application from RF Criminal Code. They performed the comparison of the criminal law revisions, and they analyzed the introduced changes. The authors make specific proposals to amend certain provisions of the criminal law, in particular, on the criminalization of responsibility for the financing of terrorism as an independent crime.

2020 ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
V. F. Lapshin ◽  
E. H. Nadiseva

The implementation of criminal liability for an unfinished crime, interrupted at the stage of preparation, is not consistent with the basic criminal law requirements, since the act committed at the stage of preparation, clearly does not contain any signs of a crime or its composition. At the same time, the imposition of punishment is carried out in accordance with the sanction of the norms of the Special part of the criminal code, which indicates the existence of an act not actually committed by the convicted person. This allows us to raise questions about the legality and necessity of bringing a person to criminal responsibility for an act recognized as preparation for the Commission of an intentional crime. The analysis of provisions of the current criminal legislation, sources of scientific literature, and also materials of judicial practice on criminal cases about incrimination of preparatory actions, allowed to draw a conclusion according to which attraction of the person to responsibility for Commission of the act characterized as preparation for Commission of crime, contradicts the principle of legality and justice. In this regard, it is proposed to change the current criminal legislation, eliminating the rules on the preparation of the Institute of unfinished crime.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-337
Author(s):  
M.P. Pronina ◽  

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.


2020 ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
V. F. Lapshin ◽  
E. H. Nadiseva

The implementation of criminal liability for an unfinished crime, interrupted at the stage of preparation, is not consistent with the basic criminal law requirements, since the act committed at the stage of preparation, clearly does not contain any signs of a crime or its composition. At the same time, the imposition of punishment is carried out in accordance with the sanction of the norms of the Special part of the criminal code, which indicates the existence of an act not actually committed by the convicted person. This allows us to raise questions about the legality and necessity of bringing a person to criminal responsibility for an act recognized as preparation for the Commission of an intentional crime. The analysis of provisions of the current criminal legislation, sources of scientific literature, and also materials of judicial practice on criminal cases about incrimination of preparatory actions, allowed to draw a conclusion according to which attraction of the person to responsibility for Commission of the act characterized as preparation for Commission of crime, contradicts the principle of legality and justice. In this regard, it is proposed to change the current criminal legislation, eliminating the rules on the preparation of the Institute of unfinished crime.


2021 ◽  
Vol 244 ◽  
pp. 12021
Author(s):  
Sergey Zakharchuk

Domestic criminal legislation provides for possibility of releasing from criminal liability a person who has committed a crime of small or medium gravity for the first time, provided that he/she has reconciled with the victim and made amends for the harm caused. Comparative legal analysis shows that similar norms are found in the criminal laws of foreign states. The article discusses issues related to the possibility of terminating a criminal case in connection with the reconciliation of parties in the event that a victim is a representative of authorities. As a result of analysis of scientific positions on this issue, as well as corresponding law enforcement practice, ambiguity in approaches to its solution was revealed. The presence of certain contradictions in the area under study is also confirmed by statistical information. The author substantiates the position on the need to establish a ban on exemption from criminal liability in connection with reconciliation with the victim, if a crime is committed against justice or the order of administration, and the victim is a representative of authorities. In this case, the victim acts as an additional objective manifestation of encroachment, and therefore, reconciliation cannot eliminate the harm done to the interests of the state - the main object of criminal encroachment. In order to resolve the problem, it is proposed to amend Article 76 of Criminal Code of Russian Federation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
V. F. Lapshin ◽  
E. H. Nadiseva

The implementation of criminal liability for an unfinished crime, interrupted at the stage of preparation, is not consistent with the basic criminal law requirements, since the act committed at the stage of preparation, clearly does not contain any signs of a crime or its composition. At the same time, the imposition of punishment is carried out in accordance with the sanction of the norms of the Special part of the criminal code, which indicates the existence of an act not actually committed by the convicted person. This allows us to raise questions about the legality and necessity of bringing a person to criminal responsibility for an act recognized as preparation for the Commission of an intentional crime. The analysis of provisions of the current criminal legislation, sources of scientific literature, and also materials of judicial practice on criminal cases about incrimination of preparatory actions, allowed to draw a conclusion according to which attraction of the person to responsibility for Commission of the act characterized as preparation for Commission of crime, contradicts the principle of legality and justice. In this regard, it is proposed to change the current criminal legislation, eliminating the rules on the preparation of the Institute of unfinished crime.


2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-106
Author(s):  
V.V. Kusakin ◽  

The article is devoted to the analysis of Article 350 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for criminal liability for violation of the rules of driving or operating cars, the evolution of this article and the problems of sentencing under it are considered. One of the suggestions for improving this article is to change its sanction, which will eliminate the identified significant legal gap. The author conducted a comprehensive analysis of various aspects related to the criminal violation of traffic safety rules and the operation of military vehicles, and proposed the author's solution to the problematic aspects. The study used specific dialectical methods: comparative, hermeneutical, discursive, formal-legal, as well as some sociological methods: observation, methods of expert assessments and analysis. The provisions contained in the materials of the article can be used to improve the current criminal legislation and to develop explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in reviews of judicial practice.


Author(s):  
Т.Л. Магомадова ◽  
З.Л. Магомадова

В статье рассматриваются уголовно-правовые нормы, содержащиеся в гл. 26 УК РФ, устанавливающие ответственность за экологические преступления с точки зрения определения причин их низкой применяемости в судебной практике. Выделены наиболее актуальные уголовно-правовые проблемы, раскрыт ряд вопросов эффективности применения норм об ответственности за экологические преступления и проиллюстрированы ключевые моменты примерами правоприменительной практики, предложены пути законодательного их разрешения. The article discusses the criminal law contained in Sec. 26 of the Criminal Code, establishing liability for environmental crimes in terms of determining the causes of their low applicability in judicial practice. The most relevant criminal law problems are highlighted, a number of issues of the effectiveness of the application of the rules on liability for environmental crimes are revealed, key points are illustrated with examples of law enforcement practice, and ways to legislatively resolve them are proposed.


Author(s):  
Michail Sagandykov ◽  
Galia Shafikova

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.


Author(s):  
Viktor Borkov

The article discusses the urgent, not regulated by the criminal law, problem of qualifying the actions of the person who committed the crime as a result of the provocative actions of law enforcement officials. Attention is drawn to the absence in theory and judicial practice of a consistent scientific and legal justification for the release of persons provoked to a crime from criminal liability. An “encroachment” committed as a result of a “police provocation” is considered taking into account the institutions of complicity, involvement and inducement to commit a crime. The author examines the proposals already made by experts from fixing the provocation of a crime as one of the circumstances excluding criminal liability (Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), to including its arsenal of operationalsearch means to combat crime. According to the constitutional legal understanding of the investigated problem, the assessment of the act of the provoked is influenced by the activities of the persons who incited him to commit a crime, the essence of the disturbed social relations and the nature of the physical, property, organizational or other consequences that have occurred. The question of the criminal legal assessment of the acts of the provoked persons is proposed to be decided differentially, taking into account the reality and the measure of the harm caused by them.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document