scholarly journals HOLDING THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE CRIMINAL HIERARCHY: CRIMINAL LAW ASPECT

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (3(65)) ◽  
pp. 108-120
Author(s):  
Валерий Анатольевич НОВИКОВ
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper discusses the most pressing issues of criminal responsibility for holding the highest position in the criminal hierarchy. Liability for such an act was introduced by Federal Law No. 46-FZ of April 1, 2019 by supplementing the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with Article 210¹. In order to characterize the constituent elements of this crime, the legislator used the concepts of «criminal hierarchy» and «the highest position in the criminal hierarchy» that are not defined in the current normative legal acts, which makes it difficult to apply the considered criminal law norm. Some scientific publications note that the introduction of criminal liability for a person occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy is not in agreement with Article 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which, as the sole basis of responsibility, specifies a socially dangerous act containing all the elements of a crime and not the status of a person in the criminal world. Purpose: based on modern scientific concepts and judicial practice, a comparative study of national legislation with similar legal provisions of other states, to interpret the concepts in question and, on that basis, to define the range of socially dangerous acts, which may be incriminated against a person prosecuted under Article 210¹ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Methods: methods of analysis and synthesis, generalization, comparative legal, formal logical, legal dogmatic and other methods of scientific knowledge are used. Results: on the basis of the study, the author concludes that not the status of a criminal leader itself, but the administrative activity due to the highest position in the criminal environment to streamline organized crime in freedom and in places of execution of punishments constitutes grounds for responsibility under Article 210¹ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. There is also an indicative list of persons to be considered as perpetrators of offences under Part 4 of Article 210 and Article 210¹ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Influence of the ideas of Ivan Yakovlevich Foynitsky on the formation of criminal responsibility for kidnapping in modern Russia

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (12-3) ◽  
pp. 230-234
Author(s):  
Natalia Martynenko ◽  
Anatoly Maydykov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Modern Concept ◽  
Russian Scientist ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article analyzes the ideas of the Russian scientist in the field of criminal law Ivan Yakovlevich Foinitsky (1847-1913) on the establishment of criminal liability for kidnapping. The influence of I.Y. Foinitsky's ideas on the modern concept of criminal law protection of a person from abduction is shown. It is concluded that the norm on responsibility for the abduction of a person existing in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, its location in the structure of the norms of the Special Part, in many respects includes the provisions laid down by I.Y Foinitsky.

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 Recidivism as Legal Background for the Differentiation of Criminal Liability: Conceptual Approaches of Russian and Foreign Legislators

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-371
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Zharkikh ◽  
Afet Maksimov ◽  
Leonid Prokhorov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Correctional Institution ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
General Role ◽  
The World ◽  
The Russian Federation

The authors examine key stages of the development of theoretical views and concepts of the essence of recidivism lying at the basis of the emergence of professional and organized crime, whose genesis trends pose a special danger for the global community in the 20th and the 21st centuries. It is noted that the problems of counteracting repeat offences were discussed by scholars of different periods of the development of criminological and criminal law doctrines. Besides, the authors state that in contemporary lawmaking practice in the world there are several radically different approaches to the assessment of repeat offences in terms of the differentiation of criminal liability and individualization of punishment. A heightened danger of repeat offences dictates special approaches of lawmakers to the differentiation of criminal liability, to determining its limits in the norms of the Special Parts of criminal legislation in cases of recidivism. The authors describe key stages of the development of the institute of repeat offences and its influence on the differentiation of criminal liability and individualization of punishment in the Russian legislation. They examine key functional roles of the institute of repeat offences: ensuring the differentiation of criminal liability depending on recidivism, determining the limits of its use and the conditions of release; regulation of the algorithm of the individualization of punishment for repeat offences; determining the type of correctional institution to which the offender is allocated in cases of recidivism; execution of punishment. There are two key approaches to assessing repeat offences in terms of the differentiation of criminal liability and the individualization of punishment in the lawmaking practice in the world. The first approach to determining the limits of punishment in case of a repeat offence is based on assessing the personality of the offender, while the second presupposes shifting the emphasis from the personality of the offender to the committed crimes, to recidivism. The authors specifically stress that while the general role of the institute of repeat offences is positive, there are some contradictions in the system of the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regarding the lawmakers’ approach to its regulation that have an impact on the differentiation of criminal liability. These contradictions are connected with considerable changes in the contents of Part 2, Art. 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation introduced by the Federal Law of Dec. 8, 2003 № 162-ФЗ. It states that the term of punishment of any type of repeat offence cannot be under one third of the maximum term for the strictest type of punishment, and it should be restricted by the limits of the sanction in the corresponding article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Consequently, the introduction of this criminal law norm in the legislative system neutralized the requirement of Part 5, Art. 18 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which repeat offences lead to stricter punishments on the basis and within the limits provided in the Code, while the preventive role of the analyzed criminal law norm that it played in the previous version is lost. In this connection, the authors formulate recommendations on improving the contents of Part 2, Art. 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and present its version.

scholarly journals CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR GIVING FALSE EXPERT CONCLUSIONS IN THE FIELD OF PURCHASING GOODS, WORKS, SERVICES

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-90
Author(s):  
V.E. Zvarygin ◽  
D.S. Nazarova
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Illegal Activities

Illegal activities in the field of procurement of goods, works and services pose a threat not only to economic, but also to national security. The solution to this situation is possible only with an integrated approach, consisting not only in improving the efficiency of the regulatory authorities, but also in optimizing the current legislation. Article 107 of the Federal Law dated 05.04.2013 “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, work, services for the provision of state and municipal needs” provides the criminal liability of persons guilty of violating the laws of the Russian Federation and other regulatory legal acts on contract system in the field of procurement. However, until recently, the onset of criminal liability remained only “on paper”. The turning point in the criminal law regulation of relations in the field of public procurement was the year 2018, when federal laws were adopted that introduced amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by criminalizing illegal acts in this sphere of public relations. One of the controversial articles by the structure of the criminal law elements is Article 200.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which established criminal liability for giving a knowingly false expert opinion in the field of procurement of goods, works and services.

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.

Trends of the Development of Criminal Law at the Modern Stage

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Алла Гравина ◽  
Alla Gravina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Main Stream ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article analyses the modern criminal law, factors having negative effect on its development according with social, political and economic needs in the Russian Federation. Humanism is the main stream determining these trends. The author treats exercise of the principle of humanism in General and Special parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The work provides criminal statistics of the recent years. It pays particular attention to the reasons disturbing stability of law, leading to excess of legal regulation and excess of repressiveness of criminal law. It is impossible to predict the trends of criminal law without taking into account the political, social, economic development of the society, which determine the criminal policy of the country. The stability of law is also determined by them. The main methods of criminal policy are criminalization, decriminalization, penalization and depenalization. The article considers influence of criminalization and decriminalization on criminal law. The main trends in the development of criminal law is the further differentiation of criminal responsibility and expanding the list of forms of punishment not connected with isolation of guilty person from a society; introduction of less severe punishment. Some forms of differentiation of criminal liability such as — returning of administrative prejudice to criminal law, transfer of certain types of punishment to the category of other measures of criminal law applicable to the exemption from criminal liability; forecasting of introduction some new types of offences to the Criminal Code as well as support of the preparation of the Concept of modernization of criminal law.

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 Issues of Regulation and Application of the Criminal Law Norm providing for Responsibility for Occupying the Highest Position in the Criminal Hierarchy (Article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 159-170
Author(s):  
I. V. Pantyukhina ◽  
L. Yu. Larina
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
General Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Traditional Understanding

The paper is devoted to a detailed analysis of article 210.1 "Occupation of the highest position in the criminal hierarchy", which was introduced in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by Federal law No. 46-FZ of 01.04.2019. The authors considered the construction of this norm from the point of view of the elements of the crime and the coordination of these features with the provisions of the General part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As a result of a systematic study of the norms of the Russian criminal law, comparison with foreign experience (Georgia), and analysis of law enforcement practice, the discrepancy between the new criminal law norm and the provisions of certain institutions of criminal law was revealed. In particular, the content of article 210.1 contradicts certain principles of the criminal law (articles 6, 7 of the Criminal Code), the basis of criminal liability (article 8 of the Criminal Code), the norms of the Institute of preparation for a crime (part 1 of article 30 of the Criminal Code), as well as the goals of criminal punishment (part 2 of article 43 of the Criminal Code). To eliminate the identified shortcomings, the authors propose to include in the disposition of article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation an act in the form of using the highest position in the criminal hierarchy. The proposed changes (including an act in the form of "use of the position») make it possible to prosecute persons both permanently and temporarily performing the functions of such persons, to leave outside the scope of its application persons who fully walked away from crime and not in any way affect criminal damage. They will allow you to bring the rule into compliance with the traditional understanding of the offense and those provisions of the General part of the Criminal Code, in which the regulated norms in the current edition are not made consistent.

scholarly journals Criminal liability of juveniles in the Republic of Kazakhstan

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-26
Author(s):  
Aleksey Chistyakov ◽  
Saule Naurzalieva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Scientific Understanding ◽  
Theoretical Significance ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article reflects the study of juvenile delinquency in the Republic of Kazakhstan and their criminal responsibility. The scientific novelty of the research is that it was conducted on the basis of the new criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2014. Therefore, the complex of issues, that were previously the subject of various studies in the light of modern realities and trends of criminal law policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan, has received a new interpretation and argumentation from the perspective of the latest opportunities for study. First, the new legislative structure for determining the basis of criminal liability (Article 4 of the Criminal code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) required a reinterpretation of the content of circumstances that lead to emergence of criminal liability among juveniles. Secondly, the legally updated content of grounds for criminal liability of juveniles in the Republic of Kazakhstan has led to an update of the quality of criminal law relations that arise between juvenile offenders and state bodies, which also need a new scientific reinterpretation. Third, the new legal concept of the basis of criminal liability presupposes the existence of a new, in relation to the previous, content of the basis for the implementation of criminal liability of juveniles. Finally, the new criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, along with the previously existing one, has introduced new forms and types of implementation of criminal liability of juveniles, which need an updated scientific and legal analysis. Its results and conclusions, obtained personally by the author, can be regarded as having scientific novelty for the above reasons. In addition, on the basis of the theory and practice research of criminal responsibility among juveniles in the Republic of Kazakhstan, the paper formulated proposals for improving the criminal legislation of not only the Republic of Kazakhstan, but also the Russian Federation, which also have a novelty. The theoretical significance of the research is to increase and systematize knowledge about the criminal liability of juveniles due to the presence of a new basis of criminal responsibility that has not been previously developed by the Russian criminal law science. The results of scientific understanding of new forms and types of implementation of criminal liability of juveniles, introduced by the Criminal code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2014, such as the obligation to apologize to the victim and the establishment of probation control, have theoretical significance. The conclusions, suggestions and recommendations contained in this work enrich the scientific understanding of the features of criminal liability of juveniles in the Republic of Kazakhstan. The practical significance of the work is that the provisions and recommendations contained in it can be used both in the Republic of Kazakhstan and in the Russian Federation: in the process of standard-setting activities in improving the norms of Chapter 6 of the Criminal code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the norms of Section V of Chapter 14 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation; in the work of specialized inter-district courts for juveniles, considering cases against juveniles and assigning criminal penalties to them; by authorities and administration in the development of preventive measures.

scholarly journals Acts of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court in the context of criminal law linkages

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 03003
Author(s):  
Vladimir Pavlovich Konyakhin ◽  
Tatyana Yurievna Batyutina ◽  
Ruslan Georgievich Aslanyan ◽  
Manas Kapasovich Intykbaev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Optimal Algorithm ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Russian Federation

The regulatory certainty of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is ensured by the presence of systemic hierarchical links between different legal prescriptions, including of the other-branch affiliation. Since the Russian legislation does not provide for the authentic interpretation of federal laws, the Russian Federation Constitutional Court plays an important role in the resolution of complicated issues of enforcement of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As a rule, the doctrine gives a characteristic of particular decisions taken by it through the prism of problems of classification of specific crimes. However, proceeding from the growing scientific interest in interdisciplinary research, it seems necessary to accumulate the major legal provisions of the said court in terms of enforcement of the criminal law, with regard for its inter-sectoral bonds. The purpose of the research is to generalise the conclusions of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court on such fundamental issues as the grounds for criminal liability, timeframe validity of a criminal law, differentiation between crimes and administrative offences, prejudgement – and search of the optimal algorithm for their resolution in the future on this basis. The methodological basis of the study is represented by the general scientific methods of cognition: dialectical and systemic-structural; and as concerns the specific scientific methods – by the legalistic method. Following the analysis of a number of resolutions and rulings of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court for the period 2003-2020, an algorithm was developed for enforcement of the regulatory prescriptions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the context of its inter-branch linkages. It was found out, on the basis of the study of sentences passed by the Russian courts, that the most common mistakes of law enforcement officers in extrapolating the legal provisions of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court within the framework of particular criminal cases are connected with incorrect interpretation of factual circumstances as well as the facts of transcending the content of the relevant norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document