scholarly journals Colaboração (delação) premiada na lei de organização criminosa e as funções e benefícios da pena / Collaboration (whistleblowing) in the law of criminal organization and the functions and benefits of punishment

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 89435-89449
Author(s):  
Edilson Fernandes Gonçalves ◽  
Carleane Lopes Souza ◽  
Najara Lima de Melo Silva ◽  
Ronilson de Souza Luiz
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 99-110
Author(s):  
ALEXANDER ASNIS ◽  

The subject of the article was the negative tendency in recent years to use by law enforcers the high repressive potential enshrined in art. 35 and 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (CC RF) on liability for the creation, leadership and participation in criminal communities for the purpose of criminal prosecution of owners and heads of legal companies that use the latter to commit crimes in economic field. More and more often, the law enforcer began to consider the organizational structure of a commercial organization, fixed in the charter and well-documented, as indisputable evidence of the presence of structural features of a criminal community (criminal organization). Until recently, such an interpretation of the criminal law was not hindered by either the criminal law or the position of the highest court in criminal matters. An attempt to solve this problem by the Federal Law of April 1, 2020 No. 73-ФЗ initiated by the President of the country, according to the author, is a “half measure”. This novelty also raises new problems for the law enforcer in interpreting such valuation concepts as “reliable knowledge” and “are not subject to criminal liability ... due to the organizational and staff structure of the organization”. In this regard, the legislator will be forced to continue the search for new, more effective and reliable barriers for the incorrect application of Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author proposes to the expert community a number of specific legal and technical solutions to the problem of the unreasonably widespread application of art. 210 of the CC RF, including: using judicial control over the conformity of the legal entity with the goals of its creation and removing unreasonable restrictions when deciding whether there is a reason for initiating a criminal case under art. 210 CC RF in relation to owners, beneficiaries and heads of organizations, if the latter is charged with creating a legal entity for the purpose of committing a grave or especially grave crime; legislative limitation of the range of grave and especially grave crimes for the commission of which a criminal community (criminal organization) can be created; consolidation in the criminal law of the concept of creating a criminal community (criminal organization) in the form of a legal entity that does not belong to the state and municipal sectors, on the basis of the exceptional character of the criminal purpose of creating such a person.


Global Crime ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 6-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip A. Curry ◽  
Steeve Mongrain

Author(s):  
Михаил Кармановский ◽  
Mikhail Karmanovsky ◽  
Елена Косьяненко ◽  
Elena Kosyanenko

Article is devoted to the changes made to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by the Federal law of the Russian Federation of April 1, 2019 № 46-FZ on toughening of punishment for establishing a criminal organization or participation in it. Innovations concerned all parts of article 210, in particular criminal liability amplified (generally a penalty) and part 11 of article 210 appeared. Besides, the law entered new article 210.1 of the «Occupation of the highest situation in criminal hierarchy». Having analyzed statistics, only one fact of involvement of such person to criminal liability for establishing a criminal organization is elicited. Him was «thief in law» who carried out organizational and administrative functions concerning criminal community and its participants. One example of judicial practice by part 4 of article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation «the person taking the highest position in criminal hierarchy», proves existence of difficulties at procedural proof. However these problems will not arise in the situation provided by article 210.1 as to prove that such person makes act it is not necessary. There is enough of fact that this person holds the highest position in criminal hierarchy. Meanwhile, noted edition of the law contradicts the theory of criminal law, regarding criminal prosecution only for criminal action.


2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 72-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Leslie ◽  
Mary Casper

“My patient refuses thickened liquids, should I discharge them from my caseload?” A version of this question appears at least weekly on the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Community pages. People talk of respecting the patient's right to be non-compliant with speech-language pathology recommendations. We challenge use of the word “respect” and calling a patient “non-compliant” in the same sentence: does use of the latter term preclude the former? In this article we will share our reflections on why we are interested in these so called “ethical challenges” from a personal case level to what our professional duty requires of us. Our proposal is that the problems that we encounter are less to do with ethical or moral puzzles and usually due to inadequate communication. We will outline resources that clinicians may use to support their work from what seems to be a straightforward case to those that are mired in complexity. And we will tackle fears and facts regarding litigation and the law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document