scholarly journals CURRENT DIRECTIONS OF CRIMINAL POLICY IN THE FIELD OF ANTI-FRAUD: A GENERAL CRITICAL ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-323
Author(s):  
R.K. Shautaeva ◽  
O.A. Petryanina
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Deviant Behavior ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Methodological Problems ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Cost

The relevance of the direction chosen for research is multifactorial. First, there is a steady increase in attacks on property by deception or abuse of trust. Second, the emergence of new forms of fraudulent activities requiring a symmetrical response from government agencies. Third, the offensive, not always error-free development of criminal policy in the form of the creation of new legal and technical mechanisms to counter the considered type of criminal deviant behavior of selfish orientation. All this prompted us to identify and consider the most significant methodological problems in the area taken for research in the form of their demonstration, as well as proposals for directions for their solution. The first criminal law flaw in the state strategy in the fight against fraud is the fallacy in the systematization of the crimes reflected in Art. 159-159of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The substitution of the significance of public relations protected by the norms included in these articles caused the imbalance in the Special Part of the Criminal Code. RF. The second methodological problem is the imbalance in the cost criteria of Art. 159-159of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which form the basis for their criminalization and differentiation. The third problem is the fact that there are separate elements of fraud with their fixation in separate articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, depending on the areas of encroachment. In the article, on the basis of the conducted critical analysis and the presented argumentation, directions for resolving the noted methodological problems, theoretical, applied and legislative format, are proposed.

scholarly journals Criminal law treatment of deviant behavior in media and social networks

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-144
Author(s):  
Yulia Gracheva ◽  
Sergey Malikov ◽  
Alexander Chuchaev
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Deviant Behavior ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Social Engineering ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Telecommunication Networks ◽  
The Russian Federation

It would be difficult to imagine modern society without information and telecommunication networks, including media and social networks that promote the development of the economy, education, medicine, etc. Media and social networks are an important means of communication and especially so during the coronavirus lockdown; however, the more people are involved in cyberspace, the more crimes are committed there. The subject of this study is deviant behavior on media and social networks with the objectives of identifying the main types of deviant behavior, ascertaining the techniques used to impair public relations protected by criminal law, assessing the existing measures in criminal law that prevent deviant behavior on the internet, and proposing new measures that may be necessary. General scientific (dialectical, logical, systematic) and special legal (comparative legal, formal legal, legal modeling) methods are applied. More than 80% of cybercrime in Russia involves theft using modern social engineering technology for phishing. Although the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has recommended otherwise, these thefts are treated as a different class in the theory of criminal law and judicial practice. One of the ways to achieve uniformity in law enforcement is to exclude special types of fraud from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Another common way of taking possession of someone else’s property is to use a computer program to freeze a system until a certain amount of money has been transferred to a particular account. A gap in the treatment of such acts by criminal law is identified and ways to eliminate it are proposed. The 2020 pandemic highlighted the role of internet in spreading various pieces of fake news; Federal Law No. 100-FZ of April 1, 2020, which supplemented Articles 207.1 and 207.2 of the Criminal Code, was an effective and timely response. Media and social networks are often used as a platform forinciting, preparing and/or organizing the commission of a crime or other offenses.The study of cyberterrorism shows that there is no need to introduce an independentstandard for such acts. Cybercrime also includes attacks on privacy, and the articleexplores internet harassment in detail by delineating different types of it and the legalresponse to them. A proposal to amend the wording of Article 137 of the CriminalCode is judged sound.

scholarly journals Criminal liability for illegal banking activities in the context of countering criminal money cashing

2020 ◽  
pp. 140-144
Author(s):  
Dmitry Ovchinnikov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Law Enforcement Officers ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Economic Sector ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

Distinctive Features of the Object of Smuggling of Strategically Important Goods and Resources

2021 ◽  
pp. 225-230
Author(s):  
Vladislava K. Zaigraeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Public Security ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Eurasian Economic Union ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Economic Sphere ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Union

The aim of the study is to consider issues related to the definition of public danger and the object of smuggling of strategically important goods and resources as a crime under Article 226.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the positions of individual researchers on these issues. The methodological basis of the research was formed by the general scientific theory of knowledge; the method of comparative analysis and the logical-legal method of cognition were also used. The latter was used for a more accurate understanding of the norms of Russian criminal legislation, their analysis, as well as for the interpretation of the main provisions reflected in the legal literature. As a result, the author questions the correctness of the placement of the smuggling of strategically important goods and resources in Chapter 24, Crimes Against Public Security, of Section IX, Crimes Against Public Security and Public Order: in cases of smuggling of strategically important goods and resources, the procedure for movement established in the international treaties and legislation of the Russian Federation always suffers directly, while, taking into account the possibility of further distribution of smuggled objects in the event of an untimely suppression of these objects' illegal movement, public security is only endangered but does not suffer directly. The legislator establishes the qualification of smuggling of strategically important goods and resources in large volumes as exceeding one million rubles, which confirms that the public danger of this crime is determined by economic indicators. The author proves that smuggling of strategically important goods and resources harms public relations in the economic sphere rather than public relations that ensure public security. The conclusion is formulated that the totality of social relations that ensure the normal functioning and development of the economy should be considered as the main generic object of this crime. The direct object of smuggling of strategically important goods and resources is the procedure established by the international treaties and legislation of the Russian Federation for moving strategically important goods and resources through the customs border of the Eurasian Economic Union or the state border of the Russian Federation with the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union. Criminal liability for smuggling of strategically important goods and resources is proposed to be provided for in a separate article, which should be placed in Section VIII, Crimes in the Economic Sphere, of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals The goals of criminal punishment as a reflection of modern criminal policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 324-330
Author(s):  
V.V. Popov ◽  
◽  
S.M. Smolev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The presented study is devoted to the issues of disclosing the content of the goals of criminal punishment, analyzing the possibilities of their actual achievement in the practical implementation of criminal punishment, determining the political and legal significance of the goals of criminal punishment indicated in the criminal legislation. The purpose of punishment as a definition of criminal legislation was formed relatively recently, despite the fact that theories of criminal punishment and the purposes of its application began to form long before our era. These doctrinal teachings, in essence, boil down to defining two diametrically opposed goals of criminal punishment: retribution and prevention. The state, on the other hand, determines the priority of one or another goal of the punishment assigned for the commission of a crime. The criminal policy of Russia as a whole is focused on mitigating the criminal law impact on the offender. One of the manifestations of this direction is the officially declared humanization of the current criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. However, over the course of several years, the announced “humanization of criminal legislation” has followed the path of amending and supplementing the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: introducing additional opportunities for exemption from criminal liability and punishment, reducing the limits of punishments specified in the sanctions of articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and including in the system of criminal punishments of types of measures that do not imply isolation from society. At the same time the goals of criminal punishment are not legally revised, although the need for such a decision has already matured. Based on consideration of the opinions expressed in the scientific literature regarding the essence of those listed in Part 2 of Art. 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the goals of punishment are determined that each of them is subject to reasonable criticism in view of the abstract description or the impossibility of achieving in the process of law enforcement (criminal and penal) activities. This circumstance gives rise to the need to revise the content of the goals of criminal punishment and to determine one priority goal that meets the needs of modern Russian criminal policy. According to the results of the study the conclusion is substantiated that the only purpose of criminal punishment can be considered to ensure proportionality between the severity of the punishment imposed and the social danger (harmfulness) of the crime committed. This approach to determining the purpose of criminal punishment is fully consistent with the trends of modern criminal policy in Russia, since it does not allow the use of measures, the severity of which, in terms of the amount of deprivation and legal restrictions, clearly exceeds the social danger of the committed act. In addition, it is proportionality, not prevention, that underlies justice – one of the fundamental principles of criminal law.

scholarly journals DEFINITION OF MASS RIOTS IN RUSSIAN CRIMINAL LAWS

2020 ◽  
pp. 32-41
Author(s):  
Sergey A. Eliseev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Single Person ◽  
Generic Term ◽  
Russian Federa Tion ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Protection ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Objective Aspect

The chapter 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is devoted to crimes against public security. Articles of this chapter represent enough effectual instruments of criminal protection of public interests and protection of a person as well. However, studying of some articles of the chapter 24 of the Criminal Code and practice of its applying show the necessity to improve prohibitions, provided by it. For example, article 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, despite verbalism, doesn’t give a strict idea on content of the subject of crime, provided by it. Literal interpreta-tion of the expression “mass disorder, leading with violence, demolition and arson…” allows to confirm, that subject of crime of mass disorder supposes such elements as mass disorder, violence and other actions, provided by p.1 art.212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federa-tion, which are followed by mass disorder, completed by them, committed simultaneously. Part 3 of the article 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation gives the same idea, it provides punishment not only for riotous statements in mass disorder or participation in it, but for calls to violence. But what we should refer to mass disorder, which is a part of objective aspect of a crime along with riotous behavior of a crowd (violence use, arsons, demolition and so on), is anyone’s guess. However, the title of the article, its purpose, content of criminal prohibition suggest that objective aspect of crime “mass disorder” includes one systematic element, which is committing demolition, arsons, violence use towards citizens by a great number of people (by a crowd). It makes sense to improve text of the article 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Within the meaning of crime mentioned in it, emphasis should be turned to aggressive actions of a crowd, because they form public danger of this action. Exactly these actions (violence use , arsons, demolition and so on) are caused damages to public relations, which provide security of life, health, property of a single person or a number of people, activity of state authority and government, functioning of organizations and enterprises. To define the notion of mass disorder it is enough to point out the essence of this action in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – the committing of some public dangerous actions by participants of the crowd. It is necessary to eliminate ineffectual stylistically and semantic expression “mass disorder, accompanying …” from the definition. Instead of it we should use a formula: “mass disorder - violence use towards a person, arsons, demolition and damage of property”. It is necessary to abandon repetitions in description of the objective aspect of mass disorder. It is obvious, that the notion “use of weapon” has a lot in common with the notion “provision of armed resistance to public authority” (it is generic term towards the latter); calling to violence towards citizens in context of the article 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation represent itself call to mass disorder.

scholarly journals Criminal policy of Russia during a pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 02017
Author(s):  
Aleksandr Viktorovich Pobedkin ◽  
Andrey Petrovich Fil’chenko ◽  
Tatyana Valentinovna Pinkevich ◽  
Natalia Eduardovna Martynenko ◽  
Vladimir Yurievich Zhandrov
Keyword(s):  
Information And Communication Technologies ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Legal Response ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Political Decisions

The consequence of the pandemic caused by COVID-19 was the introduction of social restrictions, which led to an increase in the number of users of social networks, as well as their activity on the Internet. The involvement of citizens in the digital environment has changed the targets of criminal efforts of the criminals. The public’s fear of the coronavirus was subjected to criminal exploitation, new forms and methods of theft appeared, as a result, the spectrum of crime shifted to the criminal use of information and communication technologies (hereinafter – ICT. The purpose of the study is to analyze the dynamics of the indicators of Russian crime during the pandemic, to assess the adopted criminal-political decisions in terms of adequacy to the changes in crime, to develop on this basis the proposals for criminal law improvement able to increase the consistency of the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and its compliance with the requirements of the criminal-political situation in Russia. The assessment of the sectoral structure consistency in the regulation of criminal liability for committing crimes in the special conditions of a pandemic was used as the main research method. The research was carried out by the authors based on the dialectical method, which made it possible to manage changes in social reality by means of legal response, other scientific methods: sociological, modeling, concrete historical, comparative were applied as well. The results obtained showed that overcoming the negative changes in crime requires adjusting the vector of criminal policy from liberalization towards tightening in relation to crimes committed using ICT. It is proposed to expand the list of aggravating circumstances, limit the use of some mechanisms for terminating criminal liability associated with exemption from it, and review the possibilities of applying conditional conviction to persons who have committed crimes in a pandemic, up to and including refusal of this form of implementation of criminal liability. The formulated new proposals for improving the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation restore the consistency of the criminal law and increase the consistency of criminal-political decisions during a pandemic.

scholarly journals Criminal Misconduct: An Objective Need or a Declared Necessity?

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 142-154
Author(s):  
N. Yu. Skripchenko ◽  
S. V. Anoshchenkova
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Business Community ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The actively defended idea of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the inclusion of an offencse  of criminal misconduct in the criminal legislation was reflected in the revised draft federal law submitted to the  Parliament on October 13, 2020. The purpose of the study is to determine the key changes in the content of the  institutions of criminal misconduct and other measures of a criminal law nature proposed for consolidation in the  Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to assess the objective need of the reforms initiated by the Supreme  Court of the Russian Federation. The methodological basis is a set of methods of scientific knowledge. General  scientific (analysis and synthesis, dialectics) and specific scientific research methods (system structural, formal legal)  were used. A comparative analysis of draft laws allows us to classify the substantive content of acts constituting a  criminal misconduct as key changes and the modification of other measures of a criminal legal nature. The authors  critically assess the idea underlying the classification of acts as criminal misconduct. By laying in the criteria for  the isolation of acts that are minimal in terms of the degree of danger, not legally significant elements of corpus  delicti, but the types and amount of punishments, the lack of criminal experience, the interests of the business  community, the developers of the draft law violate the system of law, since the proposed approach excludes the  assessment of the public danger of the act based on the significance of the protected by the criminal the law of  public relations. The meaning of the differentiation of criminal liability declared by the initiator of the reforms is  lost with the proposed duplication of other measures applied both to persons who have committed a criminal  misconduct and to those guilty of committing crimes of small or medium gravity, and the proposed conditional  nature of other measures levels the idea of liberalizing the criminal law. The paper focuses on the provisions of  the project that require revision and additional comprehension.

The necessary defense and excess of its limits: legislative improvement opportunities

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 111-117
Author(s):  
Andrei Nikulenko ◽  
Maksim Smirnov
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The State ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Improvement ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article is devoted to the necessary defense as a circumstance that precludes the criminality of an act in the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. The significance and importance of the existence of this norm is proclaimed both in the criminal law and in the Basic law of the state – the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The existence of a rule on necessary defense in the state emphasizes the development of its legal system, allowing citizens to defend their own interests and protect the interests of others, in ways not prohibited by law, thereby preventing exceeding the limits of necessary defense. A number of issues related to the application of the norms provided for in article 37 of the Criminal code of Russia, as well as the norms of the Special part of the Criminal code of Russia, which provide for liability for crimes committed when exceeding the limits of necessary defense, were raised. The study of the relevant norms makes it possible to identify the advantages and disadvantages of legal regulation of circumstances that exclude the criminality of an act, including the shortcomings of judicial and investigative practice. The author criticizes the existing approach and suggests ways to resolve these problems, including by correcting the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 27, 2012, № 19 «About application by courts of legislation on necessary defense and causing harm when detaining a person who has committed a crime». Because of the ambiguous and often inconsistent application of norms of the criminal legislation on necessary defense, the authors give the recommendations (in further reconstruction of the relevant provisions of article 37 of the Criminal Code) to use an enumeration approach of presenting the legal formulation of these rules that allow the defender to cause any harm to an attacker. At the same time, it creates the most understandable, for citizens, formulation of the norm that allows lawfully causing harm to public relations protected by criminal law.

PUNISHING AUTONOMOUS ROBOTS: CRIMINAL LAW PERSPECTIVES

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-313
Author(s):  
ILDAR BEGISHEV ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Autonomous Robots ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Optimal Solution ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Potential Possibility ◽  
The Russian Federation

The purpose of the research. To develop and propose to the legislator a model of the criminal-legal reaction of the state to the potential possibility of harming public relations, values and interests protected by law in the process of functioning of autonomous robots. In this article, for the first time in the theory of domestic criminal law, an attempt is made to comprehensively state the problem of determining the boundaries of responsibility for causing harm to interests protected by criminal law in the process of functioning of autonomous robots, and the optimal solution to this problem is proposed. Results. The variability of the legal relationship between the behavior of a subject capable of being subject to criminal liability and the fact of causing harm in the course of functioning of an autonomous robot allowed us to develop a specific theoretical model for the application of criminal measures against autonomous robots for harm caused in the course of their functioning. Pursuing the goal of the most complete and comprehensive solution of the tasks of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, adapting existing criminal law norms to the trends of dynamically progressing digital technologies, we find it possible in the foreseeable future, when the technological singularity is reached and autonomous robots appear, to propose to the legislator to supplement the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with a new chapter «Criminal law measures applied to autonomous robots», which gives criminal legislation a new impetus in the light of the development of end-to-end digital technologies.

PROPERTY-RESTORATION LINE IN DEPENALIZATION CRIMINAL POLICYOF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

2020 ◽  
pp. 17-22
Author(s):  
T. R. Sabitov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Monetary Compensation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage

The article analyzes the latest trends in Russian criminal policy related to its property-restoration focus. The author aims to emphasize the fact that criminal policy in Russia has significantly changed in its quality. The new rules on exemption from criminal liability increasingly emphasize receiving monetary compensation as a condition for such exemption. The articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are analyzed: on liability for non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, allowances and other payments; on exemption from criminal liability in connection with compensation for damage; on exemption from criminal liability with a fine; on liability for tax and other crimes. Considering the new criminal law norms on exemption from criminal liability, the author comes to the conclusion that these norms are increasingly contrary to the principle of personal responsibility, since the legislator increasingly proceeds from the task of restoring property interests than from the criterion of the presence or absence of public danger.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document