Criminal-Legal Characteristics of Encroachment on the Health, Personal Integrity, Honor and Dignity of a Representative of the Authorities

2021 ◽  
pp. 96-103
Author(s):  
N. Yu. Borzunova ◽  
O. S. Matorina ◽  
E. P. Letunova

The authors of the article consider the criminal- legal characteristics of crimes against representatives of the authorities, in particular, encroachment with the purpose of causing harm to the health, personal integrity, honor and dignity of a representative of the authorities. The definition of the term “representative of the authorities”is given. The main characteristics of a representative of the government are analyzed. Statistical data on the number of convictions and types of punishments in accordance with the provisions of articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 318, 319) are summarized. Examples of judicial practice are considered. The ways of improving the criminal legislation are proposed.

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vadim Zamaraev

The article provides a description of relevant features of the mental elements of the crime regulated by Article 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The paper also examines the general actor of the specific corruption act by applying a criminological approach and analyzing the empirical base for this category of criminal encroachment. The author researches the "physical" and "intellectual" bribery facilitation ways defined in the literature. Detailed attention is paid to optional features of the mental elements of mediation in bribery, such as: "motive" and "purpose" of the crime. The author proposes his definition of the mental elements of mediation in bribery, and provides the list of the social factors that influence the commission of a crime under Articles 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation having studied law enforcement practice and interviewed representatives of the general population of the Russian Federation. The results of this study can be used for further improvement of the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation, in terms of amendments and additions to the qualifying factors of bribery facilitation and the introduction of appropriate explanations in the current resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 24 of 09 July 2013 "On judicial practice in cases of bribery and other corruption-related crimes".


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):  
E.R. Gafurova

This article examines the features of the Russian criminal law norm that provides for liability for the murder of a newborn child by a mother. We analyzed the data of the Judicial Department on the statistics of convicts for 2016 and 2019 under Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in relation to the indicators of other privileged elements of murder, indicating the latency of this type of crime. The article also examines some features of the legislative structure of Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, accompanied by examples of judicial practice. The article examines the criminal law norms providing for responsibility for infanticide, the legislation of Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Holland and Denmark, and highlights the distinctive features of Article 106 of the Russian criminal legislation. The article presents proposals for possible improvement of the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on responsibility for the murder of a newborn child by a mother, confirmed by the indicators of a sociological study.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 93-100
Author(s):  
E. Ju. Chetvertakova ◽  

The complex nature of the act of the illegal acquisition of narcotic substances, creates problems in determining the boundaries of the intrusion and determining the stage of the crime, which leads to a lack of uniformity in the application of the provisions of Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The purpose of this article is to identify the problems that arise during the qualification of illegal acquisition of narcotic drugs, and to suggest ways to solve them. Tasks: analysis of the concept of the acquisition of narcotic drugs, the establishment of signs that are part of the objective side of the encroachment, the definition of the boundaries of the objective element to differentiate the stages of the crime. The article is based on an analysis of criminal legislation, doctrinal provisions and judicial practice. The author concludes that the acquisition of a narcotic substances is an act as a result of which a person is able to possess, use and dispose of the drug at his own discretion. The moment of completion of the crime should be associated with the possibility of disposing of the drug received. The seizure of narcotic drugs from the purchaser in the course of law enforcement intelligence operations cannot be considered as a completed crime. When determining the initial stage of the actus reus, the method of committing the crime should be taken into account. The conclusion is substantiated that it is inadmissible to use by analogy the explanation of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the content of the sale of narcotic drugs when interpreting the sign of illegal acquisition.


Author(s):  
Nikolay Ryabinin ◽  
Kseniya Filipson

The purpose of the study is to analyze the features of legal relations regulated by Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as to identify and resolve the problems related to the proper legal definition of these relations. The main research methods are: structural-system, methods of logical analysis and synthesis, formallegal, comparative-legal, as well as collecting information through the study of scientific periodicals and materials of judicial practice on this issue. The article discusses in detail the features of the delimitation of relations arising in accordance with Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The authors note that in the theory and practice of both criminal and civil law, one of the most controversial issues is the problem of differentiating a criminal offense under Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and acts that are not such (Article 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). So, to date, there is no consensus about the signs of differentiation of these compositions, and the criteria that have been developed at the present time are very vague and contradictory. Misinterpretation and application of norms when qualifying relations in accordance with Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not allow citizens to protect effectively their rights and legitimate interests. Therefore, in order to prevent violations of civil rights, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive scientific study of the features enabling to differentiate the above mentioned relations. Considerable attention is paid to the problem of appropriation of the found someone else’s property, when this property has identifying features. The authors define the types of property in the possession of the owner or any other type of legal owner, and also disclose the main characteristics of the specified property. In addition, the article formulates the authors’ definitions of such concepts as «finding» and «appropriation» of what was found. Based on the analysis of judicial and investigative practice, the authors propose the following recommendations for changing the legislation and the practice of its application in order to resolve controversial issues arising from the qualification of crimes against property. First, it is necessary to make clarifications in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2002 No. 20 «On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and banditry» which property should be recognized as being in the possession of the owner or other legal owners and determine the characteristic features of such property ... Secondly, it is necessary to formulate and consolidate the legal definition of a find in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Thirdly, to return into Chapter 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation «Crime against property» the part «Appropriation of the found property».


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 97-109
Author(s):  
A. V. Chernov ◽  
S. V. Gabeev

Changes made to Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation at the end of 2019 in order to eliminate gaps in legislation, in fact, created even more conflicts in the theory and practice of applying criminal and administrative law. The legislator has not fully calculated the risks of the new edition of Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The elimination of these risks requires more changes to the federal legislation, the adoption of new by-laws. Within the framework of Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation the legislator created a contradiction regarding the qualification of illegal circulation of unique amber formations. Russian legislation does not contain a legal definition of semi-precious stones, clarification of their difference from precious stones. The concept of precious stones does not prove to be successful, since it contains a list-based reference of a particular stone to the category of precious stones, which does not always really reflect the economic value of a particular mineral. The list of semi-precious stones at the level of the Government of Russia has yet to be approved. Taking into account the administrative prejudice as one of the conditions for criminal prosecution for illegal trafficking in semiprecious stones, it should be the same with the list of semi-precious stones established to bring an individual to administrative responsibility for similar offenses. The legislator did not pay attention to the issues of delimiting jewelry and household products and scrap of such products from the subject of crimes under Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. An even greater problem is the inconsistency between the norms of administrative and criminal legislation on liability for illegal trafficking in semi-precious stones.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 212-218
Author(s):  
V. V. Narodenko

The article describes provisions which are in the first note to Article № 158 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation and also signs of embezzlement enshrined in criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. Literal interpretation of the specified provisions of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation leads to a conclusion that things having physical expression and sign of corporality can act as a subject of embezzlement. Meanwhile the author of the article criticizes provisions of the criminal law. The author states thesis that despite the instruction in the Criminal code of the Russian Federation on obligation of harm causing to the owner by embezzlement, not only things but also other property can be as a subject of specified criminal encroachment. The article also describes arguments about illegal withdrawal of separate non-material things. Analyzing judgments it is possible to say that practice interprets the first note to Article № 158 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation in broad. It is necessary to understand as property not only things but also other benefits, in particular, non-cash money on bank accounts, paperless securities. Thus, despite difficulties, illegal actions for withdrawal of specified benefits judicial and investigative practice are qualified as embezzlement. These conclusions can be extended to situations connected with illegal withdrawal of other objects which are property but without material expression. The author suggests changing the existing definition of «embezzlement» and replacing the concept "owner" with the uniformed term “possessor of a right”.


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.


Author(s):  
Василий Некрасов ◽  
Vasiliy Nekrasov

The article analyzes the issues of differentiation of responsibility and norm design technique on inchoate crime in the criminal legislation of the Republic of Belarus. The author examines the legislative definition of preparation for a crime, attempted crime and voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose. As a result of the study the author has found out the main methods and means of legislative technique, used by the Belarusian legislator. These are abstract and casuistic methods, the terminology of the criminal law and several others. Comparison of legal regulation of norms on unfinished crime in the Criminal code of the Republic of Belarus and the Criminal code of the Russian Federation has allowed to identify gaps made by the legislators of both countries in application of specific tools and techniques of legislative drafting. Court practice of the Republic of Belarus in cases of preparation for a crime and attempted crime also was analyzed in present article. The author has evidentiated the means of differentiation of the responsibility for committing inchoate crime, used by the Belarusian legislator. The definitions “inchoate crime” and “stage of the crime” were also analyzed in present study. As a conclusion the author has made the recommendations for improving the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on regulation of criminal responsibility for an inchoate crime.


Author(s):  
Александр Викторович Сенатов

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document