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

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.

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 142-154
Author(s):  
N. Yu. Skripchenko ◽  
S. V. Anoshchenkova

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-313
Author(s):  
ILDAR BEGISHEV ◽  

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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Dvoryanskov ◽  
Elena Antonyan ◽  
Sergey Borovikov ◽  
Natal'ya Bugera ◽  
Aleksandr Grishko ◽  
...  

The textbook is prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, federal laws, international legal acts. The concepts, categories and institutions of the General Part of criminal Law are considered in detail. All changes in the criminal legislation have been taken into account, and the latest scientific, educational and methodological literature on criminal law has been used. The material is presented in an accessible form for effective assimilation of the training course. The publication contains regulatory legal material as of May 1, 2021. Meets the federal state educational standards of higher education of the latest generation in the areas of training 40.03.01 "Jurisprudence", 40.05.01 "Legal support of national security", 40.05.02 "Law enforcement", 40.05.03 "Forensic examination", 40.05.04 "Judicial and prosecutorial activities". For students, cadets, trainees studying in these areas of training, judges, law enforcement officers, as well as for anyone interested in criminal law issues.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ildar Begishev

Currently, robotics, along with other end-to-end technologies, is one of the key drivers of the digital economy. Robots are already successfully used in industry, agriculture, construction, aviation, and many other sectors of economic activity. Robots, due to their inherent properties, can not only store, process, and transmit information, but also perform certain mechanical actions, in accordance with the algorithms of their computer programs. The models of criminal law regulation that have been developed and are applied to the operators of computer equipment can not be fully adapted to the regulation of robots and are not fully relevant for the purposes of protecting public relations that develop in connection with their functioning. Robots, depending on their tactical and technical characteristics, can be a source of various threats, some of which create a danger of harming interests protected by criminal law and, under unfavorable circumstances, can realize this danger. Therefore, activities related to the development, operation and repair of robots must be consistent with the criminal law norms of a prohibitive nature. To ensure the safe and uninterrupted creation, operation, repair or other interaction with robots and autonomous robots, as well as to prevent harm in the course of the functioning of such robots, it is possible to propose to the legislator to supplement the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with a separate norm on liability for violation of the rules of creation, operation, repair or other interaction with such robots.


Author(s):  
V.E. Zvarygin ◽  
D.S. Nazarova

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.


Author(s):  
Ludmila Tarasova

The relevance of the problems of interpretation and enforcement of prosecution for failure to report the person (s) preparing, committing and committing the crimes provided for in the disposition of the norm and not prosecuting for failure to report the acts provided for by Article 205.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, provided there is no information about the person (persons) who committed it, contributes to the effectiveness of countering terrorism. Evaluating the generally positive norm of the Criminal Law provided for in Article 205.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is proposed to change the name to “Failure to report a terrorist crime”, which will eliminate discrepancies with the disposition of the norm; information about a committed or committed crime, listed in the disposition of this provision, fixing in the disposition of criminal liability for failure to report grave and especially grave crimes. It is recommended in the comments to the article to clarify the concepts:“reliable information”, “the source of information” and “the method of obtaining such information”.


Author(s):  
Mihail Alaf'ev

Numerous changes in the criminal law associated with the emergence of new norms providing for responsibility for criminal liability inevitably raise the question of the validity of criminalization. Its positive solution is possible only if the new criminal law prohibition is established in accordance with the principles of criminalization, one of which is the relative prevalence of the act. The article is devoted to the assessment of the prevalence of petty bribery in order to determine the correctness of the legislative decision to establish independent criminal liability for this crime (Article 2912 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The main method of research is a statistical method that allows us to establish the prevalence of bribery in the amount not exceeding 10 thousand rubles at the time of the adoption of this legislative decision, and also during the period of validity of article 2912 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the share of the analyzed crime in the structure of bribery and corruption offences. In addition, the author analyzed 120 sentences of courts for petty bribery. As a result of the research, the author concludes that petty bribery is a fairly common offence in the structure of both bribery and corruption crimes, which indicates its public danger and the validity for the criminal prohibition of its commission. It was established that the establishment of a separate norm on liability for petty bribery allowed law enforcement agencies focusing the efforts to counteract bribery in the amount of more than 10 thousand rubles.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
pp. 96-101
Author(s):  
N. YU. SKRIPCHENKO ◽  

The article is devoted to the criminal law means of countering the illegal production and circulation of medicines, medical devices and dietary supplements. The importance of the pharmaceutical industry has increased in the face of the global pandemic of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19), and the demand for medicines has led to an increase in the turnover of counterfeit medicines and medical devices. Among the criminal law means that prevent the appearance of counterfeit and substandard medicines on the market, a special place is occupied by criminal repression, the possibilities of which have significantly expanded in recent years. So in 2014, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was supplemented with three articles providing for liability for the illegal production and circulation of counterfeit, substandard medicines and Сетевой научно-практический журнал частного и публичного права 97 Стратегическая роль фармацевтического производства определяется не только экономической привлекательностью выпускаемого продукта, спрос на который ежегодно растет в связи увеличением численности населения, повышением продолжительности жизни, популяризацией здорового образа жизни, но и его ведущей ролью при реализации мер, направленных на повышение рождаемости, сдерживание заболеваемости и снижение смертности. Ключевое значение фармацевтической отрасли стало заметным в условиях мировой пандемии COVID-19, вызываемой коронавирусом SARS-CoV-2. Слабый рост реальных доходов населения ориентирует потребителя на поиск более бюджетных лекарственных препаратов, снижая требовательность к их качеству. При этом подстегиваемый коронавирусной паникой растущий спрос на лекарственные средства и ослабление государственного контроля за фармрынком в форме разрешения онлайн-продаж безрецептурных препаратов через интернет-аптеки определяют увеличение оборота фальсифицированных лекарственных средств и медицинский изделий. Отмечая расширение нелегального рынка медицинских препаратов, который по масштабам сопоставим с оборотом наркотиков, представители уголовно-правовой науки обращают внимание на то, что в отличие от наркоторговли потребителем некачественного лекарства может стать любой, независимо от социального статуса и уровня доходов1 . При этом повышенная общественная опасность криминального оборота лекарственных препаратов определяется не только экономическими потерями государства, легальных производителей (которые несут и репутационный урон), потребителей, но и реальной угрозой не только здоровью, но и жизни человека (а с учетом масштабов и распространения – населения), поскольку применение подделок может не только стать непосредственной причиной наносимого вреда, но и повлечь нарушение схемы лечения, что особенно критично в случаях использования пациентами жизненно необходимых препаратов2. Среди средств, препятствующих появлению на рынке фальсифицированных и недоброкачественных медикаментов, особое место занимает уголовная репрессия, возможности которой в последние годы заметно увеличились. Так, Федеральным законом от 31.12.2014 № 532-ФЗ «О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные акты Российской Федерации в части противодействия обороту фальсифицированных, контрафактных, недоброкачественных и незарегистрированных лекарственных средств, медицинских изделий и фальсифицированных биологически активных добавок»3 УК РФ был дополнен тремя статьями, предусматривающими ответственность за незаконное производство лекарственных средств и медицинских изделий (ст. 235.1 УК РФ), обращение фальсифицированных, недоброкачественных и незарегистрированных лекарственных средств, медицинских изделий и оборот фальсифицированных биологически активных добавок (ст. 238.1 УК РФ) и подделку документов на лекарственные средства или медицинские изделия или упаковки лекарственных средств или медицинских изделий (ст. 327.2 УК РФ). До этого момента виновных в производстве недоброкачественных и фальсифицированных лекарств привлекали к ответственности по ст. 238 УК РФ «Производство, хранение, перевозка или сбыт товаров, не отвечающих требованиям безопасности», при этом подавляющее большинство уголовных дел прекращалось по нереабилитирующим основаниям, так как деяния, предусмотренные ч. 1 ст. 238 УК РФ, являются преступлениями небольшой medical devices, forgery of documents for medicines or medical devices (Articles 235.1, 238.1, 327.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The implementation of the new norms in practice posed the questions of not only differentiating the relevant acts from related and competing acts, but also defining the key features of the offenses for law enforcement officials. The article indicates certain provisions that require permission at the legislative level and clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.


Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 159-170
Author(s):  
I. V. Pantyukhina ◽  
L. Yu. Larina

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-58
Author(s):  
D. V. Golenko

Justification of the study. the creation of a criminal law is a laborious and important process. When constructing articles of the criminal code, the legislator used various techniques and methods of presenting legislative material. One of the types of dispositions of an article is a simple disposition. Its application by the legislator raises questions among practitioners when qualifying crimes, and gives rise to discussions in the theory of criminal law. Methods. The methodological basis of the research was formed by general scientific and special methods of cognition: analysis, induction, systemic, comparative legal, formal legal methods and others. Results. The authors analysis of the simple disposition of the article, which provides for criminal liability for kidnapping, is carried out. The problems arising in the process of designing and applying Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are investigated. As a starting point, the explanations contained in the acts of the highest judicial bodies, judicial statistics were taken. The ways of improving the norms on criminal liability for kidnapping, proposed in the theory of criminal law, have been studied. Recommendations for the legislator and law enforcement officers have been formed. Conclusion. A simple disposition should be applied in exceptional cases when describing crimes of small and medium severity. The signs of a crime described in a simple disposition should be clear to the law enforcement officer due to the established uniform practice of applying the law. The lack of a unified understanding of the signs of a crime that are not described in a simple disposition leads in practice to legal uncertainty. Explaining the application of articles from a simple disposition leads, in fact, to the construction of corpus delicti by the judiciary. However, the design of the corpus delicti is the prerogative of the legislator. Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not meet the criterion of clarity and gives rise to a different understanding in practice of the signs of the objective and subjective aspects of the composition of the abduction of a person. The solution to the emerging problems is to change the simple disposition of Article 126 to a descriptive disposition, including an indication of the signs of the objective and subjective side of the crime. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the fact that the simple disposition of the article for the first-time acts as an independent object of research and analysis on the example of the disposition of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors approach to assessing the applicability of a simple disposition, positive and negative trends in its application by the legislator and the judiciary is proposed.Key words: Simple disposition of an article in a special part of the Criminal law (on the example of kidnapping) Abstract: Justification of the study. the creation of a criminal law is a laborious and important process. When constructing articles of the criminal code, the legislator used various techniques and methods of presenting legislative material. One of the types of dispositions of an article is a simple disposition. Its application by the legislator raises questions among practitioners when qualifying crimes, and gives rise to discussions in the theory of criminal law. Methods. The methodological basis of the research was formed by general scientific and special methods of cognition: analysis, induction, systemic, comparative legal, formal legal methods and others. Results. The authors analysis of the simple disposition of the article, which provides for criminal liability for kidnapping, is carried out. The problems arising in the process of designing and applying Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are investigated. As a starting point, the explanations contained in the acts of the highest judicial bodies, judicial statistics were taken. The ways of improving the norms on criminal liability for kidnapping, proposed in the theory of criminal law, have been studied. Recommendations for the legislator and law enforcement officers have been formed. Conclusion. A simple disposition should be applied in exceptional cases when describing crimes of small and medium severity. The signs of a crime described in a simple disposition should be clear to the law enforcement officer due to the established uniform practice of applying the law. The lack of a unified understanding of the signs of a crime that are not described in a simple disposition leads in practice to legal uncertainty. Explaining the application of articles from a simple disposition leads, in fact, to the construction of corpus delicti by the judiciary. However, the design of the corpus delicti is the prerogative of the legislator. Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not meet the criterion of clarity and gives rise to a different understanding in practice of the signs of the objective and subjective aspects of the composition of the abduction of a person. The solution to the emerging problems is to change the simple disposition of Article 126 to a descriptive disposition, including an indication of the signs of the objective and subjective side of the crime. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the fact that the simple disposition of the article for the first-time acts as an independent object of research and analysis on the example of the disposition of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors approach to assessing the applicability of a simple disposition, positive and negative trends in its application by the legislator and the judiciary is proposed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document