scholarly journals The subject of the crime under article 258¹ of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation

Author(s):  
Farhat Mukhambetov

An attempt is made in this work to reveal the content of the subject of the crime under art. 258¹ of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation “Illegal extraction and circulation of especially valuable wild animals and aquatic biological resources belonging to the species included in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and (or) protected by international treaties of the Russian Federation”. The necessity of division of art. 258¹ of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation into two articles, separately providing for liability for illegal production and trafficking of especially valuable wild animals and illegal extraction of especially valuable aquatic biological resources. The differences in the subject of the crime under art. 256 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation, from the subject of the crime under art. 258¹ of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. The necessity of a substantial expansion of the List of especially valuable especially valuable wild animals and aquatic biological resources belonging to the species included in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and (or) protected by international treaties of the Russian Federation for the purposes of articles 2261 and 258¹ of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation due to inclusion in him of all representatives of the Red Book of the Russian Federation.

Author(s):  
A. A. Kashkarov ◽  
D. A. Poshtaruk

A criminal and legal analysis of the objective and subjective signs, characterizing the connivance to the crime is made in the publication. The study found that connivance in a crime may be characteristic of various criminal law institutions, such as implication in a crime and complicity in a crime. In addition, the presented arguments show that connivance as a criminally punishable act may be associated with non-interference with unlawful activities that do not constitute a crime. The analysis shows that connivance in a crime can have a selfish purpose. It is noted that connivance in a crime is significantly different from other forms of implication in a crime, namely concealment of a crime and failure to report a crime. The subject of connivance in a crime is a person endowed with special powers to prevent, document and register crimes or offences. The article discloses that there is no special penal provision in the current Act of Criminal Responsibility of the Russian Federation that criminalizes it. The exception is the disposition of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of RF, which contains an indication of connivance as a sign characterizing the objective side of receiving a bribe.


Author(s):  
I. M. Antonov

The paper deals with certain issues of legislative (legal) penalization of illegal extraction and circulation of especially valuable wild animals and aquatic biological resources. The sanctions established by art. 2581 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author comes to the conclusion that the penalization of these crimes was carried out suboptimally, and the design of the sanctions provided for their commission requires improvement


Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 150-158
Author(s):  
K. V. Dyadyun

The paper analyzes the objective and subjective features of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The problems of interpretation and application of this norm are investigated, taking into account the goals and objectives underlying its creation. Special legislation regulating the sphere under study is considered. The studied imperfections of regulation of the subject of the crime (the relationship between the concepts of alcoholic and alcohol-containing products), problems of distinguishing acts from related compounds (article 151 of the Criminal Code), the complexity of the classification. The analysis of crime-forming features is presented: "repeatability", "retail", and "sale". Imperfections of the legislative and law enforcement approach in this aspect are revealed. In particular, the key features and correlation of the concepts of wholesale and retail trade are analyzed; the problems of assessing what was done with remote methods of selling alcohol; the content aspects of the categories "duplicity and repetition" in the context under study. The question of the expediency of replacing the term "sale" with "illegal sale" in the disposition of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is studied. The regulation of features of the subject of the studied elements is considered, and existing problems are identified. The question of the expediency of norms with administrative prejudice in the criminal law was raised. Some problematic aspects of sentencing for retail sale of alcoholic products to minors are identified; and issues of establishing the subjective side of the elements. The paper analyzes the opinions of various authors regarding the possibility of improving the norm of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the study of statistical data and materials of judicial practice. The author indicates the need for an integrated approach in the fight against alcohol abuse among young people. The conclusion is presented regarding the validity of the existence of the studied norm in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the current version.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 105-112
Author(s):  
I. А. Kazarinov ◽  

The effect of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on military units stationed outside the Russian Federation is regulated by part 2 of article 12 of the Criminal Code, the interpretation and application of which causes a number of significant theoretical and applied problems. Based on the analysis of normative acts, international treaties and literary sources the article reveals the model of international legal regulation of responsibility of Russian soldiers; the reis a motion on the harmonization of the international norms which define the conditions of criminal jurisdiction of the Russian Federation in the military; certain private issues ofa pplication of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in a situation when a military person commits a crime outside the Russian Federation are resolved.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 87-92
Author(s):  
E. G. Bykova ◽  
◽  
A. A. Kazakov

The change in the disposition of Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation led to questions from law enforcement officers about from what moment a person is considered to be held administratively liable and what to mean by the commission of a similar act. The article carries out a systematic legal analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in order to formulate proposals for solving the indicated problems. The fundamental method was dialectical. The formal legal method was used in the study of regulations governing certain aspects of the legal assessment of unlawful acts that take into account administrative precedence. Using a comparative legal method, a distinction was made between situations where a person was ordered to be held administratively liable and an administrative penalty was imposed. Scientific publications on the subject were analyzed. It was concluded that the current version of Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, containing a formally indefinite legal category, raises the problem of calculating the one-year period during which a person can be prosecuted under this norm if there is an administrative precedence. In addition, it is justified that a «similar act» should be understood only as an administrative offense, responsibility for which is provided for in Art. 20.3.1 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. The use of criminal law by analogy is unacceptable, therefore, it is proposed to amend the disposition of Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code to eliminate the identified gap. The problem identified could be the basis for further scientific research. The practical significance is due to the fact that the positions formulated by the authors can be taken into account in the process of improving criminal law, when amending the relevant explanations of the highest court in this category of cases in order to form a unified practice of applying criminal law.


Author(s):  
Евгения Германовна Ветрова ◽  
Илья Александрович Васильев

В статье проводится сравнение положений ст. 184 УК РФ (Оказание противоправного влияния на результат официального спортивного соревнования) и соответствующих статей Дисциплинарного Регламента Федерации Хоккея России. Автор произвел сравнение составов анализируемых правонарушений: объекта, субъекта, объективной стороны и субъективной стороны и указал их сходства и отличия. The article compares the provisions of Article 184 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Illegal influence on the result of an official sports competition) and the corresponding articles of the Disciplinary Regulations of the Russian Ice Hockey Federation. The author compared the components of the analyzed offenses: the object, the subject, the objective side and the subjective side, and indicated their similarities and differences.


Author(s):  
Vladislava K. Zaigraeva ◽  

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.


Author(s):  
Алена Харламова ◽  
Alena Kharlamova ◽  
Юлия Белик ◽  
Yuliya Belik

The article is devoted to the problematic theoretical and practical issues of the content of the signs of the object of the crimes under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code. The authors determined the main direct object, revealed the essence of the right of ownership, use and disposal. Marked social relations that can act as an optional direct object. Particular attention is paid in the article to the subject of the crime. Attempts have been made to establish criteria that are crucial for the recognition of any vehicle as the subject of theft. The content of the terms “automobile” and “other vehicle” is disclosed. The analysis of the conformity of the literal interpretation of the criminal law to the interpretation of the law enforcer is carried out. It is summarized that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation narrows the meaning of the term “other vehicle”, including in it only vehicles for the management of which, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, is granted a special right. The authors provide a list of such vehicles and formulate a conclusion on the advisability of specifying them as the subject of a crime. The narration of the article is accompanied by examples of decisions of courts of various instances in cases of crimes under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document