scholarly journals CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR REPEATED DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (72) (2) ◽  
pp. 276-282
Author(s):  
A. P. Nagornyi ◽  
A. N. Popov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Code

This article analyzes the legal provisions providing for criminal and administrative liability for the destruction and damage of another’s property: the contents of Articles 167 and 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as those of Article 7.17 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation are examined in detail. The authors concluded that in case the amount of damage caused is less than five thousand rubles, then the criminal offense provided for in Article Art. 167 of the Criminal Code, is not formed, and only administrative liability is possible under Article 7.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Practice shows that one and the same person can repeatedly commit an act for which liability is established under Article 7.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation with a maximum penalty of an administrative fine ranging from three hundred to five hundred rubles.

scholarly journals Issues of Demarcation of Material Elements Stipulated by Art. 322.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 2 Art. 19.27 of the Administrative Offense Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
Magomedgadzhi Yu. Yusupov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Adjacent Structures ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Code

The article discusses the issues of delineation in the qualification of a criminal offense under Article. 322.3 of the Criminal Code, and an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 19.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. In both adjacent structures, liability is established for similar illegal actions in the implementation of migration registration. Criteria are formulated by which a criminal offense should be distinguished from administrative tort.

scholarly journals ISSUES OF THE IMPROVEMENT OF ARTICLE 286 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: INTERNATIONAL PROVISIONS AND THE RUSSIAN EXPERIENCE

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 23-26
Author(s):  
Oleg N. Dyadkin ◽  
◽  
Mikayyl N. Akhmedov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article provides a brief historical analysis of the consolidation of criminal liability for the use of torture as a means of committing a criminal offense, offers options for amending the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation to improve the regulation of liability for the use of torture.

scholarly journals HOLDING THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE CRIMINAL HIERARCHY: CRIMINAL LAW ASPECT

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (3(65)) ◽  
pp. 108-120
Author(s):  
Валерий Анатольевич НОВИКОВ
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper discusses the most pressing issues of criminal responsibility for holding the highest position in the criminal hierarchy. Liability for such an act was introduced by Federal Law No. 46-FZ of April 1, 2019 by supplementing the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with Article 210¹. In order to characterize the constituent elements of this crime, the legislator used the concepts of «criminal hierarchy» and «the highest position in the criminal hierarchy» that are not defined in the current normative legal acts, which makes it difficult to apply the considered criminal law norm. Some scientific publications note that the introduction of criminal liability for a person occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy is not in agreement with Article 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which, as the sole basis of responsibility, specifies a socially dangerous act containing all the elements of a crime and not the status of a person in the criminal world. Purpose: based on modern scientific concepts and judicial practice, a comparative study of national legislation with similar legal provisions of other states, to interpret the concepts in question and, on that basis, to define the range of socially dangerous acts, which may be incriminated against a person prosecuted under Article 210¹ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Methods: methods of analysis and synthesis, generalization, comparative legal, formal logical, legal dogmatic and other methods of scientific knowledge are used. Results: on the basis of the study, the author concludes that not the status of a criminal leader itself, but the administrative activity due to the highest position in the criminal environment to streamline organized crime in freedom and in places of execution of punishments constitutes grounds for responsibility under Article 210¹ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. There is also an indicative list of persons to be considered as perpetrators of offences under Part 4 of Article 210 and Article 210¹ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Acts of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court in the context of criminal law linkages

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 03003
Author(s):  
Vladimir Pavlovich Konyakhin ◽  
Tatyana Yurievna Batyutina ◽  
Ruslan Georgievich Aslanyan ◽  
Manas Kapasovich Intykbaev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Optimal Algorithm ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Russian Federation

The regulatory certainty of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is ensured by the presence of systemic hierarchical links between different legal prescriptions, including of the other-branch affiliation. Since the Russian legislation does not provide for the authentic interpretation of federal laws, the Russian Federation Constitutional Court plays an important role in the resolution of complicated issues of enforcement of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As a rule, the doctrine gives a characteristic of particular decisions taken by it through the prism of problems of classification of specific crimes. However, proceeding from the growing scientific interest in interdisciplinary research, it seems necessary to accumulate the major legal provisions of the said court in terms of enforcement of the criminal law, with regard for its inter-sectoral bonds. The purpose of the research is to generalise the conclusions of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court on such fundamental issues as the grounds for criminal liability, timeframe validity of a criminal law, differentiation between crimes and administrative offences, prejudgement – and search of the optimal algorithm for their resolution in the future on this basis. The methodological basis of the study is represented by the general scientific methods of cognition: dialectical and systemic-structural; and as concerns the specific scientific methods – by the legalistic method. Following the analysis of a number of resolutions and rulings of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court for the period 2003-2020, an algorithm was developed for enforcement of the regulatory prescriptions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the context of its inter-branch linkages. It was found out, on the basis of the study of sentences passed by the Russian courts, that the most common mistakes of law enforcement officers in extrapolating the legal provisions of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court within the framework of particular criminal cases are connected with incorrect interpretation of factual circumstances as well as the facts of transcending the content of the relevant norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals CRIMINAL MISUSE: SOME DISCUSSION ISSUES

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-297
Author(s):  
G.A. Reshetnikova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Conceptual Changes ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Legal Consequence ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

At present, the topic of the stated research is relevant because the phenomenon of "criminal offense" can become a novelty of the modern criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. There are objective grounds for this - this is the reintroduction of the draft federal law "On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the introduction of the concept of a criminal offense" to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. For this reason, the study was not conditioned by the decision on the expediency (benefit) of introducing this concept into the criminal legislation. The author's attention was focused on the problems of criminal misconduct discussed in the scientific literature and their solution in the proposed bill. The author limited the study to only the most significant questions, first of all about the genus of the criminal offense and some other issues that follow from this and require consideration. The study showed that the authors' predictions that the introduction of a criminal offense (if the bill is adopted) will hardly entail any conceptual changes in criminal legislation are hardly justified. We believe that the coverage of the concept of “criminal offense” will not be so global, at least in this edition, since a criminal offense does not have its own generic differences, being in essence a guilty socially dangerous act prohibited by criminal law. The specific difference, which does not characterize the essence of a criminal offense, but indicates its possible (in view of the relativity of this concept) legal consequence, is the application to the offender of other measures of a criminal-legal nature applied when a person is released from criminal liability.

scholarly journals Violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules: issues of criminalization and legislative regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (8) ◽  
pp. 110-117
Author(s):  
Yu. S. Norvartyan
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Technical Approach ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Severe Punishment ◽  
Administrative Code

The article discusses some problems of criminalization and lawmaking in the field of countering crimes involving violations of sanitary and epidemiological rules. From the point of view of the legal and technical approach, Part 1 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains a construction of a complex composition, which can be called «delinquent-material». In such a composition there is both a mass disease (poisoning of people) and the threat of a mass disease (poisoning of people) they are considered not as acts, but as a socially dangerous consequence. In other words, this kind of criminal-legal construction includes, firstly, the violation of the rules itself and, secondly, socially dangerous consequences in the form of mass illness or poisoning of people or creating a real threat of the onset of these consequences. At the same time, violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules without the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences or the threat of such consequences entails administrative responsibility under Articles 6.3 — 6.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.The author notes that an act that creates a real threat to law enforcement facilities provided for in Part 1 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has a lower degree of public danger compared to such actions (inaction) that inadvertently lead to mass illness or poisoning of people. Equalizing the limits of criminal liability for the commission of the two abovementioned torts is a violation of the principle of justice. In this regard, the author of this article proposes in Part 1 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to establish responsibility for violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules if such violation created a threat of mass illness or poisoning of people. In turn, criminal liability for violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules, which inadvertently caused mass illness or poisoning of people, should be established in Part 2 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for a more severe punishment.

Types of Criminal Acts

2021 ◽  
pp. 255-260
Author(s):  
Alexander V. Shesler ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Forced Labor ◽  
Drug Addicts ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
A Minor

The article examines criminal acts, with which the law associates certain criminal legal consequences. The aim of the article is to substantiate the identification of various criminal acts and show their specificity in comparison with crimes. The research is based on the domestic criminal legislation, materials of judicial practice and the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany. The research methods are: the method of comparative law, which allowed comparing the provisions about criminal offenses in the 1960 Criminal Code of the RSFSR and in the 1996 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of Germany; the method of document analysis, which made it possible to analyze the judicial practice and proposals of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the introduction of provisions on criminal offences in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; the formal-logical method that made it possible to analyze the content of the norms of the Criminal Code about criminal acts. The article concludes that, in addition to crimes, criminal acts should include: a criminal offence, which entails criminal liability in the form of replacing punishment with a more severe one (fine, compulsory labor, correctional labor, restriction of freedom as the main type of punishment, forced labor) or criminal liability in the form of the cancellation of any type of probation (suspended sentence, parole, deferred sentence, deferred sentence for drug addicts); a minor act; socially dangerous behavior of persons who are not subjects of a crime due to their minor age or insanity; innocent infliction of harm. The article shows the specificity of a misdemeanour, consisting in the fact that this act is not socially dangerous, does not contain signs of a crime, violates the liability of the convicted person to be subject to limitations arising from the court-appointed punishment or type of probation (suspended sentence, parole, deferred sentence, deferred sentence for drug addicts). It is substantiated that a minor act should be referred to circumstances that exclude the criminality of an act due to the absence of public danger, an essential feature of a crime. It is argued that acts, provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, committed in a state of insanity and entailing compulsory medical measures, should not be subject to criminal law. The article criticizes the judicial practice of a broad interpretation of the commission of a crime by a group of persons, according to which it is not only a co-execution, but also any execution of the objective side of the crime by several persons, of which only one can be the perpetrator. It is argued that causing harm due to the non-compliance of the psychophysiological qualities of a person with the requirements of an extreme situation does not apply to innocent infliction of harm.

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF THE SPHERE OF BLOCKCHAIN FUNCTIONING AGAINST CRIMINAL OFFENCES: LANDSCAPE, DYNAMICS AND PERSPECTIVES

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 133-138
Author(s):  
SONA MKRTCHIAN ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Telecommunications Network ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The purpose of the research is to identify the most successful ideas and legal techniques used in international law regarding regulations of defense against criminal offences in the sphere of cybersecurity, as well as blockchain functioning and cryptocurrency turnover. Results. On the basis of the positive international experience in regulating the criminal legal protection of relations in the last-mentioned sphere, the following directions for improving Russian criminal legislation were formulated: 1) fixation of the fair limits of the criminal administrative liability for defendant in reliance on the level of public danger of his personality and his offences; 2) creation of the formally defined crimes against computer information; 3) criminalization of some actions that precede cybercrimes; 4) expansion in the number of the mentioning of the sign "by interfering in the functioning of the resources of the storing, processing or transmitting computer information or data telecommunications network" as an essential or aggravating elements of crimes, typically committed with the use of information technologies (for example, in the articles number 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 146, 147, 163, 165, 240, 240.1, 241 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, etc.); 5) expansion in the number of the elements of crimes combined in the chapter 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in reliance on the modern criminal schemes and typical criminal situations in the world of information technology; 6) expansion of the effect of the article number 274.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on any criminal offense to the critical information infrastructure of the Russian Federation and inclusion of the additional aggravating elements in the text of this article.

Suspended Sentence and Placement in a Special Educational Institution: Features of Application and Correlation in the Context of the Systematic Nature of Criminal Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 267-271
Author(s):  
Vаleria A. Terentieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Educational Institution ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Simultaneous Application ◽  
Closed Type ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Law Regulation

The systematic nature of criminal law forms the main features of the industry, namely: normativity, universalism, that is, the absence of casuistry and obligation. The strict consistency of both the entire industry and its individual institutions allows avoiding the redundancy of criminal law regulation, clearly determining the legal status of a person in conflict with the law. However, the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation do not always meet these requirements due to defects in legal technology, and, sometimes, gaps in regulation. In practice, the courts, in an effort to minimize the above defects, sometimes resort to excessive criminal law regulation; as an example, the article gives the ratio of the application of suspended sentence and placement in a special educational institution of a closed type. The article analyzes sentences to minors in which Art. 73 and Part 2 of Art. 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation were simultaneously applied in one sentence for the same act. For a comprehensive study, the article analyzed sentences to minors held in special educational institutions of a closed type for the period from 2014 to 2020, criminal statistics posted on the website of the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as well as various points of view of leading legal scholars. The research methods of static observation, analysis and synthesis, the system-structural method, as well as a number of factographic methods, were used. The study develops from the general to the specific, i.e., first, systematicity is analyzed as a property of the branch of criminal law and then as a property of a legal institution, namely, the release of minors from criminal liability. Consistency as a property of the institution of exemption from criminal punishment presupposes the impossibility of intersecting elements within one institution. Special attention is paid to the legal nature of suspended sentence as the most common punishment measure for minors, and its effectiveness. Then the cases of the simultaneous application of Art. 73 and Part 2 of Art. 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are analyzed. In the course of the study, the author examines the features of suspended sentence and placement in a special educational and educational institution of a closed type, compares these two forms of criminal liability, and highlights the differences. The conclusion is that the simultaneous placement in a special educational institution of a closed type and suspended sentence are a redundancy of criminal law regulation. The article raises the question of the need to improve the Criminal Code in terms of the development of placement in a special educational and educational institution of a closed type as a type of exemption from criminal punishment: the court is to be provided with the opportunity to control the juvenile offender’s correctional process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document