Legal and Actual Characteristics of the Institute Exemption from Criminal Liability

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 83-92
Author(s):  
V. K. Andrianov ◽  

Analysis of judicial practice shows that the greatest difficulties and errors in the courts and the prosecutors and investigators in the application of exemption from criminal liability, related to the issues of legal facts. It is no coincidence that most of the content of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 27 June 2013 No. 19 is devoted to clarifying questions about legal facts provided for by the norms of Chapter 11 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The purpose of this article is the legal and factual analysis of the release of the institute of criminal responsibility, which is in the general theory of law recognized by specific methodological direction in the explanation of legal phenomena In the article we developed a number of questions of legal conditions and facts with which the criminal law links the exemption from criminal liability: on the concept of the person who committed the crime for the first time; on exemption from criminal liability in the event of the commission of an unfinished crime and a crime of complicity; on the types of legal facts serving as the basis for such consequences; the amount of positive post-criminal behavior required for release; competition between the grounds for exemption from criminal liability; on the role of other social circumstances, when making the appropriate decision, etc.

10.12737/7632 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Денис Гарбатович ◽  
Denis Garbatovich

The article deals with the grounds on which a person may be relieved of criminal responsibility in connection with reconciliation with the victim. In accordance with Article 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that is based on the simultaneous implementation of the following conditions: 1) for the first time a crime of small or average gravity; 2) reconciliation with the victim; 3) compensation of harm caused to the victim. The face in the presence of the above conditions are not necessarily subject to unconditional exemption from criminal liability, this right depends on the discretion of a law enforcement official. Through an analysis of the norms of criminal law, judicial practice addresses the question whether it is permissible to exempt from criminal responsibility in connection with reconciliation with the victim´s mother, who killed her newborn child. Victims can be considered the closest relatives of the murdered child (father, grandparents)who are also relatives and friends in relation to the mother-killer. Victims may initially not interested in bringing her to justice and appropriate compensation to victims can be represented as some Convention and formality. Mother release from criminal responsibility for the murder of a newborn child in such circumstances, does not comply with the principle of justice, and not adequately solves the problem of the criminal code of the Russian Federation for the protection of the rights and freedoms against crime. Therefore, in the presented work provides General guidance on when such exemption from criminal liability is possible, and when it is not desirable.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-84
Author(s):  
N. N. Korotkikh

The article analyzes some of the controversial, in the opinion of the author, recommendations of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 of 15.05.2018 «On the practice of the courts applying the provisions of paragraph 6 Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation». Lowering the category of crime always requires clear criteria by which the actions of the defendant could be qualified with a change in the gravity of the crime. Based on examples from judicial practice, the thesis is substantiated that “taking into account the factual circumstances of the case” and “the degree of its public danger” are evaluative e criteria and do not always allow to decide the validity of the application of part 6 article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The discrepancy between some of the recommendations contained in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is shown. It is concluded that it is impossible to exempt a person from criminal liability on the grounds specified in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana Bersh ◽  
Anna Khristyuk

Despite the positive attitude towards the presence of compromise norms in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, containing the possibility of exemption from criminal liability for a committed crime, their mere presence seems insufficient. It is important to introduce a mechanism for the functioning of the norms, which will describe in detail all the stages necessary for their application. The article discusses controversial issues of insufficient legislative regulation of exemption from criminal liability on the basis of the application of a note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The opinions of scientists concerning the application of special grounds for exemption from criminal liability for kidnapping are generalized, the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding the understanding of the term “voluntary release of the kidnapped” is considered. A number of controversial issues that have not been taken into account by the legislator, which require mandatory regulation, are cited. The article examines the existing judicial practice of applying the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A lack of uniformity in the law enforcement activities of the judiciary was revealed. Supplements are proposed to the new resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 24, 2019 No. 58 to increase the effectiveness of the application of the considered grounds for exemption from criminal liability. As a result, a proposal was put forward that is aimed at improving the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The issues raised in the article are of scientific and practical interest.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-366
Author(s):  
Elena Kalashnikova

The article is devoted to theoretical justification for the introduction of criminal prohibitions on criminal assault in the illicit movement of goods, specified in article 226-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; the principles and bases of criminalization of smuggling in connection with her increased public danger. The analysis of the main components of social conditionality of criminal responsibility allows us to establish the validity of the introduction of new or existing criminal law norms. The article considers the public danger of smuggling (art. 226-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as an obligatory sign of a crime, revealing its social nature and social conditionality of the criminal liability under article 226-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, depending on the extent and nature of public danger of the given kind of crimes. The social assessment of an act as a crime is based on its social danger, which is legally established in a normative legal act (Federal law) adopted in accordance with the established procedure and included in the criminal code of the Russian Federation. Attention is drawn to the fact that the public danger of smuggling is a threat to the foreign economic security of Russia. At the same time, there is a public danger of illegal movement across the customs border of the EEU (the customs border of the Customs Union within the framework of the EEU) of items specified in art. 226-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is primarily concerned with causing harm to market economic relations developing in the EEU area, which forms a single customs territory, as well as causing material damage to the state in the form of unpaid customs payments, death or damage to particularly valuable wild animals and aquatic biological resources as contraband items. Smuggling as a negative social phenomenon includes the organization of activities related to violation of the customs and border regime. In the context of globalization and the development of market relations, smuggling is still the most common and most dangerous of customs crimes. Accordingly, the existence of a criminal law ban on its Commission remains socially conditioned, since it is a deterrent that allows the state to respond adequately to these types of criminal behavior.


Author(s):  
P. A. Akimenko ◽  

The norms introduced at different times into Russian criminal legislation and enshrined in Articles 322, 3221, 3222 and 3223 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation have a number of legal defects, resulting in a controversial practice that has generated a lot of debate in the scientific community regarding this research issue. There was a need to accumulate and analyze the existing judicial practice, taking into account advanced scientific views. As a result, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a Resolution aimed at regulating criminal liability for violations of migration legislation. After that, the author of the article conducts a detailed analysis of the said judicial act and on this basis draws conclusions about the set of positive and negative aspects contained in it in order to help create a uniform law enforcement practice.


Author(s):  
Larisa Gotchina ◽  
Marina Dvorzhitskaya

The paper discusses highly latent actions constituting implication in a crime. The goal of this study is to identify the problems of criminally prosecuting persons who committed actions constituting implication in a crime, to qualify them and to develop recommendations for their elimination. Formal legal and comparative legal methods were used to obtain and process results relevant for the research, the statistical method was used to collect and analyze data on the examined crimes, and the sociolo­gical one — to conduct a survey of experts. An analysis of criminal cases made it possible to state that the problem of criminally prosecuting persons who committed actions constituting implication in a crime is connected with the problems of their qualification, and with widening the institute of implication through failure to report a crime; this action is included in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the topical issues of terrorism threat, a growing number of terrorist crimes and the necessity to protect the society from them. The authors believe that it is reasonable to recognize 16 years old as the minimum age of criminal responsibility for failure to report a crime. It is proven that the criminal character of implication in a crime could be based not only on the guilty verdict for the main case, but also on other procedural acts. It is concluded that implication in a socially dangerous act is possible for a person who does not possess the attribute of a subject of a crime due to his/her mental incompetence, and is also possible for a crime committed in complicity. It is stated that concealment of a crime is constituted by actions to conceal the event of the main crime, its traces, the objects obtained through criminal means, or the person who committed the main crime. It can be committed not only through physical, but also through intellectual actions. The authors suggest differentiating between criminal liability for the concealment of grave and especially grave crimes. The analysis of judicial investigation practice made it possible to identify typical models of qualifying actions constituting implication in a crime, as well as psychological, moral, criminological and criminal law features of a person who conceals a crime or fails to report it. Based on the authors’ position, a formulation of the decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation «On some issues of implication in a crime» is suggested.


Author(s):  
Alexander V. Shesler ◽  
◽  

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.


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.


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.


Author(s):  
A. Ya. Asnis

The article deals with the criminological grounds and background of the adoption of the Federal law of April 23, 2018 № 99-FZ, which introduced criminal liability for abuse in the procurement of goods, works and services for state or municipal needs (Art. 2004 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and for bribery of employees of contract service, contract managers, members of the Commission on the implementation of the procurement of persons engaged in the acceptance of the delivered goods, performed works or rendered services, other authorized persons, representing interests of customer in the scope of the relevant procurement (Art. 2005 of the Criminal Code).The author formulates private rules of qualification of the corresponding crimes and differentiation of their structures from structures of adjacent crimes and administrative offenses. The necessity of changing the position of the legislator regarding generic and direct objects of these crimes, the adoption of a special resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to explain the practice of applying the relevant innovations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document