The Subject of a Crime Under Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

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.

2021 ◽  
pp. 99-115
Author(s):  
Sergei Gennadevich Losev ◽  
Viktor Ivanovich Morozov

The object of this research is the legal relations arising in the context of implementation of the norms of criminal law of the Russian Federation that establish liability for repeated administrative offenses. The subject of this research is the practice of application the criminal law norms of the Soviet and post-Soviet periods that regulate the institution of administrative prejudice, and acts of interpretation of the Russian Constitution, in which the Supreme Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation deals with the problems of the use of separate articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that contain the norms with administrative prejudice, and parts of interrelation between the institutions of administrative prejudice and recurrence of offenses. The subject of this research is also justification of existence the institution of administrative prejudice in the national criminal law, main flaws in interpretation of the articles that describe the norms of the institution of administrative prejudice in the text of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Taking into consideration all shortcomings in interpretation of the articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the author offers unified definition of the composition with administrative prejudice. It is suggested to reintroduce the concept of recurrent offense in the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the fact of administrative liability, outstanding criminal record, or criminal record that has not been expunged. The case if the legislator deems it necessary to take into account not identical, but homogeneous recurrence should be stipulated in the note to the article of the Special Part. The author also offers to include the Article 16.1 into the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the following wording: “The repeated offense is considered an act committed by a person who has previously been subjected to administrative penalty for similar type of offense, unless stipulated otherwise in the corresponding articles of the Special Part of the effective Code”.


Narkokontrol ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 8-10
Author(s):  
Elena G. Bykova ◽  

Purpose: legal analysis of theoretical and practical aspects of determining the age of criminal responsibility for inducing a person under the age of 18 to use narcotic drugs. Methodology: the fundamental method was dialectical. When studying the regulations governing the issues of bringing minors to justice, the formal legal method was used. The hypothesis about the correctness of the wording of paragraph «a» of Part 3 of Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Analyzed judicial practice and scientific publications on the issue under study. Conclusions: the author concluded that the absence of a legislative limitation makes it possible to assess according to paragraph «a» of Part 3 of Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation actions of a person aged sixteen to eighteen years. Scientific and practical significance: the scientific significance of the research is expressed in the development of scientifically grounded proposals containing the answer to the question about the age of the person involved in paragraph «a» of Part 3 of Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The noted problem can be further disclosed in detail in scientific research. Practical significance is determined by the fact that the conclusion reasoned by the author can serve as a guideline in the investigation and consideration of criminal cases under paragraph «a» of Part 3 of Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the formation of a unified approach.


2021 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 02009
Author(s):  
Oleg Alexandrovich Dizer ◽  
Irina Gennadievna Bavsun ◽  
Andrey Viktorovich Zarubin ◽  
Vladimir Nikolaevich Safonov ◽  
Georgy Yurievich Sokolsky

The study prerequisites are the fragmentation in the current criminal legislation of criminal law standards protecting the field of sports, as well as the issues of criminalization of acts in sports and the qualification of sports crimes. The study aims to solve the issues of systematization of regulatory provisions, the object of which is social relations in sports, taking into account the characteristics of the generic and specific objects, the degree of encroachment danger. The methods included the dialectical method, abstraction, analysis, synthesis, deduction, formal legal method, method of comparative jurisprudence. The results and novelty of the study reside in the conclusions about the advisability of identifying a separate specific object of criminal law protection (social relations in sports), which would systematize related and close acts not only in professional sports but also at all levels of official sports competitions. In this context, the issues of criminalization and qualifications of causing harm to life and health of an individual in violation of the sport rules, exerting unlawful influence on the result of an official sports competition, actions provided for in Art. 230.1 and 230.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the synchronization of the subject of the latter with the subject of Art. 234 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Based on the foregoing, the recommendation of isolating a separate chapter in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and issuing a separate Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on crimes in sports is substantiated. Such measures will be able to optimize the criminal law protection of such an important sphere of public life as sports. In addition, this will make it possible to bring the quality of domestic criminal legislation and sports legislation to the international level and significantly increase the prestige of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Mikhail Aleksandrovich Prostoserdov

This article provides the results of research of the system of sanctions of the Special Part of the effective Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The object of this study is the social relations arising in temrs of infliction of criminal punishment. The subject of is sanctions of the norms of the Special Part of the effective Criminal Law of the Russian Federation. The goal consists in identification of flaws in establishment of such sanctions, substantiation of the negative impact of these flaws, and development of recommendations for their eliminations. Particular attention is given to the rules for establishment of sanctions of the norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely the procedure for the transaction punishments in the sanctions of norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and consequences of violating this order. The scientific novelty of this research consists in identification of violations in the sanctions of norms that have recently come into legal force. The author also determines the violations that create internal contradictions within the effective criminal law. The three groups of violations of the procedure for transaction of punishments in the sanctions of norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on various grounds have been distinguished. In the course of this study, the author detected fifteen violations of the rules for establishment of the sanctions of norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as offered solutions for their eliminations. The acquired results are of practical significance and can contribute to the improvement of the Russian criminal law.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-284
Author(s):  
INESSA PETROVA ◽  
◽  

The article considers some features of the unified state registers that are the subject of a crime under Article 2853 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, reveals the content of each designated feature of the concept under study, which allowed us to formulate a definition of the unified state registers. The systematization of the unified state registers is given, based on their classification on various grounds. Attention is drawn to the peculiarities of criminal law protection of relations in the field of maintaining unified state registers, for the understanding of which it is necessary to know the regulatory legislation, since the disposition of the criminal law norm provided for in Article 2853 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is of a blank nature. The study shows that a clear definition of unified state registers allows us to assess from a legal point of view which of them are the subject of a crime under Article 2853 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is reflected in the correct qualification of criminal acts that infringe on relations in the field of maintaining unified state registers. The purpose of the study is to clarify the features of criminal law protection of relations in the field of maintaining unified state registers through the prism of understanding some of the characteristic features of unified state registers as the subject of a crime under Article 2853 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The conducted research allowed us to formulate the author's definition of the unified state registers, to clearly identify the features inherent in the unified state registers, which allows us to give a legal assessment of acts containing signs of a crime under Article 2853 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The methodological basis of the work is a synergetic approach, implemented through structural analysis and effective synthesis through the study of certain aspects of the criminal law phenomenon under consideration. The practical significance of the work consists in the possibility of distinguishing the attribution of unified state registers to the subject of a crime under Article 2853 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation from unified state registers that are not such, which will eventually be reflected in a clear distinction between criminal acts and other illegal ones.


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):  
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


Author(s):  
Ekaterina Dmitrievna Sungurova

The goal of this research consists in comparison of the normative legal acts that regulate the questions of criminal liability for illegal implementation of medical and pharmaceutical activity in Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and the Russian Federation. The article employs the general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, generalization. For identification of differences in the content of the corresponding legal norms, the author applies the comparative legal method, which consists in comparative analysis of the normative legal acts of the post-Soviet states. The research materials contain the norms of criminal law, as well as normative legal acts in the sphere of licensing. The novelty of this work consists in the fact that pursuit of ways to improve the national criminal law, the author assesses the possibilities of reception of certain provisions of the foreign legislation. The article explores the approaches towards systematization of crimes for illegal conduct of medical and pharmaceutical activity in the Criminal Code. The conclusion is made on the three approaches of the legislators towards establishment of origin of the object of crime. Analysis is performed on the current state of the practice of constructing criminal law sanctions of the norms on liability for illegal implementation of medical and pharmaceutical activity. The common feature of the Russian, Belarusian, Armenian, Kazakh, Azerbaijani, and Kyrgyz law consists in imposition of a fine as the basic punishment. The size of penalties are compared. It is proposed to expand the sanction of the Article 235 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with an additional penalty in form of revocation of right to hold a certain post or conduct a particular activity for a certain period of time.


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):  
Diana Alekseeva ◽  
Irina Mikheeva ◽  
Tatyana Suspitsyna

In recent years there has been an increase in the number of crimes under Art. 172 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation («Illegal banking»), whose subjects, among other things, act as intermediaries for their clients and are not one of the sides in a contract with the bank. Such practice is not indisputable, because innocent people could be prosecuted if there is a mistake in the qualification of actions. The authors of the article assess the actions of physical persons providing the services of intermediaries for the bank clients who open accounts, make payments, conduct encashment and different cash operations. Specifically, the authors note that different actions of the bank and the client connected with banking transactions are designated in law in the same way, which leads to controversial situations, including the qualification of such actions as crimes. The authors determine the legal nature of banking as an aggregate of systemic banking operations and conclude that the actions of physical persons — intermediaries who are not bank employees or managers or other persons authorized by the clients of the bank — do not correspond to the characteristics of a crime under Art. 172 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. They stress that the current edition of Art. 172 of the CC of the RF does not allow for an unambiguous interpretation of the subject of the analyzed corpus delicti; the authors also present data from court practice that testify that it does not have a uniform assessment. The position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on this issue raises questions. The authors support the legal approach according to which Art. 172 of the CC of the RF refers to a special subject (head or other employee of a credit organization). They also point out that the disposition of the norm, in the part that includes subjective characteristics, makes it possible to prosecute a person for both intentional and negligent actions, which is not very well-grounded; the authors support the position that a person can only be prosecuted for illegal entrepreneurship if the intention is determined.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document