ILLEGAL EXTRACTION AND CIRCULATION OF ESPECIALLY VALUABLE WILD ANIMALS AND AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: ISSUES OF PENALIZATION

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

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.


Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 77-91
Author(s):  
T. D. Ustinova ◽  
A. S. Rubtsova

The paper is devoted to monitoring the development in the Russian criminal legislation of responsibility for the illegal movement of strategically important goods and resources across the customs border of the Customs Union within the EurAsEC or the State border of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the author argues the correctness of the indication in the disposition of Art. 226.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation a State Border as a place of commission of the crime under consideration. The author provides a detailed list of strategically important goods and resources, since the establishment of the subject matter of a crime makes it possible to qualify the offense and differntiate criminal smuggling from smuggling the responsibility for which is envisaged only in administrative legislation. The author substantiates the statement according to which this type of smuggling infringes not on public safety, but on relations in the field of economic activity. Therefore, a proposal is made to return the criminal law rule to Ch. 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, it is proposed to establish criminal liability for smuggling flora and fauna items classified as strategically important goods and resources in a separate article in the Chapter entitled "Environmental Crimes" with due regard to the social danger of this act. The liability should not be related to the value of the goods and resources being moved. Taking into account only the cost of biological resources in their protection under criminal law does not reflect the real social danger of these acts. The need for the protection of biological resources using criminal law instruments is caused not only and not so much by economic preconditions but by the need to preserve rare and endangered representatives of flora and fauna for future generations—the most important components of the ecosystem of the entire planet. The author draws conclusions largely aimed at observing the systematic nature of the criminal law due to the peculiarities of the object of the offence.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-163
Author(s):  
PETRUSHENKOV ALEXANDR ◽  

Objectives. The goal of scholarly research is to develop proposals for amendments in criminal law General and Special part of Criminal code of the Russian Federation governing self-defense. The scientific article identifies legislative gaps and contradictions that hinder the effective implementation of the necessary defense and require prompt solutions. Methods. The article analyzes such concepts as “self-defense”, “public assault”, “excess of limits of necessary defense”, “violation of the conditions of lawfulness of necessary defense”, “surprise assault”, “rights defending or other persons, interests of the state”. The use of logical and comparative legal methods allowed us to develop proposals for making changes to the criminal law norms that establish the necessary defense. Conclusions. The article shows the conflicts and gaps legislative recognition of self-defense and, in this regard, the complexity of its implementation in the articles of the Special part of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation and practical application. Changes are proposed to the criminal law norms regulating the necessary defense, both in the General and in the Special part of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. Sense. The content of the scientific article can be used by the teaching staff of higher educational institutions when teaching the course “Criminal law”. The results of the work can be useful to persons who carry out legislative activities in the field of criminal law. The leitmotif of the article can be used in the preparation of dissertation research.


Author(s):  
Vladimir Danko

The work is carried out on the basis of special methods of knowledge, including historical-legal, logical, formal-legal. In the article, taking into account scientific sources and practical experience, the legal problems of operative-search counteraction to crimes provided for in Article 290-291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are considered. The analysis of bribery is realized jointly, because there are identical characteristics in all its corpus delicties – the same subject and object of crime. The existing norms of criminal and criminal procedure laws in relation to bribery are analyzed. Principal operative-search measures used in documentation of bribery are determined. They are surveillance and operational experiment. Their difference is justified and successful use examples are examined. An actual statistics of the Komi Republic for 2015-2018 is given. The lack of normative securing for interaction between operational subdivisions and preliminary investigation body is ascertained. Based on personal practical experience some measures to counteract bribery are proposed.


Author(s):  
Andrey Antipov

In This paper is dedicated to the examination of one of the most relevant and significant problems of Russian society – illegal trafficking of items and materials, carried out using mass media andinformation and telecommunication networks. Top officials of the state raise the issue of the importance of special control in this area by law enforcement agencies. Despite this attention, comprehensive study on the criminal-legal significance of the use of mass media and information and telecommunication networks in illegal trafficking has not been yet undertaken in the frame of criminal law of Russia. The author examines the concept of «illegal traffic», analyses the texts of the articles of the criminal code of the Russian Federation, which explicitly criminalize illicit trafficking. The author makes a conclusion about the reasonableness of making changes to certain articles of the criminal code of the Russian Federation, in regard to the part concerning establishing stricter penalties for committing socially dangerous acts using mass media and information and telecommunication networks.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document