scholarly journals Confiscation of property as a criminal punishment

Author(s):  
М.Ф. Гареев

В статье рассматривается и обосновывается необходимость возобновления в уголовном праве института конфискации имущества в качестве уголовного наказания. Необходимость его возобновления обусловлена наличием ряда преступных деяний, представляющих угрозу обществу, государству, национальной безопасности Российской Федерации. В настоящее время законодательная регламентация конфискации имущества в качестве иной меры уголовноправового характера, вызванная неопределенностью его сущности, целевых установок и механизма назначения, не выполняет предупредительную задачу, установленную уголовным законодательством. The article discusses and substantiates the need to renew the institution of confiscation of property in criminal law as a criminal punishment. The need to resume it is due to the presence of a number of criminal acts that pose a threat to society, the state, and the national security of the Russian Federation. Currently, the legislative regulation of the confiscation of property as another measure of a criminal-legal nature, caused by the uncertainty of its essence, targets and the mechanism of appointment, does not fulfill the preventive task established by the criminal legislation.

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 324-330
Author(s):  
V.V. Popov ◽  
◽  
S.M. Smolev ◽  

The presented study is devoted to the issues of disclosing the content of the goals of criminal punishment, analyzing the possibilities of their actual achievement in the practical implementation of criminal punishment, determining the political and legal significance of the goals of criminal punishment indicated in the criminal legislation. The purpose of punishment as a definition of criminal legislation was formed relatively recently, despite the fact that theories of criminal punishment and the purposes of its application began to form long before our era. These doctrinal teachings, in essence, boil down to defining two diametrically opposed goals of criminal punishment: retribution and prevention. The state, on the other hand, determines the priority of one or another goal of the punishment assigned for the commission of a crime. The criminal policy of Russia as a whole is focused on mitigating the criminal law impact on the offender. One of the manifestations of this direction is the officially declared humanization of the current criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. However, over the course of several years, the announced “humanization of criminal legislation” has followed the path of amending and supplementing the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: introducing additional opportunities for exemption from criminal liability and punishment, reducing the limits of punishments specified in the sanctions of articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and including in the system of criminal punishments of types of measures that do not imply isolation from society. At the same time the goals of criminal punishment are not legally revised, although the need for such a decision has already matured. Based on consideration of the opinions expressed in the scientific literature regarding the essence of those listed in Part 2 of Art. 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the goals of punishment are determined that each of them is subject to reasonable criticism in view of the abstract description or the impossibility of achieving in the process of law enforcement (criminal and penal) activities. This circumstance gives rise to the need to revise the content of the goals of criminal punishment and to determine one priority goal that meets the needs of modern Russian criminal policy. According to the results of the study the conclusion is substantiated that the only purpose of criminal punishment can be considered to ensure proportionality between the severity of the punishment imposed and the social danger (harmfulness) of the crime committed. This approach to determining the purpose of criminal punishment is fully consistent with the trends of modern criminal policy in Russia, since it does not allow the use of measures, the severity of which, in terms of the amount of deprivation and legal restrictions, clearly exceeds the social danger of the committed act. In addition, it is proportionality, not prevention, that underlies justice – one of the fundamental principles of criminal law.


Author(s):  
Andrei Nikulenko ◽  
Maksim Smirnov

The article is devoted to the necessary defense as a circumstance that precludes the criminality of an act in the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. The significance and importance of the existence of this norm is proclaimed both in the criminal law and in the Basic law of the state – the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The existence of a rule on necessary defense in the state emphasizes the development of its legal system, allowing citizens to defend their own interests and protect the interests of others, in ways not prohibited by law, thereby preventing exceeding the limits of necessary defense. A number of issues related to the application of the norms provided for in article 37 of the Criminal code of Russia, as well as the norms of the Special part of the Criminal code of Russia, which provide for liability for crimes committed when exceeding the limits of necessary defense, were raised. The study of the relevant norms makes it possible to identify the advantages and disadvantages of legal regulation of circumstances that exclude the criminality of an act, including the shortcomings of judicial and investigative practice. The author criticizes the existing approach and suggests ways to resolve these problems, including by correcting the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 27, 2012, № 19 «About application by courts of legislation on necessary defense and causing harm when detaining a person who has committed a crime». Because of the ambiguous and often inconsistent application of norms of the criminal legislation on necessary defense, the authors give the recommendations (in further reconstruction of the relevant provisions of article 37 of the Criminal Code) to use an enumeration approach of presenting the legal formulation of these rules that allow the defender to cause any harm to an attacker. At the same time, it creates the most understandable, for citizens, formulation of the norm that allows lawfully causing harm to public relations protected by criminal law.


Author(s):  
Anatoly Naumov

In both normative and sociological senses criminal law includes three components — criminal legislation, judicial practice, and criminal law doctrine, and the development of this branch of law is possible only in their unity. The criminal law doctrine is to a certain extent superior to the other components of the "triad" and involves the development of the branch’s principles, goals and objectives. At the same time, the improvement of criminal law is not the only goal of the theory of criminal law. It should not be limited only to criticism of the current legislation and proposals for its improvement. However, the vast majority of modern domestic criminal law publications, such as monographs, articles in legal periodicals, dissertations, are devoted to criticism of the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Indeed, the current criminal law is not perfect, but the "imbalance" of research into the "law-making" side significantly reduces the scope of criminal law doctrine. And there will always be demand for theoretical studies on the analysis of the subject and method, system and objectives of criminal law, its sources.Debatable, for example, still is the issue of the legal nature of the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and, in particular, the judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court are a special kind of judicial interpretation and a fairly reliable tool for the courts to understand "the letter of the criminal law" and it’s applicability to the particular case. As for the assessment of the legal nature of the judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the criminal law doctrine often fails to notice that they touch upon the methodological problems of the theory of criminal law. In relation to a number of criminal law prohibitions, judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation are a source of criminal law, along with the Criminal Code. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation specified the most important principle of criminal law — the principle of legality and clarified the characteristics of criminality of socially dangerous acts prohibited by criminal law, which is directly related to the issue of criminal liability. In this sense, the Constitutional Court formulated a new and important addition to the content of the principle of legality — the certainty of criminal law rules, and, first of all, the criminal law prohibitions. Thus, the judicial authority overtook the criminal law doctrine in solving one of the most important issues for criminal proceedings.


Author(s):  
Artem Aleksandrovich Pastushenko ◽  
Elena Yuryevna Antonova

The subject of this research is the criminal law guarantees for the implementation of the principles of appropriate and targeted spending of budgetary resources as an element of ensuring national security of the Russian Federation. The author conducts the assessment of normative and law-enforcement material that determines the legal essence of the indicated principles of budgetary system of the Russian Federation. The article explores case law of implementation of certain norms of criminal legislation of the Russian Federation associated with contravention of the principle of appropriate use of budgetary allocations. This article is first to juxtapose the measures of criminal law protection of the principles of appropriate and targeted spending of budgetary resources. Based on the acquired results, the current position on the absence of penalties for the inappropriate use of budgetary allocations is being disputed. The conducted comparative analysis of the measures of criminal responsibility reveals large disparity with regards to protection of the two key principles of budgetary system of the Russian Federation. The author also established the presence of criminal elements that carry out preclusive function, which narrows down the capabilities of criminal law of the Russian Federation. The article offers an optimal and effective method for eliminating this problem and improving protective capabilities of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, including the tasks of ensuring national security.


Author(s):  
Олег Вячеславович Дорошенко

В статье рассматриваются проблемные аспекты судебного штрафа. Делается вывод, что, поскольку судебный штраф по своей правовой природе является иной мерой уголовно-правового характера, поэтому он должен быть справедливым (ст. 6 УК РФ), не может иметь своей целью причинение физических страданий и унижение человеческого достоинства (ст. 7 УК РФ). Судебный штраф схож с уголовным наказанием, поскольку лицо, совершившее преступление и освобожденное от уголовной ответственности с назначением судебного штрафа, испытывает страдания, схожие со страданиями лица, к которому применено уголовное наказание, однако в меньших размерах. Проводится сравнительный анализ штрафа как уголовного наказания и судебного штрафа. Делается вывод, что в некоторых случаях судебный штраф является более строгой мерой, нежели штраф как уголовное наказание. Анализируется статистика назначения судебного штрафа. Автор приходит к выводу, что при назначении судебного штрафа должно учитываться мнение потерпевшего (при его наличии). The article discusses the problematic aspects of the court fine. It is concluded that a judicial fine by its legal nature is a different measure of a criminal-law nature, since it is established for committing crimes (Art. 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), it must be fair (Art. 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and it cannot aim at causing physical suffering and humiliation of human dignity (Art. 7 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The court fine is similar to criminal punishment, since the person who committed the crime and who is exempted from criminal liability with the imposition of a judicial fine suffers similar suffering to the person to whom the criminal penalty was applied, but to a lesser extent. A comparative analysis of the fine as a criminal punishment and the judicial fine is carried out. It is concluded that in some cases, a judicial fine is a more severe measure than a fine as a criminal punishment. The statistics of the appointment of a fine are provided. The author concludes that when imposing a fine, the opinion of the victim (if any) should be taken into account.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-139
Author(s):  
A. I. Rarog

Despite a centuries-old debate among scientists from different countries, the question about the purposes of criminal punishment remains relevant. The criminal legislation of the Soviet period was inconsistent in formulating the purposes of punishment and repeatedly changed the list of purposes and their wording, therefore, in the criminal law doctrine there were long and fruitless discussions on this issue. They have not stopped to this day, although the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation unambiguously proclaimed the purposes of punishment to be the restoration of social justice, the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes. The discrepancy between the purposes of punishment in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the purposes of the execution of punishment in the Penal Enforcement Code of the Russian Federation to a certain extent interferes with a uniform interpretation of the purposes of criminal punishment. The paper proves the validity and comprehensive nature of the legislative decision and rejects the importance and possibility of legislative adjustment of the purposes of punishment or supplementing their list with the purposes of punishment, expiation, resocialization of the convict, his re-education, etc.


Author(s):  
G.A. Reshetnikova

The article deals with the understanding, assessment criteria and accounting for the commission of a crime in a state of intoxication as an aggravating circumstance in the science of criminal law and in judicial practice. Application of Part 1.1 of Art. 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in practice shows that the difficulties faced by the court (judge) and the authors dealing with this problem are due to the imperfection of this norm, a different idea of the internal legal nature of the circumstance in question, therefore, a different content of its legal and criminological grounds. The main question that they are trying to solve is whether the state of intoxication contributed to the commission of a crime, while the state of intoxication as a circumstance aggravating punishment must be assessed in conjunction with the consequences of the committed criminal act.


Author(s):  
Aleksey Rarog

The author raises the problem of relationships between the interests of the person and public authorities, which has long occupied the minds of philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and lawyers, and which has an enormous criminological significance as it defines critically important directions of legislative, law enforcement and organizational-preventive activities. The author questions the legitimacy of characterizing this relationship as a balance, parity, or equality even in relation to the states who have constitutionally proclaimed themselves to be law-based states, because the monopoly of any state on the use of coercive force deliberately excludes a parity of interests. Evidently, it is only possible (somewhat conditionally) to discuss a harmony between the interests of the person and the state in relation to constitutional law. For other branches of law, the relationship between the interests of the person and the state should be characterized differently. Criminal law, repressive by its nature, cannot and should not treat a person who has committed a crime as a partner: it always holds this person accountable and, by a general rule, punishes him for the crime. This does not, however, at all mean that the interests of a person who has committed a crime are totally ignored. The key interest of this person consists in getting a minimal penalty for the committed actions. This interest is recognized by the state in different ways and to a different scope. The norms of criminal legislation of the Russian Federation, in which the interests of the state and the interests of the person who has committed a crime converge to some degree, could be divided into five groups: 1) norms-goals and norms-principles, where the interests of the state and the interests of the person who has committed a crime actually coincide; 2) norms-permissions; 3) norms-incentives; 4) norms-compromises; 5) norms-allowances. The author analyzes and assesses each of these criminal law norms.


Author(s):  
Yu. N. Rumyantseva ◽  
◽  
E. S. Kachurova ◽  

he article attempts to formulate the criminal law component of the problem of support national security, based on the National Security Strategy approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation in 2021. The authors consider the formation of the national security domestic paradigm, highlight the stages of creating a system of national security legal regulation in the Russian Federation, and assess the effectiveness of such regulation. It is concluded that the negative consequences of the reforms carried out in Russia partly themselves pose a threat to its national security. The article studies the formation of the state criminal law policy; the development of criminal law measures against terrorism, extremism, economic crime and corruption; countering the malicious use of artificial intelligence and robotics as priority areas of countering threats to national security by criminal legal means. The formation of an effective criminal legal framework for countering economic crime and corruption is associated with the development of the modern criminal and criminal-legal policy concept. The changes in Russian legislation aimed at ensuring national security through the tightening a number of the Criminal Code norms in relation to terrorist and extremist crimes after the coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014 are illustrative. The risks of malicious use of artificial intelligence require a proactive reaction of the domestic legislator. Analyzing the sphere of development of the economic foundations of the state and society, it is necessary to focus on the conditions of fierce competition from foreign goods, works and services. At the same time, it is impossible not to take into account the fact that competition is often associated not only with scientific and technological advantages, but also with various kinds of abuses on the part of legal entities, which brings the authors back to the discussion on the introduction of the institution of legal entities criminal liability in the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Yu.V. Shilov

The article is devoted to the understanding and justification of the need to adjust certain criteria for the effectiveness of the criminal executive system in the new conditions. Through the analysis of the criminal law policy of the state and its components, parallels are drawn between the criminal executive system and other state bodies implementing the tasks of the state in the fight against crime. The article deals with various theoretical and applied issues of understanding the category "effectiveness" in relation to the organization of the criminal executive system, as well as embedding criteria for its effectiveness in a single criminal and national policy of the country. Special attention is paid to the humanization of criminal and penal legislation and the development of alternative measures of a criminal legal nature. As a conclusion, the need to improve the efficiency of management of the criminal executive system on the basis of building a new doctrine and defining new goals of the criminal law policy of the Russian Federation is noted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document