Qualifying aggravating circumstances of theft of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances

2020 ◽  
pp. 123-133
Author(s):  
Виктор Александрович Шеслер
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
Official Position ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Objective Side ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

В статье рассматриваются квалифицирующие отягчающие наказание обстоятельства хищения наркотических средств или психотропных веществ. Акцентируется внимание на том, что хищением наркотиков группой лиц может признаваться хищение, в выполнении объективной стороны которого принимали участие не менее двух исполнителей, являющихся субъектами преступления со ст. 19 УК РФ. Критикуется позиция Пленума Верховного cуда о вменении квалифицирующего отягчающего обстоятельства - совершение хищения организованной группой, в тех случаях, когда объективную сторону преступления выполнял только один из участников организованной группы. Уточняется круг лиц, использующих свое служебное положение при хищении наркотиков. Раскрываются насильственные формы хищения наркотиков. Поднимается проблема определения размера наркотических средств или психотропных веществ, находящихся в смеси. The article considers the qualifying aggravating circumstances of theft of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. Attention is drawn to the fact that the theft of drugs by a group of persons can be recognized as theft, in the implementation of the objective side of which, at least two performers who meet the requirements specified in article 19 of the criminal code of the Russian Federation participated. The article criticizes the position of the Plenum of the Supreme Court on imputing a qualifying aggravating circumstance - the Commission of theft by an organized group, in cases where only one of the participants of the organized group performed the objective side of the crime. Specifies the number of people who use their official position when stealing drugs. Violent forms of drug theft are revealed. The problem of determining the size of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances in the mixture is raised.

Limits of punishability of theft of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances

2019 ◽  
pp. 16-21
Author(s):  
Ольга Александровна Беларева
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Uniform System ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
Official Position ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Broad Interpretation ◽  
The One ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

В статье рассматриваются вопросы влияния формы хищения, его квалифицирующих признаков на определение законодателем пределов наказуемости хищения наркотических средств. Автор выделил некоторые недостатки, допущенные при конструировании уголовно-правовой нормы, предусматривающей ответственность за хищение наркотических средств. В статье рассмотрены некоторые конкретные ситуации, демонстрирующие парадоксальность решения законодателя отказаться от конкретизации форм хищения при квалификации по ст. 229 УК РФ и установить единую систему квалифицирующих признаков для всех способов изъятия наркотических средств. Критическую оценку получило расширительное толкование Верховным судом РФ квалифицирующего признака «с использованием служебного положения». С одной стороны, такое понимание данного признака ставит под сомнение возможность квалификации по ч. 1 ст. 229 УК РФ хищения наркотических средств в форме присвоения или растраты, поскольку сразу переводит на квалификацию по п. «в» ч. 2 ст. 229 УК РФ. С другой стороны, при таком подходе присвоение и растрата наркотических средств становятся более опасным хищением, чем открытый ненасильственный грабеж. Автор также отмечает, что возможности суда по учету степени общественной опасности хищения наркотических средств в форме разбоя существенно ограничены. Единые пределы наказуемости не позволяют в должной мере учесть признаки, повышающие степень опасности такого хищения. Автор приходит к выводу, что ст. 229 УК РФ нуждается в корректировке, как в части формулирования диспозиций, так и в части пересмотра санкций, с учетом существенно различающегося характера и степени общественной опасности предусмотренных в ней деяний. The article deals with the influence of the form of theft, its qualifying features on the determination by the legislator of the limits of punishability of theft of narcotic drugs. The author highlighted some shortcomings in the construction of criminal law, providing for liability for theft of drugs. The article deals with some specific situations that demonstrate the paradoxical decision of the legislator to refuse to specify the forms of theft in the qualification of Art. 229 of the Criminal Code and to establish a uniform system of qualifying signs for all seizures of narcotic drugs. Critical assessment received broad interpretation by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation qualifying feature “using official position”. On the one hand, this understanding of this feature casts doubt on the possibility of qualification under part 1 of article 229 of the criminal code of theft of drugs in the form of appropriation or embezzlement, as immediately translates to the qualification under pt. 2 of Art. 229 of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, with this approach, the appropriation and embezzlement of drugs become more dangerous theft than open nonviolent robbery. The author also notes that the court's ability to take into account the degree of public danger of theft of drugs in the form of robbery is significantly limited. Uniform limits of punishability do not allow to take into account properly the signs increasing degree of danger of such plunder. The analysis of questions of punishability of theft of narcotic drugs convinces that Art. 229 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation needs correction, both regarding formulation of dispositions, and regarding revision of sanctions, taking into account essentially differing character and degree of public danger of the acts provided in it.

Illegal entry into a home as a means of differentiating punishment for theft of narcotic drugs

2020 ◽  
pp. 25-29
Author(s):  
Ольга Александровна Беларева
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Assessment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

В статье рассматриваются вопросы квалификации и связанной с ней наказуемости хищения наркотических средств, совершенного с незаконным проникновением в жилище. В научной литературе и разъяснениях Пленума Верховного суда РФ отсутствуют рекомендации по вопросам юридической оценки таких хищений. Это можно объяснить небольшим количеством таких преступлений. Однако они встречаются, и практику квалификации хищений наркотических средств только по ст. 229 УК РФ без совокупности со ст. 139 УК РФ нельзя признать правильной. Автор выделил две группы хищений наркотических средств, совершенных с незаконным проникновением в жилище, на конкретных примерах рассмотрел встречающиеся в приговорах варианты квалификации. В статье указывается, что на законодательном и правоприменительном уровнях отсутствует уголовно-правовая охрана неприкосновенности жилища в случаях хищения наркотических средств с незаконным проникновением в него. Предложение о дополнении ст. 229 УК РФ квалифицирующим признаком «с незаконным проникновением в жилище» автор расценивает как криминологически необоснованное. Наиболее оптимальным способом отражения повышенной общественной опасности рассматриваемого хищения является квалификация по совокупности преступлений, предусмотренных ст. 229 и ст. 139 УК РФ. The article deals with the issues of qualification and related punishability of theft of narcotic drugs committed with illegal entry into the home. In the scientific literature and explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, there are no recommendations on the legal assessment of such embezzlement. This can be explained by a small number of such crimes. However, they meet and practice the skill of theft of drugs only by Art. 229 of the Criminal Code without conjunction with Art. 139 of the Criminal Code cannot be considered correct. The author identified two groups of theft of narcotic drugs committed with illegal entry into the home, and considered specific examples of the types of qualification found in the sentences. The article states that at the legislative and law enforcement levels, there is no criminal legal protection of the inviolability of the home in cases of theft of narcotic drugs with illegal entry into it. The author regards the proposal to add Art. 229 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as a qualifying feature “with illegal entry into a dwelling” as criminologically unfounded. The most optimal way to reflect the increased public danger of the theft in question is to qualify for a set of crimes under Art. 229 and Art. 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The public danger and qualification problems of illegal sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in the prisons

2019 ◽  
pp. 60-68
Author(s):  
Марина Сергеевна Красильникова
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Narcotic Drug ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Illicit Trafficking ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

В статье актуализируется необходимость исследования вопросов квалификации незаконного сбыта наркотических средств и психотропных веществ в учреждениях уголовно-исполнительной системы. Представлены и проанализированы статистические данные, иллюстрирующие сложившуюся криминальную ситуацию в сфере незаконного оборота наркотических средств и психотропных веществ, а также примеры из судебной практики, порождающие немало вопросов. Среди уголовно-правовых проблем, связанных с незаконным оборотом наркотических средств и психотропных веществ, особо выделяются проблемы квалификации незаконного сбыта наркотиков, а также особенности юридической оценки такого сбыта, совершенного сотрудником пенитенциарного учреждения. Для решения обозначенной проблемы приведены руководящие разъяснения высшей судебной инстанции по данной категории дел, мнения ученых-юристов, тщательно изучены теоретические и практические аспекты тематики. На основе проведенного анализа установлено, что оценка деяния сотрудника учреждения уголовно-исполнительной системы, выразившегося в приобретении для осужденного или заключенного под стражу наркотического средства или психотропного вещества, как пособничества в приобретении наркотика без цели сбыта не соответствует смыслу закона, противоречит рекомендациям Пленума Верховного суда РФ, имеет не свойственную для приобретения без цели сбыта крайне высокую степень общественной опасности, а также дает возможность освобождения от уголовной ответственности. В завершение исследования подведены его итоги, подчеркнута необходимость пересмотра разъяснений Верховного суда Российской Федерации по данной категории дел, а также серьезной переработки уголовно-правовых норм об ответственности за незаконный сбыт наркотических средств и психотропных веществ. The article actualizes the need to study the criminal law aspects of the illegal sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in penitentiary institutions. Statistical data are presented and analyzed to illustrate the current criminal situation in the field of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as well as examples from judicial practice that raise many questions. Among the criminal law problems associated with the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the problems of qualifying illegal drug trafficking, as well as the peculiarities of the legal assessment of such a sale made by a penitentiary institution employee, are especially highlighted. To solve the indicated problem, the leading explanations of the highest court on this category of cases, the opinions of legal scholars are given, the theoretical and practical aspects of the topic are carefully studied. Based on the analysis, it was found that the assessment of the act of an employee of the penitentiary system, expressed in the acquisition of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance for a convicted or imprisoned person, as aiding in the purchase of a drug without a sale purpose does not correspond to the meaning of the law, contradicts the recommendations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has an extremely high degree of social danger, which is not typical for acquiring without a marketing objective, and also makes it possible to exempt from criminal No responsibility. At the end of the study, its results were summarized, the need to review the clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this category of cases, as well as a serious revision of criminal law on liability for the illegal sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, was emphasized.

scholarly journals Novels of the Criminal Code on responsibility for abusesin public procurement: background and problems of qualification

2018 ◽  
pp. 34-43
Author(s):  
A. Ya. Asnis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Service Contract ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Contract Managers

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.

scholarly journals On the Issues of the Application of Part 6 of Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-84
Author(s):  
N. N. Korotkikh
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

scholarly journals ISSUES OF THE QUALIFICATION OF A MURDER FOR THE PURPOSES OF USING VICTIM’S ORGANS OR TISSUES (CLAUSE М PART 2 ARTICLE 105 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 46-51
Author(s):  
Andrey L. Ivanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Human Organs ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article substantiates the solution of some of the issues of qualification of murder discussed in theory and practice in order to use human organs or tissues, the results of a study of judicial practice, in which clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this topic were applied.

scholarly journals Criminal Law Violations in Labour Safety at Coal Mining Enterprises

2019 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. 02018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yury Volgin ◽  
Irina Gaag ◽  
Alexander Naumov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Coal Mining ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Mining Industry ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Safety Rules

The paper deals with the qualification of criminal violations of safety rules in coal mining enterprises in the light of recent changes in Art. 216 and 217 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the adoption of a new Resolution of the Plenum of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on violations of safety rules during operations. Firstly, the old and new editions of Art. 216 and 217 of the Criminal Code are compared. After that, the distinctive features of the articles under consideration are examined with the help of the new Plenum Resolution, federal laws and bylaws. Finally, the case law on this issue has been reviewed since 2016 with consideration of specific examples. In the paper, the authors do not address the issues of qualifying violations of safety rules at coal mining enterprises under Art.143 of the Criminal Code as it has not been changed. At the end of the study, the authors formulate the qualification rules taking into account the latest changes, without proposing any changes to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and other regulatory legal acts that do not include the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, i.e. the results of the study can be used in practice. The problem is that there is a lack of research of the changes we are considering in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and even more in relation to the coal mining industry.

scholarly journals Features of signs of the crime object provided by article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-198
Author(s):  
Алена Харламова ◽  
Alena Kharlamova ◽  
Юлия Белик ◽  
Yuliya Belik
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

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

scholarly journals Efficiency of practical application of criminal law prohibition in the sphere of economy of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (4) ◽  
pp. 118-123
Author(s):  
Vladimir Tunin ◽  
Natal'ya Radoshnova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Economic Crime ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Crimes

The article considers the practical effectiveness of the criminal law prohibition in combating economic crime in the Russian Federation. 22nd Chapter of the Criminal code currently includes 58 articles. This is maximum number of articles in relation to other chapters of the criminal code, in the same Chapter of the Criminal code. Accordingly the need for such a number of prohibitions in the economic sphere should be confirmed by judicial practice. However, a completely different picture emerges. Based on the analysis of the statistical reports of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the authors conclude that the enforcement practice in cases of economic crimes is insufficient.The authors express their opinion on the reasons for the ineffectiveness of the practical application of the articles constituting the 22nd Chapter of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation, and suggest ways to address them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document