scholarly journals Criminal liability for illegal implementation of medical and pharmaceutical activity: comparative analysis of legislation of the post-Soviet states

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.

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 02005
Author(s):  
Aleksander Nikolayevich Varygin ◽  
Irina Alekseyevna Efremova ◽  
Vladimir Gennadyevich Gromov ◽  
Pavel Anatolyevich Matushkin ◽  
Anastasiya Mikhaylovna Shuvalova

A prerequisite for this research is a high public hazard of violent crimes committed against persons executing justice or preliminary investigation since this shakes the foundation of justice and buttress of state power in general. This suggests the need to research the prevention of such crimes using criminal legal methods. The primary goal of the research lies in the analysis of the modern condition and development of relevant proposals to improve the current criminal law of the Russian Federation in terms of regulation of criminal liability for the discussed criminal offenses, which will have a positive effect on their prevention. Research methods: dialectical method of cognition, as well general scientific (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, logical, systemic-structural methods) and particular methods of cognition (scientifically statistical, formally legal). The novelty is related to an integrated approach to research the problem of prevention of the discussed offenses and proposals developed on this basis to improve the Russian Federation criminal law, which will increase efficiency in the prevention of these offenses. Results: efficiency of preventing such offenses greatly depends on clear legal regulation of legal norms suggesting criminal liability for committing them. There is a pressing need to complement the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with new wordings of these elements of crimes and changes that would allow formulating a definitive norm clearly defining the scope of persons affected and adopting a Plenum Decree at this stage for this category of criminal cases, which would clarify the implementation of evaluative categories of the discussed elements of crimes.


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 118 ◽  
pp. 03003
Author(s):  
Vladimir Pavlovich Konyakhin ◽  
Tatyana Yurievna Batyutina ◽  
Ruslan Georgievich Aslanyan ◽  
Manas Kapasovich Intykbaev

The regulatory certainty of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is ensured by the presence of systemic hierarchical links between different legal prescriptions, including of the other-branch affiliation. Since the Russian legislation does not provide for the authentic interpretation of federal laws, the Russian Federation Constitutional Court plays an important role in the resolution of complicated issues of enforcement of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As a rule, the doctrine gives a characteristic of particular decisions taken by it through the prism of problems of classification of specific crimes. However, proceeding from the growing scientific interest in interdisciplinary research, it seems necessary to accumulate the major legal provisions of the said court in terms of enforcement of the criminal law, with regard for its inter-sectoral bonds. The purpose of the research is to generalise the conclusions of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court on such fundamental issues as the grounds for criminal liability, timeframe validity of a criminal law, differentiation between crimes and administrative offences, prejudgement – and search of the optimal algorithm for their resolution in the future on this basis. The methodological basis of the study is represented by the general scientific methods of cognition: dialectical and systemic-structural; and as concerns the specific scientific methods – by the legalistic method. Following the analysis of a number of resolutions and rulings of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court for the period 2003-2020, an algorithm was developed for enforcement of the regulatory prescriptions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the context of its inter-branch linkages. It was found out, on the basis of the study of sentences passed by the Russian courts, that the most common mistakes of law enforcement officers in extrapolating the legal provisions of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court within the framework of particular criminal cases are connected with incorrect interpretation of factual circumstances as well as the facts of transcending the content of the relevant norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Vаleria A. Terentieva ◽  

The systematic nature of criminal law forms the main features of the industry, namely: normativity, universalism, that is, the absence of casuistry and obligation. The strict consistency of both the entire industry and its individual institutions allows avoiding the redundancy of criminal law regulation, clearly determining the legal status of a person in conflict with the law. However, the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation do not always meet these requirements due to defects in legal technology, and, sometimes, gaps in regulation. In practice, the courts, in an effort to minimize the above defects, sometimes resort to excessive criminal law regulation; as an example, the article gives the ratio of the application of suspended sentence and placement in a special educational institution of a closed type. The article analyzes sentences to minors in which Art. 73 and Part 2 of Art. 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation were simultaneously applied in one sentence for the same act. For a comprehensive study, the article analyzed sentences to minors held in special educational institutions of a closed type for the period from 2014 to 2020, criminal statistics posted on the website of the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as well as various points of view of leading legal scholars. The research methods of static observation, analysis and synthesis, the system-structural method, as well as a number of factographic methods, were used. The study develops from the general to the specific, i.e., first, systematicity is analyzed as a property of the branch of criminal law and then as a property of a legal institution, namely, the release of minors from criminal liability. Consistency as a property of the institution of exemption from criminal punishment presupposes the impossibility of intersecting elements within one institution. Special attention is paid to the legal nature of suspended sentence as the most common punishment measure for minors, and its effectiveness. Then the cases of the simultaneous application of Art. 73 and Part 2 of Art. 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are analyzed. In the course of the study, the author examines the features of suspended sentence and placement in a special educational and educational institution of a closed type, compares these two forms of criminal liability, and highlights the differences. The conclusion is that the simultaneous placement in a special educational institution of a closed type and suspended sentence are a redundancy of criminal law regulation. The article raises the question of the need to improve the Criminal Code in terms of the development of placement in a special educational and educational institution of a closed type as a type of exemption from criminal punishment: the court is to be provided with the opportunity to control the juvenile offender’s correctional process.


Author(s):  
Dmitry Ovchinnikov

Currently, the economic sector of public relations is characterized by exceptional criminality. One of the main phenomena responsible for this is illegal money cashing. Almost every business entity considers it acceptable and even necessary to resort to various criminal schemes for obtaining unaccounted cash and tax evasion. The very type of this crime has actually become a thriving and profitable business, which consists in providing services for withdrawing funds from legal circulation. While the existing judicial and investigative practice in the issue of countering this phenomenon has not yet developed a clear answer about the need for appropriate qualifications. There are about a dozen articles of the criminal law in which law enforcement officers try to find the correct legal assessment, and at present, article 172 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation “Illegal banking activities” deserves special attention.


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 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-188
Author(s):  
Marina L. Prokhorova ◽  
◽  
Anastasiya K. Knyaz’kina ◽  
Valentina N. Kufleva

Introduction. The necessity of criminalising acts against the safety of maritime navigation in na- tional legislation is based on the requirement to comply with the international obligations. The relevance of the research is that the implementation of such criminalisation is not always carried out in a timely and adequate manner. Тhe author’s versions of the criminal law can be used by the legislator to further improve the Criminal Code. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The methodological basis of the study was a set of both general scientific and private scientific methods of cognition. In particular these included the analysis, synthesis, comparative, formal and the legal. Special attention was paid to the international legal standards, and the regulation of criminal liability for encroachments against security sea shipping. Results. The article analyses the regulations at the national level governing the crime of acts which infringe upon the safety of navigation at sea and in the river space. This is Art. 211 “Hijacking of an aircraft or water transport or railway rolling stock” and Art. 227 “Piracy” as provided for in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The article considers the provisions corresponding to these from international treaties, and investigates the problems of compliance in implementing norms of the Russian criminal law with the basic contractual provisions. At the same time, international acts are analysed in their latest and current version, taking into account all the changes and additions made to them. Discussion and Conclusion. As a result of the study, the authors come to the conclusion that it is necessary to make alterations to the national criminal legislation to bring it in line with the current international standards due to the absence of provisions in it regarding liability for crimes committed against sea vessels, as well as on board or against fixed platforms located on the continental shelf. At the same time, the authors propose specific additions to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In particular, these are on the inclusion of certain signs of corpus delicti relating to the number of qualifying items, and which also indicate the need to formulate specific criminal law norms providing for liability for crimes against sea vessels, as well as on board or against fixed platforms located on the continental shelf.


Author(s):  
S.A. Styazhkina

The article discusses the issues of criminal liability for encroachments on the procedure of official document circulation. The concept and features of a document and an official document as subjects of criminal law protection are analyzed in detail. Criteria are proposed for distinguishing between a document and an official document, as well as the classification of documents. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of amendments to Article 327 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, made in the summer of 2019, which provide for responsibility for the falsification, production or circulation of fake documents, state awards, stamps, seals or letterheads. The article examines in detail the objective features of the elements of crimes encroaching on official documents, which include the acquisition, sale, stealing, destruction, damage, concealment, as well as forgery of official documents, the sale of fake official documents and their use. The issues of the subjective side of these crimes are considered. The article also focuses on the problems of delimiting the use of obviously fake official documents, the responsibility for which is provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 327 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation from crimes, where the use of fake documents acts as a means of committing a crime, such as fraud, illegal obtaining a loan, etc. Suggestions are made on the appropriateness amending a number of articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing for liability for encroachment on official documents.


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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vadim Zamaraev

The article considers and analyzes some gaps in the legislative interpretation of Article 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It examines the objective aspect of the crime, and also presents the problems of prosecuting for mediation in bribery according to the specifics of the qualification of this socially dangerous act. The author substantiates the grounds and limits of criminal liability for mediation in bribery, taking into account the act of committing various forms of this crime. On the basis of a comprehensive analysis of criminal legislation and scientific works of not only Russian scientists, but also foreign experts in the field of criminal law, the main prospects for the development and solution of the above mentioned problematic issues related to gaps in the legislative interpretation of Article 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are proposed. Special attention is also paid to certain issues of qualification of the investigated act, which directly depend on the amount of the bribe. As a result of the study, it is recommended to introduce some changes and additions to Parts 1 and 5 of Article 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document