scholarly journals Mediation in Bribery: Gaps in the Legal Interpretation

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.

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 108 ◽  
pp. 02012
Author(s):  
Andrey Viktorovich Sarubin

The article considers the problems of exemption from criminal liability for restricting competition (Art. 178 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The criminal legislation of Russia and the practice of its application in terms of exemption from liability for restriction of competition are analysed. It is thought that the main objectives of the criminal-law prohibitions contained in Chapter 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is to ensure the criminal-legal protection of economic relations, preventing the growth of crimes that threaten the development of financial institutions of the state. Purpose of work: Identify problems of exemption from criminal liability for restricting competition in the modern practice of preliminary investigation and court, and propose ways to improve the criminal law on the exemption from criminal liability for restricting competition. Methods. The methodological basis of the research was the general dialectical method of scientific knowledge, which has a universal character, as well as methods of logical deduction, induction, cognitive methods and techniques of observation, comparison, analysis, synthesis and description, formally logical. Results. The research revealed the problems of application of the criminal law on the exemption from criminal liability for restriction of competition and suggested ways to improve paragraph 3 of the notes to the Art. 178 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing for the possibility of exemption from criminal liability for restricting competition.


Author(s):  
Aleksey Rarog

Illegal production of medical agents and equipment poses a global threat to public health of all countries, not to mention its harm to the economy. Human life and health should be protected not only by industry laws that regulate the production and distribution procedures, but also by criminal legislation that establishes liability for most dangerous violations of prohibitions in medicine and pharmacology. The legislative experience of foreign (mostly European) countries shows that the optimal solution to the problem of criminal liability in cases of grave violations of the production and trade procedures for medical production is to introduce criminal law norms with blanket dispositions, where the components of the actus reus of the offence are described though regulatory laws that set special rules and prohibitions for medical services and pharmaceuticals. The analysis of international legal norms and criminal legislation of some foreign countries and the Russian Federation allows the author to prove that it is necessary to single out medical criminal law as a specific sub-branch of Russian criminal law, where pharmaceutical criminal law could become an autonomous institute. The author presents an analysis of the constituent elements of the crime under Art. 235.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and concludes that the terminology of criminal law does not fully correspond to the concepts in healthcare legislation, and also that the analyzed norm in its present edition should not be included in the Chapter on crimes against public health and morals; the author offers his own version of this norm.


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 ◽  
pp. 56-60
Author(s):  
Lyubov Yu. Larina ◽  
◽  
Inga V. Pantyukhina ◽  

The article substantiates the existence of criminal liability and other types of liability in the criminal legislation. The authors give a classification of types of criminal liability depending on the legal fact entailing responsibility and specific measures that make up the content of a particular type. It is proposed to distinguish two main types-primary and secondary responsibility, each of which is divided into separate varieties. They argue for the need to include in the criminal code of the Russian Federation rules on the responsibility of minors who are not subject to criminal liability; make predictions about the possibility of new measures of responsibility in criminal law. In view of the different types of liability, the question of liability of legal persons under criminal law could be considered differently.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-26
Author(s):  
Aleksey Chistyakov ◽  
Saule Naurzalieva

The article reflects the study of juvenile delinquency in the Republic of Kazakhstan and their criminal responsibility. The scientific novelty of the research is that it was conducted on the basis of the new criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2014. Therefore, the complex of issues, that were previously the subject of various studies in the light of modern realities and trends of criminal law policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan, has received a new interpretation and argumentation from the perspective of the latest opportunities for study. First, the new legislative structure for determining the basis of criminal liability (Article 4 of the Criminal code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) required a reinterpretation of the content of circumstances that lead to emergence of criminal liability among juveniles. Secondly, the legally updated content of grounds for criminal liability of juveniles in the Republic of Kazakhstan has led to an update of the quality of criminal law relations that arise between juvenile offenders and state bodies, which also need a new scientific reinterpretation. Third, the new legal concept of the basis of criminal liability presupposes the existence of a new, in relation to the previous, content of the basis for the implementation of criminal liability of juveniles. Finally, the new criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, along with the previously existing one, has introduced new forms and types of implementation of criminal liability of juveniles, which need an updated scientific and legal analysis. Its results and conclusions, obtained personally by the author, can be regarded as having scientific novelty for the above reasons. In addition, on the basis of the theory and practice research of criminal responsibility among juveniles in the Republic of Kazakhstan, the paper formulated proposals for improving the criminal legislation of not only the Republic of Kazakhstan, but also the Russian Federation, which also have a novelty. The theoretical significance of the research is to increase and systematize knowledge about the criminal liability of juveniles due to the presence of a new basis of criminal responsibility that has not been previously developed by the Russian criminal law science. The results of scientific understanding of new forms and types of implementation of criminal liability of juveniles, introduced by the Criminal code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2014, such as the obligation to apologize to the victim and the establishment of probation control, have theoretical significance. The conclusions, suggestions and recommendations contained in this work enrich the scientific understanding of the features of criminal liability of juveniles in the Republic of Kazakhstan. The practical significance of the work is that the provisions and recommendations contained in it can be used both in the Republic of Kazakhstan and in the Russian Federation: in the process of standard-setting activities in improving the norms of Chapter 6 of the Criminal code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the norms of Section V of Chapter 14 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation; in the work of specialized inter-district courts for juveniles, considering cases against juveniles and assigning criminal penalties to them; by authorities and administration in the development of preventive measures.


2021 ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
Elena M. Andreeva

This publication is devoted to the analysis of violations of the goals and conditions for the use of budget subsidies on the example of grants for scientific research through criminal liability. Since only one article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is provided for these acts - 2851 "Misuse of budget funds", the authors focused their attention on its study. The objectives of the study are, firstly, to assess the coverage of all violations in the use of budget subsidies that pose a significant public danger and require criminal prosecution by this corpus delicti. Secondly, a comprehensive description of the elements of the crime provided for in Article 2851 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in relation to budget subsidies for scientific research using literal, logical, systematic, as well as historical ways of interpreting the norms of law. The results of the study were the shortcomings of the criminal law norms on responsibility in the use of budget funds identified by the authors. As such, we can name the discrepancy between the terminology of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Budget Code of the Russian Federation in this part, the narrow scope of the analyzed article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation among persons, a small number of offenses in the studied area, which are included in Article 2851 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors have accumulated proposals for improving the current criminal legislation.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evgeniy Russkevich

The monograph is devoted to a complex of theoretical and applied problems of adapting the domestic mechanism of criminal law protection to the "digitalization" of crime in the conditions of the formation of the information society. Along with general theoretical issues, foreign criminal legislation and provisions of international law are being thoroughly analyzed. The paper presents an updated criminal-legal description of crimes in the field of computer information, including novelties of Russian criminal legislation - unlawful impact on the critical information infrastructure of the Russian Federation (Article 2741 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), developed proposals for the differentiation of criminal liability for attacks on the security of computer data and systems, developed scientifically sound recommendations for qualification. In the second edition, the issues of differentiation of criminal liability for digital crimes by means of the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are separately worked out. The analysis of the problems of qualification of crimes in the field of computer information, as well as other crimes committed using information and communication technologies, outside of Chapter 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Taking into account the results obtained, a draft resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation "On judicial practice in cases of crimes in the field of computer information" is presented. It is intended for researchers, teachers, practicing lawyers, students and postgraduates of law schools and faculties.


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):  
V.I. Tikhonov

The Institute of mitigating and aggravating circumstances is presented not only in the norms of the General part of the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. The application of these circumstances in the construction of individual elements of a crime allows the legislator to differentiate the orientation of the criminal law influence in relation to a specific crime element or in qualifying the fact of life reality. In law enforcement practice, proving the subjective side of a crime often causes significant problems. At the same time, motivation and achievement of a specific goal of committing a crime can have both a mitigating and an aggravating effect. The subjective side has a significant impact not only on the design of the offenses of the Special Part of the Criminal Law, but also on the process of sentencing through legal regulation of circumstances mitigating or aggravating criminal punishment. In this regard, both general and mandatory features of the subject of the crime also affect the procedure for establishing guilt and determining punishment in accordance with the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Of scientific interest is the study of the influence of the process of legal regulation of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in terms of the impact on this process of subjective signs of criminal behavior.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document