scholarly journals Actual Qualification Problems of Sexual Crimes: the Limits of Judicial Interpretation

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 107-113
Author(s):  
S F Miliukov ◽  
O Yu Stepanova

This article presents a critical analysis of postmen of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation «On judicial practice in cases of crimes against sexual inviolability and sexual freedom of the individual». The authors point out the limitations of WHO- judicial interpretation opportunities due to serious structural under-STATCOM relevant criminal law and suggest ways to improve them.

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 66-79
Author(s):  
S. L. Morozov ◽  

The advent of the electronic currency and the effecting of electronic payments has caused new forms of thefts and types of acquisitive crimes. The judicial investigative practice of criminal cases of embezzlement committed using bank cards and other types of electronic payments has encountered problems with the qualification of such acts. The author identifies the most common enforcement problemsand their causesby a retrospective study of judicial practice, the changing norms of the criminal law. At the same time, a ten-year period of work of the judicial investigating authorities was studied. On the basis of traditional general scientific methods of cognition, as a result of a system-legal analysis of the considered set of specific situations, the author gives an author's view of the complex of causes that cause a lack of uniformity in judicial investigative practice. Using the hermeneutic approach, the author paid special attention to the application by the courts of the interpretation of the criminal law by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in different years. In conclusion, ways of resolving contentious issues of qualification of thefts and fraud in the field of electronic means of payment are proposed. It has been ascertained that high-quality and uniform law enforcement can provide additional clarification on the delimitation of related and competing theft from the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. It is concluded that in general, the current concept of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation does not contain contradictions with the novels of the criminal law, but can be improved. The rationale and edition of possible additions to the relevant decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are given.


Author(s):  
Vladimir Tunin ◽  
Natal'ya Radoshnova

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.


Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 95-107
Author(s):  
I. A. Klepitskiy

The question of the legal nature and the binding nature of explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation remains debatable in the literature. When considering criminal cases, the courts do not always follow the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. It seems that the explanations of the Supreme Court, while not being a source of criminal law, are nevertheless binding on courts and officials applying the norms of criminal law. This is a general rule, to which there are exceptions. First, there are erroneous explanations of the Supreme Court, which are not based on the established judicial practice and are not supported by it. Second, there are outdated explanations of the Supreme Court that do not meet modern legal realities. Third, there are explanations of the Supreme Court, which, in relation to a particular situation, require an expansive or restrictive interpretation. In these three situations, the Supreme Court’s explanations do not bind the law enforcement officer. The binding nature of the Supreme Court’s explanations is determined by the value of the law as such. Questions of law require a uniform resolution. An alternative to a uniform interpretation of the law is arbitrary administration. Arbitrary administration is not within the competence of the judge. There is no case law in Russia. The works of legal scholars in modern Russia also cannot satisfy the need for a uniform interpretation of the law. The significance of the explanations of the Supreme Court determines the high requirements for their quality. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not directly contradict the law. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not change unless there is an urgent need to do so. The rule nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, being an achievement of legal culture, binds the Supreme Court. By clarifying the practice of applying the law, the Supreme Court forms and preserves judicial doctrine, thereby providing legal certainty.


2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-104
Author(s):  
Valeria V. Zabrodina ◽  
Anna G. Menshikova

The authors in the article consider the problems of establishing the qualifying feature use of official position when committing fraud. Based on the analysis of the doctrine of criminal law, clarifications of the highest court, materials of specific judicial practice, a circle of subjects related to persons using their official position is determined, as well as the procedure and mechanism for using official position in fraud. According to the results of the study, it is proposed to include in the current resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation On judicial practice in cases of fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement additional clarifications that reveal the understanding of the content of the sign use of official position. The authors propose to expand the understanding of the subject of official fraud. Such provisions will promote uniformity in law enforcement and helpavoid qualifying fraud using official position errors.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-337
Author(s):  
M.P. Pronina ◽  

The article deals with the problems of law enforcement in the group of malfeasances. Official crimes are most dangerous due to the fact that they undermine the prestige of the authorities and directly violate the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations. In this regard the legislator has established criminal liability for officials who abuse their functional duties. In particular the author studies the problems of qualification arising in the legal assessment of crimes enshrined in Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, due to the highest level of their blanketness and evaluativeness. Examples of judicial and investigative practice on competition issues of general and special rules are given. Difficulties are revealed in the legal assessment of the actions of officials when determining the signs of abuse of office, enshrined in Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Arguments are presented that are a clear demonstration of the fact that the solution to the identified problems of applying the norms of the criminal law lies in the plane of reducing the level of conflict of laws of criminal legislation. Practical proposals are being made to include amendments to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 09.07.2013 No. 24 “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and other corruption crimes” (clause 12.1) and Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 16.10.2009 No. 19 “On judicial practice in cases of abuse of office and abuse of office” (p. 21.1). The solution of the stated problems in the field of application of the norms of the criminal law consists in the development of a uniform practice of application of the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, reduction of the level of gaps in criminal legislation, the development of methodological and scientific recommendations with the participation of law enforcement officials and scientists, the preparation of draft laws and plenums of the Supreme Court aimed at elimination of gaps and gaps.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 27-30
Author(s):  
Elvina I. Fagmanova ◽  

The article is devoted to the research of the mechanism in the reconsidering judicial acts under reopened or new circumstances as providing the necessary deviation from the requirement of stability in judicial practice to correct an erroneous judicial act, an analysis of the grounds for reviewing and the importance of judicial review procedures in the system. The author pays an attention to discussions about the possibility of reconsidering a judicial act, due to the development of the position of the supreme court on legal issues, on its borders. The article also analyzes the most important judicial practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the ECHR, and the Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme court of the Russian Federation, which substantively reveal the approach of these courts to the mechanism in reconsidering judicial acts under reopened or new circumstances.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 25-29
Author(s):  
O.S. Kapinus ◽  

The article analyzes legislative initiatives of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on introduction of the criminal offense concept in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Supporting the striving of the supreme judicial authority for humanization of criminal laws, the author notes that the proposed criminal law mechanisms and means of reaching this goal contradict the conceptual origins of Russian criminal laws, deform the basic branch institutions


Author(s):  
Марина Сергеевна Красильникова

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.


Author(s):  
G.A. Reshetnikova

The article deals with explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation contained in the resolution of the Plenum “On judicial practice in cases of kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty and trafficking in persons”. Basically (where possible) the author’s attention was focused on the formation of a judicial position on the issues concerning these crimes that had already arisen in judicial practice and the answers to them were found in the official press (Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation). The author touched on some short stories of the judicial interpretation of kidnapping, illegal imprisonment, and human trafficking. She gave them her own rating. It is noted that the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on cases of kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty and trafficking in persons (with some exceptions) are a generalized experience (outcome) of the application of norms of criminal liability for these crimes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
V. K. Andreev ◽  

The article discusses the forms of clarification on matters of judicial practice by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Presidium of the Supreme Court, as well as in the Review of judicial practice on some issues of the application of legislation on business companies dated December 25, 2019. Clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on issues of judicial practice are characterized as the positions of the courts identified in the course of studying and summarizing the judicial practice of the corresponding category of cases, which are acts of individual regulation of public relations. Focusing on Art. 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Section 6, Art. 12 of the APC RF shows the validity of dividing wrong into two types of wrong: the «moderate» type of «judicial law-making and the position of the court» and the «radical» type of «judicial law-making», when the court develops the rule of law, which contradicts the constitutional principle of separation of powers. When resolving corporate disputes, it is necessary to investigate whether the charter of a non-public company does not contain the rights and obligations of its participants, which they themselves created by making a unanimous decision and including them in the charter of the company (paragraph 3 of Art. 66.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 3 of Art. 14 of the Law about LLC).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document