scholarly journals A New Kind of Exemption from Criminal Responsibility: the Theoretical, Legislative and Enforcement Aspects

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-166
Author(s):  
N A Egorova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Difference

Questions about the place of norms about exemption from criminal responsibility with the appointment of a judicial fine in the system of criminal law institutions, the difference of judicial fine from other criminal law measures, the grounds for exemption from criminal responsibility under article 76.2 of the Criminal code, and the appointment of a judicial fine are considered. It is stated that the basis of a judicial fine may only be established by court fact of the crime of a certain category, therefore it is difficult to explain the appointment of this measure to a person suspected of committing a crime; the purpose of restoring social justice when releasing from criminal responsibility with the appointment of a judicial fine is not achieved. A critical analysis of the resolution of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from June 27, 2013 No. 19 «About application by courts of the legislation regulating the grounds and procedure of exemption from criminal responsibility» (new edition) in the explanation concerning the mentioned exemption from criminal responsibility is done. It is concluded that the appearance of the considered norms in the Russian criminal law reflects not only the search of more flexible methods of criminal law impact and new criminal law measures, but also about the failure of the state and society in solving the problem of crime prevention. Legal regulation of judicial fine in the future should be more detailed, the scope of application of article 76.2 of the Criminal code is narrower, and the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation should pay more attention to the interpretation of article 76.2, 104.4 and 104.5 of the Criminal code.

scholarly journals Criminal infraction as a mean of differentiating criminal responsibility and punishment

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
pp. 62-67
Author(s):  
E. A. BABAYANTS ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

Discussions caused by the initiative of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the introduction of a new category of offenses – criminal infraction which can occupy an intermediate link between an administrative offense and a criminal offense – do not stop. The article reveals the concept of a criminal infraction, lists its main features, considers the feasibility of introducing this category into domestic criminal legislation. A brief analysis of the legislation of a number of foreign countries is also given, the possibility of applying such experience in Russian conditions is assessed. The conclusion is formulated that it is necessary to recognize as fair the arguments challenging the necessity of adopting the draft law in the form in which it was submitted for consideration by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Attention is drawn to the fact that in those countries where the category of criminal offense was introduced, a fundamental reform of the criminal legislation was required: a total revision of the norms of the existing criminal legislation or the adoption of a separate Code of criminal infractions (for example, in Kyrgyzstan). Based on this the draft law under consideration appears to be a half-measure, which will lead to the complication of the existing legal regulation. The most correct way to resolve the problem under consideration would be to reduce the number of minor offenses in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

scholarly journals ISSUES OF QUALIFICATION OF EXCEEDING OF JUSTIFIABLE DEFENSE LIMITS

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 32-36
Author(s):  
Andrey V. Nikulenko ◽  
◽  
Maksim A. Smirnov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article is dedicated to justifiable defense as a circumstance excluding the criminal character of an act pursuant to criminal laws of the Russian Federation. The authors cover some issues concerning the application of provisions stipulated by Article 37 of the Criminal Code of Russia. The research of these provisions allows identifying the advantages and disadvantages of the legal regulation of justifiable defense including the disadvantages of the judicial and investigative practice. The paper criticizes the existing approach and offers ways to solve the indicated problems including by means of amendment of resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 19 of September 27, 2012, On the Judicial Application of Laws on Justifiable Defense and Causing of Damage in the Course of Detention of a Criminal. The authors suggest a means of possible reconstruction of the corresponding provisions of Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in view of ambiguous and often inconsistent practice of application of criminal law provisions on justifiable defense.

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.

scholarly journals Problems of proving guilt in criminal cases in connection with tax evasion

2019 ◽  
pp. 170-176
Author(s):  
V. V. Dubrovin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The establishment of an intentional form of guilt and its specific type is mandatory for the implementation of the provisions of Art. 8 of the Criminal Code. In criminal proceedings in connection with tax evasion, a direct intent should be established in the act of the accused, otherwise the provisions of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 28, 2006 No. 64 “On the practice of criminal law on liability for tax offenses”. One of the proofs of direct intent in the act of the accused may be the decision of the tax authority to prosecute for the tax offense, made according to the results of tax control measures (in-house or on-site tax audits). In the event that it establishes an imprudent form of the taxpayer’s guilt in committing a tax offense, in proving the guilt of the accused in the course of criminal proceedings there may be an intractable contradiction.

scholarly journals Criminal Misconduct: An Objective Need or a Declared Necessity?

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 142-154
Author(s):  
N. Yu. Skripchenko ◽  
S. V. Anoshchenkova
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Business Community ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The actively defended idea of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the inclusion of an offencse  of criminal misconduct in the criminal legislation was reflected in the revised draft federal law submitted to the  Parliament on October 13, 2020. The purpose of the study is to determine the key changes in the content of the  institutions of criminal misconduct and other measures of a criminal law nature proposed for consolidation in the  Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to assess the objective need of the reforms initiated by the Supreme  Court of the Russian Federation. The methodological basis is a set of methods of scientific knowledge. General  scientific (analysis and synthesis, dialectics) and specific scientific research methods (system structural, formal legal)  were used. A comparative analysis of draft laws allows us to classify the substantive content of acts constituting a  criminal misconduct as key changes and the modification of other measures of a criminal legal nature. The authors  critically assess the idea underlying the classification of acts as criminal misconduct. By laying in the criteria for  the isolation of acts that are minimal in terms of the degree of danger, not legally significant elements of corpus  delicti, but the types and amount of punishments, the lack of criminal experience, the interests of the business  community, the developers of the draft law violate the system of law, since the proposed approach excludes the  assessment of the public danger of the act based on the significance of the protected by the criminal the law of  public relations. The meaning of the differentiation of criminal liability declared by the initiator of the reforms is  lost with the proposed duplication of other measures applied both to persons who have committed a criminal  misconduct and to those guilty of committing crimes of small or medium gravity, and the proposed conditional  nature of other measures levels the idea of liberalizing the criminal law. The paper focuses on the provisions of  the project that require revision and additional comprehension.

scholarly journals Тhe institute of confiscation of property in Russian criminal law. Lessons of combating proceeds of crime in the assessment of the Supreme Сourt of the Russian Federation

2018 ◽  
pp. 22-30
Author(s):  
Yu. K. Krasnov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Plenary Session ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

Introduction. May and June 2018 saw intensi­fied discussions in Russia around the issue of confis­cation of property obtained by criminal means. These discussions arose after several initiatives of legisla­tors who advocated the strengthening of the role of this institution of criminal law in the legal practice in Russia and after the Supreme Court of the Rus­sian Federation summarized the experience of the use of confiscation in the practice of Russian courts and formulated some recommendations for the courts in the decision of the plenary session of June the 14th .  Materials and methods. The article uses a number of research methods and techniques to ana­lyze the problem such as analysis that allows isolat­ing the trends in the development of the institution of confiscation; comparison which allows evaluating homogeneous processes at different stages of the in­stitute of confiscation of property acquired by crimi­nal means, and generalization which is necessary to summarize the results of the research.  Research results. The use of the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means in the legal practice of Russia has passed several stages. The modern stage began after the institution was restored in the criminal code of the Russian Fed­eration by the Federal law of July 27, 2006 № 153FZ and section VI of the Criminal Code was supple­mented by Chapter 15.1 “Confiscation of property”. This Chapter contains the legislative definition of the confiscation of property (article 104.1 of the Crimi­nal Code) and an indication of the subject of confis­cation, its types and conditions.  Based on the decisions of the plenums of the Su­preme Court of the Russian Federation the article analyzes the practice of this institution in the activi­ties of Russian courts. 12 years of experience in the application of Chapter 15.1 of the Criminal Code, showed that, despite the repeated explanations of the Supreme Court, which dealt with individual crimes, some of the controversial issues remained unre­solved. In this regard the Plenum of the Supreme Court introduced a number of proposals to improve the legal framework of this institution in the draft Resolution.  On June 14th , 2018 the next plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ad­opted a new detailed resolution on the practice of application of Chapter 15.1 of the Criminal Code and proposed detailed recommendations to improve the application of the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means in the Russian Federation, which are considered and commented on in the article.  Discussion and conclusion. Legal literature discussed the innovations in the Russian legislation related to the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means caused in a very active mode. The views of the authors of articles on this is­sue can be divided into two parts with each havinga lot of supporters. According to the first of them the new place of confiscation of property among the mea­sures of criminal law is justified.  Supporters of the opposite point of view sup­port the exclusion confiscation of property from the system of measures of criminal law as they believe that the legal nature of the confiscation of property belongs to a form of criminal punishment. This is the opinion of the judges. Two-thirds of the judges believe that the confiscation of property should be considered as an additional form of punishment.

scholarly journals The Concept of Freedom of Enterprise Through the Prism of Criminal Law Characteristics of Fraud

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-299
Author(s):  
Yekaterina Yakimova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Entrepreneurial Activities

The research of issues connected with the analysis of business risks is relevant because of the problem of qualifying the actions of entrepreneurs under the fraud-related Articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Besides, the development of technologies increases the number of frauds in the digital environment, which makes it necessary to determine key features of fraudulent actions connected with the changes in the economic organization of the society connected with the digital transformation of some branches of the world economy in general and Russian economy in particular, of the social sphere, and of the specifics of public administration of some areas of life. The responsiveness of lawmakers manifested in amending a group of Articles in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regarding the legal characteristics of fraud, shows that there are some problems in the legislative regulation of this sphere. The author believes that they are caused by an attempt to assess the degree of freedom of enterprise and the degree of involvement of each side of legal relations in the risk of investment. The analysis of legislation, the law enforcement practice, statistical data give reason to believe that most of the problems of legislative understanding of fraud in entrepreneurship are not connected with contradictions in the legal regulation, but rather with the drawbacks of the law enforcement practice, the prevalence of repressive methodology in classifying the actions of entrepreneurs and the inner conviction of the law enforcement employees that entrepreneurs intentionally strive to obtain negative results in any, and primarily entrepreneurial, activities. The author argues that further improvement of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will not yield any tangible results, which testifies to a considerable transformation of the fraud-related Articles in the last 15 years. Changes in the practice of enforcement of the criminal law’s articles regarding fraud are only possible after the principles of such work are worked out by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, who at present pays much attention to this issue, although some clauses of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation require further analysis and improvement.

scholarly journals Malfeasances: features of law enforcement.

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-337
Author(s):  
M.P. Pronina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Assessment ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

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.

scholarly journals Criminal misdemeanor: assessment of embodiment forms and prospects of existence

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-348
Author(s):  
V.V. Kosterin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Record ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Points Of View

Recently there has been a discussion in criminal law science about the inclusion in the criminal block of a new institution – a criminal misdemeanor – a wrongful act, in relation to which special, less strict rules for determining the amount of punishment are applied and, presumably, the concept of a criminal record does not apply. The article examines the prospects for introducing the category of “criminal misdemeanor” in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, provides an assessment and comments on the reform proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, examines various scientific points of view on the institution and approaches to formulating the definition, predicts the main directions of development of the new institution. The most controversial issues of a possible reform are: 1) the concept and place of a criminal misdemeanor (as an independent tort or a subtype of minor crimes); 2) the method of consolidation (in the form of a chapter of the criminal code or an independent code of criminal misdemeanors); 3) types of punishment (fine, correctional labor, arrest); 4) the occurrence of a criminal record (conditions, terms, duration); 5) ways of securing new punishments (in the form of independent articles of the criminal code or additional wording of existing articles, indicating a smaller amount of punishment if applied to a person who has committed a criminal misdemeanor).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document