The article proposes the analysis of a new-born in case law concept concerning beneficiary relations in criminal law. The author states that due to specific features of Russian economy these relations are related to criminal liability as on victims’ prospect as on defendants’ one. The concept of ‘factual ownership’ is analysed, and its theoretical basis is explained. Then the issues of complicity of beneficial owners are briefly discussed. The author concludes that these issues mirror the general discussion on terminology in criminal law and other spheres of law.
The article is concerned with unclear words in definition of bribery under Russian Criminal Code. The authors try to reconstruct their meaning on a basis of a scarce case law. Their approach is twofold. The first element in interpretation of the words is related to representative relations between a bribe-giver and represented persons. The second element is related to understanding of ‘favour’ in case of bribe-giving. The article proposes some specific legal rules for qualifying such cases.
The article discusses the problematic aspects of the interpretation of the sign "extortion, commercial bribery". Special attention is paid to the qualification requirements on the transfer of commercial bribery for the renewal of a contract. On the basis of the analysis of the category "pravoohranitelej interest" formulated specific proposals on qualification of such actions.
The article is concerned with liability for criminal deeds connected with so called quasi money instruments i.e. nominative currency documents, discount cards, loyalty cards, etc. The author defines the various types of such instruments and proposes the guidelines for incurring of criminal liability. According to such types the deeds may be regarded as fraud, theft or other types of larceny what mostly depends on free conversion of the instruments and necessity to fraud other persons with regard to benefits provided by such money instruments.
The article is concerned with an unclear issue in defining a public official under Russian Criminal Code. Since 2015, more strict criminal liability is imposed on those persons who hold an official position in joint stock companies with control stake belonging to the State. However, there are serious problems in interpretation this notion. Firstly, control stake is not defined in corporate legislation; rather, it is a factual concept depending on existence of corporate control in each given case. Secondly, there is an inconsistency in case law with either admitting or not of indirect participation of the State in joint stock companies as a basis for criminal liability of officials in such companies as public officials. Authors try to reconcile criminal and corporate legislation on this issue. They propose concept of control stake which is based on corporate legislation but may be also used in criminal legislation.
The article is concerned with a missed point in a definition of bribery, that is proprietary rights as its subject matter. The authors try to explain this notion under criminal and civil legislation using current case law. However, they show that this concept has not definite meaning in civil law; as a consequence, its meaning in criminal law is also unclear. Finally, the authors propose a restricted definition of proprietary rights trying to delineate it from other subject matters of bribery under Russian criminal legislation.
The article analyzes the question of when and under what conditions the presence of a pledge or bank guarantee excludes the composition of fraud. Specific factors are described, the combination of which does not allow to qualify the act as embezzlement in the presence of these methods of ensuring the fulfillment of obligations
The article is concerned with a debatable issue in understanding of larceny, that is a purpose of gain. The author explorers two approaches, a wide one and a narrow one. Then he explains that a wide approach leads to inconsistency in the case law with regard to other crimes such as abuse of authority. Moreover, a wide approach is meaningless because there are no cases where, under it, there is no purpose of gain now.
This article is about the problems arising at the decision of a question on a recognition of socially dangerous act insignificant, are considered and ways of their decision with a view of protection of interests of the victim are offered.
Triage is a unique medical concept usually used in difficult times of war and emergency. However, COVID-19 pandemic creates a legal unpredictability as to use of triage in ordinary life. The legal issue here is quite clear: whether medics are criminally responsible in choosing the limited number patients for treatment or not. The author discusses two types of the triage and proposes their legal evaluation under Russian criminal law. The ex ante triage is generally permissible but ex post triage may lead to criminal conviction for murder. The author also proposes several criteria of legality of the ex ante triage.