Парадоксы штрафа
Рассматриваются вопросы фактического положения штрафа в системе уголовн^гх наказаний, отмечается несовершенство способов исчисления штрафа, нецелесообразность установления его кратно к сумме взятки или коммерческого подкупа. Обращается внимание на несогласованность ряда норм уголовного, уголовно-исполнительного законодательства и законодательства об исполнительном производстве в части отсрочки, рассрочки уплаты штрафа, юридических последствий неисполнения этого наказания. ; The recent changes to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation relating to the method of fine calculation lead to an more significant increase in the amounts of fines and give more reason to conclude that nowadays the fine at large is by no means the least severe punishment, suffice it to compare the maximum compulsory work hours (480) and the maximum fine (five and even five hundred million rubles). It is known that the legislator has repeatedly changed the method of fine calculation. The previous way to determine the amount of a fine depending on the minimum monthly wage immediately proved vulnerable and lost any connection with the minimum monthly wage as such to be replaced by calculating the fine in the fixed amount of money in 2003. Theoretically, it is fairer to calculate the amount of fine determined by a court in the so-called "day-fines", which is accepted in Western Europe, that is, in the amount of the convict's daily earnings or other forms of daily income. However, it must be recognized that this approach in modern Russia is untenable due to inadequate fiscal income transparency, off-book payment schemes and shadow economy. So, for instance, in September 2014 the media reported that in 2014 The Russian Pension Fund "missed" 22.5 million workers. In other words, many people are not inclined to open their real incomes. If the fine is calculated only on the basis of the officially recorded "day-fines", it will be even far from fair. To what extent are the recent methods of fine calculation justified? At first glance, the legislator has demonstrated a clear commitment in the fight against corruption crimes. Initially, the fine was calculated in a special way (up to hundredfold) when applied to commercial bribery. Subsequently, this method of fine calculation covered the illegal movement of cash or (and) the "cost of monetary instruments" (Article 200.1 of the RF Criminal Code). The "multiple" fine calculation for the illegal movement of cash (monetary instruments) is generally acceptable as well as for the crimes, the public danger which is determined depending on their damage to property or the amount of pecuniary gain of the convict. For example, the Criminal Code of Kyrgyzstan provides for such a punishment as the "triple ayyp", i.e. a monetary fine in the amount of three times the value of the stolen property. However, there are good reasons to doubt the correctness of the multiple fine calculation when it concerns commercial bribery, as the nature and degree of its public danger are determined by the degree of violation of legally protected public relations in commercial and other organizations (Article 23 of the RF Criminal Code) and in the sphere of the state and local authorities (Article 30 of the RF Criminal Code) rather than by the sum of the bribe or payoff. If the fine equal to the n-fold amount of the stolen property in Article 158 of the RF Criminal Code (theft) were quite logical, it would be very difficult to explain it when applied to Articles 204, 290, 291, 291.1 of the RF Criminal Code.