Suchergebnisse

The subject. The article is devoted to analysis of court practice concerning crimes in public procurement.The purpose of the paper is to solve the problem of delimitation of theft committed by the perpetrator with the use of his official position, from abuse of official powers and official forgery is topical.The methodology. General scientific methods as analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, comparison were used. The system method allowed to consider misdemeanors and a set of rules providing for responsibility for their commission, in conjunction with public relations, which need criminal law protection. The functional approach made it possible to address the issues of qualification for official crimes against the contract system and the state de-fense order, taking into account the forms and methods of activity of the subjects of con-tractual relations.Results and scope of application. An important role in improving the effectiveness of public procurement is played by officials who, in dealing with suppliers of goods and executors, are called upon to defend public interests. The public danger of crimes committed by offi-cials in this sphere is manifested in the destruction of the material basis of the functioning of the state, undermining its defensive capacity and reducing the level of security. Judicial practice testifies to the lack of uniform approaches to the qualification of crimes committed in the sphere of execution of the state and municipal contract.The article proposes criteria for delimiting the encroachments of officials on the expendi-ture of budgetary relations, taking into account the addition of the criminal law to norms that provide for responsibility for abuse in the performance of the state defense order (art. 201.1 and 285.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In the qualification of crimes committed in the sphere of contractual relations, and the application of art. 201.1 and 285.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are proposed to be guided by the recommendations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the delimitation of abuse of official powers from embezzlement.Conclusions. It is necessary to proceed from the existence of two lines of activity of the customer. The first is the acceptance of the delivered goods, the work performed, the ser-vices rendered. The second is payment for goods, work and services. ; Проблема отграничения хищения, совершенного виновным с использованием своего служебного положения, от злоупотребления должностными полномочиями и служеб-ного подлога, представляется актуальной, поскольку судебная практика свидетель-ствует об отсутствии единых подходов к квалификации преступлений, совершаемых в сфере исполнения государственного и муниципального контракта. Предлагаются кри-терии отграничения посягательств должностных лиц на расходование бюджетных средств с учетом дополнения уголовного закона нормами, предусматривающими от-ветственность за злоупотребления при выполнении государственного оборонного за-каза (ст. 201.1 и 285.4 УК РФ).

The subject of the article is the problem of compliance of general and special types of exemption from criminal liability with the legal nature of criminal law, as well as the logical consistency of criminal law matter.The purpose of the article is to establish the key factors influencing the construction of the content of general and special types of exemption from criminal liability by studying the goals, purpose and legal nature of the latter.The methodology includes dialectical, comparative legal methods, systematic analysis of legal academic literature, as well as interpretation of Russian criminal law.The main results, scope of application. The establishment of norms providing for the release of persons who have committed crimes from criminal liability in the law is justified by the disappearance (reduction) of the public danger of the committed act and (or) the personality of the person who committed it. Modern trends of criminal policy require the presence of such an instrument in the legislation, which allows avoiding unnecessary criminal repression, restoring the rights of victims. At the same time, the consolidation of special types of exemption from criminal liability in the text of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation pursued two main goals: (1) To avoid the onset of more serious consequences (causing death or harm to the health of hostages); (2) Revealing and disclosure of latent (hidden) crimes. However, despite the indicated feature, special types of exemption from criminal liability should be built taking into account the tasks facing the criminal law of Russia and the goals of criminal liability.Conclusion. The content of the types of exemption from criminal liability is directly influenced by the purpose and goals of this criminal legal institution. The further improvement of this legal institution should be carried out exclusively taking into account the tasks facing the domestic criminal law. ; Анализируется содержание отечественного института освобождения от уголовной ответственности. Отдельное внимание уделяется законодательной конструкции видов освобождения от уголовной ответственности, которые могут иметь как обязательный (императивный), так и усмотрительный (дискреционный) характер действия. На основании определения целей уголовной ответственности предпринимается попытка установить назначение специальных видов освобождения от уголовной ответственности. В завершение обозначаются задачи, стоящие перед общими и специальными видами освобождения от уголовной ответственности.