DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2024.4.70275

EDN: TXAZGC

Abstract: The article discusses the problems of defining cyberspace and information space as a possible place of commission of a crime or other optional sign of an objective party in relation to specific acts provided for by the norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The properties and characteristics of cyberspace are determined, and a comparison is made with the intangible and information space. The problem of determining the connection of cyberspace to specific objects of the material world - computer media, servers, the impossibility of the existence of cyberspace in isolation from three-dimensional reality at this stage of scientific and technological development, which predetermines the criminal legal classification of crimes, is noted. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that the article substantiates an innovative approach to determining the place of intangible space in the system of composition characteristics. The author notes that the current realities force us to take a fresh look at the perception of the content of such a sign of the objective side of the crime as the place where the latter was committed, since its traditional understanding from the position of an object of material reality - a specific section of the earth’s surface, which has its own geographical landmarks and coordinates - does not meet the modern needs of the theory and practice of applying criminal law. As a result of the research, the author concludes that the development of computer technologies, communications and the information and telecommunications network “Internet” contributed to the emergence of a new – information – space, which by its nature is intangible and actually does not exist in a three-dimensional dimension.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2024.4.70271

EDN: HDJCJB

Abstract: The need for an integrated approach to the study of optional by nature signs of the objective side and their role in crimes against life and health requires turning to the experience of foreign countries. In this connection, the work examines some features of the construction of optional signs of the objective side in the above-mentioned criminal offenses in the criminal legislation of Germany and France. The conducted comparative research made it possible to see ways of improvement and vectors of development of criminal law policy, the implementation of which is carried out precisely by the correction of the criminal law. Based on the results of the work, the author indicates that legislators in Germany and France, unlike in Russia, do not attach serious importance to optional signs of the objective side when constructing crimes against life and health. At the same time, certain features in the regulation of optional signs of the objective side in crimes against life and health, which are not characteristic of domestic law, are still refined. For example, in Germany, in relation to murder in a state of passion, not only the determinants of the occurrence of a state of strong emotional excitement, but also the pre-criminal behavior of the subject of the crime are taken into account. It is also noted that the German Criminal Code regulates liability for participation in a fight; it regulates liability for abortion that occurs outside the established period of pregnancy at which it is possible. In addition, it was revealed that the French Criminal Code criminalizes hiring to commit murder if the mercenary did not plan to commit a criminal act. In conclusion, the author of the work suggests ways to improve domestic legislation taking into account the studied foreign experience.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2024.4.70454

EDN: GEMIEG

Abstract: The subject of the study is the problems of criminalization of unfair competition and differentiation of criminal liability for its implementation. In particular, the following issues are analyzed: the current state of criminalization of acts provided for in art. 128.1, 146, 147, 180, 183, 185.3 and 185.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the signs of which correspond to a certain extent to the prohibitions of the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition"; legislative techniques in the design of their compositions; qualifying and especially qualifying signs, sanctions provided for the commission of crimes of the specified group; practices in the field of application of the listed articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, including in countering unfair competition. The purpose of the work is to identify the problems of criminalization of acts that have signs of unfair competition, violations of legislative technique, shortcomings in the differentiation of criminal liability for their commission, and identify ways to eliminate them. The research methodology is based on general scientific and private scientific methods of cognition, dialectical, logical, formal legal, comparative legal, hermeneutic research methods, as well as methods of legal modeling and legal forecasting are used. The scientific novelty lies in the analysis of the problems of constructing the elements of crimes provided for in art. 128.1, 146, 147, 180, 183, 185.3 and 185.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as a whole and in connection with their content with violations of the prohibitions contained in Articles 14.1-14.8 of the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition", proposals on criteria for criminalization of acts, research qualifying (especially qualifying) signs and sanctions as means of differentiating criminal liability, as well as in proposals for their improvement. The conclusions are based on the absence in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of a clear mechanism for protection against unfair competition, ideas about changing legislation aimed at establishing specific grounds for criminal liability for unfair competition, unification of qualifying signs and the proposal as a sanction of penalties and their sizes uniform for the entire group of criminal forms of unfair competition, as well as the extension to crimes, provided for in Articles 180, 185.3 and 185.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the institution of confiscation.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2024.4.70326

EDN: TNOVVM

Abstract: The subject of the study is the failure to take measures to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest. Failure to take measures is considered as an element of the objective side of disciplinary misconduct in labor relations, the composition of which is defined in paragraph 7.1. part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, along with such elements as "conflict of interest" and "loss of trust". The types of measures are studied, the collision of their anti-corruption and labor-law nature; the subject of taking measures; the possibility of choosing a measure by an employee and an employer; the legal consequences of non-acceptance; the head as a subject of responsibility in case of non-acceptance of measures; the obligation to notify about a conflict of interests; the content of the concepts of "prevention" and "settlement". The object of the study is labor relations in terms of disciplinary responsibility for corruption offenses and related official legal relations. The author uses the general scientific method of dialectical cognition, as well as a number of private scientific methods: technical-legal, systemic-structural, formal-logical (deduction, induction, definition and division of concepts) and others. The article discusses the following problematic issues: 1) the ratio of measures provided for by anti-corruption legislation with labor law institutions, in particular, transfer to another job and suspension from work; 2) the possibility of abuse of the right by the employer and violation of the rights of the employee when taking measures; 3) the situation of legal deadlock when it is impossible to take measures; 4) unjustified inconsistency of legal regulation of measures in labor and official legal relations. The article draws conclusions about the illegality of dismissal only for failure to inform about a conflict of interest; about the priority of the employee's right to choose a measure to avoid abuse of the right by the employer; about the unification of legal regulation of suspension from work for the period of investigation of corruption misconduct or dismissal of the head for failure to take measures in labor and official relations; about ways out of the "legal impasse" if it is impossible to resolve a conflict of interest, in particular, a separate basis for termination of an employment contract due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties, or permission to act in a conflict of interest with little benefit.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2024.4.70043

EDN: UGTMFA

Abstract: The article considers the legal framework and trends of judicial practice in claims for the recovery of previously privatized assets. The purpose is to identify risk factors for the deprivatization of enterprise property, as well as circumstances affecting the prospects of possible litigation. The authors used such research methods as logical, theoretical-prognostic, formal-legal, system-structural and legal modeling methods. The methodological apparatus consists of the following dialectical techniques and methods of scientific cognition: analysis, abstraction, induction, deduction, hypothesis, analogy, synthesis, typology, classification, systematization and generalization. The authors analyzed relevant legal cases within the context of legal regulation and doctrinal approaches to the interpretation of civil legislation. It is concluded that violation of the privatization procedure means the absence of the will of the public owner to property alienation. As a result, the public owner has the opportunity to claim property even from a bona fide purchaser. Shares in the authorized capital of companies, and individual objects (buildings, structures, movable property) are subject to deprivatization. The basis for the claim of property in favor of the state is most often the privatization of property classified as federal property, with the approval of only regional authorities as well as the privatization of property in respect of which prohibitions and restrictions are established. It is stated that the courts reject references to the expiration of the limitation period, at the same time, judicial practice regarding the application of objective limitation periods has only begun to form. Considering the specifics of the participation of public legal entities in civil turnover, the authors conclude that it is necessary to clarify the established practice of applying law by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.