Criminal Liability For Violation Research Articles

Analysis of the legislative proposals for amendments to the Penal Code Of Ukraine aimed to overcome the pandemic disease COVID-19, caused by Coronavirus Sars-Cov-2

Draft laws of Ukraine towards the amendments to the Penal Code of Ukraine aimed to overcome the pandemic disease COVID-19, caused by Coronavirus SARS-COV-2 are analyzed, namely: "On Amendments to the Penal Code (concerning the criminal liability for violation of the established procedure for vaccination of citizens against infectious diseases)" registration № 4647 26/01/2021 and "On Amendments to the Penal Code of Ukraine in terms of liability for forgery of documents about preventive vaccination" registration № 6084 23/09/21.
 Some disadvantages of the following drafts are identified: 1) importation into Ukraine of a vaccine not registered in the State Register of medicine products is currently considered as an illegal activity; 2) placing into turnover of an unregistered medical product is a falsification and entails criminal liability under the provisions of the current article 321-1 of the Penal Code of Ukraine. Therefore, it makes no sense to criminalize actions of this nature; 3) the level of public danger of the proposed criminal offense (Article 321-3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) is not sufficient for the existence of the sanction Part 1 – imprisonment and its classification as "minor crimes"; 5) establishment of separate (special) criminal liability for forgery of documents related to preventive vaccinations is an excessive criminalization; 6) introduction of the proposed criminal offense (Article 321-3 of the Penal Code of Ukraine) to Section XIII "Criminal offenses in the sphere of drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues or precursors and other criminal offenses against public health" Special part of the PenalCode of Ukraine does not take into account principles of the existing criminal law doctrine on delimitation and definition of the object of criminal law protection.
 The inexpediency of detailing the forms of the objective side of the proposed criminal offense (Article 321-3 of the Penal Code of Ukraine) by introducing the concepts of "dissemination" and "implementation", as well as the introduction of a broader understanding of the term "use" as a «violation of a prohibition to use (sales and implementation ") is established;
 The ways to overcome the identified disadvantages and improve the norms of the analyzed bills are pointed out. It is concluded that it is impossible to adopt amendments in this form to the Penal Code of Ukraine.

Issues of harmonization of norms establishing administrative and criminal liabil-ity for violations in the field of traffic

The article is devoted to the issues of harmonization of norms establishing administrative and criminal liability for violations in the field of traffic. Based on the comparison of the relevant norms of the Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offences of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the analysis of the materials of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, proposals are formulated aimed at optimizing the combination of provisions of administrative-tort and criminal legislation in the area under consideration.

Проблемы конструирования состава преступления, устанавливающего уголовную ответственность за нарушение правил дорожного движения лицом, подвергнутым административному наказанию и лишенным права управления транспортными средствами (статья 2642 Уголовного кодекса Российской Федерации)

Relevance. The need to comply with the legislative technique rules, in its broad sense, to comply with the social conditionality requirements, consistency and scientific validity when making changes to the Criminal Law and constructing the corpus delicti is recognized by scientists, practitioners and updated in connection with the introduction of Article 2642 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The purpose of the study is to identify problems related to the construction of the corpus delicti establishing criminal liability for violation of traffic rules by a person subjected to administrative punishment and deprived of the right to drive vehicles (article 2642 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The objectives of the study are to identify controversial aspects related to the legislative technique rules, the social conditionality requirements of the criminal law norm, as well as the need to comply with the requirements of consistency and scientific validity of the Criminal Law amendments. The research methodology is based on the use of general scientific methods such as analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, formal logic and dialectical approach, comparative studies, as well as the method of a sys-tematic approach to achieve goals and objectives. Results. As a result of the conducted research, the problems associated with the construction of the corpus delicti provided for in Article 2642 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the legislative technique rules, as well as with the absence of socio-legal prerequisites (grounds and conditions) for criminalization as an independent corpus delicti, were identified. Conclusions. The using administrative prejudice for expand the scope of criminal law to relations that are not by their nature criminal law is unjustified. A large positive effect from the introduction of Article 2642 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is unlikely, because the existing experience of such additions and changes in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not allow us to hope for this. We believe that the legal and technical rules in the construction of criminal law prohibitions need a deep and thorough study.

Legislative novels on differentiation of criminal liability for violation of rules of protection or use of subsoil and illegal mining

Legislative novels on differentiation of criminal liability for violation of rules of protection or use of subsoil and illegal mining

Violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules: issues of criminalization and legislative regulation

The article discusses some problems of criminalization and lawmaking in the field of countering crimes involving violations of sanitary and epidemiological rules. From the point of view of the legal and technical approach, Part 1 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains a construction of a complex composition, which can be called «delinquent-material». In such a composition there is both a mass disease (poisoning of people) and the threat of a mass disease (poisoning of people) they are considered not as acts, but as a socially dangerous consequence. In other words, this kind of criminal-legal construction includes, firstly, the violation of the rules itself and, secondly, socially dangerous consequences in the form of mass illness or poisoning of people or creating a real threat of the onset of these consequences. At the same time, violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules without the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences or the threat of such consequences entails administrative responsibility under Articles 6.3 — 6.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.The author notes that an act that creates a real threat to law enforcement facilities provided for in Part 1 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has a lower degree of public danger compared to such actions (inaction) that inadvertently lead to mass illness or poisoning of people. Equalizing the limits of criminal liability for the commission of the two abovementioned torts is a violation of the principle of justice. In this regard, the author of this article proposes in Part 1 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to establish responsibility for violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules if such violation created a threat of mass illness or poisoning of people. In turn, criminal liability for violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules, which inadvertently caused mass illness or poisoning of people, should be established in Part 2 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for a more severe punishment.

САЙЛОВ ТЎҒРИСИДАГИ ҚОНУНЧИЛИКНИ БУЗГАНЛИК УЧУН ЖАВОБГАРЛИК

This article analyzes liability for violations of electoral legislation, their peculiarity, the procedure and conditions for their application.The types of constitutional, administrative and criminal liability for violation of electoral legislation, as well as their features, have been disclosed.At the same time, the similarities and differences of each type of responsibility, theoretical and practical aspects of their application are analyzed.Keywords: elections, a responsibility, legal responsibility, constitutional and legal responsibility, administrative responsibility, criminal liability

On the issue of countering the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) by means of administrative and criminal law

The study highlights the dynamics of legislative changes and the current state of legal regulation of administrative and criminal liability for violations of quarantine rules. The shortcomings of the relevant legislative provisions were revealed, in particular, a conclusion was made about the violation of the principle of system-legal coherence of administrative and criminal legislation. Thus, there are issues about the delimitation of the provisions of the administrative provided in the Art. 44-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and criminal offenses provided in the Art. 325 of the Criminal Code (in terms of such consequences as the threat of harm, specified in the part 1 of the Article 325 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). In addition, there is an excessive severity of sanctions in the Art. 44-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and their incompatibility with the sanctions of the Art. 325 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In the context of the settled case law of the European Court of Human Rights the fine under the part 1 of the Art. 443 of the Code of Administrative Offenses based on its size and subject to appointment may be recognized as corresponding to a criminal offense within the meaning of the Art. 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Another drawback of the legislation is the lack of enshrining a criminal offense for violating quarantine regulations.
 On the basis of the conducted research it is offered to make changes to norms of the Art. 44-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and the Art. 325 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in order to optimally regulate legal responsibility for violation of sanitary rules and regulations for the prevention of infectious diseases and mass poisoning (Article 325 of the Criminal Code), as well as quarantine rules (the Art. 44-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses). The main task of such changes is to construct a consistent chain of normatively established offenses in the field of compliance with quarantine rules (administrative offense - criminal offense – non-grave offense – grave offense) with adequate and proportionate responsibility for their commission.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION

The article contains an analysis of the issue of criminal liability for breach of personal data protection in the Personal Data Protection Acts of 1997 and 2018, as well as in the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU) 2016/679 of April 27, 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. The author has compared the most important issues related to criminal liability for violation of personal data protection on the basis of the above regulations, because data protection is nowadays a necessary element for us, and violations related to the extortion of personal data should be quickly and effectively enforced by judicial authorities.

Civil and criminal liability in the field of transport relations: the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the lives not only of many people but also significantly affected the economy of individual countries and the world economy as a whole. The world has seen a reduction in production capacity due to the closure of borders between countries and the introduction of self-isolation. The coronavirus pandemic has disrupted the usual relationship between manufacturers and users and has made a major difference in transport. Such changes have been reflected in the regulation of relations regarding civil and criminal liability for offenses in the field of transport relations in a coronavirus pandemic. With this in mind, it is important to analyze the transformations of civil and criminal liability in the field of transport due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The work aims to analyze the civil and criminal liability in the field of transport relations due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The object of the study is a civil and criminal liability in the field of transport due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The subject of the study is the public relations that arise, change, and end during the prosecution of civil and criminal transport in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. The research methodology consists of such methods as the analytical method, historical method, method of analysis of legal documents, articles, and monographs, method of generalization, comparison, synthesis, and modeling. The study will analyze the changes that have taken place in the field of transport, namely the peculiarities of civil and criminal liability for violations in the field of transport during the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as clarify the problematic issues of prosecution in the field of transport and controversial aspects pre-trial settlement of conflicts by the parties. The research also identified the main trends in the transport sphere in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and explained what changes need to be made to establish a mechanism for civil and criminal liability in the field of transport due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

УГОЛОВНАЯ ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТЬ ЗА НАРУШЕНИЕ РЕЖИМА КОНФИДЕНЦИАЛЬНОСТИ В РОССИЙСКОМ И ЗАРУБЕЖНОМ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВЕ

The subject of the work is the status and prospects of criminal law liability for various violations of the special legal regime of legally protected secrets. Considering the specifics of criminal liability for violation of confidentiality of information, experts traditionally focus on certain legally protected secrets and a detailed analysis of the relevant corpus delicti, which does not allow to cover the problem of protection of information of limited access by criminal law means as a whole. The author of this article performed a comprehensive legal analysis of criminal liability for violation of legal regime of secrets protected by law and other restricted information on the basis of a set of unlawful acts of non-compliance with the requirements of the regime. Methodologically, the study is based on a set of modern general scientific and private legal methods. It is based on the comparative legal method, which allows to compare the norms of criminal legislation of Russia, CIS countries, European and other states. The author draws attention to the existing differences and notes that some provisions of the modern Russian criminal law do not meet the requirements of the time, modern challenges and threats of the global information society in the conditions of building a digital economy. Based on a generalized analysis of the regulatory legal framework of the Russian Federation, foreign states and existing doctrinal views, the conclusion is made about the unsystematic composition of crimes aimed at violating the legal regime of secrets protected by law and other information of limited access. The author additionally notes the need to separate eco-nomic espionage and intentional disclosure of trade secrets into separate corpus delicti. Certain shortcomings of the Russian criminal law is the lack of corpus delicti aimed at the protection of legal regimes of professional and official secrets, personal data. Taking into account changes in the attitude to the institution of adoption and global trends in the protec-tion of children's rights, the possibility of decriminalisation of the disclosure of adoption secrets in modern conditions has been argued. The above and other problems identified in Russian criminal law with regard to the protection of legally established secrets and other restricted information are aimed at improving criminal legislation.

Implementation features of the basic principles of the tax system in Ukraine

The article examines The role of the tax system in the complex of institutional entities of Ukraine is investigated and its importance in the processes of regulating business activity in Ukraine is shown in this paper. Special attention is paid to the imperfections of the current tax system, particularly, in terms of the existence of opportunities for the formation of fictitious schemes based on the involvement of entities of different organizational and legal forms and taxation systems. The dynamics of the number of sole traders and legal entities in Ukraine for the period 2014–2020 is shown and it is revealed that the situation in business sphere of Ukraine, the significant predominance of the number of sole traders over registered legal entities remains traditional. It is largely related. with simplified procedures for conducting business, accounting, reporting and payment of taxes for micro and small businesses. The following principles of the tax system of Ukraine are analyzed: the principle of universality, equality of all taxpayers according to the law, the inevitability of liability under the law in case of violation of tax legislation, presumption of legality of taxpayer decisions, fiscal sufficiency, social justice, tax efficiency, neutrality and stability, uniformity and convenience. payment of tax liabilities, a single approach to the establishment of taxes and fees. Features of financial, administrative and criminal liability for violations in the field of tax legislation are described. Groups of penalties that can be applied to taxpayers, in particular, for failure to file tax returns; for understatement of tax liabilities, which are revealed as a result of tax audits; for making arithmetic or methodological errors in the submitted tax returns; for non-payment or late payment of tax liabilities are defined. As the result of the analysis of the principle of fiscal sufficiency of the tax system in Ukraine, its connection with the budget system is shown, as the implementation of budgetary goals and its financial support largely depend on the results of the tax system.

Анализ эффективных инструментов прозрачности и открытости государственных закупок

Liability measures provided by the legislation and reports of the controlling bodies are analyzed. The conclusion is drawn that it is necessary to strengthen administrative and criminal liability for violations of the law in the course of public procurement. The author proposes tools to ensure compliance with the principles of transparency and openness of public procurement.

Normative Legal Acts of the Far Eastern Republic (1920–1922) Regulating the Rules of Hunting and Fishing Activities of the Population

The article is devoted to the study of the history of the development of regulatory legal acts of hunting and hunting legislation of the Far Eastern Republic. The basic provisions and statutes issued by the Ministries of Agriculture and National Economy are considered: “Regulations on the production of hunting”, “Brief temporary charter for the organization of commercial hunting and fish artels and societies” and “Draft temporary charter for the organization of folk hunting and fishing societies of correct hunting”. Historical-genetic, historical-comparative, concrete-historical and formal-legal methods of scientific cognition are applied. With their help, the problems of determining the fishing and non-commercial areas, the use of permitted and prohibited hunting methods, the duration of the fishing season and the reasons for the introduction of certain restrictions are analyzed. Further, the author examines the development of the pre-revolutionary practice of sampling a state ticket allowing the right to hunt, regulation of the activities of cooperative communities of hunters and an experimental system of punishment, which provided not only administrative but also criminal liability for violation of hunting rules and poaching. A significant part of the innovations was perceived by the citizens of the republic as an encroachment on personal rights, since, by tradition, all commercial resources in Siberia and the East were mined without any serious restrictions and control from the state until 1917. The previous state of affairs during the period under review remained exclusively for those groups of the population that were entirely dependent on hunting and fishing products. All other social categories of the Far Eastern Republic were required to comply with the new rules,register and pay tax for the right to use the state-fishing regalia. The effectiveness of the measures introduced left much to be desired, since the control bodies did not have a real opportunity to effectively suppress violations of the fishing legislation. Keywords: Far Eastern Republic, charter, draft, hunting license, hunting ticket, poaching, punishment

Criminal and legal evaluation of rules of conducting clinical research of medicinal products violations

The article investigates the two legal components of crime that establish criminal liability for violations during clinical research of medicines. They are Art. 141 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which establishes responsibility for conducting clinical trials of medicines without the written consent of the patients or their legal representative, or in cases with minors or legally incapable persons if these actions caused the death of the patient or other grave consequences, and Art. 321-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which in part 1 envisages responsibility for intentional violation of the established procedure of preclinical study, clinical trials of medicines, falsification of their results, as well as violation of the established procedure of state registration of medicines.
 In particular, the article studies the issue of the person under the study (research subject) who is the victim of these crimes. The author notes that there is a disagreement in the regulations concerning the issue of who can be subject of research. In the Law of Ukraine “On Medicines”, such persons are adults, minors, underage persons, persons who are declared incapacitated by the court or whose civil capacity is limited due to mental illnesses. The MoH Decree No. 690 defines subjects of study as legally capable adults, minors, underage persons and incapacitated of persons. The lack of a procedure to include persons with disabilities raises questions about the possibility of involving such persons in clinical trials.
 The objective side of the commission of these two crimes was investigated, the subject of these crimes was identified. Both in Art. 141, and in Art. 321-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the part of conducting clinical research of medicines, the subject is special; it can be a researcher/co-researcher (doctor) or other employee of a medical-prophylactic institution, at the facilities of which - by decision of the central body of executive power which forms and provides implementation of state policy in healthcare - a clinical trial of the medicine is conducted and which is involved in conducting a clinical research.
 The author notes that these two articles can correlate as general and special norm, which differ in the main subject of criminal and legal protection. The author proposed to amend these two articles in order to avoid a double criminal prohibition on one act.

GROUNDS AND PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINALIZATION OF VIOLATION OF THE PROCEDURE OF ENTRY INTO THE TEMPORARILY OCCUPIED TERRITORY OF UKRAINE AND EXIT FROM IT

The article examines the current state of the law on criminal liability for violation of the procedure for entering and leaving the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine, as a result of which Art. 332-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to decriminalize at least because the regime of the temporarily occupied territories is temporary, and the temporary articles of the criminal law to the world have not yet been known. The Constitution of Ukraine in Art. 17 declared that the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, ensuring its economic and information security are the most important functions of the state, the business of the entire Ukrainian people. The defense of Ukraine, protection of its sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability are entrusted to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Ensuring state security and protection of the state border of Ukraine are entrusted to the relevant military formations and law enforcement agencies of the state, the organization and procedure of which are determined by law. In late 2013 - early 2014, the Russian Federation, taking advantage of the problems in our army to perform such functions, launched an open armed aggression, which, in addition to killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians, led to the illegal annexation of Crimea and occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. In fact, the state border with the Russian Federation in eastern Ukraine has become a line of demarcation between the territory controlled by the state of Ukraine and the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine. The Ukrainian Parliament reacted to this acute problem in a rather predictable way - on April 15, 2014, the Law of Ukraine № 1207-VII “On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine” was adopted. 332-1 "Violation of the procedure for entering and leaving the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine." Such a decision of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine provoked both sharp discussions in the science of criminal law and problems in the application of this norm in practice. Thus, during the period under study from 2014 to February 2021, we registered 212 cases of violation of the procedure for entering and leaving the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine. However, according to the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, the courts of Ukraine have handed down 30 court convictions for violating the procedure for entering and leaving the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine. Of these, 7 were handed down in 2015, 21 in 2016, and one sentence each in 2017 and 2019.

Criminal liability for anticompetitive crimes in the EAEU member states: prospects for harmonization

The limits and severity of criminal liability for anti­competitive crimes in the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) have significant differences, despite the fact that the EAEU combines a common (single) economic space, the Model Law "On Competition" has been adopted, a single administrative responsibility for anti-competitive offenses committed in cross-border markets.These differences are manifested, first of all, in the fact that in different EAEU member states the issues of criminalization of anticompetitive socially dangerous behavior have been resolved differently, and for similar anticompetitive crimes, punishments significantly differing in nature and gravity have been established.The unsolved problem in the conditions of free movement of goods, finances and labor resources in the EAEU, according to the author, not only contradicts the principles of justice and equality of citizens before the law, which are enshrined in the criminal codes of all EAEU member states, but also hinders the successful economic development of the EAEU. In particular, significant differences in antitrust criminal policy can stimulate the “flow” of monopolistic criminal activity into the least rigid national jurisdictions within the EAEU.To solve the corresponding problem, the author proposes to supplement the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union with provisions on the implementation of an agreed EAEU policy in order to harmonize administrative and criminal liability for violations of the antitrust laws of EAEU member states.

CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROCEDURE OF ENTRY INTO THE TEMPORARILY OCCUPIED TERRITORY OF UKRAINE AND EXIT

The article examines the current state of the law on criminal liability for violation of the procedure for entering and leaving the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine, as a result of which Art. 332-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to decriminalize at least because the regime of the temporarily occupied territories is temporary, and the temporary articles of the criminal law to the world have not yet been known. The Constitution of Ukraine in Art. 17 declared that the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, ensuring its economic and information security are the most important functions of the state, the business of the entire Ukrainian people. The defense of Ukraine, protection of its sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability are entrusted to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Ensuring state security and protection of the state border of Ukraine are entrusted to the relevant military formations and law enforcement agencies of the state, the organization and procedure of which are determined by law. In late 2013 - early 2014, the Russian Federation, taking advantage of the problems in our army to perform such functions, launched an open armed aggression, which, in addition to killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians, led to the illegal annexation of Crimea and occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. In fact, the state border with the Russian Federation in eastern Ukraine has become a line of demarcation between the territory controlled by the state of Ukraine and the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine. The Ukrainian Parliament reacted to this acute problem in a rather predictable way - on April 15, 2014, the Law of Ukraine № 1207-VII “On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine” was adopted. 332-1 "Violation of the procedure for entering and leaving the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine." Such a decision of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine provoked both sharp discussions in the science of criminal law and problems in the application of this norm in practice. Thus, during the period under study from 2014 to February 2021, we registered 212 cases of violation of the procedure for entering and leaving the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine. However, according to the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, the courts of Ukraine have handed down 30 court convictions for violating the procedure for entering and leaving the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine. Of these, 7 were handed down in 2015, 21 in 2016, and one sentence each in 2017 and 2019.

Адміністративна та (або) кримінальна відповідальність за порушення карантину людей

Журнал «Публічне право» – фахове періодичне (щоквартальне) юридичне видання. Авторські матеріали науково-теоретичного та практичного характеру, узагальнення судової, правореалізаційної та правозастосовної діяльності з метою розвитку української національної юридичної науки та практики, удосконалення чинного законодавства.

Історико-правовий аналіз кримінальної відповідальності за порушення права на захист

Історико-правовий аналіз кримінальної відповідальності за порушення права на захист

Уголовная ответственность за нарушение порядка осуществления предпринимательской деятельности

Уголовная ответственность за нарушение порядка осуществления предпринимательской деятельности