Criminal Offenses Research Articles

A few remarks on professional and expert activities in criminal proceedings

In criminal proceedings, the establishment of facts beyond reasonable doubt is a cornerstone principle, ensuring that criminal offenses are accurately identified and perpetrators are justly punished while respecting the rights of all parties involved. The proof process is vital, with evidence playing an essential role in determining the outcomes of various procedural stages. Among the types of evidence, expert evidence has become increasingly significant, especially with advances in science and technology broadening the scope of issues requiring specialized knowledge. This paper aims to analyze the roles and impacts of professional and expert activities in criminal procedures. It seeks to highlight the distinctions between expert reports and professional statements, illustrating their respective legal standings and importance in the context of Slovak law. By examining the regulatory framework, specifically Act No. 382/2004 Coll. on experts, interpreters, and translators, and the Criminal Procedure Code (Act No. 301/2005 Coll.), the paper delves into the conditions, rights, and obligations of experts. Additionally, it addresses the significance of expert consultants introduced by the Criminal Procedure Code, who provide advisory services without precluding the involvement of expert witnesses for comprehensive technical assessments. Expert reports, governed by stringent formalities, are pivotal in addressing complex technical issues within criminal cases. These reports must be produced by court-appointed experts and include detailed descriptions of the methods used and the conclusions drawn. Conversely, professional statements, considered documentary evidence, do not carry the same legal weight and lack the formalities required for expert reports. The Criminal Procedure Code also ensures that expert evidence is used appropriately by stipulating when and how expert opinions should be sought. This comprehensive approach ensures that all technical and scientific issues are thoroughly examined, contributing to the fair administration of justice. In conclusion, the integration of expert and professional activities in criminal proceedings enhances the accuracy and reliability of judicial decisions. By leveraging specialized knowledge, the legal system can better fulfill its mandate of delivering justice while upholding the principles of fairness and due process. This paper underscores the necessity of clear regulatory frameworks and the proper application of expert evidence to achieve these aims.

The subject of proof in the criminal process of Ukraine

The article claims that the process of proving is the main content of criminal procedural activity. It is thanks to this process that the tasks of criminal procedure are fulfilled and the objective truth is established in criminal justice. The subject of proof in criminal proceedings is one of the key categories related to the process of proving. Establishing all the circumstances that characterize such a subject contribute to a full pre-trial investigation and trial. A conclusion has been formulated, according to which evidence in a criminal procedure should be understood as the activity of the subjects of criminal justice in relation to the collection, verification and evaluation of evidence and their procedural sources, as well as the formulation of a certain thesis (accusatory or exculpatory) on this basis and the submission of arguments in support of it. This activity is retrospective in nature. The purpose of cognition in criminal proceedings is to establish a certain set of circumstances of a criminal offense, which have been called “the subject of proof in a criminal procedure.” The list of such circumstances is defined in Art. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) of Ukraine. The subject of proof in a criminal proceeding is the list of circumstances provided for by the Criminal Procedure Law of Ukraine, which must be established in each criminal proceeding and ensure the adoption of a corresponding procedural decision. The list of circumstances to be ascertained in criminal proceedings regarding criminal offenses committed by minors should be considered as a supplementary, clarifying subject of proof in relation to the general subject of proof. Circumstances to be established during criminal proceedings regarding the application of coercive measures of an breeding nature in relation to minors who have not reached the age of criminal responsibility, and regarding the use of coercive measures of a medical nature constitute a separate, independent subject of proof in a criminal process, determined by the characteristics of a person who has committed a socially-dangerous act, and the specifics of the criminal procedural form.

Distinguishing the acceptance of an offer, promise or receipt of an unlawful benefit by an official from related criminal offenses and fraud

One of the foundations of the current anti-corruption policy and institutional reform in the field of fighting corruption is the establishment of criminal liability for criminal offenses in the field of official activities and professional activities related to the provision of public services. The priority area of law enforcement activities in Ukraine is combating corruption offenses committed by public officials, and one of the types is acceptance of an offer, promise or receipt of an unlawful benefit. The article outlines the conceptual aspect of distinguishing acceptance of an offer, promise or receipt of an undue benefit from related corpus delicti of criminal offenses which provide for liability for offenses in the field of official activity and professional activity related to the provision of public services, namely, it contains some similar features to those of related criminal offenses such as illicit enrichment (Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), abuse of influence (Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), and conducting of bribery. In addition, attention is drawn to the distinction between acceptance of an offer, promise or receipt of an unlawful benefit and fraud (Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The article focuses on the common and distinctive features of the elements of a criminal offense under Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine with related elements, namely: bribery of an official of a legal entity of private law regardless of its organizational and legal form (Art. 368-3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), bribery of a person providing public services (368-4 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), illicit enrichment (Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), abuse of influence (Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), provocation of bribery (Article 370 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and fraud (Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The author emphasizes the criteria of objective and subjective features which allow for the appropriate distinction.

Threat in the context of identifying the victim

It is indicated that an important feature of the injured person, which allows to distinguish him from other persons, is related to the infliction of damage. The etymological and semantic analysis of the term «victim» shows that damage is an integral feature of a victim. The article examines the possibility and expediency of recognizing a person as a victim in the criminal law field in the event of a threat to cause harm to him. Provisions of the current Criminal Code of Ukraine, the project of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine, national judicial practice are taken into account. It is argued that in context of the injured person, term damage is understood in two meanings: 1) narrowly (includes only real damage); 2) in a broad sense (includes both damage and the danger/threat of causing it, as well as the threat). At the same time, attributing the threat as an independent action to a type of harm, as suggested by authors of the draft Criminal Code of Ukraine, seems debatable, because in such a case the term «threat» will denote both an action and a consequence. It is also worth paying attention to whether there is a need to use both the term «threat» and the term «danger» in the draft Criminal Code of Ukraine. It has been established that the term «threat» in the context of the definition of the victim means both actual moral or other types of harm to him, as well as the threat/danger of his task. It has been proven that victim in a certain composition of a criminal offense can be characterized not only by harm in its narrow sense, but also by threat or danger of its occurrence, that is, harm in the broad sense, as well as the threat of harm. The threat in the context of the criminal-legal understanding of victim is important, first of all, if there is no implementation. In case of the implementation of a threat, which is provided as an independent crime and is a stage of a single criminal activity, united by a single intention and aimed at causing damage to the same object, qualification under the article providing for responsibility for the threat is not required, and therefore and there is no need to establish the victim of the threat. If a threat is a way of committing an act, then the victim is determined in the context of act in general, taking into account the threat as a way of committing it.

Comparative Analysis of Bribery as, Criminal Wrongdoing

There is a consensus that bribery, which is explicitly outlawed in the Magna Carta, should be considered a criminal act. Elucidate the criminalisation of bribery may be unexpectedly for those who see harmful actions as the primary criterion for determining what should be made a criminal offence. The predicament faced by these intellectuals is as follows. Bribing sometimes encompasses innocuous misconduct, but the rationale for criminalising it does not stem from any undue damage inherent in bribing itself. The rationale is on the potential damage that may occur if bribery is not penalised, considering the limited efficiency of civil law in reducing its prevalence. According to some theorists, the basis for criminalising activity based on the concept of "remote harm" is considered a secondary and possibly problematic kind of criminalisation. This paper presents a challenge for these theories in elucidating not only the reasons behind bribery but also the reasons behind other significant offences, such as rape, which are often seen as fundamental instances of criminal misconduct. Indeed, criminal law has the lawful authority to include a broad array of harm-related justifications for including action within its boundaries and central principles. One cause for the activity involving inflicting unnecessary injury is the reality itself.

Features of the qualification of crimes in the sphere of intellectual property

The article is devoted to the peculiarities of the qualification of crimes in the field of intellectual property. It is noted that the basis of the criminal-legal qualification process is exclusively the criminal law. Only the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides an exhaustive list of criminal offenses, definitions of acts that are not crimes, and characteristics of post-criminal behavior, which in each specific case have their own criminal-legal significance. That is why, for the correct application of the criminal law, it is necessary to have deep knowledge, a systematic understanding and a clear and unanimous interpretation of all elements of the composition of a criminal offense, acts that are not criminal, as well as certain post-criminal behavior, if they were not disclosed by the legislator in the law itself. That is, the qualification of a criminal offense in the field of intellectual property becomes a logical continuation of the previous criminal-legal qualification only when the result of the latter turns out to be the recognition of a certain act as criminally illegal. In addition, it was established that during the criminal-legal qualification, first of all, it should be determined whether the committed act is provided for in a certain prohibitive article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Then it is necessary to establish the conformity of the signs of this actually committed act with all the signs of a criminal offense in the field of intellectual property, which are provided for by the specified article of the criminal law. The author also emphasized the fact that an important aspect of the qualification of criminal offenses in the field of intellectual property is their combination with other criminal acts. That is why the accuracy of the qualification of the investigated criminal offenses must be achieved regardless of whether it will affect the future punishment or in some other way in the future will affect the legal position of the suspect.

Case Study of Supreme Court Decision Number 418 K / Pid / 2016 Against Criminal Perpetrators Participating in Making Fake Letters

The problem that arises with medepleger in the crime of document forgery is that its application is not explicitly regulated in the Criminal Code regarding its punishment. Then a gap emerged between das sollen (the Criminal Code does not explicitly regulate the criminal offense of participating in making fake letters) and das sein (many people who commit crimes taking part in making fake letters), as in Supreme Court Decision Number 418 K/Pid /2016. This research aims to determine the regulation of the criminal act of forgery of letters in the Criminal Code and to determine the imposition of criminal sanctions against perpetrators of criminal acts who participate in the continuous production of fake letters. This research is a type of normative juridical research, with a statutory approach and a case approach. Research data relies on primary data in the form of statutory regulations and binding decisions and secondary data, namely library sources. As for the research results: the legal arrangements for inclusion in the Criminal Code are regulated in 55 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code. Regulations for the act of falsifying letters are regulated in Chapter Overall, what is at the core of all forms of criminal acts of letter forgery are making fake letters, falsifying letters and using fake letters or forged letters. what is formulated in the Articles on falsification of letters is the action on the object or form of the letter. The imposition of criminal sanctions against perpetrators of criminal acts who participated in making fake letters which is carried out continuously in the Supreme Court Decision Number 418K / PID / 2016 is based on legal facts, whether through witness statements, defendant statements, or evidence, mitigating and aggravating matters. the defendant and based on juridical considerations. In this case the defendant committed the act by means of participation. With the fulfillment of the elements in article 263 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code jo. Article 55 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code means that the criminal act charged is legally and convincingly proven according to the law.

Odmeravanje kazne i generalna prevencija

The paper deals with the question of whether it is necessary and justified for general preventive expectations to be the immediate basis for sentencing. General prevention (deterrence) should be achieved primarily if not exclusively when prescribing the punishment. The application of criminal law and punishment should demonstrate that the threat of punishment is serious. However, it is not necessary to determine what measure of punishment is needed in a specific case in order to influence others not to commit criminal acts. It is not even possible to determine exactly, but a general assessment is sufficient, i.e. the court's impression that with a measured punishment, general prevention can be achieved, both negative (traditional) and positive, which consists in expressing social condemnation for a criminal offense, strengthening moral and strengthening the obligation to respect the law. It is sufficient for the court to determine the punishment, as the law says, "taking into account" the purpose of the punishment. In particular, the paper points out the unacceptability of stricter punishment due to the expected general prevention. At the same time, the importance of the positions taken in this respect in his works by Jovan Ćirić, to whom this work is dedicated, is pointed out.

Pripremanje krivičnih djela terorizma Međunarodni standardi i krivično pravo Bosne i Hercegovine

On the basis of several universal and regional international documents, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as a number of modern states, foresees the criminal offense of terrorism in several different forms of manifestation, but with identical content, characteristics, elements, legal description, legal nature, that is, forms or types of manifestation. It is an extremely serious, dangerous crime, with an international content, that is, with international basis for prescribing criminal responsibility and punishment. Due to the high degree of social danger of various forms of manifestations of terrorism, all modern criminal legislations move the limit of punishment to the previous stage - to the stage of preparation of criminal offenses, the undertaking of which, through physical or psychological activities, creates the conditions or prerequisites for the perpetration of one of the criminal offenses of terrorism in general, or to a faster, easier, simpler or more efficient way. In the positive law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, numerous preliminary actions that precede the perpetration of criminal offenses of terrorism in general or preliminary actions that contribute to their more efficient, successful or better execution are also provided as independent criminal offenses. The paper investigates and problematizes the system, concept, content, elements and characteristics, and forms of manifestation of the preparation of criminal offenses of terrorism in the criminal legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially in the context of international standards.

Intentional killing as a result of violation of of the laws and customs of war in the context of ill-treatment of prisoners of war

The creative impetus for conducting scientific research on the topic of the study was a rather underdeveloped layer of activity of pre-trial investigation bodies in documenting a certain category of war crimes. At present, we are talking about violations of the laws and customs of war in the context of studying one of the forms of the objective side of a criminal offense - cruel treatment of prisoners of war combined with premeditated murder. Considering the difficult situation with the release of Azovstal’s defenders into “honorable captivity,” a decision that was made at a high state level and lasted from May 16 to 21, 2022, it should be noted that all expectations regarding the implementation of the humanitarian component in accordance with the norms of International Humanitarian Law have not been met. So far, we have received completely different consequences of the desired rescue of the military, who were actually trapped in an enemy trap. Thus, on the night of July 29, 2022, in the former Volnovakha Penal Colony No. 120, located in the village of Molodizhne of the Olenivka Village Council of the Donetsk region (temporarily occupied territory), Russian occupation forces committed a terrorist act, which, according to official data, killed 53 and wounded more than 130 prisoners of war from among the defenders of Azovstal. According to the Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets, “This is a public execution of officially confirmed, verified Ukrainian prisoners of war who were taken prisoner. According to the Geneva Convention, they were confirmed through the verification procedure by the International Committee of the Red Cross. They were representatives of one military unit of the National Guard of Ukraine...” Unfortunately, due to the complicated and actually suspended exchange of prisoners of war by the occupation authorities, cases of murder (extrajudicial executions) and torture of our military in captivity have become more frequent. Therefore, one of the main tasks of pre-trial investigation bodies should be to tactically correctly and timely document a war crime that is rather complex in its design – violation of the laws and customs of war in the form of ill-treatment of prisoners of war, if it is combined with intentional murder. The timely and correct qualification of such an act should help improve the tactics and methods of investigation by addressing the practical challenges that arise during the pre-trial investigation. First and foremost, it is necessary to ensure clear interaction between several law enforcement agencies (the National Police of Ukraine and the Security Service of Ukraine), whose activities overlap in the plane of jurisdiction. Law enforcement agencies should not only continue each other’s work, but also initiate pre-trial investigations with a clear understanding of the basic algorithm of coordinated actions to prevent loss of evidence with the possibility of further use of the collected evidence in the International Criminal Court. Judicial practice on this issue is currently being formed, but despite this, it is necessary to create and develop a unified algorithm of actions that should be based on the exclusive legality of the evidence obtained. The scientific research conducted in this under-researched area, reinforced by practical experience, will contribute to a deeper understanding of the issues of peculiarities of criminal law qualification and tactics of certain procedural actions during pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings on the facts of violation of the laws and customs of war, if they are combined with premeditated murder, where the form of the objective side is cruel treatment of prisoners of war. The provisions proposed in this article are intended to be recommendatory for synergy in the work of specialists of pre-trial investigation units and the prosecutor’s office in formulating an algorithm for proving the above facts.

Peculiarities of forensic characterization in the investigation of criminal offenses committed by judges

The article is devoted to the analysis of the degree of scientific development of the issues of criminalistic characterization. The scientific approaches to determining the essence of the criminalistic characterization of crimes in the structure of the investigation methodology are considered. The importance of this scientific category is emphasized. It is noted that one of the most important components in the structure of the forensic methodology is the forensic characterization of a crime. The author reviews the literature in the field of criminal law, criminal procedure, forensics, and operational and investigative activities related to abuse of power or official position by a judge in the administration of justice, and also their detection and investigation. The author presents different approaches to the concept and structure of forensic characteristics in general and, in particular, to the structure of forensic characteristics of acceptance of an offer, promise or receipt of an unlawful benefit. Based on the results of the analysis of court practice on combating undue advantage in Ukraine in recent years, it is established that a significant share of such encroachments falls on the judiciary. The author analyzes the concept and components of the forensic characterization of criminal offenses committed by judges. It is found that its structure includes the following elements: identity of the offender, identity of the victim, method of commission, object of the offense, setting, time and place of commission, motive and purpose of the criminal offense, typical traces of the crime (“trace pattern”). The existence of interrelations between the elements of forensic characterization makes it possible to use a systematic approach in the study of this issue. It is stated that the subject of criminal encroachment is an unlawful remuneration; the author identifies the ways of committing and concealing a crime; the author proposes to divide the ways of direct receipt of unlawful benefit into certain types; the elements of the “trace picture” are revealed; it is emphasized that the most typical places of giving and receiving unlawful benefit by judges are the office, other premises of a particular institution or organization, and public places; the author also emphasizes the characteristic features of the offender and the victim. The analysis of monographs, dissertations and other scientific works on the outlined issues has shown that the fundamentals of the methodology for investigating criminal offenses committed by judges remain undeveloped.

Ensuring that the prosecutor implements the principle of legality during the notification of suspicion

The article establishes that in criminal proceedings granting a person the procedural status of a suspect in committing a criminal offense is an important decision that requires the validity of the suspicion and control over the legality of its adoption. The problematic issues of ensuring the implementation of the principle of legality by the prosecutor during the notification of suspicion have been studied. It has been established that the prosecutor’s provision of legality during the notification of suspicion consists in: strict observance of the procedure established by law; ensuring the legal subject conducting the criminal process and reporting the suspicion; in getting to know the rights of the participants in the proceedings and ensuring their realization of these rights; as well as compliance with legal requirements regarding procedural terms. It was established that criminal prosecution before the decision to notify a person of suspicion is a direct violation of the implementation of the principle of legality, since the person has not acquired the criminal procedural status of a participant, which he actually is at the time of the proceedings, not in form, but in essence, according to the criminal procedural law. It was noted that a person who has not acquired the legal status of a participant in criminal proceedings cannot exercise his «legal» rights, in particular the fundamental right to defense. Attention is drawn to the fact that a general violation of the principle of the legality of criminal proceedings, with the acquisition of relevant grounds and notification to the person of suspicion, the criminal process must comply with another procedure established by law, which is manifested in a clear outline of the legal position of the defense party in criminal proceedings, counting of established procedural terms, etc. It was concluded that the prosecutor, who is the procedural head in a specific criminal proceeding, can supervise the observance of laws during the notification of suspicion, in the form of: a preliminary prosecutor’s counter, by approving the notification of suspicion, revision of previous procedural decisions of the investigator, inquirer, checking at the same time, the validity of the notification of suspicion; personal making of legal decisions at the pre-trial investigation, in particular in the form of notification of suspicion personally by the prosecutor. It was proposed and argued that it would be appropriate to set the time limit for preparation for the defense after notification of suspicion at least 14 days before the completion of the pre-trial investigation in one of the forms provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Separate elements of the event of a criminal offense to be ascertained at the initial stage of the investigation of murders committed with particular cruelty

In the article, on the basis of a systematic analysis of the norms of current criminal, civil and criminal procedural legislation, scientific sources on criminology, criminal and criminal procedural law, forensic medicine and other sciences, as well as on the basis of a systematic analysis of investigative and judicial practice of investigation and trial of criminal proceedings on murders committed with extreme cruelty, the circumstances to be proven in the above-mentioned criminal proceedings, as well as circumstances related to the event of a criminal offense, which must be clarified at the initial stage of the investigation of murders with extreme cruelty, are determined. It was determined that such circumstances, in addition to the method of committing the crime in the broad sense, which includes the preparation, mechanism and concealment of the traces of the crime, are the time of the commission of the crime, its duration, the place of the commission of the crime, circumstances indicating that the criminal was aware that he inflicts special physical suffering on the victim by inflicting a large number of bodily injuries, torture, mutilation, torture, including using fire, electricity, acid, alkali, radioactive substances, poison that causes excruciating pain, etc.), and must also be ascertained and proven fact of awareness by the guilty person (criminal) that he is causing mental or moral suffering to the victim. In the article, an attempt was made to reveal the meaning of the above-mentioned concepts, namely, a large number of bodily injuries, torture, mutilation, torture, mental and moral suffering. Proposed procedural measures (investigative (research) actions, forensic examinations), and forensic methods that should be carried out at the initial stage of the investigation and as a result of which these circumstances can be clarified with a high degree of probability. It was concluded that since we are talking about a particularly serious crime, all the qualifying features of this act should be clearly defined and established in the law on criminal responsibility.

Pretpostavka nevinosti okrivljenog kao element prava na pravično suđenje

Although the presumption of innocence has its roots in the rational criminal procedure of the ancient times, it should still be seen as a result of the modern criminal procedure system, i.e. the French bourgeois revolution and its first regulation in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. It has always been the subject of interest of scientists and experts, and in recent years it has become one of the most popular topics on the legislative, theoretical and practical level. Due to its topicality, the presumption of innocence is the subject of this paper. In addition to the introductory notes, explaining the importance of this principle for the defendant, the paper also covers the definition of the presumption of innocence in international legal documents and national legislation, followed by different understandings about the legal nature and content of the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, the paper then analyses the presumption of innocence as an element of the right to a fair trial, which is based on three main pillars – that the defendant is treated without prejudice and bias, that the burden of proof is not on him, and that in case of doubt about the existence of the facts, the court always decides in favour of the defendant. Finally, the paper discusses respect of the presumption of innocence by extrajudicial entities, which is of particular importance for the mass media, where a journalist should morally condemn a criminal offense that exists based on a certain degree of suspicion, but not the person who has just been suspected or accused.

Peculiarities of criminal liability for intentional destruction or damage to someone else’s property

The article reveals the specifics of criminal liability for intentional destruction or damage to someone else’s property provided for in Article 194 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The problematic issues of the composition of the criminal offense of intentional destruction or damage to someone else’s property are analyzed, the difference between this composition and the intentional destruction or damage to property that has special features (objects of the electric power industry, nature reserve fund, archaeological heritage, weapons, military supplies, official documents, military property, etc.). Intentional destruction or damage to someone else’s property, which has special features to be qualified according to the special norms provided for by articles: 113, 1941, 252, 258, 292, 298, 338, 357, 360, 378, 399, 411, 437, 433, 438 of the Criminal Code, is proposed. of Ukraine. On the basis of the analysis of judicial practice, it was proposed that in the case of using an explosive device, for the intentional destruction or damage of someone else’s property, such actions of the perpetrator must be additionally qualified under Part 1 of Art. 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The imperfection of the provisions of the current criminal legislation in terms of the formulation of the qualifying signs of intentional destruction or damage to property was revealed. It has been established that the current legislation of Ukraine on criminal responsibility does not include the concept of a generally dangerous method, arson, explosion, the content of the death of people, serious consequences is not disclosed. The concept of a generally dangerous method and its varieties is proposed. The concept of a generally dangerous method and its varieties is proposed. A generally dangerous method of intentional destruction or damage to property is a method that causes property, non-property, physical damage to an individual or legal entity or creates a real danger of causing such damage to two or more people. In order to avoid unnecessary differentiation of criminal law norms, it is proposed to exclude from the Criminal Code of Ukraine articles 347, 3471, 352, and part 2 of Art. 194 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to add the sign of intentional destruction or damage to someone else’s property in connection with the person’s performance of official powers or professional duties.

Terms of consideration of claims in disciplinary proceedings through the prism of individual decisions of the Higher Qualification and Disciplinary Bar Commission

The article analyzes some aspects of consideration of claims (complaints) for improper behavior of an advocate, which may result in his disciplinary responsibility, in terms of compliance with the terms of consideration of such claims (complaints) provided for by the current legislation. To date, the legislation provides for any person to file a complaint against an advocate regarding the disciplinary action of the latter. This opportunity is primarily intended to protect people’s rights from unlawful and illegal actions of an advocate. The protection of rights includes, among other things, the inevitable onset of specific disciplinary responsibility of the advocate. The author analyzed the decisions made by the Higher Qualification and Disciplinary Bar Commission based on the results of the review of the decisions of the Qualification and Disciplinary Bar Commissions regarding compliance with the terms of disciplinary proceedings in the process of considering claims (complaints) regarding the behavior of advocates. Through the prism of the decisions of the HQDBC, the approximate terms of the disciplinary proceedings have been established, within which claims (complaints) are considered. This study took into account the decisions of the HQDBC, made by this self-governing body of the bar in 2023. These decisions related to the QDBC’s inaction regarding failure to make timely decisions based on the results of the claim (complaint) submitted to advocates, groundless suspension of disciplinary proceedings against the advocates, long-term inaction of the QDBC regarding failure to take any actions to consider the claim (complaint). The analysis of these decisions made it possible to distinguish problems that directly affect the legality of the final decision of the QDBC. At the same time, such an analysis made it possible to assess the systemic nature of this problem and determine its causes. According to the results of the study of the Law of Ukraine “On the Bar and Practice of Law” [1], the author concluded that there is no article in it that would provide for the responsibility of persons participating in the decision-making of the QDBC, which contributes to the violation of the principle of reasonable time of the hearing. In turn, the analysis of the practice of the decisions of the HQDBC provided an opportunity to confirm the fact that the terms of consideration of cases are too long, exceed the limits of both reasonable time of the hearing and the terms specified in sub-legal normative acts, and often lead advocates to avoid responsibility.

Subjective signs of criminal offense provided by art. 374 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

It is noted that in order to establish the content of the right to defense, it is necessary to examine the subjective signs of the criminal offense provided for in Art. 374 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is emphasized that the subject of violation of the right to defense is special and clearly defined in Art. 374 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - investigator, investigator, prosecutor, judge. The signs of a violation of the right to defense by a special subject have been determined. The prerequisites for the legality of a person occupying the position of inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, judge, as well as the peculiarities of the legal personality of a special subject of a criminal offense provided for in Art. 374 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The qualified composition of this criminal offense was analyzed. It was determined that the purpose and motive of the violation of the right to defense are not important for the qualification of a criminal offense under Art. 374 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is noted that the absence of signs of a special subject in a person excludes the possibility of bringing him to criminal responsibility as the perpetrator of a crime that can be committed by a special subject, it is expedient to agree with those scientists who maintain the position that the issue of recognition of a person who is a general subject of a crime, a co-perpetrator of a crime with a special subject should be decided individually, based on specific circumstances, taking into account the specifics of the objective features (objective side) of the crime. The subject of violation of the right to protection is special, the characteristics of which are defined in Part 2 of Art. 18 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, according to which the special subject of a criminal offense is a convicted natural person who committed a criminal offense at the age from which criminal responsibility can arise, the subject of which can only be a certain person. Taking into account the above, it can be stated that the inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, judge as special subjects are not only characterized by the features of a general subject, such as age and sanity, but also belong to persons with special legal personality - the ability of a person in to acquire a certain legal status and act as a bearer of the subjective rights and legal duties of an inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, judge.

Relationship Between the Cognitive Process and the Clarity of Circumstances of Committing a Criminal Offense During the Pre-Trial Investigation

Relationship Between the Cognitive Process and the Clarity of Circumstances of Committing a Criminal Offense During the Pre-Trial Investigation

The Causal Relationship between the Act and the Socially Dangerous Consequences of the Use of Prohibited Means and Methods of Warfare

The article analyzes the causal relationship between the act and the socially dangerous consequences of the use of prohibited means and methods of warfare. The causal relationship linking the act and socially dangerous consequences is an important sign of the objective side of the use of prohibited means and methods of warfare with material composition. In the criminal law sense, this means that the criminal consequence is generated by a socially dangerous and illegal act of the subject of the crime. The causal relationship in the use of prohibited means and methods of warfare with material composition is most often characterized by the presence of numerous links between a criminal act and socially dangerous consequences. The causal relationship in the use of prohibited means and methods of warfare with material composition is often characterized by the presence of a time interval between the action and its consequence.

Проблема статуса контролирующего лица как квалифицирующего признака применительно к составу неправомерных действий при банкротстве

Abstract. The article examines the issue of recognizing a person as a controlling debtor through the lens of the prejudicial nature of facts established in arbitration proceedings in bankruptcy cases, with regard to the criminal offense of illegal actions in bankruptcy (Article 195 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). A doctrinal analysis of the provisions of current judicial practice has revealed a discrepancy between bankruptcy law and criminal law approaches to the same legal category – the status of a controlling person of the debtor. Since, in the context of criminal law, the status of a controlling person may lead to more severe liability, bankruptcy presumptions, such as the presumption of the status of a controlling person due to the receipt of benefits, cannot be applied in criminal law regulation. This is due to the fact that, according to the systematic interpretation of the provisions of the Criminal Code, the strengthening of the responsibility of the controlling person is conditioned by the hypothetical possibility of real disposal of the debtor’s property, which is not always the case with bankruptcy presumptions.