Novelty of criminal legislation on liability for looting (Article 356.1 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation): technical and legal analysis of the structure of the crime

Yuliya O. Goncharova
{"title":"Novelty of criminal legislation on liability for looting (Article 356.1 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation): technical and legal analysis of the structure of the crime","authors":"Yuliya O. Goncharova","doi":"10.18255/1996-5648-2023-2-266-271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyses the structure of the norm on criminal liability for looting (Article 356.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). This norm is a novelty of the current domestic criminal legislation, in connection with which, in the author’s opinion, there are some shortcomings and technical gaps in it. The author gives a small retrospective analysis of the rule on responsibility for looting. When studying the composition of the crime in question, the author notes the excessive casuistics used by the legislator in the construction of the composition of looting. It is proposed to exclude the signs characterising theft from Part 1 of the article under study, as well as to exclude concretisation regarding the range of victims whose property may be stolen by a looter. The author considers it expedient to indicate in the disposition the rules on looting the features characterising: 1) extortion and 2) the place of commission of the crime, as the absence of these signs is a legal and technical error. A note to Article 356.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which contains quantitative characteristics of the damage caused to a person by looting actions, namely a large amount over 250 thousand rubles and a particularly large amount over one million rubles, also falls under the critical analysis. According to the author, these characteristics are overestimated and require adjustment, as the current norm will be «dead» due to the fact that it is difficult to imagine the amounts of money or other property fixed by the legislator that are with the victims of looting. In conclusion, the author proposes an amended version of the main composition of the looting rule.","PeriodicalId":396792,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Yaroslavskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. P. G. Demidova. Seriya gumanitarnye nauki","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Yaroslavskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. P. G. Demidova. Seriya gumanitarnye nauki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18255/1996-5648-2023-2-266-271","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The article analyses the structure of the norm on criminal liability for looting (Article 356.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). This norm is a novelty of the current domestic criminal legislation, in connection with which, in the author’s opinion, there are some shortcomings and technical gaps in it. The author gives a small retrospective analysis of the rule on responsibility for looting. When studying the composition of the crime in question, the author notes the excessive casuistics used by the legislator in the construction of the composition of looting. It is proposed to exclude the signs characterising theft from Part 1 of the article under study, as well as to exclude concretisation regarding the range of victims whose property may be stolen by a looter. The author considers it expedient to indicate in the disposition the rules on looting the features characterising: 1) extortion and 2) the place of commission of the crime, as the absence of these signs is a legal and technical error. A note to Article 356.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which contains quantitative characteristics of the damage caused to a person by looting actions, namely a large amount over 250 thousand rubles and a particularly large amount over one million rubles, also falls under the critical analysis. According to the author, these characteristics are overestimated and require adjustment, as the current norm will be «dead» due to the fact that it is difficult to imagine the amounts of money or other property fixed by the legislator that are with the victims of looting. In conclusion, the author proposes an amended version of the main composition of the looting rule.
关于抢劫责任的刑事立法的新颖性(《俄罗斯联邦刑法》第356.1条):对犯罪结构的技术和法律分析
本文分析了抢劫刑事责任规范的结构(《俄罗斯联邦刑法》第356.1条)。这一规范是我国现行刑事立法的一个新内容,笔者认为其存在一些不足和技术空白。作者对抢劫责任规则作了一个小的回顾性分析。在研究抢劫罪的构成时,笔者注意到立法者在构成抢劫罪时过度使用了诡辩。建议从所研究的条款第1部分中排除具有盗窃特征的迹象,并排除关于财产可能被掠夺者偷走的受害者范围的具体说明。发件人认为,最好在裁处中指出关于抢劫的规则具有以下特点:1)敲诈勒索和2)犯罪地点,因为没有这些标志是法律和技术上的错误。《俄罗斯联邦刑法典》第356.1条的说明也属于批判性分析的范围,其中载有抢劫行为对人造成损害的数量特征,即超过25万卢布的大笔数额和超过100万卢布的特别大笔数额。根据作者的说法,这些特征被高估了,需要调整,因为目前的规范将“死亡”,因为很难想象立法者确定的与抢劫受害者有关的金钱或其他财产的数量。最后,笔者提出了对掠夺规则主要构成部分的修正。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信