Problems of criminal prosecution of persons guilty of malicious non-compliance with a court decision or other judicial act in civil and administrative cases

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
A. V. Yudin, Yuriy S. Norvartyan
{"title":"Problems of criminal prosecution of persons guilty of malicious non-compliance with a court decision or other judicial act in civil and administrative cases","authors":"A. V. Yudin, Yuriy S. Norvartyan","doi":"10.17223/22253513/47/8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Malicious non-enforcement of a judicial act entails criminal liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code only if the offence has been committed by a special subject (an official, head of a body or organisation) or if the person has been previously held administratively liable under Article 17.15(4) of the CAO. The authors draw attention to the fact that in cases where a person who has failed to fulfil a legal obligation is sentenced to execution by a court, then the further non-fulfilment of such obligation now constitutes not only a failure by the subject to fulfil a duty but also an infringement of the interests of justice whose demands are ignored by the obligated person. In this regard, the criminal law criminalises not only the \"general\" malicious non-execution of a judicial act, but also certain forms of non-execution in relation to certain types of proceedings and to certain categories of cases (e.g. failure to pay alimony, evasion of payment of accounts payable, etc.). The authors, in relation to civil, administrative cases, and cases of economic disputes, prove inconsistency in criminalizing forms of non-execution of judicial acts and discover the potential for expanding situations in which persons could be criminally liable, which would contribute to improving the level of performance discipline. The authors base their argumentation system on a number of criteria, among which: determination of the legal basis for the execution of judicial acts; identification of the range of judicial acts, the non-execution of which may lead to criminal prosecution; characteristics of the requirement set forth in the judicial act, the non-fulfillment of which may entail criminal prosecution; determination of the circle of subjects obligated to the execution of the judicial act and the subjects to whom the person is obliged to execute the judicial act; distribution of responsibilities for the execution of the judicial act between the recoverer (creditor), the debtor and the enforcement authority from the point of view of possible substitution of the debtor as a subject obligated to execution; legal characteristics of the criminal-legal sign of \"malice\" of nonfulfillment of the requirements of the judicial act; disclosure of possible forms of nonfulfillment. Each of the listed criteria allows you to make a judgment about the presence of signs of the analyzed corpus delicti in the actions (inaction) of the subject. The authors also address the assessment of the illegality of non-execution of a judicial act from the positions of various branches of law, emphasizing the role of criminal liability measures as the most repressive measures to restore legality in this area.","PeriodicalId":41435,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law","volume":"124 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/47/8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Malicious non-enforcement of a judicial act entails criminal liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code only if the offence has been committed by a special subject (an official, head of a body or organisation) or if the person has been previously held administratively liable under Article 17.15(4) of the CAO. The authors draw attention to the fact that in cases where a person who has failed to fulfil a legal obligation is sentenced to execution by a court, then the further non-fulfilment of such obligation now constitutes not only a failure by the subject to fulfil a duty but also an infringement of the interests of justice whose demands are ignored by the obligated person. In this regard, the criminal law criminalises not only the "general" malicious non-execution of a judicial act, but also certain forms of non-execution in relation to certain types of proceedings and to certain categories of cases (e.g. failure to pay alimony, evasion of payment of accounts payable, etc.). The authors, in relation to civil, administrative cases, and cases of economic disputes, prove inconsistency in criminalizing forms of non-execution of judicial acts and discover the potential for expanding situations in which persons could be criminally liable, which would contribute to improving the level of performance discipline. The authors base their argumentation system on a number of criteria, among which: determination of the legal basis for the execution of judicial acts; identification of the range of judicial acts, the non-execution of which may lead to criminal prosecution; characteristics of the requirement set forth in the judicial act, the non-fulfillment of which may entail criminal prosecution; determination of the circle of subjects obligated to the execution of the judicial act and the subjects to whom the person is obliged to execute the judicial act; distribution of responsibilities for the execution of the judicial act between the recoverer (creditor), the debtor and the enforcement authority from the point of view of possible substitution of the debtor as a subject obligated to execution; legal characteristics of the criminal-legal sign of "malice" of nonfulfillment of the requirements of the judicial act; disclosure of possible forms of nonfulfillment. Each of the listed criteria allows you to make a judgment about the presence of signs of the analyzed corpus delicti in the actions (inaction) of the subject. The authors also address the assessment of the illegality of non-execution of a judicial act from the positions of various branches of law, emphasizing the role of criminal liability measures as the most repressive measures to restore legality in this area.
在民事和行政案件中对恶意不遵守法院判决或其他司法行为的人进行刑事起诉的问题
根据《刑法》第315条,恶意不执行司法行为必须承担刑事责任,只有当犯罪行为是由特别主体(官员、机构或组织负责人)实施的,或者该人以前根据《民事诉讼法》第17.15(4)条被追究行政责任。作者提请注意这样一个事实,即在一个没有履行法律义务的人被法院判处执行的情况下,那么进一步不履行这种义务现在不仅构成主体没有履行义务,而且构成对司法利益的侵犯,而司法利益的要求被被义务的人忽视。在这方面,《刑法》不仅将“一般”恶意不执行司法行为定为刑事犯罪,而且将与某些类型的诉讼和某些类别的案件有关的某些形式的不执行定为刑事犯罪(例如,不支付赡养费、逃避支付应付账款等)。就民事、行政案件和经济纠纷案件而言,作者证明在将不执行司法行为的形式定为刑事犯罪方面存在不一致之处,并发现可能扩大个人可能承担刑事责任的情况,这将有助于提高绩效纪律的水平。作者将其论证体系建立在若干标准之上,其中包括:确定司法行为执行的法律依据;确定不执行可能导致刑事起诉的司法行为范围;司法行为规定的要件的特征,不履行这些特征可能会受到刑事起诉;确定司法行为执行义务主体的范围和相对人司法行为执行义务主体的范围;从可能取代债务人作为有义务执行的主体的角度出发,在追偿人(债权人)、债务人和执行机关之间分配执行司法行为的责任;“恶意”不履行司法行为要求的刑事法律标志的法律特征披露可能的不履行形式。列出的每一个标准都允许您对主体的行为(不作为)中所分析的侵权行为的迹象的存在做出判断。作者还从各个法律部门的立场讨论了对不执行司法行为的非法性的评估,强调了刑事责任措施作为在这一领域恢复合法性的最具压制性措施的作用。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书