Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона. Сборник материалов Четвертой Всероссийской научно-практической конференции
.pdf
Русанов Г. А.
control) and Art. 126 of the Tax code (failure to provide the tax authority for the required data for the tax control). These rules are almost
identical in the content. The issue of their delimitation has been resolved by the Decree of the Superior Court of the Arbitration of January 27, 2003 №2 «On some issues relating to the introduction of the
Code of Administrative Offences»
1
. The Responsibility for administrative offenses in the area of taxes is established in articles 15.3–15.9
and 15.11 of the Administrative Code. Subjects of liability according
to these articles are officials of organizations. According to chapters 15,
16 and 18 of the Tax Code subjects of the tax responsibility are organizations (but not their officials). Therefore, the administrative responsibility of officials of commercial organizations does not preclude
the organization from the tax liability.
However, in cases of offenses by physical persons (individual entrepreneurs), there is a competition of the administrative and tax responsibility. This competition is resolved in favor of the tax liability
in mind of the direct reference in the footnote to Art. 15.3 of the Administrative Code.
c) Partial delegation of responsibility for violation of the tax legislation to other branches of the law. For example, it takes place in Art.
199.2 of the Criminal Code, where the criminal liability for the concealment of money or property of the organization or an individual entrepreneur, at the expense of which collection of taxes and (or) duties
must be made. The responsibility for such an act is only in the Criminal
Code. The Tax Code does not establish responsibility for such an offense.
Thus, the responsibility is delegated to the sphere of the criminal law.
Very often there is a collision of the criminal and administrative
law. Both of these branches of the law are protective. Chapters 14–16
of the Administrative Code establish liability for offenses in the sphere
of economy.
In some cases, the Criminal Code and the Administrative Code
are aimed at protecting the same economic relations. Consequently,
there is a competition of the administrative law and the criminal law
in this case.
For example Art. 14.1 of the Administrative Code (entrepreneurial
activity without state registration or without a special permit (license))
1
Supreme Arbitrartion Court Herald. 2003. №3 [Вестник ВАС РФ. 2003. №3].
281
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
is directly related to art. 171 of the Criminal Code (illegal business,
that carries out business activities without registration or without
a license in cases where such a license is required if the act caused
a large-scale damage to citizens, organizations or the state, or it is associated with the exctraction of huge profits). In this case the question
of the criminal or administrative liability is decided solely based on
the amount of income and damages.
Thus, the question of the relationship between the criminal and
administrative liability in the field of economic relations is solved as
follows. The criminal and administrative responsibility simultaneously
for the commission of the same offense is impossible. The Criminal
and administrative liability is differentiated on the basis of the amount
of the damage and the amount of generated income.
Meanwhile, the situation of correlation of the administrative liability to the criminal one, so-called administrative prejudice is possible.
This institution is characterized as follows: in the case of the offense
for the first time the offender is subjected to the administrative liability.
In cases he commits the same acts the second or the third time within
a certain term he is already involved to the criminal liability.
Until recently, the administrative prejudice was provided for in Art.
178 of the Criminal Code (preventing, restricting or eliminating of
a competition), now the restriction of a competition). It was pointed
out that a person is subjected to the criminal liability for the crime
in question only if they have previously been brought to the administrative liability two or more times for similar actions within three
years. Thus the ratio of the second variant of the criminal and administrative liability in Russia in the sphere of economic relations is a gradual development of the administrative responsibility to the criminal
responsibility in case of the repetition of similar acts.
Finally, the third option of the ratio of the criminal and administrative law in Russia in the sphere of protection of economic relations
is possible. In this case the rules are aimed at protecting similar, but not
identical social relations. For example, Art. 178 of the Criminal Code
establishes the criminal responsibility for the restriction of the competition by entering into economic entities competing agreement to restrict a competition (cartel), forbidden by the antimonopoly legislation of the Russian Federation, if this act caused a large-scale damage
to citizens, organizations or the state or resulted in getting huge in-
282
Русанов Г. А.
come. At the same time, art. 14.31 of the administrative code contains
administrative responsibility for the abuse of the dominant position
in the commodity market, i. e. the commission of acts that are recognized as an abuse of a dominant position and prohibited by the antimonopoly legislation of the Russian Federation, if such actions lead or
may lead to the infringement of rights of other persons.
The same principle should be used to separate Article 15.17 of the
Administrative Code for the unfair issue of securities, ie violation by
the Issuer established by federal laws and in accordance with other
normative legal acts of the order (procedure) of securities issue, if this
action does not contain a criminal offense, and Art. 185 of the Criminal
Code (the introduction to the prospectus of the securities of the deliberately false information, approval or confirmation, containing obviously false information prospectus or report (notification) on the issue
of securities, as well as placement of equity securities, edition of which
has not passed the state registration, except in cases when the legislation of the Russian Federation on securities does not provide the state
registration of edition of securities, if these acts caused significant damage to individuals, organizations or the state).
In these cases both administrative and criminal liability is possible,
because protective relationship though similar, but not identical.
The Disciplinary liability is another option of the liability for
economic crimes in Russia. At the same time the disciplinary responsibility is always considered as an alternative legal liability along
with other kinds of legal liability. In particular, Art. 14 of the Federal
Law of 29 April 2004 «On Commercial Secrets» states that a violation
of this Federal Law will entail disciplinary, civil, administrative or
criminal liability in accordance with the Russian law. An employee,
who in connection with the performance of his labour duties was given
an access to the information that constitutes a trade secret, the owners
of which are the employer and his counterparties will bear disciplinary
responsibility in accordance with the laws of the Russian Federation
in the event of intentional or negligent disclosure of such information
in the absence of the crime in his actions.
The Feature of the disciplinary responsibility is that it is a possible
combination with other types of legal liability. In particular, bringing
to the disciplinary liability for disclosure of trade secrets absolutely does not exclude the possibility of involvement of the perpetrator
283
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
to the civil liability in the form of compensation for the harm caused
by the disclosure of trade secrets, as well as to the administrative or
criminal liability, depending on the nature of the offense.
Summing up the research on the nature of responsibility for economic crimes in Russia, we note the following. Economic relations are
regulated by various branches of the law (civil, tax, etc.). These branches of the law establish the rights and obligations of the participants
of social relations, as well as sanctions for the violation of these norms.
The Criminal and administrative laws aimed at protecting the economic relations, do not establish rights and obligations of the participants in public relations. These areas of the law set only responsibility
for their violation.
The ratio of the criminal law and regulatory branches of the law is
possible in two ways: criminal and administrative responsibility in addition to liability of regulatory branches of the law; partial delegation
of responsibility to protective branches of the law.
The ratio of criminal liability and administrative liability can be
manifested in three aspects.
Firstly, the competition of responsibility, when the norms of the
criminal law and the administrative law are aimed at the protection
of the same relations. Selection of responsibility in this case depends on
the nature of the damage or the size of the recovered income. Secondly,
escalating of the administrative liability into the criminal, when repeated (twice or more) commission is similar. Thirdly, when the rules
of the criminal and administrative law protect similar, but not identical
public relations. In these cases both administrative and criminal liabilities are possible.
A special type of the legal liability for economic crimes is a disciplinary responsibility. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that it does not affect the possibility of simultaneous occurrence of other types of the legal liability: civil, administrative or criminal.
Having analysed the nature of the legal liability in Russia we shall
examine the nature of responsibility for economic crimes in Italy.
According to Art. 39 of the Criminal Code, a criminal liability is possible for two forms of the criminal activity in Italy: crimes and misdemeanors, which vary depending on the type of a punishment.
While studying the sources of the criminal law in Italy, we noted
that the feature of the Italian law is that the criminal laws are often not
284
Русанов Г. А.
codified in a single act. They are in separate legislative acts. Thus,
regulatory and protective norms of the law and norms of various
branches of the law establishing different types of the legal liability
can be in the same legislative act.
It should be noted that the issue of the relationship between
the crime and other types of delicts, i. e. the ratio of the criminal liability and other types of the legal liability is considered in details in
the doctrine of the criminal law in Italy.
The question of delimitation of the criminal and administrative
liability is one of the most interesting legal issues, which is considered
by Italian scientists. Separation of the administrative and criminal law,
as a rule, is considered by the difference of sanctions used for these
branches of the law. Traditionally criminal legal sanctions are considered to be more stringent in the doctrine of the criminal law of Italy.
Criminal sanctions always have a punitive character. Administrative
sanctions may also have a compensation function
1
.
The problem of differentiation of the criminal and administrative
law is largely due to the similarity of pecuniary sanctions in the criminal and administrative law. In particular, according to Art. 18 the
Criminal Code of the Italian fine (multa) and reparation (l’ammenda)
are named among the sanctions. Similar property sanctions are provided
in the administrative law too. According to the theory of the criminal
law of Italy property sanctions should be regarded as administrative
sanctions if they are not related with fines and reparation as a consequence of the commission of the crime2.
This rule has been established in Article. 32 of the Act of 24 November 1989 n. 689 «modifiche al sistema penale». It is not a crime
and is subjected to an administrative penalty in the form of cash payments to all offenses for which the punishment is provided only in
the form of a fine (multa) and reparation (l’ammenda). Exceptions
are financial offenses referred to in Art. 39 of the Law.
In addition to the Criminal Code of Italy directly the question
of delimitation of administrative offenses and crimes has been solved
in art. 9 of the Act of 24 November 1989 n. 689, which states, that
1
Cadoppi, Alberto. Veneziano, Paolo. Elementi di diritto penale. Parte generale.
Vicenza, 2015. pp. 6–7.
2
Marinucci, Georgio, Dolcini, Emilio. Corso di diritto penale. Milano, 1999, pp. 252.
285
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
a special rule is applied in the case of both criminal and administrative
sanctions for the same offense
1
.
Thus, in the theory of the criminal law, a question arises: what is
the norm of the law, where the case will be considered as special.
In particular, it is noted that the administrative legislation largely
sectoral, and therefore specialized2. But the criminal law is more often
used in the court practice. It should also be noted that in some legal
decisions there is an exception in priority, both in favor of the administrative law, and in favor of the criminal law.
Differentiation of the criminal and financial responsibility is also
important to study the nature of the legal liability for economic crimes
in Italy. It should be noted that the financial responsibility is considered as a part of the administrative responsibility in many legislative
acts and in the doctrine of the Italian law.
In the theory of the criminal law in Italy the question is resolved in
terms of differentiation of the financial crime (reati finanziari) and financial offenses (illecito finanaziari). It is permited in a number of laws
that determine the order of responsibility for a financial misdemeanor
and financial crime. In particular, Art. 39 of the Act of 24 November
1989 n. 6893 states what offense is punishable only by a redress of
the damage (l’ammenda) and is not a crime. Only administrative
penalty in the form of payment of a sum of money can be assigned to
the perpetrator. If the legislation on securities provides other forms
of property accountability, a perpetrator has to pay both penalties.
In general, the same criteria for distinguishing financial and administrative responsibility from criminal responsibility are used in the Italian law. These criteria relate to the nature of the delict. A criminal act
has a greater degree of public danger than a financial or administrative
delict. We can note that similar in nature criteria of delimitation of administrative offenses from a crime exist in the doctrine of the Russian
criminal law.
The issue of delimitation of the civil and criminal liability is one of
the most interesting in the Italian criminal law. As a rule, such demarcation is based on more stringent sanctions for crimes. At the same
1
Legge 24 novembre 1989 n. 689.
2
Ronco M. La legge penale. Bologna, 2006. pp. 375–376.
3
Legge 24 novembre 1989 n. 689.
286
Русанов Г. А.
time, the onset of more severe sanctions for offenses indicates that
criminal delicts much more socially dangerous than civil torts. Therefore, it is necessary the participation of the state as one of the parties
to the criminal proceedings
1
. Fine as a measure of responsibility is
characteristic for both criminal law and civil law in Italy. But the nature of these penalties is inherently different. Criminal penalties have
a goal to punish the person who has committed a crime. The purpose
of civil penalties is to restore the violated rights.
It should be noted that in the Italian legislation, these two types
of legal responsibility are closely related. In particular, the Italian
Criminal Code contains a separate chapter VII (Titolo VII. Delle sanzioni civili), regulating the issues of civil penalties (Restituzioni e risarcimento del danno) in the case of a crime. According to the norms
of the chapter of the Criminal Code of Italy every crime requires compensation in accordance with the civil law. The perpetrators of the
crime must bear the burden of compensation. In this case, the people
committing a crime (partners) are jointly and severally liable (civil
liability) for the commission of the crime.
Summarizing the nature of the research of the legal responsibility
for economic torts under the Italian law, the following should be noted.
The specifics of the legal responsibility for the economic torts relates to
the fact that it is a combination of different types of the legal liability
(criminal, administrative, civil, financial and legal). Delimitation of different types of delicts is based on a type of legal sanctions that is typical
for this type of responsibility. According to the criminal law doctrine,
the only criterion for distinguishing a crime from other types of offenses,
for which the liability is set in the form of financial sanctions (administrative, financial and civil delicts), is the volume of money of these
sanctions. More stringent financial sanctions are characteristic for the
criminal law2.
Thus, the nature of the legal liability for economic torts in Russia
and Italy is generally similar. Consequently, a further comparison of the
criminal legislation of the two states is interesting and quite revealing.
1
Cadoppi Alberto, Veneziano, Paolo. Elementi di diritto penale. Parte generale.
Vicenza, 2015. pp. 4–6.
2
Marinucci Georgio, Dolcini Emilio. Corso di diritto penale. Le norme penali:
finti I limiti di applicabilita il reato; nozione, struttura e sistematica. Milano, 2001.
pp. 397.
287
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
Серебренникова А. В.
профессор кафедры уголовного права
и криминологии юридического факультета
МГУ им. М. В. Ломоносова, д-р юрид. наук
Харламов Д. Д.
аспирант кафедры уголовного права
и криминологии юридического факультета
МГУ им. М. В. Ломоносова
К вопросу об уголовной ответственности
за оскорбление и клевету: германский опыт
Наше внимание к вопросам уголовной ответственности за клевету и оскорбление в УК Германии было вызвано тем, что российский законодатель за последний год предпринял несколько шагов
по «совершенстванию» института ответственности в УК РФ за клевету и оскорбление как части «процесса гуманизации» уголовного
законодательства.
Сначала ввиду не вполне обосновано, на наш взгляд, были декриминализированы ст. 129–130 УК РФ ФЗ от 7 декабря 2011 г.
№420-ФЗ «О внесении изменений в УК РФ и отдельные законодательные акты РФ», вступившим в силу с 8 декабря 2011 г.,
и были приняты изменения, внесенные названным ФЗ в КоАП
РФ. После этого «клевета», т. е. распространение заведомо ложных
сведений, порочащих честь и достоинство другого лица или подрывающих его репутацию, влекла за собой административную
ответственность по ч. 1 ст. 5.60 КоАП РФ, а «оскорбление»,
т. е. унижение чести и достоинства другого лица, выраженное
в неприличной форме, стала административным правонарушением (ст. 5.61 КоАП РФ).
Затем ФЗ от 28 июля 2012 г. №141-ФЗ «О внесении изменений
в УК РФ и отдельные законодательные акты РФ» клевета, которая в течение восьми месяцев считалась административным правонарушением, была возвращена в УК РФ в ст. 128.1. По ст. 5.60
КоАП, утратившей силу, за «заведомо ложные сведения, порочащие
честь и достоинство лица или подрывающие его репутацию», максимальной санкцией был штраф в размере 5 тыс. руб. То есть, «административная» клевета, просуществовала весьма незначительный
288
Серебренникова А. В., Харламов Д. Д.
период времени, и запомнилась некоторыми громкими процессами. Так, была осуждена учительница питерской школы №575
Т. Иванова, которую признали виновной в клевете о фальсификациях на президентских выборах.
Такие шаги отечественного законодателя свидетельствуют, на наш
взгляд, о нестабильности и некоторой непродуманности современной российской уголовной политики, которая, к сожалению,
не имеет прочной научной основы.
Как теперь сформулирована ст. 128.1. («клевета») в УК РФ?
1. Клевета, т. е. распространение заведомо ложных сведений,
порочащих честь и достоинство другого лица или подрывающих
его репутацию, наказывается штрафом в размере до 500 тыс. рублей или в размере заработной платы или иного дохода осужденного за период до 6-ти месяцев, либо обязательными работами на срок
до 160 часов.
2. Клевета, содержащаяся в публичном выступлении, публично
демонстрирующемся произведении или СМИ, наказывается штрафом в размере до 1 млн руб. или в размере заработной платы
или иного дохода осужденного за период до 1 года, либо обязательными работами на срок до 240 часов.
3. Клевета, совершенная с использованием своего служебного положения, наказывается штрафом в размере до 2 млн руб. или в размере заработной платы или иного дохода осужденного за период
до 2 лет, либо обязательными работами на срок до 320 часов.
4. Клевета о том, что лицо страдает заболеванием, представляющим опасность для окружающих, а равно клевета, соединенная
с обвинением лица в совершении преступления сексуального характера, наказывается штрафом в размере до 3 млн рублей или в размере заработной платы или иного дохода осужденного за период
до 3 лет, либо обязательными работами на срок до 400 часов.
5. Клевета, соединенная с обвинением лица в совершении
тяжкого или особо тяжкого преступления, наказывается штрафом в размере до 5 млн руб. или в размере заработной платы
или иного дохода осужденного за период до 3 лет, либо обязательными работами на срок до 480 часов.
Как мы видим, новая статья УК РФ (ст. 128.1) состоит из пяти
частей (прежде их было три). Анализируя данную норму, можно
прийти к выводу, что в связи с принятием данного закона смягче-
289
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
ние наказания за клевету (как часть процесса гуманизации уголовного законодательства) оказалось недолгим. Хотя за клевету теперь
и не будут назначать наказание в виде лишения свободы, и в этом
главное отличие новой ст. 128.1. от старой, 129-й, исключенной
из УК РФ в декабре 2015 г., которая в качестве максимального
наказания предусматривала лишение свободы на срок до 3-х лет
лишения свободы при квалифицированной клевете. В отличие
от этого, в действующей ст. 128.1. наказанием являются денежный
штраф и обязательные работы.
Размер установленного в данной норме штрафа поражает.
В частности, за клевету, содержащуюся в публичном выступлении, публично демонстрирующемся произведении или СМИ, наказанием является штраф в размере до 1 млн руб. или в размере заработной платы или иного дохода осужденного за период
до 1 года, а за клевету с использованием своего служебного положения предусмотрен штраф в размере до 2 млн руб, за ложное обвинение лица в совершении тяжкого или особо тяжкого преступления — до 5 млн руб.! Как известно, штрафы в нашей стране
исполняются лишь в части, поэтому весьма проблематичным, на наш
взгляд, является назначение штрафов в таких размерах с точки
зрения достижения целей наказания и его эффективности в целом.
Заслуживает внимания и в ч. 4 и такой признак состава, как «заболевание, представляющее опасность для окружающих». В соответствии со ст. 42 Закона РФ «Основы законодательства РФ
об охране здоровья граждан» перечень заболеваний, представляющих опасность для окружающих, определяется Правительством
РФ и Данный перечень был утвержден Постановлением Правительства РФ от 1 декабря 2004 г. №715 (в ред. Постановления Правительства РФ от 13.07.2012 г. №710) «Об утверждении перечня
социально значимых заболеваний и перечня заболеваний, представляющих опасность для окружающих». В соответствии с ним
к заболеваниям, представляющим опасность для окружающих,
относятся: болезнь, вызванная вирусом иммунодефицита человека (ВИЧ); вирусные лихорадки, передаваемые членистоногими,
и вирусные геморрагические лихорадки; гельминтозы; гепатит B;
гепатит C; дифтерия; инфекции, передающиеся преимущественно половым путем; лепра; малярия; педикулез, акариаз и другие
инфестации; сап и мелиоидоз; сибирская язва; туберкулез; холе-
290
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]