Some controversial problems of the Ruling of the Russian Federation Supreme Court Plenum № 24 dated 09.07.2013 «On court practice in the bribery cases and other corruption crimes»

On the 9 of 2013, the Russian Federation Supreme Court Plenum adopted the ruling № 24 2013 "On TOuri pra^ke in the bribery cases and other corruption dimes". Some provisions of the Plenum are m^h objetied to and should be defined. For example, the interpretation of the final moment of bribe По мнению В.Н. Боркова, действия должностного лица - «лжевзяткополучателя» следует квалифицировать как превышение должностных полномочий [9. С. 73]. taking, bribery and mediation in bribery which are considered according to the size of a bribe, does not correspond to the provisions of articles of the Criminal Code (CC) of the Russian Federation (RF). It results from the legislative definition of direct intent (Part 2, Article 25 of the CC of the RF) that in case of an official partial bribe taking (when the bribe is defined according to its size) and according to the intent of the guilty person, the criminal act can be characterized as an attempted bribe taking, bribery, mediation in bribery in big and especially big amounts. In its Ruling dated 09.07.2013 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stated that the official taking (by the official involved in administration) of valuables for acts or omission of acts which he/she cannot perform because of the lack of powers and impossibility to take advantage of his/her official position constitutes fraud (if there is an intent to take valuables). The Plenum of the Supreme Court included into the fraud the following acts: the acts of a person who took the valuables in order to transfer them purportedly to another official as a bribe but who in fact did not mean to keep his promise and took them for himself. But can we consider the use of property for commission of a crime (bribery) to be of legal benefit protected by the criminal law? Answering this question it is necessary to note that criminal legislation (as it is stated in Part 1, Article 2 of the CC of the RF)is called to protect public relations which are important for a person, society and the state against criminal infringements, to protect the rights and legal interests of the subjects of these relations. Taking into account the social intended purpose of current Russian criminal law, the principal provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, we come to the conclusion that what was committed by a "false mediator" and a "false bribe taker" is not a fraud because it violates the property interests of the bribe giver that is expressed in a socially dangerous behavior which according to Tagantsev N.S. has no legal protection. The acts of the above people have the characteristics of the following crimes: under the definite conditions the acts of a 'false bribe taker" constitute the incitement to commit bribery: the acts of "false mediator' constitute the crime provided for in Part 5, Article 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Keywords

Authors

References