Aleksandr S. Tumanov

The article is devoted to the analysis of the concept of “exceptional circumstances” as an evaluative category of criminal law that goes beyond the institution of a more lenient punishment than is provided for this crime (Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Based on the generalization of doctrinal approaches, explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and materials of judicial practice, it is proved that the category of “exclusivity” is used by the legislator in a number of related institutions for mitigating criminal law effects: in case of conditional conviction (art. 73 of the Criminal Code); changing the category of crime (Part 6 of art. 15 of the Criminal Code); the implementation of provisions on active repentance, as well as the application of provisions on the responsibility of minors to persons aged eighteen to twenty years (art. 96 of the Criminal Code).

Objective signs of the corpus delicti provided for in Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, committed by employees of the penal enforcement system, are subjected to a comprehensive study. As a result of the conducted formal legal and systematic analysis, the features of the object and the objective side of negligence in the field under consideration were revealed. The author present the most typical manifestations of negligence in the penitentiary environment, with special attention paid to the nature of inaction. In addition, the problem of indirect causation and the impact of its establishment on determining the criminality of an act is considered. The conclusions obtained are of practical importance for improving the qualification of the analyzed crime and increasing the effectiveness of the legal regulation of the criminal justice system.

Relevance. The article deals with the issues of insignificance of the act, stipulated by item. "b" part 3 part 3 of article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The grounds and conditions of the grounds and conditions of insignificance of thefts. On the basis of the study of judicial practice are outlined peculiarities of application of the provisions on insignificance to theft of hydrocarbon raw materials from the pipeline raw materials.Purpose: to study the possibility and conditions of applying the provisions of part 2 of article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to the theft committed from an oil pipeline to theft committed from an oil pipeline, oil product pipeline and gas pipeline (item "b", part 3, article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).Objectives: study and identification of conditions of application of insignificance of a deed to the theft from pipelines on the basis of analysis of modern judicial practice and provisions of doctrine of criminal law. Methodology. The methodological basis of the study was the general dialectical method of scientific cognition. of scientific cognition. The author used such private methods as: Formal-legal, sociological and method of legal modelling.Results. The authors analyzed and summarized the conditions, distinguished in the theory of criminal law, under which a specific socially dangerous act can be recognized as insignificant and projected on theft committed from an oil pipeline, petroleum product pipeline, petroleum product pipeline. oil, oil product and gas pipelines, and studied the materials of materials of judicial and investigative practice on the termination of criminal cases on theft of raw materials from the thefts of raw materials from pipelines due to insignificance, the author's conditional criteria were singled out criteria under which the theft of oil, oil products or gas can be considered a low-value act. as an insignificant act.Conclusion: the individual danger of a specific fact of theft from pipelines in some situations may not correspond to the level of criminal danger, which the legislator has laid down in the relevant act as a result of its criminalization. The conducted research allows us to determine the approximate mandatory and optional signs for recognizing theft from pipelines as insignificant.

Currently, in the modern world, due to the complex and tense political situation, attempts are often made in various ways to destroy the established constitutional system and offend the honor and dignity of the Russian Federation. One of these methods is the desecration of state symbols, which is an integral part of any state, reflecting its ideology. This article is devoted to the specifics of the qualification of a crime under Article 329 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The relevance of the topic lies in the fact that certain issues of qualification of abuse of state symbols are not actually sanctified in the scientific literature today or are only fragmentary. The authors analyzed the specifics of the basis of criminal liability for abuse of state symbols, summarized judicial and investigative practice. Based on the studied practice, the authors put forward recommendations on the qualification of the analyzed act and the proposal of the law.

Статья посвящена проблемам, возникающим в теории уголовного права и судебно-следственной практике при квалификации кражи, предусмотренной пунктом «б» ч. 3 ст. 158 УК РФ. По результатам исследования представлены авторские рекомендации в части совершенствования практики квалификации кражи, совершенной из иных трубопроводов (нормативно не закрепленных в ст. 158 УК РФ). Анализируются физическая сущность предмета хищения и его разная интерпретация в юридической литературе. Рассматриваются обязательные признаки тайного хищения в виде изъятия и обращения углеводородов в свою пользу, совершенного путем так называемой криминальной врезки. Особое внимание уделено вопросам разграничения приготовления и покушения на анализируемый состав тайного хищения, оценки действий соисполнителя и пособника в краже из нефтепровода, нефтепродуктопровода и газопровода. Систематизируется категория «место» преступного деяния, т.е. хищения из трубопроводов различных видов, в том числе магистральных, и предлагается квалификация содеянного. Выделена авторская позиция относительно квалификации иных форм хищения (в частности, грабежа и разбоя), совершаемых из нефтепровода, нефтепродуктопровода или газопровода. Анализируется правоприменительная практика, затрагиваются вопросы отграничения кражи нефти, нефтепродуктов или газа из трубопровода от причинения имущественного ущерба путем обмана или злоупотребления доверием. В заключение делается вывод о том, что кража нефти (нефтепродуктов) и кража газа представляют две разновидности хищения в рамках одного квалифицированного состава преступления. Авторами изучено свыше 400 судебных решений (приговоров, определений, постановлений) о преступлениях в виде тайного хищения нефти, нефтепродуктов либо газа из трубопроводов за период с 2007 по 2022 г. в более чем 20 регионах России. Результаты исследования нашли отражение в представленных выводах и заключениях.