Дифференциация уголовной ответственности за мошенничество в сфере предпринимательской деятельности: обзор национальных подходов на фоне скудности международно-правового регулирования

Ярослав Петрович Скоробогатько

doi:10.21638/11701/spbu14.2017.309

Authors

Ярослав Петрович Скоробогатько St. Petersburg State University, 7–9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu14.2017.309

Abstract

This scientific review concerns provisions of international legal acts and national approaches of such states as Austria, Brazil, Spain, Italy, Kazakhstan, The People’s Republic of China, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the USA, France and Switzerland of criminal liability for fraud in the sphere of an entrepreneurial activity. The appeal of the author to this question is explained by the discussions related to the further development of criminal legislation on the matter going in Russia: As the resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of December 11, 2014 No. 32-P of provisions of article 1594 UK of the Russian Federation were recognized as unconstitutional, and the Federal law of 03.07.2016 No. 323-FZ article 159 UK of the Russian Federation is added with three new parts establishing criminal liability for fraud resulting from deliberate non-execution of contractual obligations in the sphere of entrepreneurial activity. The author shows in the review the main (conceptual) approaches the states adopt to establish criminal liability for fraud in the sphere of entrepreneurial activity by means of allocation of general and special structures of these acts employing as a basis the categories of Russian penal law. A special actus reus is formulated by proceeding from two criteria: (1) the qualitative, caused by non-execution of contractual obligations in the sphere of an entrepreneurial activity and (2) formal, connected with presence at the person of the status of the subject of an entrepreneurial activity irrespectively executions of contractual obligations by it. Also the author studied sanctions for data, a crime which in general is similar to sanctions for general or other special structures of fraud, and the most widespread qualifying signs of special structures of the crime considered. Refs 11.

Keywords:

penal law, criminal responsibility, fraud, entrepreneurial activity, business, subject of a crime, actus reus, sanction

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Литература

Голик Ю., Коробеев А. Прошлогодние трансформации уголовного закона: реплика // Уголовное право. 2013. № 2. С. 16–17.

Диденко Ю. А., Лебедев А. Н. Преднамеренное неисполнение договорных обязательств как признак мошенничества, предусмотренного ст. 159⁴ УК РФ // Вестник Пермского университета. Юридические науки. 2015. № 2. С. 133–141.

Есаков Г. Мошенничество в сфере предпринимательской деятельности (ст. 159⁴ УК РФ): проблемы применения нормы // Уголовное право. 2014. № 3. С. 40–44.

Карпов И. П. Новые способы мошенничества // Законность. 2014. № 4. С. 56–59.

Смирнов Г. Бизнесу дали эволюционный срок. Почему предприниматели не могут рассчитывать на льготный срок заключения за мошенничество, как прежде // Юрист спешит на помощь. 2015. № 4. С. 16–19.

Соловьев И. Н. Гуманизация законодательства, предусматривающего ответственность за совершение экономических преступлений, как «мягкая» амнистия в сфере экономики // Российский следователь. 2014. № 13. С. 35–41.

Тюнин В. «Реструктуризация» уголовного законодательства об ответственности за мошенничество // Уголовное право. 2013. № 2. С. 35–41.

Яни П. С. Специальные виды мошенничества (статья четвертая) // Законность. 2015. № 6. С. 19–23.

Мирончик А. С., Боровков А. А. Неисполнение договорных обязательств как признак мошенничества в сфере предпринимательской деятельности // Журнал российского права. 2017. № 3. С. 92–100.

Сидоренко Э. Л. Некоторые вопросы квалификации хищений в свете последних изменений УК РФ // Мировой судья. 2017. № 3. С. 21–25.

Егорова Н. А. Новое в уголовном законодательстве о мошенничестве в сфере предпринимательской деятельности // Российская юстиция. 2016. № 12. С. 27–30.

References

Golik Iu., Korobeev A. Proshlogodnie transformatsii ugolovnogo zakona: replika [Last Year’s Transformations of the Criminal Law: Remark]. Ugolovnoe parvo [Penal Law], 2013, no. 2, pp. 16–17. (In Russian)

Didenko Iu. A., Lebedev A. N. Prednamerennoe neispolnenie dogovornykh obiazatel’stv kak priznak moshennichestva, predusmotrennogo st. 159⁴ UK RF [Deliberate Non-Execution of Contractual Obligations as a Sign of the Fraud Provided Art. 159⁴ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Iuridicheskie nauki [The Bulletin of the Perm University. Jurisprudence]. 2015, no. 2, pp. 133–141. (In Russian)

Esakov G. Moshennichestvo v sfere predprinimatel’skoi deiatel’nosti (st. 159⁴ UK RF): problemy primeneniia normy [Fraud in the Sphere of an Entrepreneurial Activity (Art. 159⁴ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation): Problems of Use of Norm]. Ugolovnoe parvo [Penal Law], 2014, no. 3, pp. 40–44. (In Russian)

Karpov I. P. Novye sposoby moshennichestva [New Ways of Fraud], Zakonnost’ [Legality], 2014, no. 4, pp. 56–59. (In Russian)

Smirnov G. Biznesu dali evoliutsionnyi srok. Pochemu predprinimateli ne mogut rasschityvat’ na l’gotnyi srok zakliucheniia za moshennichestvo, kak prezhde [Business was Given Evolutionary Term. Why Businessmen Cannot Count on a Preferential Imprisonment Term for Fraud as Before]. Iurist speshit na pomoshch’ [The Lawyer Hurries to the Aid], 2015, no. 4, pp. 16–19. (In Russian)

Solov’ev I. N. Gumanizatsiia zakonodatel’stva, predusmatrivaiushchego otvetstvennost’ za sovershenie ekonomicheskikh prestuplenii, kak «miagkaia» amnistiia v sfere ekonomiki [A Humanization of the Legislation Providing Responsibility for Commission of Economic Crimes as “Soft” Amnesty in the Sphere of Economy]. Rossiiskii sledovatel’ [The Russian Investigator], 2014, no. 13, pp. 35–41. (In Russian)

Tiunin V. «Restrukturizatsiia» ugolovnogo zakonodatel’stva ob otvetstvennosti za moshennichestvo [“Restructuring” of the Criminal Legislation on Responsibility for Fraud]. Ugolovnoe pravo [Penal Law], 2013, no. 2, pp. 35–41. (In Russian)

Iani P. S. Spetsial’nye vidy moshennichestva (stat’ia chetvertaia) [Special Types of Fraud (Article Fourth)]. Zakonnost’ [Legality], 2015, no. 6, pp. 19–23. (In Russian)

Mironchik A. S., Borovkov A. A. Neispolnenie dogovornykh obiazatel’stv kak priznak moshennichestva v sfere predprinimatel’skoi deiatel’nosti [Non-Execution of Contractual Obligations as a Fraud Sign in the Sphere of an Entrepreneurial Activity]. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava [The Magazine of Russian Law], 2017, no. 3, pp. 92–100. (In Russian)

Sidorenko E. L. Nekotorye voprosy kvalifikatsii khishchenii v svete poslednikh izmenenii UK RF [Some Questions of Qualification of Plunders in the Light of the Last Changes of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation]. Mirovoi sud’ia [The Magistrate Judge], 2017, no. 3, pp. 21–25. (In Russian)

Egorova N. A. Novoe v ugolovnom zakonodatel’stve o moshennichestve v sfere predprinimatel’skoi deiatel’nosti [New in the Criminal Legislation on Fraud in the Sphere of an Entrepreneurial Activity]. Rossiiskaia iustitsiia [The Russian Justice], 2016, no. 12, pp. 27–30. (In Russian)