from 01.01.2022 until now
Sankt-Peterburg, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
UDK 343.2/.7 Уголовное право
Introduction. The aarticle deals with the issue of legislative regulation, establishment and assessment of the consequences of arbitrariness. The issues of determining the materiality of harm as a feature of the objective side of the offence under Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Based on the analysis of judicial practice, the varieties of substantial harm caused in the commission of arbitrary actions are determined. It is noted that the materiality of harm is a necessary condition for qualification of a deed under Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The purpose of the research is to characterise the criteria used by law enforcers in determining the essential harm as part of arbitrariness. Methods. The author used the following methods: dialectical method of cognition, a set of general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction), as well as a number of special methods (formal-legal, comparativelegal, systemic, functional). Results. The analysis of judicial practice on the problem under study allowed to determine the influence of the subjective factor due to the creative nature of the law enforcer in determining the materiality of the harm caused by unlawful actions. It is concluded that the lack of criteria for assessing the materiality of harm, as well as the lack of specification of the range of social relations that may be harmed as a result of arbitrariness, may cause such harm, entails uncertainty in the emerging law enforcement judicial practice.
arbitrariness, objective side of the offence, substantial harm, property damage, physical harm, moral harm
1. Shkabin G. S. Prestupnyy vred: vidy i ugolovno-pravovoe znachenie / Znachenie ugolovnogo zakona dlya podgotovki sotrudnikov organov vnutrennih del, osuschestvlyayuschih protivodeystvie prestupnosti : sbornik nauchnyh statey po itogam mezhvuzovskogo nauchno-metodicheskogo seminara, 13 maya 2016 g. / redkol.: N. G. Kadnikov, I. M. Mackevich. – Moskva: Izdatel'skiy dom «Yurisprudenciya», 2017. – S. 85–91.
2. Koval'chuk A. V. Suschestvennyy vred kak ocenochnyy priznak v Ugolovnom kodekse Respubliki Belarus' // Yusticiya Belarusi. – 2017. – № 10 (187). – S. 42–46.
3. Ovsienko D. V. Prichinenie suschestvennogo vreda kak priznak zloupotrebleniya dolzhnostnymi polnomochiyami / Pravo i zakonnost': voprosy teorii i praktiki : sbornik materialov IX Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferencii, 12–13 aprelya 2019 g. – Abakan: Hakasskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet im. N. F. Katanova, 2019. – S. 137–138.
4. Maslov E. V. Interesy sluzhby v kommercheskih i inyh organizaciyah kak ob'ekt ugolovno-pravovoy ohrany // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii. – 2009. – № 5. – S. 122–125.
5. Skripchenko N. Yu., Sitnikov A. V. Suschestvennyy vred kak priznak dolzhnostnyh prestupleniy // Ugolovnoe pravo. – 2017. – № 1. – S. 84–89.
6. Hilyuta V. V. Imuschestvennyy uscherb kak konstruktivnyy priznak suschestvennogo vreda v dolzhnostnyh prestupleniyah // Epomen : elektronnyy zhurnal. – 2021. – № 61. – S. 145–160. – URL: http://epomen.ru/issues/2021/61/Epomen-61-2021.pdf.
7. Kaplin M. N., Brazhnik S. D. Suschestvennyy vred kak priznak prevysheniya dolzhnostnyh polnomochiy (st. 286 UK RF) // Aktual'nye voprosy bor'by s prestupleniyami. – 2015. – № 1. – S. 14–16.
8. Yani P. S. Obschestvenno opasnye posledstviya dolzhnostnyh prestupleniy // Zakonnost'. – 2014. – № 3 (953). – S. 39–43.
9. Smirnov A. M. O definicii ponyatiya «prestuplenie» v Ugolovnom kodekse Rossiyskoy Federacii // Vserossiyskiy kriminologicheskiy zhurnal. – 2018. – T. 12, № 3. – S. 417–423; https://doi.org/10.17150/2500-4255.2018.12(3).417-423.
10. Krylova A. V. Ponyatie suschestvennogo vreda pravam i zakonnym interesam grazhdan i organizaciy v sostave «upravlencheskogo» zloupotrebleniya // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 11: Pravo. – 2014. – № 6. – S. 67–73.
11. Borsov A. I. Prichinenie suschestvennogo vreda grazhdaninu ili organizacii, kak priznak prestupnogo samoupravstva // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel'stve. – 2017. – № 3. – S. 94–95.
12. Sitnikov A. V. Material'nyy uscherb kak raznovidnost' suschestvennogo vreda pri kvalifikacii zloupotrebleniya dolzhnostnymi polnomochiyami: problemy ocenki / Ugolovnaya politika i pravoprimenitel'naya praktika: sbornik statey po materialam IV Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferencii, 3 noyabrya 2016 g. / otv. red. E. N. Rahmanova. – Sankt-Peterburg: Izdatel'skiy dom «Petropolis», 2016. – S. 315–320.
13. Gracheva Yu. V. Sudeyskoe usmotrenie v realizacii ugolovno-pravovyh norm: problemy i puti ih resheniya: monografiya / otv. red. A. I. Chuchaev. – Moskva: Prospekt, 2014. – 373 s.
14. Deryugina T. V. Teoreticheskie i prakticheskie problemy tolkovaniya i primeneniya kategoriy «ubytki», «vred», «uscherb» // Pravovaya paradigma. – 2018. – T. 17, № 1. – S. 9–15; https://doi.org/10.15688/lc.jvolsu.2018.1.2.
15. Kravcova M. A. Kompleksnye ekspertnye issledovaniya v ustanovlenii moral'nogo vreda, prichinennogo prestupleniem // Aktual'nye problemy nauki XXI veka. – 2014. – № 3. – S. 14–19.
