Author

ZABAVKO R.A.

Title of article

DIFFERENTIATION OF THE CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR NOT COMPLETED
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN COMMITTING ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES

Section

Section 8. Improving lawenforcement practice

Issue, year

2 (48) 2019

Abstract

The analysis of the materials of criminal cases and pre-investigation checks concerning the committed environmental crimes allowed the author of the article to establish the following pattern: criminal cases of preparations and attempts to commit environmental crimes are
practically not initiated. It is determined by a number of circumstances connected primarily with the specifics of the legislative structure of the elements of the considered crimes. The study of the doctrinal
provisions of criminal law and the actual characteristics concerning the commission of these crimes, being blanket in relation to the norms of chapter 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
allows to conclude that the possibilities of differentiation of criminal liability for not completed criminal activity when committing environmental crimes are hardly used. The author of the article formulates the proposals that, under certain circumstances, make it possible to bring to criminal liability those involved
in incomplete criminal activity. In particular, the possibility to qualify the attempted illegal hunting if it was aimed at causing major damage is substantiated. The solution of the analyzed problem does not
require amending the criminal law, as it based on criminal law doctrines and requires changing the approaches to the interpretation of certain norms establishing responsibility for environmental crimes.

Keywords

environmental crimes; criminal liability; illegal hunting; preparation for crime; attempted crime.

References

1. Rolik A.I. Prestuplenie, predusmotrennoe st. 228.1 UK RF: spornye voprosy harakteristiki [The crime under Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code: controversial issues characteristics]. Lex Russica, 2014, no. 9, pp. 1079-1092.

2. Blagov E.V. Naznachenie nakazaniya (teoriya i praktika) [Sentencing (theory and practice)]. Yaroslavl: Yaroslavl State University, 2002. 173 p.

3. Matsnev N.I., Stanovskiy A.M. Naznachenie nakazaniya za neokonchennoe prestuplenie [Sentencing for unfinished crime]. Izvestiya vuzov. Pravovedenie – News of higher educational institutions. Jurisprudence, 2009, no. 4, pp. 75-82.

4. Nikolaev K.D. Ponyatie, priznaki, vidy i znachenie stadiy soversheniya umyshlennogo prestupleniya [The concept, characteristics, types and significance of the stages of the commission of an intentional crime]. Vestnik Omskoy yuridicheskoy akademii – Bulletin of Omsk Law Academy, 2015, no. 3 (28), pp. 49-51.

5. Blagov E.V. Kvalifikatsiya pokusheniya na prestuplenie [Qualification of attempted crime]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava – Journal of Russian law, 2005, no. 8 (104), pp. 71-72.

6. Antonov Yu.I., Borovikov V.B., Galahova A.V. i dr. Otsenochnye priznaki v Ugolovnom kodekse Rossiyskoy Federatsii: nauchnoe i sudebnoe tolkovanie [Estimated features in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: scientific and judicial interpretation]. Moscow, Norma Publ., 2014. 736 p.

7. Dubovik O.L. Uchebno-prakticheskiy kommentariy k Ugolovnomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Educational and practical commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation]. Moscow, 2006. 1086 p.

8. Korostylev O.I. Ugolovno-pravovaya harakteristika ugrozy. Kand. Diss. [Criminal legal characteristic of the threat. Cand. Diss.]. Moscow, 2005. 163 p.

9. Soktoev Z.B. Prichinnost’ i ob”ektivnaya storona prestupleniya [Causality and the objective side of the crime]. Moscow, NORMA, INFRA-M Publ., 2015. 256 с.

10. Kruglikov L.L. Problems of the theory of criminal law: selected articles, 2000-2009 [Problems of the theory
of criminal law: selected articles, 2000-2009]. Yaroslavl, 2010. 591 p.