Criminal-legal characteristics of crimes against state power. Crimes against state security Crimes against the interests of public service

General characteristics.

Abuse of official powers.

Exceeding official authority.

Negligence.

Official forgery.

Corrupt practices.

Question No. 1. General characteristics.

Official crimes or crimes against the interests of the state. services are acts that encroach on the normal legally regulated activities of the public administrative apparatus, committed by officials of this apparatus using their official position, as well as by persons performing the functions of the public administrative apparatus on a special assignment. These are crimes of persons who, due to the powers of management officially granted to them by the authorities (in a broad sense, including legislative, executive-administrative and judicial activities), are in a special position both in relation to the bodies that granted them these powers, and in relation to citizens subordinate management.

The social essence of the actions of persons in state or municipal service and persons performing corresponding management functions in various public organizations and commercial structures is far from the same.

The former, abusing the powers granted to them by public authorities, encroach on the interests of the civil service and disrupt the normal activities of the state. legislative, executive and judicial authorities, as well as the apparatus of local governments, undermine their authority, which ultimately leads to a weakening of state power. This determines a special law-protected object and the need to separate the criminal acts of such persons into an independent chapter of the Criminal Code.

The Criminal Code differentiated the responsibility of persons in the civil service or in the service of local government bodies and other employees. Thus, there are 2 chapters in the Criminal Code: Chapter 23 - a crime against the interests of service in commercial and other organizations, placed in the section of crimes in the economic sphere, and Chapter 30 - crimes against the state. power, state interests services and services in local government bodies. A distinctive feature of a crime against state power, state. services...is that they are performed by special subjects, i.e. persons characterized by certain characteristics, in comparison with the general subject: these are employees of government bodies themselves, government agencies or local self-government bodies. Officials as subjects of responsibility for crimes against state power...include 2 categories of subjects:

Persons permanently, temporarily or by special authority performing the functions of a government representative

Persons permanently, temporarily or by special authority performing organizational, administrative or administrative functions in the state. authorities, local self-government bodies, state and municipal institutions, the armed forces of the Russian Federation

The peculiarity of government representatives is that, within the limits of their competence, they are endowed with the right to make demands and make decisions binding on citizens or enterprises, organizations, institutions, regardless of their departmental affiliation and subordination.

The activities of a government representative are based on relationships with persons who are not under his official subordination and have authority over an indefinite number of persons.

Among the persons temporarily or by special authority exercising the functions of a government representative are: jurors, representatives of the public, in accordance with the law, officially involved in the exercise of government powers to combat crime or performing various supervisory functions.

Persons permanently, temporarily or by special authority performing organizational, administrative or administrative functions in the state. bodies, local self-government bodies, state and municipal institutions, the armed forces of the Russian Federation are characterized by the presence of organizational and administrative or administrative and economic powers in the state bodies themselves...

Organizational and administrative responsibilities include activities related to the management of the work collective, work area, and production functions of individual workers (selection and placement of personnel, work planning, organization of work of subordinates).

Administrative and economic responsibilities include functions of managing or disposing of property, establishing procedures for its storage, processing, sale, and ensuring control over these operations.

The uniqueness of the object that is encroached upon by crimes within the framework of this chapter has determined that the subjects of their commission are persons performing these functions only in government agencies, local self-government bodies, state municipal institutions, the armed forces, but not in public associations, state unitary enterprises and municipal unitary enterprises.

Those employees who perform purely professional or technical duties are not subjects of a crime. If, along with the implementation of these duties, this employee is also entrusted with the performance of organizational, administrative or administrative functions in the prescribed manner, then in the event of their violation, he may be held liable for malfeasance.

Imposing full financial responsibility on an employee for the safety of entrusted valuables cannot serve as a basis for recognizing him as a subject of a crime. It is necessary that, along with this, the person also performs the functions of managing or disposing of it.

Taking tests and exams and grading them is an activity of an organizational and administrative nature, because The results of the exams determine the possibility of admission to an educational institution, the student’s right to continue his studies, receive a scholarship, and a certificate of completion. A teacher who commits abuse in connection with the existence of such rights and obligations is liable as an official.

The immediate object is the normal work of a separate level of government. apparatus or state or municipal institution.

Objective side: it was committed due to the official position held by the guilty person. Its essence is the commission by a person of such actions that he could perform only due to his official position, i.e. due to the fact that a person holds a certain position in the state system. apparatus. And its implementation is associated with such powers, the presence of which makes it possible to encroach on normal work. As a general rule, malfeasance is possible only when we are talking about the commission of an act in the field of official activity by an official and formally within the limits of the powers that are entrusted to him. However, take into account the type of crime. Thus, receiving a bribe most often involves the commission of actions within the authority of the guilty persons, but they can be committed outside them. In the latter case, the perpetrators use their official position in a broad sense, their official authority, connections and opportunities that exist due to their official position to influence the behavior of other persons.

Exceeding official authority. The presence of the main type of this composition is determined by the scope of official competence, however, not of the guilty person, but of the person or body whose competence includes the commission of the action.

The presence of a particularly qualified type of excess, its initial moment has the sphere of competence of the guilty person, and then he performs such actions that are not related to his competence.

Committing an act contrary to the interests of the public service. Committing an action or inaction that interferes with the proper operation of certain parts of the state apparatus is not carried out on the basis or in pursuance of the law. When it contradicts both general tasks and requirements, and when it violates established principles and methods of work. This attribute is also protected in cases where an official commits actions that are dictated by the falsely understood interests of a department or organization.

The occurrence of harmful consequences in Articles 285, 285.1, 285.2, 286, 288, 293 provide for consequences as a mandatory feature of the composition.

In Art. 285, 286, 288 contain indications of consequences in the form of a significant violation of the rights and interests of citizens or organizations or legally protected interests of society or the state.

Harm can be expressed in causing not only material, but also other harm. When deciding whether the harm is significant, one should take into account the degree of negative impact of illegal acts on the work of organizations, the nature and extent of the damage, the number of injured citizens, the severity of the moral, physical, and property damage caused to them.

In Articles 285.1, 285.2 the consequences are indicated as large. This is an amount exceeding 1.5 million rubles, an especially large amount is 7 million rubles.

In Article 293 - negligence - consequences in the form of causing major damage - an amount exceeding 100 thousand rubles, part 2 - TVZ or death, part 3 - death of 2 or more persons.

A causal relationship between the behavior of an official and the consequences that occur. It is important to establish that the crime was committed due to official position and contrary to the interests of the service:

Preceded in time the onset of one of the consequences specified in the law

Was the main and immediate cause of their onset

Necessarily caused these consequences

Subjective side: most malfeasance is characterized by intentional guilt, only negligence is characterized by a careless form of guilt. In Articles 285, 292 there is a special motive - selfish or other personal interest.

Article 285. Abuse of official powers.

The object is state power, the interests of the civil service...

An additional object is property, personal interests.

Objective side: the law speaks about the use by an official of his powers, not his official position. The powers of an official are determined by his competence established in the relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, the use by a person of his official powers should be understood only as an act of a person that arose from his powers and was associated with the exercise, contrary to the interests of the service, of the rights and obligations with which this person is endowed by virtue of his position. Consequently, there will be no corpus delicti when an official, in seeking the decision he needs, uses personal connections and the authority of his position.

Acts committed contrary to the interests of the service - acts not caused by official necessity. A violation of official duties by a subject should be considered an act contrary to the interests of the service.

Specific forms of abuse of power:

Illegal exploitation of the labor of subordinates for personal interests

Abuses in the distribution of housing

Abuse of official powers in the process of privatization of state unitary enterprises, municipal unitary enterprises for the purpose of acquiring private property or taking possession of shares by the perpetrator himself or persons in whose interests he acts

Illegal transfer for mercenary or other motives to commercial organizations of government loans and finance intended for government needs

Taking advantage of obtaining loans and securities

Use for personal purposes of premises, transport, communications, computers provided for official purposes, connivance in the commission of a crime, their concealment

The occurrence of significant harm is a sign of a completed crime.

Violation by an official of the constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen should be considered significant; material losses caused by official abuse (can be in the form of real material damage or lost profits); physical harm (causing at least a flammable substance); a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of an entrepreneur or organization (may be associated with illegal interference in their activities, restriction of freedom of activities not prohibited by law, resulting in large losses, restriction of competition); a significant violation of the interests of society or the state (creating serious interference and disruptions in the work of government bodies, local governments, undermining the authority of a government body, concealing and condoning serious crimes).

Subjective side: direct or indirect intent. Often not specified. When a person foresees harmful consequences, their extent is only in general terms, but desires or allows any of the possible consequences.

A special motive is selfish or other personal interest.

Selfish interest - unlawful actions of an official that are committed with the aim of obtaining property benefits without illegal, gratuitous treatment received in their favor or in favor of other persons.

Another personal interest is the desire to extract benefits of a non-property nature due to such motives: careerism, nepotism, to hide one’s incompetence, to receive a reciprocal favor.

The qualified staff (Part 2) differs only in special characteristic subjects. We are talking about an official holding a government position in the Russian Federation or a government position in a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

See note Article 285

The head of local government is the head of the municipality and the head of the local administration.

Particularly qualified personnel (part 3)

Acts provided for in Part 1 or Part 2, resulting in grave consequences. They must be associated with a violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, organizations, etc. These usually include: a major accident, causing death (in combination with Article 105), causing damage to at least one person, disorganization, causing material damage on an especially large scale.

Part 3 of Article 285 – an intentional crime. The concept of double guilt does not apply:

The grave consequences of abuse of office are not some qualitatively different consequence compared to a significant violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens. Only the size and scope of violations of these rights have increased

The admission of careless guilt as part of official abuse blurs the line between it and negligence as a careless crime

The distinction between Part 3 of Article 159 and Part 3 of Article 160 on the one hand and Article 285 can be made based on the following collective criteria - the elements of abuse contained in the following situations:

Abuse of official powers for mercenary reasons is not theft if damage to the owner is caused not as a result of illegal, gratuitous seizure and (or) conversion of property in favor of the culprit (real damage), which is typical for theft, but as a result of the use of property for other purposes, non-payment services, non-receipt of what is due (lost profits)

Abuse of official powers associated with the seizure and (or) conversion of someone else's property in favor of the perpetrator is not theft, provided that such seizure was temporary and compensated in nature

If the culprit did not pursue a selfish goal, then abuse of power that caused real material damage and associated with the seizure of someone else’s property also cannot be considered as theft

Exceeding official powers (Article 286).

The structure of the composition is material.

The most typical form of action by a person in an official capacity as abuse of official authority is:

Actions that should be performed collectively, but are performed individually

Actions that fall within the competence of a superior official of this or another department

Actions that can be performed by this official, but if he has special powers or under special conditions that were not available at the time of the action

Actions that no official or any official authority is authorized to perform

The lack of proper legal regulation of the actions of this person practically excludes the possibility of establishing a crime for the first 3 types of excess.

Subjective side: direct intent.

The qualified type of part 2 of article 286 duplicates the provision of part 2 of article 285.

Particularly qualified types of Part 3 of Article 286:

With the use of violence or the threat of its use, when the actions of the perpetrator involve beatings of the victim, infliction of drugs, physical pain, or restriction of freedom. Threats may contain the risk of any physical violence

Using weapons or special means. We are talking about the actual use of weapons for physical influence on the victim by causing harm to his health, as well as for mental influence by threatening to cause such harm, if the victim had reason to believe that his life or health was in real danger. Special means - devices or devices designed to repel attacks by criminals (handcuffs, straitjackets, gas pistols and canisters, batons). Only a demonstration or threat of using special means that does not create a real danger to the life and health of the victim does not constitute this type of crime.

Causing grave consequences. Causing harm to the health of many victims (of varying degrees, but many). Causing TVZ (Part 1, 2, Article 111). abuse of official power associated with murder or inflicting TVZ on the victim (Parts 3, 4 of Art. 111) must be qualified in its entirety

Delimitation from Article 285:

In case of abuse, an official unlawfully, contrary to the interests of the service, uses the rights and powers granted to him by law. If exceeded, he commits actions that are clearly beyond the scope of his official competence.

The objective side of abuse can be accomplished both through action and inaction. In case of excess - only through action.

The mandatory subjective signs of abuse include selfish or other personal interest. These signs are not necessary to exceed.

Negligence (Article 293).

Negligence also applies to the number of material components. The scope of possible negligence is limited only by the scope of the person’s official competence, the range of rights, powers and responsibilities assigned to the person by virtue of his position and having clear legal regulation.

Theft is possible in the form of action and inaction.

Failure to comply is the inaction of an official, failure to perform actions within the scope of his official duties, failure to take measures that he should have taken as part of his duty.

Improper performance – unclear, careless, formal or incomplete performance of official duties.

Both non-compliance and improper fulfillment can be one-time and systematic.

To impute negligence, it is necessary to identify not only the person’s obligation to perform specific actions in the service, but also the real possibility of performing them.

Opportunity consists of objective and subjective factors.

Objective: external conditions in which a person is placed (permissible amount of work, serviceability of relevant instruments, equipment, availability of transport).

Subjective: personal characteristics and qualities of a given person (level of education, experience, qualifications).

Criminal liability for negligence under Part 1 occurs in cases of causing major damage (exceeding 100 thousand rubles)

Part 2 of Article 293 is also an act that, through negligence, resulted in a serious crime or the death of a person

Part 3 of Article 293 – ... part 1 + death of 2 or more persons

To impute the latter, it is necessary to establish a causal relationship between professional behavior and the resulting consequences.

Subjective side: characterized only by careless guilt in both its types.

Negligence – corresponds to fault in the form of criminal negligence. Unfair, improper in the form...

Official forgery.

In its essence, it is a special type of abuse of office. The danger of official forgery lies in the fact that it is usually combined with other crimes, in particular with theft, which is either a method of committing it or a means of concealment.

The peculiarity of Part 1 of Article 292 is that the law does not link responsibility for it with the occurrence of specific consequences.

The subject is official documents, with the exception of those specified in Part 2 of Note Article 292.1.

A common property of official documents is that they generate legal consequences for those using them. In criminal law literature, it is customary to distinguish between physical (or material) and intellectual forgery.

The first type includes those cases when the original document is subject to correction (falsification, erasure).

The second type includes those cases when a document retains the signs of an authentic document, but is false in its content.

A mandatory sign of forgery is the commission of these actions using one’s official position.

Subjective side: only direct intent, selfish or other personal interest. There is no composition if these actions were committed out of falsely understood interests of the service.

Executive

Not an official

Civil servants
Local government employees

The conditions for criminal liability of the second group of persons are that they will be entrusted with the preparation and issuance of official documents in accordance with the established procedure.

In accordance with the law of April 8, 2008, Article 292 was supplemented with Part 2, which provides for liability for the same acts that entailed a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations, or legally protected interests of society and the state.

Correlation between Article 285 and Article 292

Article 285 is a general composition, and Article 292 is special

Art. 285 material composition, art. 292 – material (part 2), formal (part 1)

The subject of Article 285 is only an official, the subject of Article 292 is an official, civil servants, employees of local government bodies who are not officials.

Article 292.1 (April 8, 2008). Illegal issuance of a passport of a citizen of the Russian Federation, as well as entering deliberately false information into documents, which resulted in the illegal acquisition of Russian citizenship.

Corrupt practices.

The current law provides for two independent compositions:

Receiving a bribe – Article 290

Giving a bribe – Article 291

The object of the crime when accepting a bribe is the normal functioning of the state apparatus. One of the elements of ensuring normal activities is the public legal nature of payment for official activities of an official, i.e. receiving remuneration for official activities only in the established manner and amount. The gratuitousness of their public activities in relation to those subjects whose interests they are intended to satisfy with their official actions.

The subject of a bribe is money, securities, other property benefits, material assets, as well as services provided free of charge, but subject to payment.

Forms of receiving a bribe:

Receipt by an official of remuneration or a gift for lawful actions already committed without prior agreement on remuneration using his official position (in gratitude)

Receipt by an official of remuneration under the same conditions for an act related to violation of official duties

Receipt by an official of material assets before he commits a lawful act using his official position (a variation - extortion of a bribe)

Receipt by an official of material assets before he commits illegal actions in which the briber is interested

Receipt by an official of material assets from persons who, in one way or another, depend on him, who are in the sphere of his jurisdiction and are interested in the favor, patronage, connivance of the official without any agreement on a specific official action

Extortions (tribute) imposed by an official on subordinates and other persons dependent on his favor

The disposition of the current law provides for the possibility of holding any official accountable for receiving a bribe in any amount for committing (not committing) both legal and illegal actions. A bribe can have the character of both bribery and grace. However: the degree of public danger of a bribe-reward is, as a rule, much less than a bribe-bribery.

If the material value of the service or gift is clearly not great and it was a sign of gratitude on the part of the person giving it, then the act does not fall under the criteria of criminal conduct.

Crimes against state power (section X of the Criminal Code)

Crimes against state power are socially dangerous acts that encroach on relations that ensure the stability and normal functioning of state power as a whole, as well as its individual institutions and bodies, responsibility for which is provided for in the articles of Section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The typical object of the group of crimes under consideration is social relations that ensure the protection of the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the Russian Federation, the functioning of state power, the protection of the interests of public service and service in local government, justice, as well as maintaining the order of government.

Crimes against state power, in accordance with the specific object, are grouped into four chapters (29--32).

1. Chapter 29 - crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state - includes ten articles (275-284). The specific object of these crimes is the foundations of the constitutional order. The articles specify the immediate objects: a) external security, which in the Law of the Russian Federation “On Security” of March 5, 1992 is defined as the state of protection of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and defense capability of the country from external influence (high treason - Article 275 of the Criminal Code, espionage -- Article 276 of the Criminal Code); b) political basis, legitimacy of state power (attack on the life of a statesman or public figure - Article 277 of the Criminal Code, violent seizure of power or forcible retention of power - Article 278 of the Criminal Code, armed rebellion - Article 279 of the Criminal Code, public calls for violent changes in the constitutional system of the Russian Federation - Article 280 of the Criminal Code); c) economic security and defense capability of Russia (sabotage - Article 281 of the Criminal Code, disclosure of state secrets - Article 283 of the Criminal Code, loss of documents containing state secrets - Article 284 of the Criminal Code); d) national, racial or religious equality (incitement of national, racial or religious hatred - Article 282 of the Criminal Code).

The subject of the encroachment is named as an independent feature in half of the compositions. Thus, information constituting a state secret is named in Art. 275, 276, 283, 284 CC. The categories of this information are determined by the Law of the Russian Federation “On State Secrets” of July 21, 1993, as amended and supplemented by the Federal Law of October 6, 1997, and the List of information classified as state secrets, approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation on January 24, 1998.

The subject of high treason in the form of espionage is other information used to the detriment of Russia's external security, but it must be transmitted and collected only on instructions from foreign intelligence. This can be various information (state of crime, prevalence of drunkenness, diseases, etc.).

The subject of sabotage is enterprises, structures, routes and means of communication, communications and life support facilities.

The objective side of most of the crimes under consideration is characterized by one mandatory feature - the act. Criminal consequences are taken outside the scope of the composition. Consequently, the crime is considered completed from the moment the act is committed. Only the offenses of disclosure of state secrets (Article 283 of the Criminal Code) and loss of documents constituting state secrets (Article 284 of the Criminal Code) are constructed according to the material type and are considered completed when criminal consequences occur. An attack on the life of a statesman or public figure is considered completed from the moment of the attempt.

The subjective side of all the crimes under consideration, with the exception of the loss of documents containing state secrets, is characterized by direct intent. The perpetrator is aware of the socially dangerous nature of the acts committed and wishes to commit them. A careless form of guilt characterizes the subjective side of the loss of documents constituting state secrets.

The qualified offense of disclosing state secrets presupposes two forms of guilt - intent to disclose information and negligence in causing grave consequences.

Motive and purpose are named as mandatory signs of the subjective side in Articles 277, 279, 281 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The subject of the crimes in question is, as a rule, general - a natural, sane person who has reached 16 years of age. A special subject is provided for in Art. 275 and 276 of the Criminal Code on the basis of citizenship: high treason can only be committed by a citizen of Russia, espionage (Article 276 of the Criminal Code) - by a foreign citizen or stateless person. In Art. 283 and 284 of the Criminal Code we are talking about persons to whom state secrets have been entrusted or have become known through their service.

2. Chapter 30 - crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government - includes nine articles (285-293 of the Criminal Code). According to the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960, these crimes were called official crimes and were associated with the concept of corruption (abuse of official position, bribery, forgery, etc.). In fact, they remain as such in the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: these are socially dangerous acts committed by officials due to their official position or official authority, contrary to the interests of the service, which cause or create a real threat of causing significant harm to the normal activities of public authorities, the interests of the public service or service in local government.

The specific object of the crimes under consideration is the totality of social relations that develop in the process of normal, legal activities of government and management bodies. The direct object (the main one) is the normal activity of individual links in the system of power and management. As an additional direct object, the law names the interests of the individual, his health, in such crimes as abuse of official powers (Article 285 of the Criminal Code), abuse of official powers (Article 286 of the Criminal Code), misappropriation of the powers of an official (Article 288 of the Criminal Code ).

Certain elements of a crime require a mandatory feature - an object. Thus, when receiving a bribe (Article 290 of the Criminal Code), giving a bribe (Article 291 of the Criminal Code), the subject is various material benefits, united by the term - bribe; in case of official forgery (Article 292 of the Criminal Code) - official documents representing the corresponding rights or releasing from duties, i.e. giving rise to certain legal consequences.

The characteristics of the objective side, malfeasance and its mandatory features depend on the design features of the compositions. So, four of them (Article 285 of the Criminal Code - abuse of official powers; Article 286 of the Criminal Code - abuse of official powers; Article 288 of the Criminal Code - misappropriation of the powers of an official; Article 293 of the Criminal Code - negligence) are material, i.e. .e. the objective side is characterized by the act, the criminal consequences and the causal relationship between them. Five compositions are formal in design, the objective side characterizes the act (Article 287 - refusal to provide information to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation or the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation; Article 289 of the Criminal Code - illegal participation in business activities; Article 290 of the Criminal Code - receipt bribes; Article 291 - giving a bribe; Article 292 of the Criminal Code - official forgery).

The act is endowed with the following characteristics by criminal law. Firstly, it is committed by an official using his powers, i.e. commits an act within the scope of his competence or using the official authority that his position provides him with. Secondly, the use of powers must be contrary to the interests of the service. Thirdly, the act entails a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, the interests of society and the state protected by law, or creates a threat of violation of rights and interests. When assessing the consequences that have occurred, you should carefully analyze whether there are signs of a justified risk (Article 41 of the Criminal Code) or a state of emergency (Article 39 of the Criminal Code). For example, an official violates financial discipline by significantly overpaying for the amount of work performed. But this was done with the aim of urgently commissioning the facility in connection with the onset of the winter period.

The subjective side of the vast majority of crimes is characterized by an intentional form of guilt. The exception is negligence, which is a reckless crime.

The motive is named by law as a mandatory sign of the subjective side of abuse of power - selfish or other personal interest; a similar motive applies to official forgery.

The subject of these crimes is an official (except for the offenses formulated in Articles 288 and 291 of the Criminal Code). The concept of an official is discussed in the notes to Art. 285 CC. Note 1 defines three types of officials: a) government representative; b) persons performing organizational and administrative functions; c) persons performing administrative and economic functions. Persons can perform these functions permanently, temporarily or by special authority, as intended, i.e. by order of the appropriate leader, or by election, for payment or free of charge.

Representatives of government include deputies of all levels, employees of the prosecutor's office, courts, operational and investigative workers of all law enforcement agencies, government inspectors, controllers, etc. Organizational and administrative functions consist of general management of the team, selection and placement of personnel, planning of the team's activities, etc. . Such officials include heads of state enterprises, institutions, and their structural divisions.

Administrative and economic functions consist of managing property, the movement of money, and material assets. These functions are performed by the heads of financial departments, procurement, planning and economic services, warehouse managers, chief and senior accountants, etc.

Note 2 defines the highest category of officials - those holding public positions established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation or constitutional laws (President of the Russian Federation, Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, Chairman of the State Duma, Chairman of the Federation Council, etc.).

Note 3 gives the concept of the middle category of officials - these are persons holding public positions in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, who establish constitutions or charters of the constituent entities of the Federation.

3. Chapter 31 - crimes against justice - combines 23 articles. The specific object of these crimes is the totality of social relations that develop in a specific type of state activity - the administration of justice. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the only body administering justice is the court. However, the concept of justice as an object of criminal law protection is considered in a broader sense. It also covers the activities of other government bodies that assist the court in considering criminal and civil cases: a) inquiry, b) preliminary investigation, c) executing court decisions that have entered into legal force. The immediate object is the normal activity of the above-mentioned parts of the law enforcement system. A number of criminal law provisions name an additional direct object: health, honor and dignity of the individual, property interests.

In the educational literature, various classifications of the group of crimes under consideration are proposed. In some cases, the traditional criterion for dividing crimes into groups is the characteristics of the target of the attack, the specificity of the interests protected by law. Other authors classify crimes against justice depending on the characteristics of the subject of the crime.

It is preferable to recognize the first classification and, taking into account the characteristics of the immediate object of the crime, divide it into four groups:

1) acts encroaching on the activities for the implementation of the constitutional principles of the administration of justice (Article 294 of the Criminal Code - obstruction of the administration of justice and the conduct of a preliminary investigation; Article 295 - an attack on the life of a person carrying out justice or a preliminary investigation; Article 296 - threat or violent actions in connection with the administration of justice or the conduct of a preliminary investigation; Article 297 - contempt of court; Article 298 - slander against a judge, juror, prosecutor, investigator, person conducting the inquiry, bailiff, bailiff; Article 311 - disclosure of information about security measures applied to judges and participants in criminal proceedings);
2) acts that infringe on the procedural procedure for investigating crimes (Article 299 of the Criminal Code - bringing a knowingly innocent person to criminal liability; Art. 300 - illegal release from criminal liability; Art. 301 - illegal detention, detention or detention guards; Article 302 - coercion to testify; Article 303 - falsification of evidence; Article 304 - provocation of a bribe or commercial bribery; Article 305 - issuance of a knowingly unjust sentence, decision or other judicial act; Article 306 - knowingly false denunciation; Article 307 - knowingly false testimony, expert opinion or incorrect translation; Article 308 - refusal of a witness or victim to testify; Article 309 - bribery or coercion to testify or evade testifying or to incorrect translation; Article 310 of the Criminal Code - disclosure of the preliminary investigation);
3) acts that infringe on the procedure for the execution of legal coercive measures (Article 312 of the Criminal Code - illegal actions in relation to property subject to inventory or arrest or subject to confiscation; Art. 313 - escape from a place of imprisonment, from arrest or from - into custody; Article 314 - evasion of serving imprisonment; Article 315 of the Criminal Code - failure to comply with a court sentence, court decision or other judicial act);
4) acts that impinge on the activities of justice authorities in the timely detection of crimes (Article 316 - concealment of crimes).

The elements of all listed crimes (with the exception of the elements provided for in Article 312 of the Criminal Code) are constructed according to the formal type. Consequently, the objective side is characterized by active actions, less often by inaction, counteracting the legitimate normal activities of the justice authorities (attack on the life of the person administering justice, coercion to testify, refusal to testify, etc.). The crime is considered completed from the moment the acts mentioned in the disposition are committed.

The subjective side of crimes against justice is characterized by direct intent. In many cases, the law uses the term “knowingly” to emphasize the intentional nature of the attacks (bringing a known innocent person to criminal liability, obviously illegal detention, etc.). In some compositions, motive and purpose are named as mandatory features (Articles 294, 295 of the Criminal Code, etc.).

Criminal law presupposes three groups of subjects: a) officials of justice bodies (for example, judge, prosecutor, investigator); b) officials or employees (Articles 312, 315 of the Criminal Code); c) any persons. The age of criminal responsibility is set at 16 years.

Thus, crimes against justice are intentional acts that impinge on the proper functioning of the court, as well as on the activities of bodies assisting the court in solving the problems of justice.

4. Chapter 32 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - crimes against the order of government - combines 16 articles. The specific object consists of social relations that develop in the process of normal management activities of government bodies and local self-government.

The immediate main object of these crimes is the normal activity of individual parts of the administrative apparatus. An additional direct object in most compositions is the person, her life, health, honor and dignity.

Taking into account the characteristics of the immediate object, all crimes can be divided into four groups. The first is acts that harm order through encroachment on government officials or other actions (Article 317 - encroachment on the life of a law enforcement officer; Article 318 - use of violence against a government official; Article 319 - insult to a government official ; Article 320 - disclosure of information about security measures applied to officials of a law enforcement or regulatory agency; Article 321 - disruption of the normal activities of institutions that ensure isolation from society; Article 328 of the Criminal Code - evasion of military or alternative civilian services). The second is acts that encroach on the authority of state power and the inviolability of the State Border of the Russian Federation (Article 322 of the Criminal Code - illegal crossing of the State Border of the Russian Federation; Art. 323 - illegal change of the State Border of the Russian Federation; Art. 329 of the Criminal Code - desecration of the State Emblem of the Russian Federation Federation or the State Flag of the Russian Federation).

Third - acts that infringe on the established procedure for maintaining official documentation (Article 324 of the Criminal Code - acquisition or sale of official documents and state awards; Article 325 - theft or damage to documents, stamps, seals; Article 326 - forgery or destruction vehicle identification number; Article 327 of the Criminal Code - forgery, production or sale of counterfeit documents, state awards, stamps, seals, forms). The fourth is acts that infringe on the established procedure for the exercise of disputed rights (Article 330 of the Criminal Code - arbitrariness). In most of these crimes, the law names the victim, who has special characteristics of a representative of the authorities. In six trains, a mandatory feature is the subject of the crime - official documents, stamps, seals, forms, border markers, the flag and coat of arms of the Russian Federation.

The objective side of crimes against the order of government is characterized by one mandatory feature - an act, since according to the legislative structure they have formal elements.

The subjective side is characterized by a deliberate form of guilt. The motive and purpose in Articles 317, 318, 320 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are also named as mandatory.

The subject of crimes against the order of government is a general individual - a sane individual who has reached 16 years of age. The exception is evasion of military and alternative civil service (Article 328 of the Criminal Code), where a special subject is a person subject to conscription for this service.

The crimes specified in Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are socially dangerous acts committed contrary to the interests of the service using the official position held by the offender and causing or creating an immediate threat of causing significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations, society and the state.

The specific object of these crimes is a set of social relations that ensure the activities of state authorities, local self-government, state and municipal institutions, governing bodies in the Armed Forces and other military formations of the Russian Federation in accordance with the law.

According to the Federal Law of May 27, 2003 No. 58-FZ “On the public service system of the Russian Federation,” public service is defined as the professional official activity of citizens of the Russian Federation to ensure the execution of the powers of the Russian Federation, federal state bodies, constituent entities of the Russian Federation, state bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as persons holding government positions in the Russian Federation and government positions in constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The types of public service are as follows: civil, military and law enforcement. Municipal service is a professional activity that is carried out on a permanent basis in a municipal position that is not elective. The concept of service in local government bodies is broader, as it includes the activities of elected officials.

From the objective side, some of the crimes under consideration are characterized by actions, others - by both actions and inactions, committed with the use of official powers or due to the official position held and contrary to the interests of the service.

A number of crimes are constructed according to the formal type, recognized as completed at the moment of commission of the acts specified in the law, regardless of the actual occurrence of the consequences; the elements of other crimes are material, i.e. they provide as a mandatory feature socially dangerous consequences in the form of a significant violation of rights protected by law interests of the individual, society or state, as well as the causal relationship between a person’s violation (non-fulfillment) of his duties and the harmful consequences that occur.

From the subjective side, all malfeasance, except negligence (Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), is characterized by an intentional form of guilt.

Depending on the specifics of the subject of the crime, all crimes of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are divided into crimes committed by: 1) any persons meeting the criteria of a common subject (Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); 2) civil servants or employees of local government bodies (public servants) who are not officials (Article 288 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); 3) officials (Articles 285-287, 289, 290, 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); 4) officials and public servants who are not officials (Article 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

A civil servant is a citizen of the Russian Federation who performs the duties of a public service for a monetary remuneration paid from the federal budget or from the corresponding budget of a constituent entity of the Federation. A municipal employee is a citizen of the Russian Federation who, in the manner determined by the charter of a municipal entity in accordance with federal laws and the laws of a constituent entity of the Federation, performs duties in a municipal position of a municipal service for monetary remuneration paid from the local budget.

The concept of an official is given in Note 1 to Art. 285

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, from which it follows that officials are recognized as persons who permanently, temporarily or by special authority carry out: a) the functions of a representative of the authorities; b) organizational and administrative functions in state bodies, local government bodies, state and municipal institutions, as well as in the Armed Forces, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation; c) administrative and economic functions in the same bodies, institutions and formations.

Representatives of the authorities. The definition of this category of officials is given in the note to Art. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which a representative of the government is recognized as an official of a law enforcement or regulatory body, as well as another official vested with administrative powers in relation to persons who are not officially dependent on him in accordance with the procedure established by law.

The main feature of a government representative is that he has administrative powers in relation to persons not subordinate to him. Administrative powers are the ability to impose mandatory requirements, impose legal liability measures, or issue regulations containing mandatory rules of conduct and (or) measures of liability for their violations.

Persons performing organizational and administrative functions.

Organizational and administrative functions, in contrast to the functions of a government representative, are, as a general rule, implemented in the sphere of subordination of some persons to others, that is, they are performed by the boss in the process of his relationship with his subordinates. They include, for example, the selection and placement of personnel, the organization of labor and service of subordinates, the maintenance of discipline, the application of incentive measures and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.

Persons performing administrative and economic functions.

Administrative and economic functions mean the authority to manage state or municipal property, to determine its actual and legal prospects. These may include making decisions on the calculation of wages and bonuses, monitoring the movement of material assets, and determining the order of their storage. In particular, these functions are performed by the heads of financial departments of the administration of a particular subject of the Russian Federation or municipal entity and their deputies, heads of economic departments in institutions, etc.

Organizational, administrative and economic functions are carried out in many areas. However, an official is recognized as a person who performs them not everywhere, but only in state bodies, local government bodies, state and municipal institutions, as well as in the Armed Forces, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation. If these functions are carried out in other organizations (commercial or non-profit, which are not a state or municipal institution), then the person may be held liable for committing crimes against the interests of the service in commercial and other organizations (Chapter 23 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

The law states that the functions of all three types indicated above can be carried out permanently, temporarily or under special authority. Permanent exercise of functions presupposes the occupation of a certain position (by election, by appointment), temporary - also the filling of a certain position, but only for its intended purpose and for a certain, usually short period of time, the performance of the listed functions under a special authority means that a person performs certain functions assigned to it by law (trainees of the police, prosecutor's office, etc.), a regulatory act, an order or instruction of a superior official or an authorized body or official. Such functions can be carried out for a certain time or one-time, or combined with the main work (people's assessors and jurors, etc.).

Situations are possible when one person simultaneously performs both purely professional and official functions (organizational and administrative and (or) administrative and economic). For example, the chief physician of a state clinic, on the one hand, receives and treats citizens (like any medical worker), and on the other, manages the professional activities of his subordinate employees (doctors, nurses, etc.). He can bear responsibility for a crime in office only in the second case, when the act is due to the presence of organizational, administrative or administrative functions on the part of the culprit.

In four crimes (Articles 285, 286, 287, 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) there is a qualifying feature related to the special official position of the perpetrator - the commission of a crime by a person holding a public position in the Russian Federation or a public position in a subject of the Russian Federation. In all these crimes, with the exception of those provided for in Art. 287 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, responsibility also increases for heads of local government bodies. Their concept is given in notes 2 and 3 to Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Maintaining

In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, legislative, executive and judicial bodies of state power, as well as local government bodies, function in our country. These bodies exercise public power, i.e. are endowed with the right to make volitional decisions dictated by social needs. Since public power functions for public purposes, and its decisions are generally binding, the constitutions and legislation of each state establish certain frameworks and rules for its implementation. In the most general terms, we can say that the main requirement for public authorities and its bodies is the requirement of legality. Violation of the principle of legality in any form not only significantly complicates the implementation of the tasks of public authorities, but also calls into question its right to make mandatory demands on citizens and monitor their correct implementation, and undermines its authority. Certain violations of the normal functioning of public authorities have such a high degree of public danger that combating them is impossible without the use of criminal repression.

Crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local governments are those provided for in Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code are socially dangerous acts committed contrary to the interests of the public service using the official position held by the offender and causing or creating an immediate threat of causing significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations, society and the state.

Giving a social characteristic to these crimes, it is necessary to note the following. The problem of corruption in Russia and in the world is becoming alarming. Corruption has become widespread in all branches of government; it affects all spheres of society. Crimes committed by public servants using their official position threaten the rule of law, human rights, undermine the moral foundations of society, trust in government, the principles of public administration, equality and social justice. The particular danger of such crimes is due to the fact that they are committed by persons who, by the nature of their activities, are themselves obliged to fight various offenses and ensure law and order in a particular area.

The Russian Federation ranks one of the first in the world in terms of corruption. According to experts, in this regard, Russia is on a par with such states as Colombia, Nigeria and Bolivia. Crimes against state power, the interests of civil service and service in local governments are increasingly being committed in the interests of illegal business and organized crime - the concept of the “iron triangle” has begun to be used in criminology.

In 2008, 20,444 crimes were registered against state power, the interests of civil service and service in local governments, which is 12.7% higher than the 1998 level. In the total array of registered crime, the share of the group of crimes under consideration was 5.4%.

The predicted trends in the dynamics of this type of crime also do not inspire optimism. For example, in the near future, an increase in the activity of large-scale vertical corruption connections is expected, an increase in the number of criminal combinations of state and municipal employees with work in controlled commercial structures, an increase in the participation of officials using their powers in the organization and management of commercial structures, providing them with illegally obtained benefits, use of the position of an official in the ongoing process of privatization of state-owned enterprises in order to acquire real estate and movable property, shares, illegal transfer using the status of an official to commercial organizations of public finances intended for social needs. In this regard, the fight against corruption and other crimes in the area under study remains one of the priorities of criminal policy

During the period of radical restructuring of all spheres of public life, carrying out legal reforms, building a democratic state that meets all the requirements of civil society, and economic development, a very important role belongs to state authorities and administration, as well as local governments. The solution to large-scale problems facing the state largely depends on the functioning of the civil service, the clarity and responsibility of its representatives. In connection with this, crimes among employees themselves in the sphere of government and management pose an increased danger. For a number of reasons, crime has penetrated into many spheres of the socio-political life of society and the state as a whole, including its power structures, the civil service, and local government bodies. A number of representatives of these bodies are affected by corruption, bribery, protectionism and other negative phenomena that disrupt the normal activities of state power.

Recently, the problem of combating corruption has not only attracted close attention from the media and the general population, but has finally become the subject of professional analysis by Russian specialists. When assessing the effectiveness of legal mechanisms aimed at combating corruption, two fundamentally different approaches have emerged. In one case, a so-called narrow understanding has developed, which is viewed primarily from a punitive aspect and provides for the creation of a system of additional restrictions and prohibitions.

The second case involves “soft” methods of struggle, such as, for example, personal politics, organizational and cultural development, as well as certain control mechanisms.

Let us note that in the fight of different states against corruption, both methods are used. Thus, for this purpose, television and radio programs, social campaigns, training courses, information for the public, legal acts, corruption studies, information booklets, amendments to laws, etc. have been developed. In most Western European countries, the laws that regulate anti-corruption activities are similar to a large extent parts. One of the largest fighters for punishing corrupt acts and imposing equivalent penalties for them is the OECD. Their purpose is to ensure the principle that a bribe-taker should not go unpunished in one state if the penalties in a neighboring state are very severe. They are also trying to ensure that all union states have similar requirements for officials. However, there is no clear position on which method of fighting corruption is the most effective. The same methods do not necessarily have to be suitable for different crops.

In principle, the fight against corruption, understood in a narrow sense, is quite adequately regulated by the existing regulatory framework, which only needs some clarification.

The object of the study is the totality of social relations, regulated by legal norms, emerging in the sphere of crimes against state power.

The subject of the research is the legislation of the Russian Federation, judicial practice, and special scientific legal literature.

The purpose of the study is to identify the features and analyze crimes committed against government authorities in order to improve existing legislative norms and law enforcement practice.

The implementation of this goal required solving the following tasks:

consider the history of the development of criminal legislation in the field of crimes against state power;

give a general criminological and criminal legal description of crimes against state power;

analyze the legal composition of these crimes;

identify and analyze types of crimes against government, as well as identify problems associated with such classification;

consider problematic issues of criminal liability within the framework of the topic under study;

During the study, general scientific and special scientific methods of cognition were used: formal legal, logical methods, methods of induction and deduction, and others.

In its structure, the work consists of an introduction, two chapters, six paragraphs, a list of references, and an appendix.

crime government power lesson

1. Retrospective and criminological characteristics of crimes against state power

1.1 History of the development of Russian criminal legislation on liability for crimes against state power

In the criminal legislation of Russia, the institution of crimes against state power acted as the main protection of the political and legal system of the country. The classification of crimes against the state into a separate category can be traced back to the Pskov Judgment Charter and Code of Laws of 1497 and 1550. Let us note that in the Council Code of 1649, this type of crime included an attack on the life, health and power of the king, an uprising against local authorities; in the Military Regulations of 1715 - insulting or condemning the actions and intentions of the emperor and members of his family, creating and distributing writings, appeals, appeals, etc. against the government.

It should be especially noted that state crimes were systematized in the legislation of the 19th – early 20th centuries. So, in 1860–1870. The ongoing reforms in Russia served as the reason for changing, and in some places adding to, the Code in 1885, which contained a section “On crimes and misdemeanors in state and public service,” which covered a significant number of chapters and articles. Let us emphasize the fact that the criminal law doctrine of that time did not yet know the concept of an official; accordingly, it was not used in the Penal Code, and therefore, in each element of official crimes, the subject was defined specifically in relation to the committed act, for example, the perpetrator , official, employee, etc. The section “On crimes and misdemeanors in state and public service” began with a chapter on the responsibility of an employee for failure to comply and/or violation of existing decrees and regulations; the section also contained chapters establishing the responsibility of officials and employees for exceeding their powers; for careless storage, use, embezzlement, misappropriation, shortage of entrusted material assets; for forgery in office. Several articles were devoted to bribery, referred to as bribery and extortion. The elements of receiving a bribe personally by an official or through someone else – bribes and rewards – were presented separately. A bribe committed through extortion varied depending on its motives, conditional cover, etc. The Code also provided for liability for giving a bribe.

In 1903, the Criminal Code was adopted, which also contained a chapter on state crimes, containing 51 elements. However, here one should keep in mind the fact that the mentioned Criminal Code was not in force throughout the entire territory of the Russian Empire, but only in the Baltic states. On the rest of the territory of the Empire, the laws “On rebellion against the Supreme Power” and “On high treason” were applied.

Let us note that the Criminal Code of 1903, part 4 of Art. 636 gave a legislative definition of an employee, indicating that he is any person who bears duties or performs a temporary assignment in a state or public service, as an official, or a policeman, or another guard, or a servant, or a person of a rural or bourgeois administration. The law did not highlight any characteristics of the subject, but placed emphasis on certain types of positions. Thus, Chapter 37 provided for liability for a person committing actions that were not within his competence and not provided by law. Responsibility for these acts was differentiated depending on the form of guilt. A separate provision of the law regulated the provision that such illegal actions cannot be considered an abuse of power when they are committed by an employee in emergency circumstances. However, what exactly is meant by such circumstances is not specified by the law.

The Code also contained several elements of crimes relating to official inaction, to which it included the failure of the perpetrator to take measures to prevent and suppress harm that threatens the order of government or the official, public interest; failure by the perpetrator to take measures to promulgate, announce or put into effect a law or other Highest command or mandatory resolution; failure to inform your superiors about the receipt of incoming paper, if this resulted in significant harm to the management order; failure to report, contrary to duty, to your superiors, police or judicial authorities about serious crimes committed; and some others. In the same section, independent elements were established, which, in relation to modern criminal legislation, characterize crimes against the order of government and justice.

Responsibility for bribery was contained in two articles of the Code, one of which provided for liability for accepting a bribe-bribery, and the other for giving a bribe-reward. The same article established liability for extorting a bribe. Note that the law also established liability for such an action as mediation in the transfer of a bribe.

As is known, in the period from 1917 to 1922, the criminal legislation of Russia was not codified, and the sources of criminal law were government appeals to the population, various decrees issued by the authorities, etc., which contained indications of certain types of official crimes without definition characteristics of their compositions. For the first time, malfeasance was mentioned in Art. 8 of the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of November 24, 1917 “On the Court”, according to which cases of abuses by officials were referred to the competence of workers' and peasants' revolutionary tribunals.

During the existence of the USSR, state crimes were understood as socially dangerous acts that were directed against the foundations of the Soviet system or the foundations of its governance and economic power. In accordance with the provisions on state crimes, approved by the Central Executive Committee of the USSR in 1927, two main groups of the considered institution of crimes were distinguished: counter-revolutionary crimes and crimes against the order of government in the USSR. Subsequently, the law on state crimes of 1958 was introduced, which was reproduced in the criminal codes of the union republics. Let us note that the Criminal Code of the RSFSR divided crimes against state power into especially dangerous and others.

The next stage in the development of legislation on crimes against state power is already reflected in the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which contains a special section “Crimes against state power”, classifying such acts into:

Thus, as a result of the issues discussed in this paragraph, it should be noted:

1. In the history of Russian legislation, one of the first mentions of criminal liability for official crimes is found in the Pskov Judgment Charter and Code of Laws of 1497 and 1550.

2. In the course of further development, the content of the norms providing for criminal liability for crimes against state power has changed several times.

3. In the development of legislation on state crimes, the following stages can be distinguished:

5. Currently, the degree of public danger of crimes against state power is, among other things, determined by:

– the fact that the normal functioning of society and the state as a whole largely depends on the law-based, purposeful and high-quality activities of the state apparatus;

– the nature and severity of the consequences;

– justified anxiety of citizens, the creation of an atmosphere of psychological tension, which is reflected, first of all, in the attitude of society towards the activities of government bodies.

1.2 Criminological characteristics of crimes against state power

In recent years, there has been an extremely high degree of corruption in the sphere of government, civil service and service in local government bodies by corruption and other types of criminal acts. This is recognized not only by the media, government and public figures, but also by all segments of the Russian population. The urgency of the problem of criminal legal counteraction to further negative development of the situation in the area under consideration lies primarily in the fact that, firstly, this area, like any other area of social activity, is subject to criminal attacks, from which it needs protection, and secondly , this is an area of activity whose state significantly reduces or increases the criminogenicity of society as a whole, actively influences the dynamics, structure and level of crime; thirdly, the system of state power is the main subject of the fight against crime, ensuring the law enforcement function of the state.

It should be noted that at a meeting of the Federation Council, the Prosecutor General noted a significant increase in the number of crimes against government in 2008. More than 28 thousand such crimes were recorded last year. According to the report of the Prosecutor General, recently there has been an increase in the number of offenses committed by law enforcement officers, and the number of cases of bribery has doubled.

The current criminal legislation does not contain a definition of crimes against state power or the interests of public service.

In the previously effective criminal law of Russia, the group of acts in question was called official crimes, i.e. criminal attacks committed by officials in connection with their official position. Malfeasance may include abuse of official powers, exceeding official powers, refusal to provide information to the Federal Assembly or the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, illegal participation in business activities, taking a bribe, and negligence.

At the same time, the commission of official forgery is provided for both by an official and by another civil servant or employee of a local government body. The assignment of the powers of an official can only be committed by a civil servant or an employee of a local government body who is not an official; giving a bribe is committed by a common subject.

In note 4 to Art. 285 of the Criminal Code explains that civil servants and employees of local self-government bodies who are not classified as officials bear criminal liability under the articles of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code in cases specifically provided for by the relevant articles.

The above wording equates, as an exception, certain acts of non-officials provided for in Art. 292, 288 of the Criminal Code, to official crimes. Consequently, the crimes included in Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government bodies include both official crimes and, as an exception, acts equated to them by civil servants and employees of local government bodies who are not officials, as well as acts committed by other persons. Based on the foregoing, crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government bodies should be understood as a group of criminal acts that encroach on the exercise of state power, public service and service in local government bodies, committed by officials in connection with their official position , as well as in exceptional cases provided for by criminal law, civil servants and employees of local government bodies who are not officials, or other persons.

Let us note that the majority of persons who have committed crimes in this area are characterized by premeditated intent. So, for example, when receiving a bribe, the person receiving such a bribe finds himself in conditions of choice when there is a possibility of finding himself in unfavorable conditions.

According to Art. 12 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in Russia local self-government is recognized and guaranteed, which is exercised independently within the limits of its powers.
In accordance with the Federal Law “On the Fundamentals of the Civil Service of the Russian Federation” of July 31, 1995, civil service is understood as professional activity to ensure the execution of the powers of state bodies.

The public service includes: 1) the federal public service, which is under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation; 2) the civil service of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which is under their jurisdiction.

The functions of the civil service are carried out by civil servants, who are recognized as citizens of the Russian Federation, performing, in the manner established by federal law, the duties of the civil service for monetary remuneration, which is paid from the federal budget or the budget of the corresponding constituent entity of the Russian Federation. Only citizens of the Russian Federation who have reached the age of eighteen have the right to enter the civil service.

In accordance with the Federal Law “On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation,” local self-government bodies are elected and other bodies empowered to resolve issues of local importance and not included in the system of government bodies. The law recognizes as issues of local importance issues of direct support for the livelihoods of the population of a municipality, classified as such by its charter.

According to the Federal Law “On the Fundamentals of Municipal Service in the Russian Federation” of January 8, 1998 2, municipal service is understood as paid professional activity to ensure the powers of local government bodies, which is carried out by municipal employees.

It should be noted that at present, special attention is paid to the classification of various categories in scientific research. This is explained by the fact that they serve as one of the most frequently used legal and technical techniques in law. Classification makes it possible to identify certain phenomena according to various distinctive features, establish their characteristics, signs, functional orientation, and expand the boundaries of knowledge. All this contributes to their deep and comprehensive research.

Indeed, in order to fully, comprehensively and objectively present any system, they use such a scientific method as the classification of its constituent elements. The criminal law institution of crimes against state power is no exception. In this case, one of the most important aspects of its in-depth study is the problem of classification. Using the classification, not only does the classification reflect the characteristics of all four chapters included in Section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Crimes against state power”, their diversity, the features of each of them, but also reveals the issues of improving law enforcement practice, since each object under consideration receives a certain assessment. According to the famous Russian scientist S.V. Poznyshev’s classification as a technical and legal technique has a dual meaning for a scientific researcher: from the external side, it is a technique that introduces system and order into the study; from the internal side, this is a technique that determines the completeness and correctness of the study conclusions.

The legislator, based on the democratic principles of criminal law and the reassessment of priorities in this regard, as well as the generic object of the group of crimes in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, included four chapters:

crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and state security;

crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local governments;

crimes against justice;

crimes against the order of government.

Thus, the main criterion for criminal legal protection and the basis for classification are social relations that ensure the stability of the state, the normal, legally regulated functioning of state power and its individual components: institutions and bodies.

Let us note that the criminal law provisions included in this section provide for liability for socially dangerous acts that encroach on the legally regulated activities of government bodies, state and local self-government, involve causing harm, or jeopardize harm to the rights and legitimate interests of society and the state, or that could undermine their authority, as well as violate the rights and interests of citizens.

Before proceeding to consider the problem of classifying crimes against state power, it is necessary to formulate the following definition of crimes against state power. Crimes against state power should be understood as deliberately committed socially dangerous acts aimed at undermining the foundations of the constitutional order and weakening state power in the form of legislative, executive and judicial bodies.

Section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation begins with Chapter 29, which provides for liability for committing crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state. The foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation are regulated in Chapter 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which enshrines the initial principles of the constitutional system, economic relations, and the political system of society; they are priority, basic, defining legal provisions that allow, as stated above, to ensure the normal functioning of state power.

The social danger of crimes against the foundations of the constitutional system and the security of the state is that they undermine the constitutional system, the socio-economic and political-legal system of the state, its security, internal and external stability, weaken the protection of vital benefits and interests of the individual, society from emanating threats.

Thus, the specific object of these crimes is the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state. The main immediate object is specific social relations, which are encroached upon by the corresponding crimes of the chapter under consideration, causing them damage and harm. The scientific and educational literature offers various classifications of crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and state security.

So, A.I. Rarog, depending on the direct object, classifies the group of crimes under consideration into types of crimes against:

political system of the Russian Federation;

economic security and defense capability of the Russian Federation;

the constitutional principle of prohibiting propaganda or agitation that incites social, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity;

preservation of state secrets.

Based on the direct object of A.V. Naumov proposed to classify all crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state as crimes against:

external security of the Russian Federation;

legitimacy of state power;

political diversity and multi-party system;

economic security and defense capability of the Russian Federation;

constitutional ban on inciting racial, national and religious hatred.

The classification proposed by the scientific community was subjected to strict criticism by S.V. Dyakov believes that such a classification is vulnerable for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it does not show a single basis for classification, without which it loses scientific clarity.

Secondly, the crimes provided for in paragraph 2 do not infringe on the legitimacy of state power, but on the internal security or political system of the Russian Federation.

S.V. does not agree. Dyakov and classifying the disclosure of state secrets and the loss of documents containing state secrets as crimes encroaching on economic security and defense capability, since state secrets occur not only in the spheres of economics and defense. In our opinion, we can agree with the proposals made regarding the inclusion of state secrets in this group, based on the fact that state secrets also form other areas of interest protected by the state.

It should be noted that researchers consider it justified to include crimes that infringe on the safety of state secrets in a separate group. In this case, their separation into a separate independent group will occur due to crimes that encroach on external security, economic, and defense capability. According to scientists, this will not contradict the basic principles of classification, based on its certain convention and relativity, although in some cases this convention may acquire the character of necessity and inevitability. For example, in cases of transition from one classification basis to another, or when one classification basis is included in the content of several subjects.

According to S.V. Borodin’s general classification of state crimes can be presented as crimes encroaching on:

external security;

on internal security;

to economic security.

Proposed by S.V. Borodin’s classification also did not solve the problem of attributing Art. 283 and Art. 284 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation into this group, moreover, it complicated it. In scientific and educational legal literature, proposals have been made to place Art. 283 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Disclosure of state secrets” and Art. 284 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Loss of documents containing state secrets” in Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government, based on the specific object of interest of the service.

So, according to Professor N.F. Kuznetsova to equate high treason with the careless loss of documents containing state secrets means to deviate from the criteria for structuring the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation according to generic and specific objects.

A.V. Naumov his disagreement with S.V. Dyakov also speaks out about the replacement of internal security or the political system of the Russian Federation with the legitimacy of state power, arguing that there are no contradictions between these objects, they coincide in their content.

V.V. Lunev, in turn, divides all state crimes into two large groups of crimes: against the foundations of the constitutional system and against the external security of the state.

N.I. Vetrov classifies all crimes in the category under consideration by type.

A.S. Gorelik, depending on the more specific objects of encroachment, identifies crimes that encroach on: external security; on the foundations of the constitutional order and internal security; constitutional foundations of national, legal and religious relations; preservation of state secrets.

We emphasize that in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely in the chapter on crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state, Federal Law of December 8, 2003 No. 162-FZ introduced fundamental changes, which led to a significant transformation of the objective side of the crime provided for in Art. 280 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in addition to this, the legislator also included two new articles in it, Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Thus, in connection with legislative amendments, the need arises to formulate a classification of the crimes in question. The authors propose to classify the crimes included by the legislator in Chapter 29 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as follows: crimes encroaching on external security; crimes encroaching on internal security; crimes that infringe on the constitutional foundations of national, legal and religious relations.

Note that the legislator included 11 articles in Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation containing a description of the signs of crimes committed by a special category of subjects - officials.

The social danger of the analyzed crimes lies in the fact that as a result of their commission, the normative, legally regulated activities of the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, as well as local government bodies, are violated.

Crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government bodies should be understood as intentional or careless socially dangerous acts that encroach on public relations, regulating the normal, legally regulated activities of the public administration apparatus, committed by officials in connection with the exercise of their official powers , as well as in exceptional cases provided for by criminal law, civil servants and employees of local government bodies who are not classified as officials, or other persons causing significant harm to state and public interests, the interests of the civil service or service in local government bodies or protected by law rights and interests of individual citizens, or containing a real threat of causing such harm.

The formulated definition reflects the three most significant features characteristic of all malfeasance:

encroachment on the same species object;

committed only by a special subject - an official;

committed using official authority or due to one’s official position.

We emphasize that it is the totality of these signs that constitutes the content of official crime.

Taking into account qualified types, this chapter contains a description of 25 elements of malfeasance. Based on the legislative provisions enshrined in Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the group of crimes under consideration can be classified into: crimes of minor gravity, moderate gravity, grave, especially grave.

In theory and practice, there has still not been a consensus on the nature of the relationship between official assaults and other crimes committed by officials and civil servants. Of interest is the classification of crimes depending on the criminal legal status of the subject. All of them are divided into three groups:

general malfeasance that can be committed in any field of activity of the state apparatus and local government bodies and responsibility for which is provided for by the norms of this chapter;

special malfeasance that can be committed by persons in certain levels and areas of activity of the state apparatus and local government bodies and only by officials endowed with special characteristics;

alternative official crimes that can be committed by both officials and private individuals.

The legislator proposed to classify all crimes of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, based on the subject, into four groups:

committed only by officials, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290, 293 of the Criminal Code);

committed by officials, civil servants and employees of municipal bodies;

committed by employees of state and municipal bodies;

committed by a common subject.

Let us note that Chapter 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Crimes against justice” includes 23 articles containing a description of 48 offenses.

The social danger of crimes against justice is that they violate the rights and freedoms of man and citizen guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and cause irreparable damage to the interests of justice, law and order, society and the state.

A crime against justice is an intentional, socially dangerous illegal act prohibited by criminal law, encroaching on public relations in the sphere of administration of justice, committed by officials of these bodies and other persons called upon to ensure or facilitate the implementation of the tasks and goals of this activity.

In scientific and educational legal literature, scientists offer various grounds for classifying crimes against justice.

At the same time, there are several approaches to the classification of these crimes: according to the subject of the crime, based on the direct object, according to the similarity of signs of the objective side, as well as based on their object of encroachment.

Regarding the subject of the crime, all elements are against the order of justice Sh.S. Rashkovskaya divided into two groups:

against justice, committed by officials - employees of the bodies of inquiry, investigation, prosecutor's office, judges;

against justice committed by other persons.

VC. Glistin, in turn, distinguished three groups:

crimes committed by officials of the bodies of inquiry, investigation, prosecutor's office and court;

crimes committed by private individuals involved in the administration of justice;

crimes that constitute evasion from serving a sentence.

The classification proposed by Yu.A. would be quite appropriate. Krasikov. According to the subject of the crime, he divides crimes against justice into those committed by officials of the court, investigation, inquiry and prosecutor's office and all other crimes against justice.

According to M.N. Golodnyuk, the most successful is the classification of crimes against justice according to the direct object, since it reflects those social relations to which certain groups of these crimes cause harm. According to the direct object of crimes against justice, it differentiates as follows: those that encroach on the life, health, honor and dignity of persons administering justice; preventing law enforcement officials from fulfilling their duties to implement the goals and objectives of justice; committed in the course of the administration of justice by officials; preventing the execution of punishment or compensation for damage caused by a crime.

It seems that the proposed classification is inconsistent: the classification is based on, firstly, various criteria that integrate acts on the basis of a special subject); secondly, a broad formulation of the concept of persons administering justice.

According to A.S. Gorelik’s classification of crimes against justice should also be based on specific types of relationships that constitute the normal work of the justice system. Based on this, he proposes the following classification system of crimes against justice in the field:

ensuring the independence of judges and protecting their personal safety, honor and dignity;

proper administration of justice by justice officials;

fulfillment by citizens of obligations to promote or not interfere with the administration of justice;

execution of sentences, decisions and other acts of justice authorities.

In Chapter 32, “Crimes against administrative order,” the legislator included 16 articles containing a description of 30 crimes. The social danger of crimes against the order of management lies in the fact that crimes of this group counteract the normal legislative regulation of the activities of state authorities and local self-government, undermine the foundations of management activities, destabilize the work of law enforcement agencies, disorganize the activities of criminal executive bodies, and weaken the established regime of the state border.

Crimes against the order of management must be understood as socially dangerous acts committed guilty of guilt, encroaching on normal management activities and causing harm or threatening harm to protected relations.

A fairly extensive domestic literature is devoted to the legal analysis of crimes against administrative procedures. If we turn to the analysis of specific criminal law elements included in the chapter under consideration in the educational and scientific literature, we can find various classifications.

For example, Yu.Yu. Byshevsky classifies crimes against justice that encroach on: the authority of state power; normal activities of state authorities and local governments; the established procedure for maintaining, using, and circulating official documentation; inviolability of the state border.

A.V. Kladkov, depending on the direct object of the crime against the management order, divides into the following types:

attacks on government officials and other persons in connection with the management activities of government bodies;

encroachments on the inviolability of the state border of the Russian Federation;

encroachments on the procedure for circulation of official documents and state awards;

encroachments on the procedure for conscription into military and alternative civilian service;

infringements on the procedure for exercising the disputed rights.

We believe that, based on the direct object, crimes against management can be classified into the following three groups of crimes:

It seems that the proposed classification of crimes against management is the most preferable, since it allows us to take into account the peculiarities of the crimes included by the legislator in Chapter 32 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, their legal nature, and the mechanism of causing harm to relationships that develop in the process of making management decisions.

Thus, as a result of the criminological characteristics of crimes against state power, the following should be noted.

1. During the period of reform of the Russian economy, the number of registered crimes against state power is expressed in the following figures. Thus, in 2008, 20,444 crimes were registered against state power, the interests of civil service and service in local governments, which is 12.7% higher than the 1998 level. In the total array of registered crime, the share of the group of crimes under consideration was 5.4%. During the period 1998–2008 in total, the total number of identified crimes against justice was 39,394, the number of identified persons who committed crimes was 24,861. The number of crimes against justice of special subjects for the same period was equal to 1,875, and the number of identified special subjects was 951.

2. A study of the personality of the criminal who commits a crime against state power has shown that this crime is in the overwhelming majority of cases committed by men and women. The educational level of persons who committed a crime against state power indicates an increase in the number of convicts with higher and secondary specialized education.

3. Researchers see the reasons for the increase in the number of crimes against state power in economic, social and moral changes, permissiveness and lack of control, in the forgetting of traditions and a false understanding of the democratic principles of community life. And also that the centralized system is opposed by a hidden, secret and experienced force, which gradually grows into official institutions and organizations, paralyzing their activities or subordinating them to itself.

So, the analysis of regulations and published literature concerning the retrospective and criminological characteristics of crimes against state power allows us to formulate the following conclusions:

the first stage, enshrined in Codes of Law of 1497 and 1550,

the second stage was reflected in the legislation of the late 19th – early 20th centuries,

the third stage is expressed by decrees and regulations of the authorities,

fourth stage – consolidation of crimes against state power in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR,

the fifth stage is the reflection of this type of crime in the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Crimes of this kind undermine the foundations of power and governance, discredit and undermine their authority in the eyes of the population, infringe on the constitutional rights and interests of citizens, destroy democratic foundations and the rule of law, distort the principles of legality, and impede the implementation of socio-economic reforms in society.

6. Most crimes against government in the Russian Federation are committed by men and women. The educational level of persons who committed a crime against state power indicates an increase in the number of convicts with higher and secondary specialized education. For the majority of persons who have committed crimes in this area, premeditated intent is characteristic.

2. Modern legal regulation of criminal liability for crimes against state power

2.1 General characteristics of crimes against state power

Crimes against state power, the interests of civil service and service in local governments are traditionally called malfeasance and represent a criminal legal manifestation of corruption. Being a multifaceted, socially complex and largely objectively determined phenomenon, corruption from the point of view of legal regulation requires an integrated approach, within which measures of criminal law should occupy a leading, but not the only role. The dangers of corruption are succinctly described in the preamble of the European Convention, which notes that corruption threatens the rule of law, democracy and human rights, undermines the foundations of good governance, violates the principles of equality and social justice, impedes economic development and threatens the stability of democratic interests and the moral fiber of society. Let us note that our country ranks one of the first in the world in terms of the level of corruption: according to some estimates, in this regard Russia is on a par with countries such as Colombia.

In this paragraph we will consider some of the crimes related to attacks on state power. Unfortunately, within the framework of this work it is not possible to analyze all the elements of crimes related to the problem under study, so we will focus only on some of them.

Let us note that the norms of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are devoted to establishing the criminality and punishability of acts that constitute violations of the normal activities of public authority and its bodies. These violations are committed internally, i.e. by the subjects of power themselves, therefore they have an increased danger.

Crimes against public service and service in local government bodies are socially dangerous acts provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, committed contrary to the interests of the public service using the offender’s official position or associated with failure to fulfill his official duties, which creates a direct threat to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, organizations, society and states.

The specific object of these crimes is the totality of social relations that ensure correct, i.e. the activities of the public apparatus in accordance with the law - state authorities, local governments, state and municipal institutions, as well as governing bodies in the Armed Forces.

The title of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers to the direction of these crimes against state power, the interests of the civil service and service in local governments. Let us note that in accordance with Federal Law No. 58-FZ dated May 27, 2003 “On the public service system of the Russian Federation,” public service is the professional service activity of citizens of the Russian Federation to ensure the execution of the powers of the Russian Federation, federal government bodies of the Russian Federation, as well as persons holding government positions in the Russian Federation.

The direct object of the crimes under consideration are social relations that develop regarding the provision of individual components of the proper functioning of the public apparatus of power.

Note that from the objective side, some of the crimes under consideration are characterized by actions, others - by both actions and inaction. Thus, only in the form of action can crimes such as bribery and abuse of power be committed. Crimes such as refusal to provide information to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation or the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, negligence can also be committed by inaction.

When characterizing an action or inaction as a sign of the objective side of an official crime, it should be noted that it:

is associated with the official or other activities of a person of public importance and in this sense is performed alternatively;

carried out contrary to the interests of the service.

The essence of the first sign is that the very possibility of committing acts specified in the law is determined by the competence of the perpetrator or the significance and authority of the position he occupies. In other words, when committing a crime, the perpetrator uses the opportunities actually available to him due to his official position. Thus, an action as a sign of an objective party may formally be within the competence of the perpetrator or follow from it, be associated with it.

The second sign indicates that the culprit is using his official position not in the interests of the public service, but contrary to them. In other words, the special opportunities provided to the perpetrator to ensure public interests are used by him for purposes that are contrary to these interests, as a result of which a real threat of harm is caused or created.

Depending on the specifics of the subject, all crimes against state power can be divided into types:

crimes committed by any persons meeting the criteria of a common subject;

crimes committed by civil servants or employees of local government bodies who are not officials;

crimes committed by officials;

crimes committed by both public officials and public servants.

As a result of the issues discussed in this paragraph, the following should be noted:

– the norms of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are devoted to establishing the crime and punishability of acts that constitute violations of the normal activities of public authority and its bodies;

– due to the limited scope of this work, it seems advisable to consider and analyze only some specific types of crimes against state power.

2.2 Types of crimes against state power and problematic issues of their qualification

Within the framework of this work, it is not possible to analyze all the elements of crimes related to the problem under study, so we will focus only on some of them.

According to the law, high treason can be committed in three forms: a) espionage; b) issuance of state secrets: c) other provision of assistance to a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives in carrying out hostile activities to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation.

The concept of espionage will be considered when analyzing the crime, liability for which is provided for in Art. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The issuance of state secrets means oral or written communication, as well as communication made by other means and means, to a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives of information constituting a state secret. In accordance with Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1993 No. 5485-1 “On State Secrets”, state secrets are information protected by the state in the field of its military, foreign policy, economic, intelligence, counterintelligence and operational investigative activities, the dissemination of which could harm the security of the Russian Federation.

Information constituting a state secret is recorded on certain media, which include material objects, including physical fields. Fixation is carried out in the form of symbols, images, signals, technical solutions and processes. Carriers of information constituting state secrets have details indicating the degree of secrecy of this information. The degree of secrecy must correspond to the severity of the damage that may be caused to the security of the Russian Federation as a result of the dissemination of this information. The Government of the Russian Federation approved the Rules for classifying information constituting state secrets to various degrees of secrecy dated September 4, 1995 No. 870, according to which the specified information is divided into:

1) information of special importance is information in the field of military, foreign policy, economic, scientific and technical, intelligence, counterintelligence and operational investigative activities, the dissemination of which could harm the interests of the Russian Federation in one or more of the listed areas;

2) top secret information is information in the listed areas, the dissemination of which could harm the interests of the ministry or sectors of the economy of the Russian Federation;

3) secret information is information the dissemination of which could harm the interests of enterprises, institutions or organizations in the same areas.

The crime of issuing information constituting a state secret is considered completed from the moment of actual communication of the state secret to representatives of a foreign state or foreign organization.

Other provision of assistance involves the commission of various actions that are not covered by previous forms of high treason and are aimed at assisting a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives in carrying out hostile activities to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation. The crime constituting this form of high treason is considered completed from the moment of commission of any action to assist a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives in carrying out this activity.

It should be borne in mind that high treason is committed in favor of a foreign state, a foreign organization or their representatives. A foreign organization can be either state or non-state. Representatives of a foreign state and a foreign organization are their officials.

The subjective side is characterized by direct intent. A mandatory feature is the goal – causing damage to the external security of the Russian Federation. Motives for high treason do not affect qualifications.

The subject of the crime, with the exception of such a form as extradition, is general. The subject of extradition is a special one, this is a citizen of the Russian Federation who possesses information constituting a state secret in connection with his official activities or work, and also received this information under other circumstances.

In accordance with the note, a person who has committed crimes, liability for which is established in Art. 275, 276, 278 of the Criminal Code, is exempt from criminal liability if it voluntarily and timely reported to the authorities or otherwise contributed to the prevention of further damage to the interests of the Russian Federation and if its actions do not contain other elements of the crime.

Espionage is defined as the transfer, as well as the collection, theft or storage for the purpose of transferring to a foreign state, a foreign organization or their representatives, information constituting a state secret, as well as the transfer or collection on the instructions of foreign intelligence of other information for use to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation.

The main object of espionage is external security as a state of security of sovereignty, territorial integrity and defense capability from external influence.

The subject of this crime is information of two categories: firstly, it is information constituting a state secret; secondly, this is other information that is collected on the instructions of foreign intelligence and can be used to harm the external security of the Russian Federation.

Depending on the content of the subject of the crime, two types of espionage are distinguished: a) the subject of the first is information constituting a state secret; b) the subject of the second is other information collected on the instructions of foreign intelligence and intended to be used to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation.

The objective side of the first type of espionage is the commission of active actions in the form of transfer, collection, theft of information, storage of state secrets. Collection is the acquisition of information by any means, carried out without removing objects or documents from the possession of their owners or holders. All methods of collecting information can be divided into two groups: a) personal observation, i.e. obtaining information from surrounding objects of reality; b) agent method - obtaining information from people who have such information. Theft involves the illegal removal of information from its owner. Confiscation can be secret or open, with the use of deception or violence, when documents and objects are confiscated not temporarily, but forever, for transfer to the recipients specified in the law.

Collected or stolen information is usually stored until transferred to a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives. From the objective side, storage means, firstly, that information constituting a state secret, previously collected or stolen by the perpetrator, is stored in a certain place until it is transferred, and secondly, that the perpetrator himself did not directly collect or steal this information, but it is transferred to him other persons for subsequent transfer to certain entities, and thirdly, a situation is possible where the perpetrator stores information collected and stolen by another person with subsequent return to the same person. Thus, the storage of information constituting a state secret, as a form of action during espionage, can have three types: a) a person stores information collected or stolen by himself for the purpose of transfer to a foreign state, foreign organization, or their representatives; b) the person himself did not collect or steal information, but received it for the purpose of transferring it to the addressee; c) storage of information collected by another person, with subsequent return to the same person. In this case, the perpetrator will be held liable for complicity in espionage, provided that he was aware of the nature of the information stored, the purpose pursued by the person who collected it, and promised in advance to hide the items obtained by criminal means containing this information.

The main goal that the perpetrator strives for when collecting, stealing or storing information constituting state secrets is to transfer them to specific recipients. Transfer should be understood as the communication of information constituting a state secret to a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives. In this case, the message can be carried out not only orally, but also by, for example, showing any documents or objects, as well as using hiding places, postal correspondence, and radio communications. The information transmitted may be collected or stolen by the perpetrator himself, or may be received from other persons. The transfer can be carried out personally or through intermediaries. Moreover, if the intermediary is aware of the nature of the information being transmitted and the status of the recipient, then he is responsible for complicity in espionage.

The objective side of the second type of espionage involves actions in the form of collecting and transmitting other information. The legislator does not provide for such forms of action as theft and storage, since this information is open and can be obtained from a variety of sources: official publications of scientific and technical literature, periodicals: at official symposiums, conferences; by sending requests to various organizations, surveys, etc. Other information may also be collected through personal observation.

The transfer or collection of other information is punishable if these actions are carried out on the instructions of foreign intelligence with the aim of using them to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation, i.e. in this case, the existence of two signs is assumed: the presence of a foreign intelligence mission and the goal of causing damage to the external security of the Russian Federation.

Espionage is a formal crime. It is worth noting that an action such as storage is ongoing, i.e. it is characterized by the continuous implementation of the elements of this act.

The subjective side of espionage is characterized by guilt in the form of direct intent. In addition, the second form of espionage is characterized by a special goal - to cause damage to the external security of the Russian Federation, and the very collection, theft or storage of information constituting state secrets is carried out for the purpose of transferring it.

The subject of espionage can be foreign citizens and stateless persons who have reached the age of 16 years.

Note that if a citizen of the Russian Federation acts as an organizer, instigator or accomplice of espionage, liability for which is provided for in Art. 276 of the Criminal Code, his actions are qualified as high treason in the form of other assistance to a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives in carrying out hostile activities to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation.

In relation to the group of crimes that encroach on the foundations of the political system, the legitimacy of state power is understood, i.e. the constitutional basis of its functioning, as well as the unhindered exercise of their political functions by state and public figures. This group of crimes includes acts provided for in Art. 277–279 CC.

Encroachment on the life of a statesman or public figure. The direct object of this crime is not only the foundations of the political system of the Russian Federation, but also the life of a statesman or public figure.

The victim in the commission of the crime in question can only be a state or public figure. Government officials include heads and other officials of the highest bodies of legislative, executive, judicial power and the prosecutor's office both at the federal level and at the level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Public figures are understood as leaders and active functionaries of political parties, social movements, foundations, trade unions and other unions at the federal or regional levels.

The objective side of the crime is an attack on the life of a statesman or public figure. This concept in relation to an attempt on life was explained by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR in a resolution dated September 22, 1989: “An attempt on life should be considered murder or attempted murder…. The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR gave the same interpretation to the concept of encroachment on life in its resolution dated September 24, 1991.

The composition of a terrorist act is a formal, completed crime; it is recognized from the moment of committing socially dangerous actions aimed at depriving the victim of life, but the actual causing of his death is covered by the elements of the crime in question and does not change the legal essence of the act.

The subjective side of a crime is characterized by direct intent, a special purpose or a special motive. If the murder of a statesman or public figure was committed for a different purpose or for reasons other than those specified in the disposition of Art. 277 of the Criminal Code, the act is qualified under Art. 105 of the Criminal Code.

The subject of a terrorist act is a person who has reached the age of 16 years. If this act was committed by a person between the ages of 14 and 16, then liability arises under paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code.

Forcible seizure of power or forcible retention of power. The direct object of the crime is the foundations of the political system of the Russian Federation in terms of the legitimacy of state power, the constitutional order of establishment and functioning of state power and its bodies. An additional object is the health, bodily integrity, honor and dignity of persons affected by violent acts.

The objective side of the crime can be expressed in actions aimed at forcibly seizing power, or forcibly retaining power in violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, or forcibly changing the constitutional system of the Russian Federation.

Actions aimed at the violent seizure of power mean an attempt in an unconstitutional way for specific individuals, political parties, movements and other political forces to come to power in the Russian Federation or its constituent entities without changing the constitutional system in the country. Violence as an unconstitutional way to seize power or retain it may consist, for example, in detention, internment, forced physical isolation, physical humiliation, beatings, harm to the health of persons representing authorities formed in accordance with the Constitution and laws of Russia.

Actions aimed at forcibly retaining power are a refusal to cede power contrary to the results of an election, referendum or other legal act based on the Constitution of the Russian Federation, combined with the use of violence against representatives of political forces to whom, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, state power should pass. Violence during an unconstitutional attempt to retain power is no different in content from violence during an unconstitutional attempt to seize power.

The most dangerous type of crime under analysis are actions aimed at forcibly changing the constitutional system of the Russian Federation. They consist of violent actions aimed at changing the social system, political system, government structure or the main political institutions of the Russian Federation and forming a new system of authorities.

The most extreme form of violence is the use of weapons. But if it takes the form of an armed rebellion for the purpose of overthrowing or forcibly changing the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, then the act is fully covered by the elements of an armed rebellion and does not require additional qualifications under Art. 278 of the Criminal Code, since these goals are also provided for in Art. 27.8, and in Art. 279 CC. If the rebellion pursues the goal of seizing power, which goes beyond the scope of Art. 279 of the Criminal Code, and at the same time the goal of violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, which is not covered by the crime described in Art. 278 of the Criminal Code, then it should be qualified according to the totality of Art. 278 and 279 of the Criminal Code.

The corpus delicti is formal. Such a crime is considered completed from the moment of committing actions aimed at the violent seizure of power, or the forcible retention of power, or the forcible change of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, regardless of whether the perpetrators succeeded in carrying out their criminal plans.

If, in the process of using violence, death is caused to a person, it is not covered by this crime and requires additional qualification under Art. 277, 317 or 105 of the Criminal Code.

The subjective side of the crime is characterized by direct intent and a special purpose - an unconstitutional seizure of power, an unconstitutional retention of power or a change in the constitutional system of the Russian Federation by force.

The subject of the crime is a person who has reached the age of 16 years. In case of forcible retention of power, there is a special subject: a representative of government bodies formed in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but obliged in accordance with it to transfer state power to political forces that came to power through constitutional means.

Armed rebellion. The direct object of the crime is the foundations of the political system of the Russian Federation in terms of the inviolability of the foundations of the constitutional system and the territorial integrity of Russia.

The objective side of the crime is characterized as the organization of an armed rebellion or active participation in it.

Rebellion is defined as “a spontaneous uprising, an armed uprising against the authorities,” as “indignation, confusion, insurrection, popular unrest, sedition, riot, conspiracy in practice, general disobedience.” But in the sense of Art. 279 of the Criminal Code, rebellion is understood not as a spontaneous uprising, but as a provoked, organized armed uprising against the legitimate authority, constitutional order and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.

Organizing an armed rebellion is various actions aimed at provoking an armed uprising against the legitimate authorities in the Russian Federation. They may consist, in particular, of promoting an armed rebellion, recruiting its participants, supplying the rebels with weapons, military equipment, planning armed operations and other actions to provide ideological, material or organizational support for the rebellion.

Active participation in an armed rebellion means, jointly with other participants in the rebellion, committing violent acts with the use or attempted use of weapons aimed at achieving the goals of the rebellion. However, intentionally causing death through the use of violence is not covered by this crime and is subject to additional qualification under Art. 105 of the Criminal Code, and if the victims are government or public figures or law enforcement officers, then under Art. 277, 295 go art. 317 CC.

The legislator, describing two forms of this crime - organizing a rebellion and active participation in it - in both cases implies the real action of the rebels. Therefore, an armed rebellion in the form of its organization should be recognized as a completed crime from the moment of the first armed uprising of the rebels. If the actions of the organizer did not actually lead to armed uprisings against the legitimate government, they should be qualified as preparation for an armed rebellion.

Active participation in an armed rebellion may be considered terminated from the moment a participant in the rebellion commits specific violent actions with the use or attempted use of weapons aimed at achieving the goals of the rebellion, regardless of the actual implementation of these goals or other consequences.

The subjective side of the crime is characterized by direct intent and a special chain:

1) overthrow of the constitutional order;

2) violent change of the constitutional system;

3) violation of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.

The goal of overthrowing the constitutional system of the Russian Federation presupposes the desire to violently abolish the foundations of the constitutional system enshrined in Chapter. 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to eliminate the rights and freedoms enshrined in Chapter. 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and establish a social and state system that does not comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The goal of forcibly changing the constitutional system of the Russian Federation has the same content as in Art. 278 of the Criminal Code.

The purpose of violating territorial integrity means the intention to destroy the principles of the federal structure enshrined in Chapter. 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and forcibly seize part of its territory with the declaration of its independence from Russia or annexation to a foreign state.

The subject of the crime is a person who has reached the age of 16 years. When a crime is committed in the form of organizing an armed rebellion, it may be its organizers and leaders. Active participants in an armed rebellion are persons who directly commit violent acts with the use of weapons in order to achieve the goals of the rebellion.

Next, we will analyze, from a criminal legal point of view, attacks on the economic security and defense capability of the Russian Federation. Thus, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation includes sabotage as one of the crimes of this group. The direct object of sabotage is the economic security and defense capability of the Russian Federation.

Safety is defined in Art. 1 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated 03/05/92 No. 2446–1 “On Security” as a state of protection of the vital interests of the individual, society and state from internal and external threats. It follows from this that economic security is understood as the state of protection of the most important economic interests of the Russian Federation.

The defense capability of the Russian Federation means the state of its protection from a possible attack by an external aggressor and includes such elements as the economic and military potential of Russia, combat training and professionalism of the personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, mobilization readiness of the civilian population, etc.

The objective side of sabotage is characterized by the commission of an explosion, arson or other actions aimed at destroying or damaging enterprises, structures, routes and means of communication, communications, and life support facilities for the population.

This crime is usually committed against economically important and vulnerable to sabotage energy hubs, defense industry enterprises and military facilities, enterprises and means of railway, water, air and pipeline transport, communications and signaling facilities, and life support facilities for the population.

Methods of sabotage are not only explosions and arson , directly identified by the legislator, but also other actions that, like explosions and arson, are also generally dangerous and are also aimed at destroying or damaging the objects listed in the disposition of Art. 281 CC. Other actions include, for example, causing accidents and disasters, landslides, flooding, radioactive and other similar contamination or pollution, etc.

The destruction of the objects listed in the disposition means their physical destruction, loss of national economic significance, impossibility or economic inexpediency of restoration. Damage refers to the infliction of such damage to objects of sabotage actions, which significantly reduces their national economic significance and economic value, but can be eliminated through repair or restoration.

The composition of sabotage is formal, it is a completed crime from the moment of committing socially dangerous actions aimed at destroying or damaging objects named in the law, even if they were actually neither destroyed nor damaged.

The death of people as a result of an act of sabotage is not covered by the elements of sabotage and forms a combination of this crime with murder under aggravating circumstances.

The subjective side of sabotage is characterized by direct intent and a special purpose - to undermine the economic security and defense capability of the Russian Federation.

Subject of sabotage is a person who has reached the age of 16 years. If an act of sabotage is committed by a citizen of the Russian Federation on instructions from foreign intelligence services, the act must be additionally qualified as high treason in the form of providing assistance to a foreign state in carrying out hostile activities to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation.

The Criminal Code provides not only the main, but also the qualified composition of sabotage: its commission by an organized group.

Of course, the Criminal Code provides for other types of crimes against state power, however, given the scope of our work, we cannot stop at all.

Thus, the common feature of all crimes against the foundations of the constitutional system and the security of the state, provided for in Section X of the Criminal Code, should be considered: the totality of social relations that ensure the inviolability of the foundations of the constitutional system and the security of the state, the normal functioning of state bodies belonging to various branches of state power, as well as the interests public service and service in local governments.

We emphasize that the system of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation plays a significant role in solving problems of protecting the individual, society, and state. As N.F. pointed out. Kuznetsov, the structuring of the system of the Special Part has not only an applied, but a legal and technical search meaning, similar to the alphabetical and subject index of articles of the Criminal Code, and shows the hierarchy of social values protected by it, interconnects sections, chapters, articles within the system and outside it with other systems legislation. Taking into account the place of a particular article or group of norms in the structure of the Special Part makes our understanding of the relevant criminal law prohibitions more meaningful, and sometimes indicates some contradictions in legislative structures, errors in the chosen tactics for protecting public relations.

Thus, in the aspect under study, Chapter 33 “Crimes against military service” attracts attention. The legislator placed it in section XI of the same name, which is the penultimate part of the Criminal Code and is located between section X “Crimes against state power” and section XII “Crimes against the peace and security of mankind”. But what is noteworthy is not the proximity, but the actual separation of military service from state power; obviously, the legislator considered that the social relations developing in these areas were heterogeneous.

Note that in the criminal codes of the RSFSR of 1922, 1926 and 1960. military crimes were always combined into separate chapters that closed the Special Part. But within the framework of the three-member division of objects of criminal legal protection, such an approach was acceptable and understandable. For example, the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960, along with Chapter 12 “Military Crimes”, contained such chapters as “Official Crimes”, “Crimes against Justice” and “Crimes against the Order of Administration”. The analogues of the last three chapters in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996 are reasonably combined into one section X “Crimes against state power”. The generic object here is state power. We share the opinion of N.F. Kuznetsova, who believes that the Generic object serves as the basis for the division of the general object into objects of large subsystems - blocks, the generic objects of which act as criteria for structuring the Special Part into sections. Traditionally, in textbooks on the theory of state and law, public power is called one of the features that distinguishes the state from pre-state and non-state organizations. An army can exist only to the extent that it is animated by state legal consciousness.

In Art. 2 of the Federal Law of March 28, 1998 No. 53-FZ “On Military Duty and Military Service” notes that military service is a special type of federal public service and lists the types of military formations in which it is performed.

Let us draw attention to the fact that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in its Determination of December 27, 2005, clarified the provision that military service is a special type of public service directly related to ensuring the defense of the country and the security of the state, the rights and freedoms of citizens and, therefore carried out in the public interest.

Thus, recognition of the public nature of military service makes it possible to classify attacks on its interests as attacks on state power, therefore, Chapter 33 “Crimes against military service” should be included in section X “Crimes against state power.”

Opponents may object: for example, the normal development of relations in the field of economic activity or regarding public safety is also of great importance for the entire society. In general, any crime is ultimately a blow to the state. But the criminal legal significance of attacks on state power lies in the fact that the object here is social relations, which the state not only controls and protects, but is their main subject or, figuratively speaking, the “main player.”

In addition to the official division of crimes against state power established in the Criminal Code by type of object, in the most general form the following groups can be noted. Firstly, these are attacks on public authorities and the persons exercising them, secondly, attacks on the attributes and symbols of the state, and thirdly, these are crimes committed by government officials, as well as those who directly support their activities.

The given general groups of attacks are also present in the chapter on crimes against military service. The rules providing for liability for physical or psychological violence, as well as humiliation of military personnel in connection with the performance of their official or official duties include: Art. 333 of the Criminal Code “Resisting a superior or forcing him to violate the duties of military service”, Art. 334 of the Criminal Code “Violent actions against a superior”, Art. 336 of the Criminal Code “Insulting a serviceman.”

It should be noted that the features of crimes against military service are determined by its specifics. There are elements in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code in which crimes can be fully attributed to official crimes. The implementation of public interest is associated with the performance of certain functions and the exercise of powers. In the same way, as a judge, prosecutor, investigator and investigator, in connection with the exercise of their procedural powers, enter into relationships with participants in criminal proceedings, military personnel, due to the specifics of performing their official duties, interact with each other and with other persons.

As shown above, the fact that the military are government employees is beyond doubt. In Part 1 of Art. 2 of the Federal Law of May 27, 2003 “On the public service system in the Russian Federation,” military service is referred to as one of the types in the public service system. Paragraph 1 of the note to Art. 285 of the Criminal Code provides for the possibility of committing crimes against state power, public service by officials performing the functions of a representative of the government, organizational, administrative or administrative in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation.” A number of authors quite rightly draw attention to the mistake of the legislator, who extended the criminal law definition of an official only to articles of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Officials of the Armed Forces are more likely to have organizational and administrative powers to manage military collectives, or administrative and economic functions to manage military property or budgetary funds received in the accounts of districts and units. Encroachments committed in connection with their implementation, most often, fall under the rules provided for in Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code. Thus, the head of the garrison hospital, Ch., was convicted of taking a bribe. The defendant agreed to receive money for a positive solution to the issue of sending his subordinates on a business trip to Bosnia. According to Part 1 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code qualified the actions of the military commissar of the Perm region D., who demanded that the military commissars of the districts subordinate to him make their material contributions to the creation of the “gift room”. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized as justified the qualifications of the actions of a doctor of a military unit who, for bribes, provided conscripts with deliberately fictitious certificates of illness with the conclusion of a military medical commission about their limited suitability for military service under Art. 290 of the Criminal Code and Art. 286 of the Criminal Code.

A number of military official crimes provided for in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code can be classified as alternative official crimes. For example, failure to comply with an order can be expressed not simply in inaction in the service, but in the non-use of organizational, administrative or administrative powers. Such lack of management may consist in evading the appointment of military personnel for service, in not awarding bonuses and combat payments. In addition, the senior commander can, in the form of an order, prohibit the unit commander from doing anything. For example, sending conscripts to construct facilities and carry out work not related to combat training. Ignoring such an order should be considered a special type of abuse of power.

Part 2 of Art. acts as a special norm in relation to abuse of official powers. 336 of the Criminal Code regarding insult “...by a superior of a subordinate during the performance or in connection with the performance of military service duties...”.

A notable feature of some types of military crimes is the fact that they provide for liability simultaneously for both a special type of abuse and abuse of power. Thus, a violation of the statutory rules of the guard service can be expressed in the adoption by the head of the guard of a management decision that is contrary to the interests of the service, or in the commission of actions by the guard that are clearly beyond his authority. “While serving as an escort guard assigned to protect and defend the guardhouse, private Kmitov, for refusing to fulfill his demand, beat up privates Zyryanov and Vasilyev, who were kept in the guardhouse, causing moderate harm to the first of the victims, and beatings to the second.

Kmitov’s actions “... along with Part 2 of Art. 335 of the Criminal Code, were qualified by the military court of the Borzinsky garrison and under Part 1 of Art. 342 of the same Code." Analysis of Art. 201 of the Charter of the Garrison and Guard Services of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 14, 1993 No. 2104, establishing the duties of the deportee, gives every reason to believe that he is vested with administrative powers in relation to those arrested.

According to the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 10, 2000 No. 6 “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and commercial bribery,” military personnel, when performing their duties to protect public order, ensure security and other functions in the performance of which military personnel are assigned administrative powers" are representatives of the authorities. Here it would be appropriate to cite two norms that protect the normal development of social relations arising in the process of implementing external regulation by the Armed Forces. This is Art. 341 of the Criminal Code “Violation of the rules for performing border service” and Art. 343 of the Criminal Code “Violation of the rules of service for the protection of public order and ensuring public safety. Violation may be expressed in failure to fulfill duties, non-compliance with prohibitions and restrictions. We also believe that the perpetrator, representing the authority in protecting the state border and ensuring public safety, can abuse this authority or exceed his powers.

Noteworthy is the formal-material construction of Part 1 of Art. 341 CC. Responsibility for violating the rules of border service will arise if this act entailed or could entail harm to the security of the state. Thus, the Military Court of the Tbilisi Garrison found Corporal Abgaryan, privates Uvarov and Alekseev guilty of violating the statutory rules of the border service and convicted on the basis of Part 1 of Art. 341 CC.

As stated in the verdict, Abgaryan, Uvarov and Alekseev, while in border patrol at the observation post of the border section, in violation of the requirements of Art. 15 of the Temporary Charter of the Border Troops of the Russian Federation, were distracted from their duty, relaxed their vigilance and fell asleep, leaving the weapons entrusted to them unattended and the state border unguarded for 20 minutes. During an inspection by the chief of duty, they were found sleeping. For a similar violation - sleeping for 20 minutes in a border guard on a section of the border - they were convicted by the same court under Part 1 of Art. 341 of the Criminal Code and privates Baidin, Rozhkov and Oganesyan.

The violation of the rules of border service by the named servicemen, both in the first and second cases, is obvious. Moreover, the violation committed by the perpetrators objectively determined the possibility of illegally crossing the protected section of the border and thus created a real threat of harm to the security interests of the state.

This approach of the legislator, as well as its materialization in judicial practice, emphasizes the importance of the border as one of the most important elements of state power and takes its significant place in the series of arguments in favor of including Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code in Section X “Crimes against state power.”

On the other hand, the sanctions of the compounds under study are puzzling; they are much milder than the possible punishments provided for general types of malfeasance. For a violation of the rules of performing border service committed without aggravating circumstances, the upper limit of the sanction is three years of imprisonment; for violating the rules of performing a service for the protection of public order, we note, provided that this violation causes harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens - two years. Thus, Major Usov and midshipman Strekolovsky were found guilty of intentionally allowing fishing vessels to illegally cross a section of the maritime border of the Russian Federation, conduct crab poaching, and disembark and unload people and cargo outside border checkpoints, in violation of the rules of border service, the captains were warned of the mentioned vessels about the entry of border ships into service. Since the listed consequences actually caused harm to the interests of the economic security of the state, the court reasonably qualified the act as guilty under Part 1 of Art. 341 CC.

Without disputing the qualifications, we note that the perpetrators abused their official powers in the form of inaction and exceeded them, betraying the interests of the service. We believe that the maximum possible sentence of three years in prison does not adequately reflect the social danger of the crimes committed by border guards. The reasons for this discrepancy lie in the insufficient integration of military offenses into the system of official crimes in the current Criminal Code.

Violation of the rules of service for the protection of public order and ensuring public safety is positioned as a special type of malfeasance. The elements of this crime are material. In a review of judicial practice in cases of crimes against military service, it is noted that one of the mandatory grounds for prosecution under Part 1 of Art. 343 of the Criminal Code is the fact of causing harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens as a result of violation of the rules of service by a person who is part of a military detachment for the protection of public order and ensuring public safety. This harm can be expressed in causing property damage to a citizen, physical or moral suffering. In the latter case, based on the nature and degree of public danger reflected in the criterion of punishability, the amount of such harm is limited to causing moderate harm to the health of the victim. But let us remind you that the sanction in Part 1 of Art. 343 of the Criminal Code - up to two years in prison, and for causing moderate harm to health, a punishment of up to three years is provided.

The inconsistency of the measure of responsibility established in the general norms of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code and the articles intended for military personnel is also evidenced by the verdict of the military court of the Odintsovo garrison. The defendant was found guilty of violating the rules of serving as part of a military detachment to protect public order and ensure public safety, which resulted in grave consequences. His actions were qualified by the court under Part 2 of Art. 343 of the Criminal Code. According to the verdict, Larionov, using wrestling techniques, threw Skvortsov and Zhelonkin to the ground several times, thereby causing them physical pain. In addition, with his blow he broke Grinevich’s lower jaw, that is, he caused moderate harm to the latter’s health. When considering this case by way of supervision, the Military Collegium indicated that grave consequences within the meaning of Part 2 of Art. 343 of the Criminal Code should recognize the infliction of grievous harm to health as a result of the illegal use of physical force, special means and service weapons, or the combined infliction of various harm to the health of several citizens. Since the actions of Larionov caused moderate harm to the health of the victim Grinevich, and beatings were inflicted on Skvortsov and Zhelonkin, the court did not have sufficient grounds to conclude that grave consequences had occurred from the actions of the convicted person. Taking into account the above, the Military Collegium reclassified what Larionov did from Part 2 to Part 1 of Art. 343 of the Criminal Code.

Let us note that for violation of the rules of service for the protection of public order, which entailed grave consequences, a punishment of up to five years of imprisonment is provided, and for causing grave harm without aggravating circumstances - up to eight. In addition, the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized that when committing a crime under Part 2 of Art. 343 of the Criminal Code, the following may be illegally used against injured citizens: physical force, special means, service weapons, i.e. actually reproduced the signs of abuse of power committed under particularly aggravating circumstances. In turn, the upper limit of the sanction for a general type of excess is exactly twice the maximum possible punishment for a similar crime committed by a military serviceman. It is difficult to agree with such differentiation of responsibility for general malfeasance and encroachments by officials of the Armed Forces.

A.V. Kudashkin reasonably emphasizes the special nature of military service and notes that it ensures independence, state sovereignty and integrity of the state by specific military methods. Indeed, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the army for the state and not understand the need to use exceptional means and methods to solve, again exceptional, sometimes fateful tasks, both for the state as a whole and for each individual citizen. But precisely because of these features, the activities of military institutions must be strictly regulated, which, by the way, is one of the main traditions of the army.

In conclusion, the following should be noted. The features of crimes against military service are determined by its specificity. There are elements in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code in which crimes can be fully attributed to official crimes. Taking into account the above, we consider it appropriate to place Chapter 33 “Crimes against military service” in section X “Crimes against state power”. Such a step will eliminate the systemic inaccuracy of the Special Part of the Criminal Code and will make it possible to combine in one section chapters that have as a specific object social relations in the sphere of implementation of public interest, the main subject of which is the state. We believe this will emphasize the close connection and mutual responsibility of the army and the state.

At the end of this chapter we draw the following conclusions:

1. A common feature of all crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state, provided for in Section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, should be considered:

2. The most dangerous of the crimes that make up this section are attacks on the foundations of the constitutional order and the security of the state, since they affect the foundation of the social, political and state system of the Russian Federation, its sovereignty, external and internal security.

3. In Section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, state power acts as a generic object.

A generic object unites a subsystem of homogeneous similar interests, which are also harmed by crimes related in the nature of social danger. At the same time, the degree of public danger of acts may vary.

4. The objective side of almost all crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state is characterized by actions. And only the disclosure of state secrets and the loss of documents containing state secrets can be committed both by actions and inaction. The elements of these two crimes are constructed as material, and the remaining elements are formal, and the crimes are completed from the moment the actions described in the law are committed, regardless of the occurrence of any harmful consequences.

5. In addition to the official division of crimes against state power established in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by type of object, in the most general form the following groups can be noted:

6. A number of military official crimes provided for in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code can be classified as alternative official crimes. For example, failure to comply with an order can be expressed not simply in inaction in the service, but in the non-use of organizational, administrative or administrative powers.

7. Notable for some military crimes is the fact that they provide for liability simultaneously for both a special type of abuse and abuse of power.

8. Military personnel, when performing the duties assigned to them to protect public order, ensure security and other functions in the performance of which military personnel are vested with administrative powers, are representatives of the authorities.

9. The features of crimes against military service are determined by its specificity. At the same time, recognition of the public nature of military service makes it possible to classify attacks on its interests as attacks on state power, therefore, Chapter 33 “Crimes against military service” should be included in section X “Crimes against state power.”

Such a step will eliminate the systemic inaccuracy of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and will make it possible to combine in one section the chapters that have as a specific object social relations in the sphere of implementation of public interest, the main subject of which is the state. It seems that this will emphasize the close connection and mutual responsibility of the army and the state.

3. Methodological recommendations for teaching law in educational institutions

3.1 Methodology for teaching law: general issues

In the context of the transformation of all aspects of the life of our society, the social role of the teacher is becoming more complex and increasing, and therefore a complex restructuring of the work of the secondary school is currently underway.

Let us note that the law on education allows for the existence of different types of schools, which gives the right to the family in which the child is being raised to independently choose any educational institution. This law, in turn, allows the school to independently determine the content and methods of teaching. New disciplines and new areas of knowledge are being introduced into the educational process. Changes in school curricula occur in two main ways: extensive and intensive. In the first case, the duration of training is extended, the volume of educational material is increased, in the second, fundamentally new programs are created. Integrated courses are being introduced into teaching practice; the teacher has the opportunity not to follow strict methodological instructions, but to focus almost entirely on a creative approach to organizing the learning process: choosing a problem and a textbook from several options, evaluating them, and in some cases, creating his own program and educational materials To her. Under these conditions, the socio-professional functions of the teacher become more complicated, the question of his methodological skills, his ability to approach the organization of the educational process from a creative position, and to make the transition from the school of memory to the school of thinking and action arises. The ability to show creativity in work requires the teacher to have deep and solid knowledge of the methods of his subject. Let us emphasize that the methodology, like pedagogy, is characterized by the unity of two principles - science and art; science and creativity are closely intertwined in it.

However, in the current situation in the work of the school, methodological nihilism and methodological projectism are very dangerous, which are ready to deny the norms established in the teaching methods and proven practice of the school. The most important quality of a teacher is initiative and methodological creativity based on knowledge of the subject.

The formation of legal culture in students as an integral part of the general human culture is one of the most important tasks of teaching law in secondary schools. In this matter, we propose to take as a basis the division of general legal knowledge into two groups:

Let us first consider the first group of knowledge, in which we include the following main parts.

Firstly, this is legal knowledge that participates in the formation of the scientific worldview of schoolchildren. Law has always been and remains an important discipline. In our opinion, the leading ideas of the school course should rightfully include:

1) ideas that reflect the manifestation of the main features and laws in dialectics in the legal framework and its parts:

a) the legal shell as a qualitatively unique material system of interpenetrating and interacting all its branches;

b) the legal shell is heterogeneous in its structure: each part of it has its own individual characteristics and at the same time it is characterized by general laws of development;

2) ideas reflecting the manifestation of the laws of dialectics:

a) all elements that make up the processes occurring both in law as a whole and in its individual branches.

Let us note that the effectiveness of the formation of a legal map is determined by the amount of knowledge acquired and increases if the learning process is built taking into account the age and individual capabilities of schoolchildren, therefore the search for effective ways to transfer the system of legal knowledge also involves identifying the personal prerequisites of the teacher.

The second option is associated with the implementation of the ideas of development pedagogy in the practice of teaching law. Comparing this option for organizing the interaction of the individual picture of the world with the scientific and legal one, it should be noted that the content core of the educational process should include concepts from the field of theoretical thinking. However, their selection is predetermined not by the logic and structure of legal science, but by their significance in the transformation of the individual legal picture of the world, the basis of which is also concepts. Based on this, the academic discipline should focus on those concepts that reflect the specifics of the legal way of expressing reality, and not the entire content of legal knowledge. The means of implementing such a transformation of the individual legal picture of the world is the independent educational activity of schoolchildren.

The main result of the formation of a legal picture of the world according to the second option is the ability of schoolchildren to develop their own personal understanding of the world. This achievement becomes a personal acquisition of the student and turns him from a carrier of culture into its source.

Thus, the legal picture of the world should be understood in this case as the result of interaction in the learning process between the scientific and legal picture of the world and the individual one created by each student. In our opinion, it is precisely this approach to the interpretation of this concept that most fully corresponds to the tasks of student-centered learning.

It should also be borne in mind that each science and each school subject has its own language. And law in this sense is no exception, since there is every reason to talk about the existence of a “legal language”, which has a certain set of terms, which gives it individuality and flavor.

3.2 Methodology for teaching law in the field of studying crimes committed against state power

As a science, the methodology of teaching law has two aspects - theoretical and applied. The main methodological and theoretical problems that she considers include: the subject and methods, the goals of teaching the subject, the principles of selecting content and determining the structure of a school subject, the psychological and pedagogical basis of teaching law.

At the present stage of development of secondary education, the tasks of teaching methodology are changing and becoming more complicated, which focuses its attention on adjusting the goals of teaching law, which should be aimed at educating the student’s personality by means of the subject. The methodology of teaching law is designed to solve the question of how to make teaching law person-oriented.

At present, it is especially relevant to develop criteria for selecting content, principles for constructing programs for the subject as a whole and for its individual courses, and determining the system of values that needs to be formed in schoolchildren through legal science. Therefore, methodological science must correlate the content of the subject and types of activities with the functions that the generation currently studying at school will perform in the near future in society.

Success in a teacher’s work is largely determined by interest in teaching and creativity, which are impossible without the development of methodological thinking, the ability to rationally organize pedagogical work and conduct research on the methods of teaching law.

Note that in the methodology of teaching law, several methods are used, which are grouped into methods of experimental-empirical and theoretical levels.

Thus, empirical methods should be used at the stage when facts are being accumulated on the problem under study, in this case - examples of crimes committed against state power.

Theoretical level methods should be applied at the stage of understanding the facts.

Note that the methodology increasingly uses a systemic-structural approach, in which the connections between the content and methods of teaching are analyzed.

Mathematical and statistical methods are used to process the results and check the quality of training.

Methodological work consists of several stages. Thus, in relation to the study of crime and crimes against state power, the following stages can be distinguished.

Thus, at the first stage, it is important to substantiate the relevance of studying the issue of crimes against state power.

At this stage, it is necessary not only to study the history of the issue, but also to note that these crimes are dangerous acts committed contrary to the interests of the public service using the official position held by the offender and causing or creating an immediate threat of causing significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations, society and state.

It is especially important at this stage to emphasize that corruption has become widespread in all branches of government; it affects all spheres of society. Crimes committed by public servants using their official position threaten the rule of law, human rights, undermine the moral foundations of society, trust in government, the principles of public administration, equality and social justice. The particular danger of such crimes is due to the fact that they are committed by persons who, by the nature of their activities, are themselves obliged to fight various offenses and ensure law and order in a particular area.

At the second stage, the main problem should be established, indicating that the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes and consolidates the functioning of legislative, executive and judicial bodies of state power, as well as local government bodies; It is these bodies that exercise public power, i.e. are endowed with the right to make volitional decisions dictated by social needs. Since public power functions for public purposes, and its decisions are generally binding, the constitutions and legislation of each state establish certain frameworks and rules for its implementation. In the most general terms, we can say that the main requirement for public authorities and its bodies is the requirement of legality. Violation of the principle of legality in any form not only significantly complicates the implementation of the tasks of public authorities, but also calls into question its right to make mandatory demands on citizens and monitor their correct implementation, and undermines its authority. Certain violations of the normal functioning of public authorities have such a high degree of public danger that combating them is impossible without the use of criminal repression.

At the next stage, training goals and objectives should be formed, which are to prevent such crimes.

At the last stage, conclusions are formed on the studied issues.

Let us note that the purpose of teaching schoolchildren the section of the law on crimes against state power is to understand the world around them, which exists according to objective laws, to give students historical experience in combating this type of crime, and to improve legal culture. At the same time, training in this industry should be understood not simply as the transfer of knowledge for memorization, but as the formation of the student’s personal qualities.

We consider the following to be the main ideas in the area under study:

1) reveal the legal picture of the world as part of criminal law in the field of crimes against state power, for which it is necessary:

a) develop among students scientific views on these issues, on the relationship of sociology, economics, politics with criminal law in general and with crimes committed against state power;

b) contribute to the formation of legal consciousness in the student in order to rethink the place and role of civil servants in society and their standards of behavior;

d) prepare students for self-education in the field of law in general and in the field of crimes committed against state power;

e) develop legal thinking in students, teach them to think comprehensively;

2) orient schoolchildren to study the experience of foreign countries on the problem being studied;

3) contribute to the formation in students of the need to assimilate moral values, norms and rules of civilized communication in order to prevent and prevent crimes against state power.

We would especially like to emphasize that the study of crimes against state power can and should be preceded by a course in jurisprudence. In this case, the section regarding crimes against state power will be a logical continuation of training in the general legal system and structure. By studying a general course in law, a student receives a holistic picture where all objects and subjects are interconnected. As part of such a course, students must learn the concept and signs of crime, punishment, and responsibility in general. The main goal here is to understand the general issues and problems of law in order to understand the dependence of general problems on crimes against state power.

When developing methodological recommendations for teaching schoolchildren, we consider it advisable to turn to foreign experience. Thus, among the most important aspects in this regard in the American education system is familiarity with the methods of teaching students and the construction of research work. Even ignoring the specifics of philosophical, legal or other education, we can talk about the principles and methods of teaching in Russian and American schools.

Each country has its own traditions of teaching at school. Russian teaching is characterized by independent work, the transfer of knowledge by the teacher in the form of lectures, in some cases seminar classes are allowed in combination with business games, etc. It has long been recognized that while European teaching models have significant similarities, American law teaching is radically different. It was in the USA, back in 1871, that the Socratic method of teaching law was introduced. This method corresponds to the way Socrates structured his classes: he asked questions that forced students to make their own decisions. We believe that this is an effective way of teaching and it is advisable to use it in Russian schools.

Note that the purpose of training also determines the difference in methodology - American education strives not only to teach, but also to instill professional skills. It is this aspect of learning that is often missed in the Russian teaching system. However, the introduction of new teaching methods often faces the conservatism of teachers.

Conclusion

In accordance with Art. 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is the people, who exercise it directly or through state authorities and local governments. In Art. 11 of the Constitution specifies an exhaustive list of government bodies that have the right to make government decisions at the federal level and at the level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The powers exercised by local self-government bodies also have a public legal nature, but they are not of a state nature, since in accordance with Art. 12 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, local government bodies are not included in the system of government bodies. The Constitution of the Russian Federation does not provide for the possibility of exercising public-legal powers by other subjects of law.

Summarizing the work, it is necessary to formulate the following conclusions:

1. In the history of Russian legislation, one of the first mentions of criminal liability for malfeasance is in the Pskov charter and Code of Laws of 1497 and 1550.

2. In the development of legislation on state crimes, the following stages can be distinguished:

the first stage, enshrined in Codes of Law of 1497 and 1550,

the second stage was reflected in the legislation of the late 19th – early 20th centuries,

the third stage is expressed by decrees and regulations of the authorities,

fourth stage – consolidation of crimes against state power in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR,

the fifth stage is the reflection of this type of crime in the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

3. The study showed that for crimes against state power in various historical periods, the most severe punishment was imposed, often the death penalty.

4. According to legal statistics, over the past ten years, the number of crimes committed annually in Russia against state power has stabilized at a fairly high level and occupies a fourth of the overall crime structure.

5. The public danger of crimes against state power lies in the fact that as a result of their commission, the normative, legally regulated activities of the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, as well as local government bodies, are violated.

7. The reasons for the increase in the number of crimes against state power are: economic, social and moral changes, permissiveness and lack of control, oblivion of traditions and a false understanding of the democratic principles of community life; corruption of representatives of government bodies, their merging with organized criminal groups.

8. A common feature of all crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state, provided for in Section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, should be considered:

– a set of social relations that ensure the inviolability of the foundations of the constitutional system and the security of the state;

– normal functioning of government bodies belonging to various branches of government;

– interests of public service and service in local governments.

9. The most dangerous of the crimes that make up this section are attacks on the foundations of the constitutional order and the security of the state, since they affect the foundation of the social, political and state system of the Russian Federation, its sovereignty, external and internal security.

The specific object of this group of crimes is social relations that ensure the inviolability of the foundations of the constitutional system and the security of the state.

10. In Section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, state power acts as a generic object.

11. The objective side of almost all crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state is characterized by actions. And only the disclosure of state secrets and the loss of documents containing state secrets can be committed both by actions and inaction. The elements of these two crimes are constructed as material, and the remaining elements are formal, and the crimes are completed from the moment the actions described in the law are committed, regardless of the occurrence of any harmful consequences.

The subjective side of almost all crimes of the group under consideration is characterized only by direct intent: the perpetrator is aware of the socially dangerous nature of the actions being performed and wants to commit them.

12. In addition to the official division of crimes against state power established in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by type of object, in the most general form the following groups can be noted:

– encroachments on public authorities and persons exercising them;

– attacks on the attributes and symbols of the state;

– crimes committed by government officials, as well as by those who directly support their activities.

13. A number of military official crimes provided for in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code can be classified as alternative official crimes. For example, failure to comply with an order can be expressed not simply in inaction in the service, but in the non-use of organizational, administrative or administrative powers.

14. Notable for some military crimes is the fact that they provide for liability simultaneously for both a special type of abuse and abuse of power.

15. Military personnel, when performing their duties to protect public order, ensure security and other functions in the performance of which military personnel are vested with administrative powers, are representatives of the authorities.

Provisions for defense:

1. It is proposed to move Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Crimes against military service” to Section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Crimes against state power”.

The features of crimes against military service are determined by its specificity. There are elements in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code in which crimes can be fully attributed to official crimes. The implementation of public interest is associated with the performance of certain functions and the exercise of powers. In the same way, as a judge, prosecutor, investigator and investigator, in connection with the exercise of their procedural powers, enter into relationships with participants in criminal proceedings, military personnel, due to the specifics of performing their official duties, interact with each other and with other persons. Such a step will eliminate the systemic inaccuracy of the Special Part of the Criminal Code and will make it possible to combine in one section chapters that have as a specific object social relations in the sphere of implementation of public interest, the main subject of which is the state. We believe this will emphasize the close connection and mutual responsibility of the army and the state.

2. The norms of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are devoted to establishing crime and punishability of acts that constitute violations of the normal activities of public authority and its bodies. These violations are committed internally, i.e. by the subjects of power themselves, therefore they have an increased danger.

3. The main criterion for criminal legal protection and the basis for classification are social relations that ensure the stability of the state, the normal, legally regulated functioning of state power and its individual components: institutions and bodies.

4. It seems that, based on the direct object, crimes against the order of management can be classified into the following three groups of crimes:

encroaching on normal management activities;

encroaching on the established regime and inviolability of the state border;

encroaching on the established procedure for circulation of official documentation.

5. The formation of legal culture in students as an integral part of the general human culture is one of the most important tasks of teaching law in secondary schools. In this matter, we propose to take as a basis the division of general legal knowledge into two groups:

knowledge, in the formation of which law is studied along with other school subjects;

knowledge that constitutes the specifics of science itself and determines his personal contribution to the student’s legal culture.

6. The study of crimes against state power in the school curriculum should be preceded by a course in “legislation”. In this case, the section on crimes against government will be a logical continuation of training in the general legal system and structure. By studying a general course in law, a student receives a holistic picture where all objects and subjects are interconnected. As part of such a course, students must learn the concept and signs of crime, punishment, and responsibility in general. The main goal here is to understand the general issues and problems of law in order to understand the dependence of general problems on crimes against state power.

Bibliography

1. Constitution of the Russian Federation // SPS “ConsultantPlus”

2. Federal Law “On the Fundamentals of the Public Service of the Russian Federation” // SPS “ConsultantPlus”

3. Federal Law “On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation” // SPS “ConsultantPlus”

4. Federal Law “On the Fundamentals of Municipal Service in the Russian Federation”

5. Federal Law of May 27, 2003 No. 58-FZ “On the public service system of the Russian Federation”

6. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation dated June 13, 1996 No. 63-FZ // SPS “ConsultantPlus”

7. Bazhenov A.V. Investigation of crimes against state power, interests of public service and service in local government bodies: analysis of problems of theory and practice // Russian investigator. M., 2008. – No. 8. pp. 2–4.

8. Borkov V.N. Crimes against military service in the system of attacks on state power // Military legal journal. No. 11. M., 2006

9. Borkov V.N., Veklenko S.V. Criminal-legal characteristics of crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local governments. Omsk, 2007.

10. Borodin S.V. Qualification of crimes against life. M., 1977.

11. Budatarov S.M. Taking a bribe: a crime against property or a crime against the interests of state power? // Issues of judicial reform: law, economics, management. No. 2. Rostov-on-Don, 2009. – 115 p.

12. Galakhova A.V. Malfeasance. Crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government. M., 2006.

13. Gorelik A.S. Criminal law. M., 2000.

14. Gorokhovskaya A.A. Problems of classification of crimes in Russian law. St. Petersburg, 2007. – 74 p.

15. Gupinov K.E. Criminal law. M., 2009.

16. Dyakov S.V. State crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and state security and state crime. M., 1998.

17. Ezhov A.N., Samoilov A.S. Crimes against the fundamental constitutional order and security of the state. Arkhangelsk, 2004.

18. Ezhov A.N., Mirzoev G.B., Samoilov A.S. Criminal liability for crimes against the fundamental constitutional order and security of the state. M., 2004.

19. Kasho V.S. The role of municipal legal acts in the prevention of crimes against service in local government bodies // Current problems in the fight against crime in the Siberian region. Collection of materials of the international scientific conference: in 2 parts. Part 2. Krasnoyarsk, 2006.

20. Klimchak A.G. The concept and signs of crimes against the fundamental constitutional order and security of the state in Russia. M., 2008. – 154 p.

21. Kokorin D.L. The subject of crimes against state power. Criminological and criminal legal issues in the fight against crime. Collection of scientific articles / Rep. ed.: Smirnov G.G. Ekaterinburg, 2004.

22. Kolpakov I.A. The concept and types of crimes against the fundamental constitutional order and security of the state // Current problems of criminal law and process. Digest of articles. Vol. 1. M., 2006. – P. 32–48.

23. Korobeev A.I. Complete course of criminal law: Crimes against state power. Crimes against military service. Crimes against the peace and security of mankind. International criminal law. In 5 volumes. St. Petersburg, 2008.

24. Krasikov A.Yu. Classification of crimes. M., 1992.

25. Kuznetsov E.V., Stupnitsky A.E. Problems of legal regulation of criminal liability of subjects of crimes against state power, interests of public service, service in local government, commercial and other organizations // Activities of law enforcement agencies and state fire service in modern conditions: problems and development prospects. Materials of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference dedicated to the 60th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War on April 21–22, 2005. Irkutsk, 2005.

26. Kuznetsova N.F. Problems of classification of crimes. M., 1999.

27. Lunev M.M. Criminal law. M., 1990.

28. Lyanaev E.K. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. M., 2007. – 1323 p.

30. Minakova I.G. On the object of crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government bodies // North Caucasus Legal Bulletin. No. 1 – Rostov-on-Don, 2008.

31. Murykin A.R. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. M., 2–1. – 1003 p.

32. Naumov A.V. Russian criminal law. M., 2006. – 572 p.

33. Poznyshev S.V. An elementary textbook of Russian criminal procedure. Moscow, 1913.

34. Prudnikov V.V. Crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government. Krasnodar, 2003.

35. Pryanikov A.A. Legal reform in Russia. M., 2001. – 94 p.

36. Pyatokov E.G. Investigation of crimes against state power // Current problems of modern law. No. 3. M., 2001. pp. 43–54.

37. Rarog A.I. Criminal law of Russia. M., 2007.

38. Rashkovskaya S. Qualification of crimes. M., 1991.

One of the types of illegal acts are crimes against state power. A separate Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code is devoted to these acts.

Crimes against state power: concept and general characteristics

Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code combines “Crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local governments.” Such crimes are understood as illegal acts that undermine the authority of public authorities and cause harm to it or create harm to the interests of citizens, society, organizations and the state protected by legal norms.

Crimes are combined into one chapter of criminal legislation for an objective reason - they are directed against the interests of the civil service. But sometimes they harm the legitimate interests of citizens and justice (they act as an additional object of these crimes).

Previously, these crimes were identified on a subjective basis - namely, as illegal acts committed. Now they are united according to the criterion of the object against which the crime is directed.

But the object of the crime in Chapter 30 is usually special. These are officials and other employees who are in the state and municipal service. Only Art. 291, which prescribes punishment for giving a bribe, indicates the general subject of the crime - a sane person who has reached the age of 16 years.

The concept of an official is given in the note to Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. These are persons who permanently or temporarily carry out the functions of a government representative or perform organizational, administrative and economic functions in government bodies, local self-government bodies and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

Representatives of state power are deputies, operational investigative bodies, prosecutors, state inspectors, etc. Administrative functions are performed by various heads of state-owned companies and their structural divisions.

Administrative and economic functions involve managing property, the movement of money and material assets, etc. This functionality is carried out by managers, warehouse managers, chief accountants, etc.

Crimes against state power have much in common. This is not only an object, but also a subject of a crime. This is the activity of state power or local government bodies; as a result of the illegal use of their members in this body, a person causes damage to its work, as well as to a wide range of people.

The objective side of these crimes suggests:

the onset of certain negative ones;
the presence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the actions taken (inaction) and the consequences that occurred;
committing acts contrary to the interests of the civil service, that is, in conflict with the tasks and powers of the person;
the perpetrator has a personal or selfish interest in the crime;
the use by a criminal of his official position to commit an illegal act.

If an official has committed illegal actions that are not related to the performance of his official duties, then they do not constitute an official crime and can be reclassified under other articles of the Criminal Code.

The subject in the narrow sense is different for all crimes. So, for example, in relation to receiving and giving, the subject is various material benefits (usually money), in case of official forgery and entering false information into the register - official documents.

When assessing the consequences of an unlawful act, it is necessary to take into account whether the official’s actions contained signs of extreme necessity (according to Article 39 of the Criminal Code) or reasonable risk (according to Article 41 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

For example, if a person was forced to overpay for construction work being performed as a need to urgently put the facility into operation.

Crimes against state power or service may have a formal composition, i.e., they are considered completed after the specified actions are completed, or the material composition, which is recognized as completed from the moment of a significant violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens or an organization. Examples of material elements include abuse or excess of authority, misappropriation of the authority of an official, and negligence. Formal crimes include giving and receiving bribes.

The subjective side of crimes is usually expressed in the presence of an intentional form of guilt. But such an act, such as negligence, is characterized by the presence of careless guilt.

A mandatory feature of certain crimes is the personal interest of the person (for example, in case of official forgery or abuse of official powers) or the presence of a selfish motive (when receiving a bribe).

Espionage is a criminal activity that is regulated by both Russian and international law. Concept...

Types of crimes against government

The objective side of a crime is usually expressed in the form of an action and less often -. The Criminal Code distinguishes the following types of crimes against state power depending on the unlawful actions of the person:

abuse of official powers (Article 285);
inappropriate spending of budget funds (Articles 285.1, 285.2);
entering obviously false information into the unified state registers (Article 285.3);
abuse of official powers when executing state defense orders (Article 285.4);
abuse of official powers (Article 286);
failure by a police officer to comply with an order (Article 286.1);
refusal to provide information to the Federal Assembly or the Accounts Chamber (Article 287);
assignment of powers of an official (Article 288);
illegal participation in business activities (Article 289);
receiving a bribe (Article 290);
giving a bribe (Article 291);
mediation in bribery (Article 291.1);
petty bribery (Article 291.2);
official forgery (Article 292);
illegal issuance of a passport (Article 292.1);
negligence (Article 293).

Let us consider what these crimes are in more detail. Negligence means improper performance by an official (failure to perform) his duties as a consequence of dishonest attitude towards, resulting in major damage.

Official forgery involves the entry by a person of knowingly false or unreliable information into official documents. or corrections that distort their content.

The assignment of the powers of an official may involve the assignment of a position to an employee or the adoption of decisions by him that he does not have the right to make due to the nature of his activity.

Giving and receiving a bribe involves the transfer (reception) of certain values to an official(in the form of money, securities, discounts, services, etc.) in exchange for the provision of certain services (actions or inactions of an official).

Actions involving abuse of power are classified as such if they relate to the powers of another official, are committed by an official under certain conditions, if no one can commit them under any circumstances.

Abuse of power can take many forms. Including the issuance of orders and regulations that are contrary to the law, unreasonable expenditure of funds, concealment and shortfalls, etc. In general, abuse of power means the use by a person of his powers contrary to the interests of the civil service and resulting in a violation of the legal rights and interests of citizens.

Inappropriate spending of budget funds involves spending them in a way that does not correspond to the purposes for which they are received and the conditions for the distribution of the budget. The social danger of such acts is that such spending undermines, interferes with the achievement of government targets, etc. Examples of such misuse may include spending on charity, financing a sports team, etc.

In case of misuse of funds from the Pension Fund or the Social Insurance Fund on an especially large scale (over 1.5 million rubles), individuals may face criminal prosecution under a special article. These funds are formed from funds paid by employers for each employee and must be used to pay pensions and benefits.

Illegal participation in an activity is considered a criminal offense if such acts are related to the provision of benefits, advantages or protection to the company in another form (for example, it does not allow inspections of the company). Or the civil servant himself becomes the founder of the company, contrary to the requirements of the law.

One of the special subjects of crimes against state power are employees of internal affairs bodies. They are subject to certain requirements of official discipline. If the employee did not comply with the order, which resulted in the interests of citizens, then he may be brought to criminal liability.

Thus, a group of crimes against state power is directed against the normal and legal activities of state institutions. They encroach on the functioning and prestige of the civil service and its activities.