”Bribe-taking “ and “bribe-extortion” as criteria of differentiation of responsibility for bribery
https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2019.99.2.119-129
Abstract
The paper is devoted to the issues of validity of differentiation of criminal liability for bribery depending on the legality or illegality of the civil servant’s conduct preconditioned by a bribe. Special attention is paid to the study of the legal nature of bribe-extortion, i.e. bribery for illegal actions (omissions to act). It is concluded that bribery for illegal actions (omissions to act) in office is not only a qualified element of the crime, but rather an independent main element of the crime entailing more severe criminal punishment due to the increased degree of public danger of this form of bribery. On this basis, it is recommended that the rules for the legislative formulation of qualified elements of crimes should not apply to such a form of bribery as bribe-taking. The opinion of some foreign legislators expressed in the theory of criminal law that the elements of bribery for illegal actions (omissions to act) should be excluded from the criminal law is refuted.
About the Author
A. V. Koval
Tyumen State University.
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Koval Andrey Vladimirovich, Postgraduate Student of the Institute of State and Law.
625000, Russia, Tyumen, ul. Lenina, d. 38.
References
1. Babiy N. A. Kvalifikatsiya vzyatochnichestva po ugolovnomu pravu Belarusi i Rossii : monografiya. — M., 2014. — 720 s.
2. Borkov V. N. Deystviya (bezdeystvie), kotorye vkhodyat v sluzhebnye polnomochiya, v dispozitsii polucheniya vzyatki // Ugolovniy zakon: problemy teoreticheskogo modelirovaniya i primeneniya. — Omsk, 2006. — S. 68—75.
3. Borkov V. N. O sfere sluzhebnogo povedeniya dolzhnostnogo litsa, za kotoroe mozhet byt’ poluchena vzyatka // Pravovedenie. — 2007. — № 4. — S. 93—100.
4. Borkov V. N. Poluchenie vzyatki: voprosy kvalifikatsii : dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Omsk, 2002. — 183 s.
5. Volzhenkin B. V. Sluzhebnye prestupleniya : Kommentariy zakonodatel’stva i sudebnoy praktiki. — SPb., 2005. — 560 s.
6. Grebenyuk R. A. Ugolovno-pravovaya i kriminologicheskaya kharakteristika vzyatochnichestva : dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Stavropol’, 2004.
7. Groshev A. O proekte postanovleniya Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF «O sudebnoy praktike po delam o vzyatochnichestve, kommercheskom podkupe i inykh korruptsionnykh prestupleniyakh» // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2013. — № 5. — S. 53—60.
8. Ivanchin A. V. Konstruirovanie sostava prestupleniya: teoriya i praktika : monografiya. — M., 2014. — 352 s.
9. Kozachenko I. Ya., Kostareva T. A., Kruglikov L. L. Prestupleniya s kvalifitsirovannymi sostavami i ikh ugolovnopravovaya otsenka. — Ekaterinburg, 1994. — 59 s.
10. Komarov V. B. Ponyatie nezakonnykh deystviy (bezdeystviya), sovershaemykh za vzyatku // Sbornik statey, posvyashchenniy 25-letnemu yubileyu Instituta prava Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta / Chelyabinskiy gosudarstvenniy universitet, Institut prava. — Chelyabinsk : Poligraf-Master, 2016. — S. 258—260.
11. Krasnopeeva E. V. Vzyatochnichestvo: ugolovno-pravovoy i kriminologicheskiy aspekty : dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — M., 2002. — 259 s.
12. Kruglikov L. L., Vasilevskiy A. V. Differentsiatsiya otvetstvennosti v ugolovnom prave. — SPb., 2002. — 300 s.
13. Lopashenko N. A. O nekotorykh problemakh ponimaniya i tolkovaniya vzyatochnichestva i kommercheskogo podkupa (kvalifikatsionnye problemy) // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2013. — № 5. — S. 83—88.
14. Lyubavina M. A. Kvalifikatsiya vzyatochnichestva : konspekt lektsiy. — SPb., 2005. — 80 s.
15. Maksimov S. V. Korruptsiya. Zakon. Otvetstvennost’. — M., 2000. — 143 s.
16. Mishin G. Differentsiatsiya vzyatochnichestva // Sovetskaya yustitsiya. — 1989. — № 11. S. 29.
17. Nikonov P. V. Ugolovno-pravovaya kharakteristika polucheniya vzyatki : avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Irkutsk, 2005.
18. Obsuzhdavshiysya uchastnikami konferentsii proekt postanovleniya Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF «O sudebnoy praktike po delam o vzyatochnichestve, kommercheskom podkupe i inykh korruptsionnykh prestupleniyakh» // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2013. — № 5. — S. 6—27.
19. Poluchenie vzyatki munitsipal’nym sluzhashchim: ugolovno-pravovye i kriminologicheskie aspekty : monografiya. — M. : Yurlitinform, 2012. — 296 s.
20. Ugolovniy kodeks Respubliki Kazakhstan : uchebno-prakticheskoe posobie. — Almaty, 2002. — 272 s.
21. Sheretov V. V. Protivodeystvie vzyatochnichestvu: ugolovno-pravovoy i kriminologicheskiy aspekty : dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — SPb., 2005. — 188 s.
22. Shnitenkov A. Problemy yuridicheskoy otsenki korruptsionnykh prestupleniy v proekte postanovleniya Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2013. — № 5. — S. 114—116.
23. Shchepel’kov V. Nekotorye problemy kvalifikatsii polucheniya vzyatki // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2013. — № 5. — S. 117—119.
24. Yani P. S. Vzyatka za nezakonnye deystviya. Kvalifikatsiya prestupnykh deystviy, sovershennykh za vzyatku // Antologiya nauchnoy mysli : K 10-letiyu Rossiyskoy akademii pravosudiya : sbornik statey / otv. red. V. V. Ershov, N. A. Tuzov. — M. : Statut, 2008. — S. 359—366.
25. Yani P. S. Vzyatka ili moshennichestvo? // Zakonnost’. — 2012. — № 6. — S. 29—34.
26. Yani P. S. Voprosy kvalifikatsii vzyatochnichestva // Zakonnost’. — 2013. — № 3. — S. 16—21.
Review
For citations:
Koval A.V. ”Bribe-taking “ and “bribe-extortion” as criteria of differentiation of responsibility for bribery. Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2019;(2):119-129. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2019.99.2.119-129
Views:
14568
Email this article 