Designing Sanctions for Aggravation of Misappropriation of Budgetary Funds and State Non-Budgetary Funds

The sanctions of the article are a reflection of the nature of criminal acts, their level of public danger. The quality of the construction of this element of criminal law prescriptions determines the fairness of the penalties imposed, the effectiveness of the application of the norms of criminal law. This causes scientific interest in the indicated problems. The paper analyzes the problems of creating constructions of sanctions, Part 2, Art. 285.1 and part 2 of Art. 285.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in this article, these crimes will be referred to as budget crimes). The purpose of the study is to offer legislative recommendations for their adjustment, to establish compliance with the rules and design principles developed by science. To achieve this goal, the author studied the sanctions of these norms from the point of view of their compliance with the degree of social danger of crimes, consistency, analyzed the judicial practice and the approaches existing in science to the formation of sanctions and the definition of their boundaries. Applying the evidence-based rules, the author expresses her opinion on the presence of errors in the legislative structures of sanctions for these budgetary crimes. The author supports the opinion on the preferred use of the technique of overlapping sanctions, as well as on the need to analyze the data of judicial practice in order to determine their proportionality. Based on the results of the study, it is proposed to optimize sanctions for these budgetary crimes, taking into account the introduction of a specifically classified body of a crime, changing the boundaries of sanctions.

1. Dolotov R. O. Problemy penalizatsii: shtraf i lishenie svobody v alternativnykh sanktsiyakh // Vestnik Saratovskoy gosudarstvennoy yuridicheskoy akademii. — 2013. — № 5.

2. Zubkova V. I. Ugolovnoe nakazanie i ego sotsialnaya rol: zakonodatelstvo, teoriya, praktika: avtoref. dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — Ryazan, 2002. — 48 s.

3. Ivanchin A. V. O neobkhodimosti rekonstruktsii osnovnogo i kvalifitsirovannogo sostavov netselevogo ispolzovaniya byudzhetnykh i vnebyudzhetnykh sredstv (st. 285.1, 285.2 UK RF) // Vestnik Akademii ekonomicheskiy bezopasnosti MVD Rossii. — 2009. — № 6. — S. 76–82.

4. Kaplin M. N. Differentsiatsiya ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti za prestupleniya protiv zhizni i zdorovya: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Ekaterinburg, 2003. — 187 s.

5. Kuleva L. O. Uchet kategoriy prestupleniy pri konstruirovanii sostavov prestupleniy i sanktsiy za ikh sovershenie v UK RF // Vestnik YarGU. Seriya «Gumanitarnye nauki». — 2019. — № 3. — S. 72–75.

6. Mikhaylov K. V. Optimizatsiya pravil zameny neotbytoy chasti nakazaniya bolee myagkim vidom // Rossiyskaya yustitsiya. — 2008. — № 8. — S. 40–42.

7. Modestova N. A. Problemy zakonodatelnogo zakrepleniya i pravovogo regulirovaniya naznacheniya i ispolneniya ugolovnogo nakazaniya v vide shtrafa v Rossii i Frantsii: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Krasnoyarsk, 2005. — 28 s.

8. Nepomnyashchaya T. V. Naznachenie ugolovnogo nakazaniya: teoriya, praktika, perspektivy. — SPb.: Izdatelstvo R. Aslanova «Yuridicheskiy tsentr-Press», 2006. — 781 s.

9. Shnitenkov A. V. Pravila konstruirovaniya sanktsiy za prestupleniya protiv interesov sluzhby (glavy 23 i 30 UK RF) // Trudy Orenburgskogo instituta (filiala) Moskovskoy gosudarstvennoy yuridicheskoy akademii. — 2009. — № 10. — S. 385–398.