Articles

Based on the well-known theories of the founders of victimology, it is proposed to consider a new approach to the classification and typology of modern crime victims. Particular attention is paid to minors who become victims of illegal encroachments. In addition, victims of telephone scammers and scammers using information telecommunication technologies are considered separately.

The article shows the contribution of Professor of the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology of the Law Faculty of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov Gennady Nikolaevich Borzenkov to the doctrine of liability for theft. The importance of his judgments on the signs of theft for criminal law science and law enforcement practice, including the positions of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts, is emphasized. In particular, in the development and refraction to modern problems of law enforcement, his point of view is considered regarding such objective features of the named crime as seizure and (or) conversion of someone else's property in favor of the guilty party or other persons, causing damage to the owner or other holder of this property, illegality, gratuitousness, and subjective features — direct intent and selfish purpose. The importance of his views on the solution of some private, but highly relevant problems of qualification of fraud is noted. All this made it possible to substantiate the conclusion that the contribution of Professor G.N. Borzenkov to the development of the doctrine of responsibility for crimes against property and, in particular, theft is very significant, and his deep and thoroughly reasoned judgments are comparable with the provisions of the works of the largest researchers of this problem.

The article deals with the key issues of comparative criminal law — the definition of it as an independent branch of scientific knowledge and an academic discipline, the designation of methodological problems in conducting research in the field of criminal law, its stages, criteria for the typology of criminal law families in the modern period. The article analyzes the main scientific approaches to substantiating the scientometric status of comparative criminal law and the process of its institutionalization, formulates the object and subject, and other theoretical foundations of comparative criminal law. Special attention is paid to the comparative method as the leading one in comparative law. Based on the paradigm of relativity, conditionality and multidimensionality of the scientific approach, the basic methodological rules of comparison and its stages are identified and justified, the observance of which allows us to formulate critically significant and reasonable conclusions as a result of comparative analysis. The article concludes that it is necessary to take into account the legal tradition as a relevant criterion for classifying criminal law systems as a set of views rooted in people's minds on the nature of law and political ideology, historical attitudes to the role of law in society, to the organization and functioning of the legal system as a whole.

The doctrine of the composition of a crime is a central element in the structure of Russian criminal law science, performing paradigmatic functions and linking together all issues of criminal law regulation — from the grounds for criminalizing acts to the legal technique of their description in law. This elevates the doctrine of composition to the category of components of the criminal-political doctrine. Although it is the political science component in this doctrine that remains the least developed. The focused attention to the criminal-political purpose of the corpus delicti is able to bring the teaching to a new level and contribute to its development in the interests of ensuring the security of the individual, society and the state.

The article attempts to identify, using the work of Moscow State University professor N.F. Kuznetsova as an example, the causes of the emergence and resolution of discussions on controversial issues of criminal law regulation. The focus is on three concepts of criminal law: crime, corpus delicti and illegality; their interrelation and difference in functions when used in different areas of criminal law are shown. The purpose of one or another approach to defining these concepts is revealed, lawmaking and law enforcement errors caused by deviation from the nature of the corpus delicti and criminal illegality are shown, the purpose of the doctrine of criminal law to show the danger of arbitrary transformation of an offense into a crime in the process of criminalization of an act by arbitrary use of the structure of the corpus delicti, including with administrative prejudice.

The article is devoted to the issues of institutional development of penitentiary law as a sub-branch of penal enforcement law. The use of the "institutional development" indicator makes it possible to assess the current norms of penal enforcement law governing the execution of criminal penalties not related to isolation from society, as well as the level of development and quality of functioning legal institutions in this regulatory subsystem. Using system-forming criteria, the author defends the position of the existence of a separate, relatively isolated normative subsystem — penitentiary law, which has the status of a sub-branch of penal enforcement law. In the work, the author comes to the conclusion that penitentiary law in the system of penal enforcement law functions at the level of a well-formed sub-branch. The purpose of the study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the processes of differentiation and integration taking place in penal enforcement law, and to determine the status of the regulatory subsystem "penitentiary law". The objectives of the study are to define the concept of "penitentiary law" and its place in the system of penal enforcement law; to establish system-forming criteria that determine the specifics of penitentiary law; to analyze general, substantive and functional institutions within the framework of penitentiary law.

The article, taking into account the scientific views of scientists from Lomonosov Moscow State University, substantiates the importance of combating recidivism and provides detailed socio-demographic characteristics of convicts (based on the materials of the special census of convicts and persons in custody, December 2022) who committed crimes with particularly dangerous recidivism and are held in correctional colonies special treatment. Some features of the execution of imprisonment in these correctional institutions are shown. The following characteristics of convicts held in special-regime penal colonies are analyzed: citizenship, age, education, marital status, occupation at the time of arrest or conviction, ability to work and health status, attitude to religion. The socio-demographic characteristics of convicts serving sentences in special-regime penal colonies are characterized by the following: an older age compared to other categories of convicts; a high level of education; a low intensity of maintaining social ties with their families; a high proportion of individuals with no specific occupation before their conviction; a high degree of employability, with a low level of involvement in productive labor; an increased proportion of retired convicts; and an indifferent attitude towards adhering to the religious norms of the religious denominations to which they (the convicts) belong. The socio-demographic characteristics of convicts in dynamics are characterized by: a significant "aging of convicts" in special regime penal colonies; an increase in their educational level; a decrease in the degree of their ability to work, while a significant decrease in the level of their involvement in productive labor; an increase in the proportion of pensioner convicts; and a decrease in the proportion of atheist convicts.

The article is devoted to the history of the origin of the science of criminal law at Lomonosov Moscow State University and the emergence of the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology of the Faculty of Law. The author restores data on the faculty teaching of criminal law and on the teaching staff of the Faculty of Law and the Department of Moral and Political Sciences. The article contains information about the scientific and pedagogical activities of professors Barsheva S. I., Goryushkina Z.A., Dilteya F.G., Desnitsky S.E., Malova M.Ya., Tsvetaeva L.A., Shteltsera Kh.Yu.L., their works are reviewed and their contribution to the development of domestic criminal law is revealed. According to the author, Professor Lev Alekseevich Tsvetaev, who considered many fundsmental theoretical problems of crime and punishment in his work "A brief Theory of Laws", should be considered the first Russian academic theorist of criminal law at Moscow University. The most prominent scientist of the criminal law science of the 19th century is also Professor Sergey Ivanovich Barshev, whose ideas have not lost their relevance at the present time (for example, the impossibility of criminal liability of corporations and analogies in criminal law, some recklessness crimes may be more important than intentional ones, etc.).

The participants of the round table pointed out the significant influence of German philosophy and legal philosophy on Russian philosophical and legal thought. Kant and Hegel had the greatest influence. Kantianism and Hegelianism prevailed in Russia, while neo-Kantianism and neo-Hegelianism were extremely fragmented. The influence of German philosophy was accompanied by its profound reworking by Russian authors. By the end of the 19th century, Russian philosophy and legal philosophy had developed a conceptual framework that adequately reflected the richness of German metaphysics.

Despite the genetic similarity with the law of the United Kingdom, the institution of a derivative action in the United States has acquired great national specificity, manifested in a different terminology (derivative action), weak influence of the rules of the case Foss v. Harbottle, the development of independent conditions at the level of judicial precedents for the admissibility of the presentation and consideration of a derivative claim (demand requirement, continuous ownership rule, formation of the will of the corporation by a special judicial committee), aimed, on the one hand, at ensuring the possibility for participants in a legal entity to exercise the latter's right to judicial protection, but to a greater extent — to prevent the presentation of unreasonable actions, because the judicial practice of the United States proceeds from the general rule on the inadmissibility of court interference in the internal affairs of the company. As a result, these conditions themselves have been overgrown with numerous exceptions, exempting from the need to comply with them and leading to confusion and contradictory judicial practice. An analysis of the literature and judicial practice indicates the gradual spread of a derivative claim to the organizational and legal forms of legal entities that were previously denied this, a fairly calm attitude towards multiple derivative actions and even the assumption of "derivative protection" while maintaining the opposition of a derivative action to a direct one, for which the criteria of direct damage are used to distinguish, answering the question: which person — the corporation or its participants — was the first to be harmed; special damage, which allows you to bring a direct claim when a participant has suffered damage that is special and unrelated not only to the damage to the company itself; corresponding rights and obligations.