On an institute of insignificant acts in formally defined crimes (by the example of art. 200.3 of the Russian Criminal Code)

Abstract

This article is devoted to the issues of the possibility and validity of recognizing an act as insignificant within the formally defined crimes. To this end, the author examines the understanding of public danger in relation to the question of the insignificance of an act with formally defined crimes in the doctrine and judicial practice. The article draws a conclusion about the role of the insignificance of an act as a tool that allows decriminalizing violations of regulatory legislation that do not have a criminal public danger within the formally defined crimes. This conclusion is revealed by the example of the corpus delicti provided for in Article 200.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author also substantiates the conclusions about the possibility of recognizing as insignificant an act within the corpus delicti with an alternative form of mens rea; about the need to bring a person to administrative responsibility for committing an act recognized as insignificant due to the absence of criminal public danger; on the need for the court to make a decision on the possibility / impossibility of recognizing an act as insignificant in each specific case and, accordingly, the inadmissibility of limiting the list of acts that can be recognized as insignificant by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (at least in relation to acts that have / do not have a criminal public danger).

References

1. Vinokurov, V.N. (2019). On the limits of the insignificance of an act. Criminal law, 6, pp. 18–23. (in Russ.).

2. Vinokurov, V.N. (2017). The object of the crime as a two-level system and qualification of acts. Modern law, 10, pp. 126–131. (in Russ.).

3. Garbatovich, D.A. (2020). Mistakes in the qualification of minor acts containing signs of formal elements of crimes. Justice of the peace, 7, pp. 13–16. (in Russ.).

4. Garbatovich, D.A. (2020). Establishing the boundaries of the criminalization of acts through regulation and enforcement of the norm on an insignificant act. Russian justice, 2, pp. 25–27. (in Russ.).

5. Garbatovich, D.A. (2020). Establishing the boundaries of the criminalization of acts by means of regulation and enforcement of norms on circumstances precluding the criminality of acts. Russian Justice, 4, pp. 21–22. (in Russ.).

6. Lapina, M.A. (ed.) (2016). Decriminalization of crimes in the sphere of economic activity: administrative prejudice in action. Moscow. (in Russ.).

7. Esakov, G.A. (2019). Economic criminal law: General part. Moscow. (in Russ.).

8. Kuznetsova, N.F. (1958). The value of criminal consequences for criminal liability. Moscow. (in Russ.).

9. Lobanova, L. and Rozhnov, A. (2016). The insignificance of the act: the abstract nature of legislative regulation and the difficulties of law enforcement implementation. Legality, 6, pp. 46–50. (in Russ.).

10. Lopashenko, N.A. (2019). On some problems in understanding an insignificant act under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Criminal Law, 5, pp. 65–78. (in Russ.).

11. Pudovochkin, Yu.E. (2019). Evaluation by the court of the public danger of a crime: a scientific and practical guide. Moscow. (in Russ.).

12. Rarog, A.I. (2002). Qualification of crimes on subjective grounds. SaintPetersburg. (in Russ.).

13. Khilyuta, V.V. (2021). The choice of grounds for terminating a criminal case with the insignificance of the act. Legality, 4, pp. 53–55. (in Russ.).