Pavel S. Yani
-
Kuznetsova’s category of «guilt» and qualification of crimesMoscow University Bulletin. Series 11. Law. 2022. № 6. p.8-22read more1022
-
In the article, based on the understanding of N.F.Kuznetsova’s category “guilty of a person” as “committing a crime by a person”, “criminality of an act committed by a person” is solved, among other things, the applied problem of choosing between competing norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Law, when the objective side of the act is fully described in different norms of the Special Part, the ratio of which as a general and it is impossible to install a special one. The use of a purely procedural presumption in dubio pro reo in the substantive aspect, that is, in resolving qualifying problems, is substantiated: since the recognition of a person committing a crime is not only proof of the actual circumstances of the act, but also its qualification, that is, “establishing compliance in the deed with the signs of a socially dangerous act on the grounds of the corpus delicti provided for in the norms of the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code, with a conclusion on the application of one or another article of the Code”, the above constitutional provision (Article 49 of the Constitution) should be interpreted not only in the procedural, but also in the substantive aspect. With this in mind and proceeding from N.F.Kuznetsova’s category of guilt a) the conclusion about the fundamental possibility of using the rule “irremovable doubts about the guilt of the accused are interpreted in favor of the accused” as a tool for criminal legal qualification, and b) recognizing the presence of defects in legislative technique, due to which various criminal law norms infringing on one and the same direct object, similarly describe the corpus delicti to be imputed to the guilty person, it was proposed when deciding on which article to qualify the phrases expressed publicly or posted on leaflets posted in public places, aimed at convincing other persons of what is needed, in particular, kill representatives of a certain racial, social, etc. groups precisely because the latter belong to such a group, choose a norm with a milder sanction, which is Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if the act was committed without signs qualifying the relevant act.
Keywords: N. F. Kuznetsova, guilt, personality of the scientist, qualifications, irremovable doubts about the guilt of the person are interpreted in favor of the accused, in dubio pro reo
-
-
Doctrine of liability for theft in the works of Professor G.N. BorzenkovMoscow University Bulletin. Series 11. Law. 2025. № 5. p.122-141read more177
-
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.Keywords: Gennady Nikolaevich Borzenkov, theft, signs of theft, fraud, conversion of someone else’s property for the benefit of the guilty party or other persons, causing damage to the owner or other possessor of this property, illegality, gratuitousness, direct intent, selfish purpose
-


