Journal section ACTUAL ISSUES IN JURISPRUDENCE
About some aspects of criminal responsibility for a specified in the Article 229 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation deed
Article is devoted to criminal responsibility for theft and extortion of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, as well as plants containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, or parts thereof containing narcotic substances or psychotropic substances. The study identified the problems, theoretical and practical, as well as proposed solutions by improving the regulatory legal basis.
Keywords: drug; psychotropic substance; analog; crime; sentence.
-
Post-graduate Student of the Faculty of Training of Research
and Teaching Staff of of the Vladimir Law Institute of the Federal Penal Service of
Russia, senior lieutenant of internal service
, e-mail salikova.a@yandex.ru
-
Senior Lecturer of the Chair of Criminal Law and Criminology
of the Vladimir Law Institute of the Federal Penal Service of Russia, PhD in Law,
lieutenant colonel of internal service;
, e-mail penalcode@yandex.ru
1 Sm.: Obzor dejatel’nosti federal’nyh sudov obshhej
jurisdikcii i mirovyh sudej v 2012 godu. www.cdep.ru
2 Sm.: Rossijskaja gazeta. 2006. 28 ijunja.
3 V primechanii 1 k st. 158 UK RF rech’ idet o prichinenii
ushherba sobstvenniku libo vladel’cu imushhestva (to est’ licam,
kotorym imushhestvo prinadlezhit na zakonnom osnovanii). V
svjazi s jetim utverzhdenie o tom, chto hishhenie imushhestva,
kotoroe ranee bylo pohishheno, vlechet za soboj ugolovnuju
otvetstvennost’, na nash vzgljad, predstavljaetsja diskussionnym
(sm., napr.: Lopashenko N.A. Posjagatel’stva na sobstvennost’:
Monogr. M., 2012). My solidarny s poziciej S. Eliseeva,
kotoryj polagaet, chto «hishhenie pohishhennogo ne obrazuet
prestuplenija protiv sobstvennosti», pri uslovii «chto rech’
idet ob ugolovno-pravovoj ocenke dejstvij lica, znajushhego,
chto on zavladevaet imushhestvom, priobretennym kem-libo
prestupnym putem. V situacii, kogda vtorichnyj priobretatel’
jetogo obstojatel’stva ne osoznaet, sodejannoe neobhodimo
kvalificirovat’ (v sootvetstvii s napravlennost’ju umysla) kak
pokushenie na hishhenie chuzhogo imushhestva» (sm.: Eliseev
S. Hishhenie pohishhennogo: problemy kvalifikacii //
Ugolovnoe pravo. 2008. № 1. S. 45–49).
4 Sm.: Rossijskaja gazeta. 2003. 18 janv.
jurisdikcii i mirovyh sudej v 2012 godu. www.cdep.ru
2 Sm.: Rossijskaja gazeta. 2006. 28 ijunja.
3 V primechanii 1 k st. 158 UK RF rech’ idet o prichinenii
ushherba sobstvenniku libo vladel’cu imushhestva (to est’ licam,
kotorym imushhestvo prinadlezhit na zakonnom osnovanii). V
svjazi s jetim utverzhdenie o tom, chto hishhenie imushhestva,
kotoroe ranee bylo pohishheno, vlechet za soboj ugolovnuju
otvetstvennost’, na nash vzgljad, predstavljaetsja diskussionnym
(sm., napr.: Lopashenko N.A. Posjagatel’stva na sobstvennost’:
Monogr. M., 2012). My solidarny s poziciej S. Eliseeva,
kotoryj polagaet, chto «hishhenie pohishhennogo ne obrazuet
prestuplenija protiv sobstvennosti», pri uslovii «chto rech’
idet ob ugolovno-pravovoj ocenke dejstvij lica, znajushhego,
chto on zavladevaet imushhestvom, priobretennym kem-libo
prestupnym putem. V situacii, kogda vtorichnyj priobretatel’
jetogo obstojatel’stva ne osoznaet, sodejannoe neobhodimo
kvalificirovat’ (v sootvetstvii s napravlennost’ju umysla) kak
pokushenie na hishhenie chuzhogo imushhestva» (sm.: Eliseev
S. Hishhenie pohishhennogo: problemy kvalifikacii //
Ugolovnoe pravo. 2008. № 1. S. 45–49).
4 Sm.: Rossijskaja gazeta. 2003. 18 janv.
