≡× MENU

• Well pumps
• Filters for cleaning
• Well drilling
• Borehole pumps
• Wells

General characteristics of crimes against the state. General characteristics of crimes against state power. Punishment for accepting a bribe

Section X of the Special Part of the Criminal Code includes 4 chapters:

Chapter 29 "Crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state" (Articles 275 - 284 of the Criminal Code);

Chapter 30 “Crimes against state power, interests of civil service and service in local self-government bodies” (Art. Art. 285 - 293 of the Criminal Code);

Chapter 31 "Crimes against justice" (Art. Art. 294 - 316 CC);

Chapter 32 "Crimes against the order of administration" (Art. Articles 317 - 330 of the Criminal Code).

The main thrust of all these crimes is against the state power, the functioning of which they cause significant harm or threaten to cause it. At the same time, each of these groups of crimes encroaches on the functioning of various branches of government - legislative, executive, judicial.

Acts for which liability is provided for in Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code pose a particular danger. These crimes are committed by persons holding positions in the state apparatus or local self-government bodies, and therefore criminal activity not only harms citizens, society or the state, but also discredits the government, undermines its authority, and generates distrust of the authorities in the eyes of the population.

Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code includes corpus delicti encroaching on a single generic object - the normal activities of state authorities, local self-government bodies, state and municipal institutions, as well as the normal activities of the relevant bodies in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and formations of the Russian Federation.

The activity of business partnerships, production and consumer cooperatives, public organizations, as well as foreign firms is not the object of the crimes under consideration. Crimes directed against the interests of such organizations, which are not state or municipal, infringe on the normal functioning of the economy and are subject to qualification under Art. 201-204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Under public service is understood as a professional activity to ensure the execution of the powers of state bodies.

Service in local government bodies- this is a professional activity carried out on an ongoing basis in the indicated bodies for the execution of the powers of these bodies in resolving issues of local importance.

Crimes against public service- these are socially dangerous acts provided for by the Criminal Code, committed mainly by officials using their official position contrary to the interests of the service, which cause (may cause) significant harm to the normal activities of state bodies and local self-government bodies.

Institution recognized as a non-profit organization created by the owner for the implementation of managerial, socio-cultural or other functions of a non-commercial nature (Article 120 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, we are talking about budgetary and autonomous institutions created by the state or local government. They are state and municipal institutions that solve management problems, educational institutions, institutions of culture, science, health care, physical culture and sports, social protection systems and social services for the population.

State corporation is recognized as a non-profit organization that does not have membership, established by the Russian Federation on the basis of a property contribution and created on the basis of a federal law to carry out social, managerial or other socially useful functions (Article 7.1 of the Federal Law of 12.01.96 No. 7-FZ "On Non-Profit Organizations") ...

Other troops- these are the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia and the civil defense troops. To military formations in accordance with Part 6 of Art. 1 of the Federal Law "On Defense" includes engineering and technical and road construction formations under federal executive bodies. In addition, military service is performed in the bodies of the federal security service, the Foreign Intelligence Service, federal bodies of state security, the federal body for providing mobilization training for public authorities of the Russian Federation, the federal body for special communications and information, military units of the State Fire Service of the EMERCOM of Russia and created for wartime special formations.

WITH objective side the crimes under consideration are characterized by two characteristics. Firstly, crimes are committed due to the use of their official position by the relevant persons, and secondly, these crimes are committed against the interests of the service. To establish the signs of a crime, it is necessary to find out the powers of this person, determined by the relevant regulation, charter, instruction or other normative act, which provides for the rights and obligations of this person. Under using their official powers means the actions of a person arising from his official powers and related to the exercise of the rights and obligations that this person is endowed with by virtue of his position.

Sign of using your powers contrary to the interests of the service means that the actions of a person in their content contradict the tasks and goals for which the relevant body functions.

Acts provided for by Art. 285, 286, 286 1, 288, part 2 of article 292, 292 1, and 293 of the Criminal Code, entail criminal liability only upon the occurrence of the consequences specified in these articles, i.e. these compounds are described in the law as material. The articles of the Criminal Code themselves do not offer any criteria for determining a material violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, organizations, society or the state, as well as criteria for distinguishing a material violation from grave consequences.

Under a material violation of the rights of citizens or organizations should be understood as a violation of the rights and freedoms of individuals and legal entities guaranteed by the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, the Constitution of the Russian Federation (for example, the right to respect for the honor and dignity of the individual, personal and family life of citizens, the right to inviolability of the home and privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other messages, as well as the right to judicial protection and access to justice, including the right to an effective remedy in a state body and compensation for damage caused by a crime, etc.). When assessing the materiality of harm, it is necessary to take into account the degree of negative impact of the unlawful act on the normal operation of the organization, the nature and amount of material damage suffered by it, the number of injured citizens, the severity of physical, moral or property damage caused to them, etc. Violation of the legitimate interests of citizens or organizations should be understood, in particular, the creation of obstacles in the satisfaction of citizens or organizations of their needs that do not contradict the norms of law and public morality (for example, the creation by an official of obstacles that limit the possibility of choosing an organization for cooperation).

Under grave consequences as a qualifying sign of a crime provided for in part 3 of Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph "c" of part 3 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, one should understand the consequences of committing a crime in the form of major accidents and a prolonged stop of transport or production process, other disruption of the organization's activities, causing significant material damage, death by negligence, suicide or attempted suicide of the victim, etc.

When investigating the above-mentioned crimes with material elements, it is necessary to find out whether the harm caused to the rights and interests is in causal connection with the violation of his official powers by the official.

Other compositions of this chapter of the Criminal Code are Art. 285 1, 285 2, 285 3, 287, 289, 290, 291 and part 1 of article 292 of the Criminal Code, are formulated in the law as formal, these crimes are over from the moment the actions described in these articles were committed.

WITH subjective side all crimes under Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code are intentional, with the exception of negligence. A number of compositions, in addition to intent, provide as mandatory signs the presence of a certain motive - selfish or other personal interest (Articles 285, 292 of the Criminal Code).

Selfish interest- the desire of an official by committing illegal actions to obtain for himself or other persons a property benefit that is not related to illegal gratuitous use of property in his own favor or the benefit of other persons (for example, illegal receipt of benefits, a loan, exemption from any property costs, refund property, debt repayment, payment for services, payment of taxes, etc.).

Other personal interest- the desire of an official to benefit from a non-property nature, due to such motives as careerism, nepotism, a desire to embellish the actual situation, receive a mutual service, enlist support in solving any issue, hide his incompetence, etc.

By the subject the crimes under consideration can be three categories of persons:

Any person who has reached the age of 16 can only be held responsible for giving a bribe to an official (Articles 291, 291.1 of the Criminal Code);

Any civil servants and employees of local self-government bodies are responsible for the appropriation of the powers of an official and official forgery (Articles 288, 292 of the Criminal Code);

For all other crimes, officials are held accountable.

According to Note 1 to Art. 285 of the Criminal Code “the officials in the articles of this chapter are persons who permanently, temporarily or by special authority perform the functions of a representative of the government or perform organizational and administrative, administrative and economic functions in state bodies, local self-government bodies, state and municipal institutions, state corporations, and also in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation ”.

Thus, the concept of an official is based on two criteria: functional duties and the type of body in which these duties are performed .

Based on the first criterion, the following persons are recognized as officials:

1) acting as a government official

According to the Note to Art. 318 of the Criminal Code "an official of a law enforcement or regulatory body, as well as another official, endowed in the manner prescribed by law with administrative powers in relation to persons who are not in official dependence on him, is recognized as a representative of the authorities in this article and other articles of this Code."

Representatives of the authorities are characterized by the fact that:

They are endowed with powers of authority;

These powers extend not only to persons subordinate to them (many do not have them at all), but also to a wide, indefinite circle of persons.

Representatives of government include representatives of all three branches of government:

a) legislative (deputies of all levels);

b) executive (employees of structures that maintain public order, fight crime, ensure state, fire, sanitary-epidemiological and other security - the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, the Prosecutor's Office, the Ministry of Taxes and Duties, the State Customs Committee, the Federal Sanitary and Epidemiological Supervision, the State Forestry security, etc.);

c) judicial (judges of courts of all levels).

Technical workers and non-operational staff of legislative and executive bodies, prosecutorial and investigative, judicial, controlling and supervisory bodies (heads of offices, economic and legal departments, secretaries, assistants, consultants) are not representatives of the authorities, but they can be officials for other reasons.

2) performing functions :

- organizational and administrative , which should be understood as the powers of an official that are associated with the management of the labor collective of a state body, a state or municipal institution (its structural unit), a state corporation, or individual employees under their service, with the formation of the staff and the definition of the labor functions of employees, with the organization of the procedure for the passage of service, the application of incentive or reward measures, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, etc. Organizational and administrative functions include the powers of persons to make decisions that have legal significance and entail certain legal consequences (for example, for a medical worker to issue a certificate of temporary disability, an employee of an institution of medical and social examination of the fact that a citizen has a disability, taking exams and giving marks by a member state examination (certification) commission).

- administrative , i.e. functions to exercise the authority of an official to manage and dispose of property and (or) monetary funds on the balance sheet and (or) bank accounts of organizations, institutions, military units and units, as well as to perform other actions (for example, to make decisions on the accrual wages, bonuses, control over the movement of material assets, determination of the procedure for their storage, accounting and control over their expenditure).

The conclusion of an agreement between employees and the administration on full financial responsibility for the safety of the entrusted values ​​in itself cannot serve as a basis for recognizing an employee as an official. For this, it is necessary that, in addition to the responsibilities for the direct storage of property, the materially responsible person also performs the functions of disposing and managing it.

The functions discussed above can be performed or performed permanently, temporarily or by special authority. As a general rule, the majority of officials perform such functions by virtue of their permanently held definite position. Fulfillment of the functions of an official by special authority means that a person performs the functions of a representative of authority, performs organizational and administrative or administrative-economic functions assigned to him by law, other regulatory legal act, order or order of a higher official or an authorized body or official (for example, jury function). The functions of an official with a special authority can be carried out for a certain time or once, as a rule, they are short-term or one-time, and can also be combined with the main job. In the temporary performance of the functions of an official or in the performance of them by special authority, a person may be recognized as an official only during the period of performance of the functions assigned to him. The number of persons temporarily or on special authority exercising the functions of representatives of the authorities include: jurors in courts; police and prosecutors trainees; representatives of the public who are officially involved in the exercise of power to combat crime, supervisory and control functions.

If a person appointed to a position in violation of the requirements or restrictions established by law or other regulatory legal acts, a candidate for this position (for example, in the absence of a diploma of higher professional education, the necessary work experience, in the presence of a criminal record, etc.), out of selfish or other personal interest, used his official powers against the interests of the service, or committed actions that clearly go beyond his powers, entailing a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the interests of society or the state protected by law, then such actions should be qualified accordingly as abuse of office powers or as exceeding official powers.

Individual employees of state-owned enterprises, institutions, organizations (teachers, doctors, employees of utilities, public catering, service sectors) can perform either professional-production or official functions. So, a teacher can be a member of an examination, qualification or graduation commission, on the decision of which admission to an educational institution, qualification, and the issuance of a diploma depend; the doctor can determine the patient's disability, be a member of the commission that determines the disability, determines the professional suitability, exempts from service in the Armed Forces. On the other hand, the teacher can carry out the educational process; doctor - to diagnose, prescribe and carry out a course of treatment, carry out operations. In the first case, the named persons are officials, and in the second, they are not.

In the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops, military (special) formations and bodies performing functions to ensure the defense and security of the state, officials who permanently, temporarily or by special authority perform organizational and administrative and (or) administrative and economic functions may be chiefs by official position and (or) military rank. Commanders by official position are persons to whom military personnel are subordinate in service. These should include:

Persons holding relevant military positions according to the state (for example, squad leader, company commander, chief of regiment clothing service);

Persons temporarily performing duties in the relevant military position, as well as temporarily performing the functions of an official by special authority.

Civilian personnel are supervisors for subordinate military personnel in accordance with their regular position. Chiefs in military rank are defined in Article 36 of the Charter of the Internal Service of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (in particular, sergeants and foremen are chiefs in military rank for soldiers and sailors of only one military unit with them).

In accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the note to Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, persons holding public offices of the Russian Federation mean persons holding public offices established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws and federal laws for the direct exercise of the powers of federal state bodies (paragraph 2 notes), and under persons holding public offices of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation - persons holding positions established by the constitutions or charters of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for the direct execution of the powers of state bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (paragraph 3 of the notes).

The consolidated list of government positions in the Russian Federation was approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of January 11, 1995 No. 32 (as amended on December 1, 2008).

Also, the subject of increased responsibility is the head of the local self-government body, which should be understood only as the head of the municipal formation - the highest official of the municipal formation, endowed by the charter of the municipal formation with its own powers to resolve issues of local significance (Article 36 of the Federal Law of 06.10.2003, No. 131- Federal Law "On the General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation").

The second criterion, determining the official, is the place of his activity. According to the Note to Article 285 of the Criminal Code, only a person performing the above functions “in state bodies, local authorities, state and municipal institutions, state corporations, as well as in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation can be recognized as an official. ".

In cases where an act containing signs of abuse of office (Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) or abuse of office (Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) was committed by an official to eliminate a danger that directly threatens the individual, the interests of society or the state protected by law, and this danger is not could be eliminated by other means, then such an act cannot be recognized as criminal, provided that the limits of extreme necessity were not exceeded (Article 39 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Acts of an official related to the use of official powers that have caused damage to interests protected by criminal law cannot be recognized as criminal if they were committed in pursuance of an order or order that is binding on him (Article 42 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Foreign officials and officials of a public international organization who have committed a crime under Articles of Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code are liable under these articles in cases stipulated by international treaties of the Russian Federation.

A private person cannot be a perpetrator (as well as a co-performer) of crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local self-government bodies, however, it is quite legal to prosecute them for complicity in these crimes as an organizer, instigator or accomplice, as well as for participation in the commission of some of these crimes as part of an organized group (paragraph "b", part 3 of article 287, paragraph "a" of part 4 of article 290 of the Criminal Code).

Maintaining

In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, legislative, executive and judicial bodies of state power, as well as local self-government bodies function in our country. These bodies exercise public authority, i.e. endowed with the right to make volitional decisions dictated by social needs. Since public authority functions for public purposes, and its decisions are generally binding, the constitutions and legislation of each state establish a certain framework and rules for its implementation. In its most general form, we can say that the main requirement for public authorities, its bodies, is the requirement of legality. Violation of the principle of legality in any form not only significantly complicates the implementation of the tasks of public authorities, but also casts doubt on its right to present mandatory requirements to citizens and monitor their correct implementation, undermines its authority. Certain violations of the normal functioning of public authorities have such a high degree of public danger that the fight against them is impossible without the use of criminal repression.

Crimes against state power, the interests of the civil service and service in local government bodies are provided for in Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code, socially dangerous acts committed against the interests of the public service using the official position occupied by the culprit and causing or creating an immediate threat of causing significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations, society and the state.

Giving a social description of these crimes, the following should be noted. The problem of corruption in Russia and in the world is acquiring a threatening character. Corruption has become widespread in all branches of government, it affects all spheres of society. Crimes committed by public servants using their official position threaten the rule of law, human rights, undermine the moral foundations of society, trust in the authorities, the principles of government, equality and social justice. The special danger of such crimes is due to the fact that they are committed by persons who, by the nature of their activities, themselves are obliged to fight various offenses and ensure law and order in a particular area.

The Russian Federation ranks one of the first places in the world in terms of corruption. According to experts, in this respect Russia is on a par with such states as Colombia, Nigeria and Bolivia. Crimes against state power, the interests of civil service and service in local self-government bodies are more and more often committed in the interests of illegal business and organized crime - in criminology, the concept of the "iron triangle" has begun to be used.

In 2008, 20,444 crimes were registered against state power, the interests of public service and service in local self-government bodies, which is 12.7% higher than the 1998 level. In the total amount of registered crime, the proportion of the considered group of crimes amounted to 5.4%.

The predicted trends in the dynamics of this type of crime also do not inspire optimism. For example, in the near future, an increase in the activity of the formed large-scale vertical corruption ties is expected, an increase in the number of criminal part-time jobs by state and municipal employees of their activities with work in controlled commercial structures, an increase in the participation of officials using their powers in organizing and managing commercial structures, providing them with illegally obtained benefits, the use of the position of an official in the ongoing process of privatization of state-owned enterprises in order to acquire real and movable property, shares, illegal transfer using the status of an official to commercial organizations of public finance intended for social needs. In this regard, the fight against corruption and other crimes in the studied area remains one of the priority areas of criminal policy.

During the period of radical restructuring of all spheres of public life, legal reforms, building a democratic state that meets all the requirements of civil society, economic development, a very important role belongs to state authorities and administrations, as well as local governments. The solution of large-scale tasks facing the state largely depends on the functioning of the civil service, the clarity and responsibility of its representatives. In connection with these, crimes among the employees themselves in the sphere of government and administration pose an increased danger. For a number of reasons, crime has penetrated into many spheres of the socio-political life of society and the state as a whole, including its power structures, civil service, local government bodies. A number of representatives of these bodies are struck by corruption, bribery, protectionism and other negative phenomena that disrupt the normal activities of state power.

Recently, the problem of combating corruption has not only attracted close attention of the media and the general population, but has finally become the subject of professional analysis by Russian specialists. When assessing the effectiveness of legal mechanisms aimed at combating corruption, two fundamentally different approaches have emerged. In one case, a so-called narrow understanding has developed, which is considered mainly in a punitive aspect and provides for the creation of a system of additional restrictions and prohibitions.

The second case provides for "soft" methods of struggle, such as, for example, personal policy, organizational and cultural development, as well as certain control mechanisms.

Note that in the struggle of different states against corruption, both methods are used. So, for this purpose, television and radio broadcasts, social campaigns, training courses, information for the public, legal acts, corruption research, information booklets, amendments to laws, etc. have been developed. In most Western European countries, the laws that regulate anti-corruption activities are largely similar. parts. OECD is one of the biggest fighters for punishing corrupt acts and imposing equivalent punishments for them. Their purpose is to ensure the principle that a bribe-taker should not go unpunished in one state if the punishments in a neighboring state are very severe. They are also trying to ensure that similar requirements apply to officials in all union states. However, there is no clear position on which of the methods of combating corruption is the most effective. The same methods do not have to be suitable for different cultures.

In principle, the fight against corruption, understood in a narrow sense, is quite adequately regulated by the existing legal and regulatory framework, which needs only some specific clarifications.

The object of the research is the totality of social relations, regulated by legal norms, emerging in the field of crimes against state power.

The subject of the research is the legislation of the Russian Federation, judicial practice, special scientific legal literature.

The purpose of the study is to identify the features and analyze the crimes committed against state power in order to improve the current legislative norms and law enforcement practice.

The implementation of this goal required the solution of the following tasks:

consider the history of the development of criminal legislation in the field of crimes against state power;

to give a general criminological and criminal-legal description of crimes against state power;

analyze the legal structure of these crimes;

identify and analyze the types of crimes against state power, as well as determine the problems associated with such a classification;

consider problematic issues of criminal liability within the framework of the research topic;

In the course of the study, general scientific and specific scientific methods of cognition were used: formal legal, logical methods, methods of induction and deduction, and others.

By its structure, the work consists of an introduction, two chapters, six paragraphs, a list of used literature, an appendix.

crime state power lesson

1. Retrospective and criminological characteristics of crimes against state power

1.1 The history of the development of Russian criminal legislation on responsibility for crimes against state power

In the criminal legislation of Russia, the institution of crimes against state power acted as the main protection of the political and legal system of the country. The separation of crimes against the state into a separate category can be traced back in the Pskov letter of judgment and the Sudebniks of 1497 and 1550. Note that in the Cathedral Code of 1649, this type of crime included encroachment on the life, health and power of the tsar, an uprising against local authorities; in the Military Regulations of 1715 - insult or condemnation of the actions and intentions of the emperor and members of his family, the creation and distribution of writings, appeals, appeals, etc. against the government.

It should be especially noted that state crimes were systematized in the legislation of the XIX - early XX centuries. So, in the years 1860-1870. ongoing reforms in Russia gave rise to changes, and in some places and additions to the Code in 1885, which contained a section "On crimes and misconduct in the service of the state and public", which covered a significant number of chapters and articles. We emphasize the fact that the concept of an official was not yet known to the criminal law doctrine of that time, therefore it was not used in the Code of Punishments, in connection with which, in each composition of malfeasance, the subject was determined specifically, in relation to the committed act, for example, the perpetrator , official, employee, etc. The section "On crimes and misconduct in the service of the state and public" began with a chapter on the responsibility of an employee for failure to comply and / or violation of existing decrees and orders, and the section also contained chapters establishing the responsibility of officials and employees for exceeding their powers; for careless storage, use, waste, appropriation, shortage of entrusted material values; for forgery in the service. Several articles were devoted to bribery, referred to as bribery and extortion. Compositions of receiving a bribe by an official personally or through someone else - bribe-remuneration were presented separately. A bribe committed by extortion varied depending on its motives, conditional covers, etc. The Code provided for responsibility for giving a bribe.

In 1903, the Criminal Code was adopted, which also contained a chapter on state crimes, containing 51 elements. However, it should be borne in mind that the aforementioned Criminal Code was valid not throughout the entire territory of the Russian Empire, but only in the Baltic States. On the rest of the territory of the Empire, the laws "On revolt against the Supreme Power", "On high treason" were applied.

Note that the Criminal Code of 1903 in Part 4 of Art. 636 gave a legislative definition of an employee, indicating that he is any person carrying out duties or performing a temporary assignment in the service of a state or public, as an official, or a policeman, or other guard, or a servant, or a person of a rural or bourgeois administration. The law did not single out any features of the subject, but emphasized certain types of positions. Thus, Chapter 37 provided for responsibility for the commission by a person of actions that were not within his competence and were not provided by law. Responsibility for these acts was differentiated depending on the form of guilt. A separate provision of the law regulated the provision that such unlawful acts should not be considered an abuse of power when they were committed by an employee in extraordinary circumstances. However, the law did not stipulate what exactly is meant by such circumstances.

The Code also contained several corpus delicti related to official inaction, to which it referred to the failure of the guilty to take measures to prevent and suppress harm threatening the order of administration or state, public interest; failure by the guilty to take steps to promulgate, declare or enact a law or other Supreme command, a binding resolution; not informing your superiors about the receipt of incoming paper, if this was followed by an important harm to the management order; failure to report, contrary to duty, to his superiors, police or judicial authorities about the serious crimes committed; and some others. In the same section, independent structures were established, which, in relation to modern criminal legislation, characterize crimes against the order of administration and justice.

Responsibility for bribery was contained in two articles of the Code, with one of them providing for liability for accepting a bribe-bribery, and the other for giving a bribe-remuneration. The same article established responsibility for extortion of a bribe. Note that the law also established responsibility for such an action as mediation in the transfer of a bribe.

As you know, in the period from 1917 to 1922, the criminal legislation of Russia was not codified, and the sources of criminal law were the government's appeals to the population, various decrees issued by the authorities, etc., which contained indications of certain types of malfeasance without definition. signs of their compositions. For the first time, malfeasance is mentioned in Art. Decree 8 of the Council of People's Commissars of November 24, 1917 "On the Court", according to which cases of abuse of officials were attributed to the competence of workers 'and peasants' revolutionary tribunals.

During the existence of the USSR, state crimes were understood as such socially dangerous acts that were directed against the foundations of the Soviet system or the foundations of its management and economic power. In accordance with the provision on state crimes, approved by the Central Executive Committee of the USSR in 1927, two main groups of the considered institution of crimes were distinguished: counter-revolutionary crimes and crimes against the order of government in the USSR. Subsequently, the law on state crimes of 1958 was enacted, which was reproduced in the criminal codes of the union republics. Note that the Criminal Code of the RSFSR divided crimes against state power into especially dangerous and others.

The next stage in the development of legislation on crimes against state power is already reflected in the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which contains a special section "Crimes against state power", which classifies such acts into:

Thus, as a result of the issues discussed in this paragraph, it should be noted:

1. In the history of Russian legislation, one of the first mentions of criminal liability for malfeasance is found in the Pskov Judicial Charter and Sudebniks of 1497 and 1550.

2. In the course of further development, the content of the norms providing for criminal responsibility for crimes against state power has changed several times.

3. In the development of legislation on state crimes, the following stages can be distinguished:

5. At present, the degree of public danger of crimes against state power, among other things, is determined by:

- the fact that the normal functioning of society and the state as a whole largely depends on the law-based, purposeful and high-quality activity of the state apparatus;

- the nature and severity of the consequences;

- justified anxiety of citizens, the creation of an atmosphere of psychological tension, which is reflected, first of all, in the attitude of society towards the activities of state bodies.

1.2 Criminological characteristics of crimes against state power

In recent years, there has been an extremely high degree of damage to the sphere of state power, civil service and service in local self-government bodies by corruption and other types of criminal acts. This is recognized not only by the mass media, state and public figures, but also by all segments of the population of Russia. The severity of the problem of criminal law counteraction to the further negative development of the situation in the area under consideration lies primarily in the fact that, firstly, this area, like any other sphere of social activity, is subject to criminal encroachments, which it needs protection from, and secondly , this is the field of activity, the state of which significantly reduces or enhances the criminality of society as a whole, actively affects the dynamics, structure and level of crime, thirdly, the system of state power is the main subject of the fight against crime, providing the law enforcement function of the state.

In 2008, 20,444 crimes were registered against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government bodies, which is 12.7% higher than the 1998 level. In the total amount of registered crime, the specific weight of the considered group of crimes amounted to 5.4% 2.

The predicted trends in the dynamics of this type of crime also do not inspire optimism. For example, in the near future, an increase in the activity of the formed large-scale vertical corruption ties is expected, an increase in the number of criminal combination of state and municipal employees of their activities with work in controlled commercial structures, an increase in the participation of officials using their powers in organizing and managing commercial structures, providing them with illegally obtained benefits, the use of the position of an official in the ongoing process of privatization of state enterprises in order to acquire real and movable property, shares, illegal transfer using the status of an official to commercial organizations of public finance intended for social needs. In this regard, the fight against corruption and other crimes in the studied area remains one of the priority areas of criminal policy.

Note that at a meeting of the Federation Council, the Prosecutor General noted a significant increase in the number of crimes against state power in 2008. More than 28 thousand such crimes were recorded last year. According to the Prosecutor General's report, there has been an increase in the number of offenses committed by law enforcement officials recently, and the number of bribery cases has doubled.

The current criminal legislation does not contain a definition of the concept of crimes against state power, the interests of the state service.

In the previously effective criminal law of Russia, the group of acts in question was called malfeasance, i.e. criminal offenses committed by officials in connection with their official position. Official crimes include abuse of office, abuse of office, refusal to provide information to the Federal Assembly or the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, illegal participation in business, bribe-taking, and negligence.

At the same time, the commission of forgery is envisaged by both an official and other civil servants or employees of a local self-government body. Assignment of the powers of an official can only be committed by a civil servant or an employee of a local self-government body who is not an official; the bribe is committed by a common entity.

Note 4 to Art. 285 of the Criminal Code explains that civil servants and employees of local self-government bodies who are not officials are criminally liable under articles of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code in cases specifically provided for by the relevant articles.

The above wording equates, as an exception, certain acts of non-officials provided for in Art. 292, 288 of the Criminal Code, to malfeasance. Consequently, crimes against state power, the interests of civil service and service in local self-government bodies included in Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code include both malfeasance and the acts of civil servants and employees of local self-government bodies who are not officials, equivalent to them, by way of exception. as well as acts committed by other persons. Based on the foregoing, crimes against state power, the interests of civil service and service in local self-government bodies should be understood as a group of criminal acts that infringe on the procedure for exercising state power, public service and service in local self-government bodies, committed by officials in connection with their official position. , as well as in exceptional cases provided for by the criminal law, civil servants and employees of local self-government bodies who are not officials, or other persons.

Note that the majority of persons who have committed crimes in this area are characterized by a premeditated intent. So, for example, when receiving a bribe, the person receiving such a bribe finds himself in the conditions of choice, when there is a likelihood of being in unfavorable conditions.

According to Art. 12 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in Russia local self-government is recognized and guaranteed, which is carried out independently within the limits of its powers.
In accordance with the Federal Law "On the Fundamentals of the Civil Service of the Russian Federation" dated July 31, 1995, civil service is understood as a professional activity to ensure the execution of the powers of state bodies.

The public service includes: 1) the federal public service under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation; 2) the civil service of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which is under their jurisdiction.

The functions of the civil service are performed by civil servants, who are recognized as citizens of the Russian Federation who, in accordance with the procedure established by federal law, perform the duties of the civil service for monetary remuneration, which is paid out of the federal budget or the budget of the corresponding constituent entity of the Russian Federation. Only citizens of the Russian Federation who have reached the age of eighteen have the right to enter the civil service.

In accordance with the Federal Law "On General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation", local self-government bodies are elected and other bodies empowered to resolve issues of local importance and are not part of the system of government bodies. The law recognizes as issues of local importance the issues of direct support of the life of the population of the municipality, referred to as such by its charter.

According to the Federal Law "On the Foundations of Municipal Service in the Russian Federation" dated January 8, 1998, 2 municipal service is understood as a paid professional activity to ensure the powers of local self-government bodies, which is carried out by municipal employees.

It should be noted that at present, in scientific research, special attention is paid to the classification of various categories. This is explained by the fact that they serve as one of the most frequently used legal and technical techniques in law. The classification makes it possible to identify certain phenomena according to various distinctive features, to establish their characteristics, signs, functional orientation to expand the boundaries of cognition. All this contributes to their deep and comprehensive research.

Indeed, in order to fully, comprehensively and objectively represent any system, they use such a scientific method as the classification of its constituent elements. The criminal-legal institution of crimes against state power is no exception. In this case, one of the most important aspects of its deep study is the problem of classification. The classification not only reflects the signs of all four chapters included in Section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Crimes against State Power", their diversity, the features of each of them, but also reveals the issues of improving law enforcement practice, since each object under consideration receives a certain assessment. According to the famous Russian scientist S.V. Poznyshev's classification as a technical and legal method has a double meaning for a scientific researcher: from the outside, it is a method that introduces a system and order into the study; from the inside, it is a technique that predetermines the completeness and correctness of the conclusions of the study.

The legislator, proceeding from the democratic principles of criminal law and a reassessment of priorities in this regard, as well as the generic object of a group of crimes in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, included four chapters:

crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and state security;

crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government;

crimes against justice;

crimes against the order of government.

Thus, the main criterion of criminal law protection and the basis of classification are public relations that ensure the stability of the state, the normal, legally regulated functioning of state power and its individual components: institutions and bodies.

Note that the criminal law provisions included in this section provide for liability for socially dangerous acts that infringe on the activities of state authorities, state and local self-government regulated by law, associated with causing harm, or endangering the rights and legitimate interests of society. and the state, or those that could undermine their authority, as well as violate the rights and interests of citizens.

Before proceeding to consider the problem of classification of crimes against state power, it is necessary to formulate the following definition of crimes against state power. Crimes against state power should be understood as deliberately committed socially dangerous acts aimed at undermining the foundations of the constitutional system and weakening state power in the person of legislative, executive and judicial bodies.

Section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation begins with Chapter 29, which provides for responsibility for committing crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state. The foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation are regulated in Chapter 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which enshrines the initial principles of the constitutional system, economic relations, the political system of society, they are priority, basic, defining legal provisions that allow, as mentioned above, to ensure the normal functioning of state power.

The social danger of crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state lies in the fact that they undermine the constitutional order, the socio-economic and political-legal system of the state, its security, internal and external stability, weaken the protection of vital benefits and interests of the individual, society from outgoing threats.

Thus, the specific object of these crimes is the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state. The main direct object is concrete social relations, which are encroached upon by the corresponding crimes of the chapter under consideration, causing damage and harm to them. In the scientific and educational literature, various classifications of crimes against the foundations of the constitutional system and state security are proposed.

So, A.I. Rarog, depending on the immediate object, classifies the considered group of crimes into types of crimes against:

the political system of the Russian Federation;

economic security and defense capability of the Russian Federation;

the constitutional principle of non-admission of propaganda or agitation inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity;

the safety of state secrets.

Based on the direct object A.V. Naumov proposed to classify all crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state as crimes against:

external security of the Russian Federation;

the legitimacy of state power;

political diversity and multi-party system;

economic security and defense capability of the Russian Federation;

a constitutional ban on inciting racial, ethnic and religious hatred.

The classification proposed by the scientific community was subjected to exacting criticism from S.V. Dyakov believes that such a classification is vulnerable for a number of reasons.

First, it does not show a single basis for classification, without which it loses its scientific clarity.

Secondly, the crimes provided for in paragraph 2 infringe not on the legitimacy of state power, but on the internal security or the political system of the Russian Federation.

I do not agree S.V. Dyakov and referring the disclosure of state secrets and the loss of documents containing state secrets to crimes that infringe on economic security and defense, since state secrets take place not only in the spheres of economy and defense. In our opinion, one can agree with the proposals made regarding the classification of state secrets in this group, proceeding from the fact that state secrets are also formed by other spheres of interests protected by the state.

Note that the researchers consider it justified to include crimes that infringe on the safety of state secrets in a separate group. In this case, they will be separated into a separate independent group due to crimes that infringe on external security, and on economic and defense capabilities. According to scientists, this will not contradict the basic principles of classification, based on its certain conventionality and relativity, although in some cases this convention can acquire the character of necessity and inevitability. For example, in cases of transition from one basis of classification to another, or when one basis of classification is included in the content of several subjects.

According to S.V. Borodin, in general, the classification of state crimes can be presented as crimes encroaching on:

external security;

on internal security;

on economic security.

The proposed S.V. Borodin's classification also did not solve the problem of attributing Art. 283 and Art. 284 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation into the specified group, moreover, it complicated it. In the scientific and educational legal literature, proposals have been made about the placement of Art. 283 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Disclosure of state secrets" and Art. 284 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Loss of documents containing state secrets" in Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government, based on the specific object of interests of the service.

So, according to Professor N.F. Kuznetsova, to equate high treason with the careless loss of documents containing state secrets means to deviate from the criteria for structuring the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on generic and specific objects.

A.V. Naumov, his disagreement with S.V. Dyakov also speaks about the replacement of internal security or the political system of the Russian Federation with the legitimacy of state power, arguing that there are no contradictions between these objects, they coincide in content.

V.V. Lunev, in turn, divides all state crimes into two large groups of crimes: against the foundations of the constitutional system and against the external security of the state.

N.I. Vetrov classifies all crimes in this category by type.

A.S. Gorelik, depending on the more specific objects of encroachment, singles out crimes that encroach on: external security; on the foundations of the constitutional order and internal security; constitutional foundations of national, legal and religious relations; preservation of state secrets.

We emphasize that in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely in the chapter on crimes against the foundations of the constitutional system and state security, Federal Law No. 162-FZ of December 8, 2003, introduced changes of a fundamental nature, which led to a significant transformation of the objective side of the crime under Art. 280 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in addition, the legislator also included two new articles in it, Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Thus, in connection with the legislative amendments, it becomes necessary to formulate the classification of the crimes under consideration. The authors propose to classify the crimes included by the legislator in Chapter 29 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as follows: crimes that infringe on external security; crimes that infringe on internal security; crimes that infringe on the constitutional foundations of national, legal and religious relations.

Note that the legislator has included 11 articles in Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, containing a description of the signs of crimes committed by a special category of subjects - officials.

The social danger of the analyzed crimes lies in the fact that as a result of their commission, the normative, legally regulated activities of the apparatus of the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, as well as local self-government bodies are violated.

Crimes against state power, the interests of the civil service and service in local self-government bodies should be understood as intentional or careless socially dangerous acts that infringe on public relations, regulating the normal, legally regulated activities of the public administration, committed by officials in connection with the exercise of their official powers , as well as in exceptional cases provided for by the criminal law, civil servants and employees of local self-government bodies who are not officials, or other persons causing significant harm to state and public interests, the interests of the civil service or service in local self-government bodies or protected by law the rights and interests of individual citizens, or containing a real threat of causing such harm.

The formulated definition reflects the three most essential features characteristic of all malfeasance:

encroachment on the same species object;

committed only by a special subject - an official;

committed using official powers or due to the occupied official position.

Let us emphasize that it is the combination of these features that constitutes the content of the malfeasance.

Taking into account the qualified types, this chapter contains a description of 25 corpus delicti of malfeasance. Based on the legislative provisions enshrined in Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the considered group of crimes can be classified into: crimes of small gravity, medium gravity, grave, especially grave.

In theory and practice, there is still no consensus on the nature of the correlation between official attacks and other crimes committed by officials and civil servants. Of interest is the classification of crimes depending on the criminal-legal status of the subject. All of them are divided into three groups:

general malfeasance that can be committed in any area of ​​activity of the state apparatus and local self-government bodies and responsibility for which provided for by the norms of this chapter;

special official crimes that can be committed by persons in certain links and spheres of activity of the state apparatus and local self-government bodies and only by officials endowed with special features;

alternative-official crimes, which can be committed by both officials and private individuals.

The legislator proposed to classify all crimes of chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, based on the subject, into four groups:

committed only by officials, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290, 293 CC);

committed by officials, civil servants and employees of municipal bodies;

committed by employees of state and municipal bodies;

committed by a common subject.

Note that Chapter 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Crimes against Justice" includes 23 articles containing a description of 48 compositions.

The social danger of crimes against justice lies in the fact that they violate the rights and freedoms of man and citizen guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, cause irreparable damage to the interests of justice, law and order, society and the state.

Crimes against justice are intentional socially dangerous unlawful acts prohibited by criminal legislation, infringing on public relations in the administration of justice, committed by officials of these bodies and other persons called to ensure or facilitate the implementation of the tasks and goals of this activity.

In the scientific and educational legal literature, scientists offer various grounds for the classification of crimes against justice.

At the same time, several approaches to the classification of these crimes are distinguished: according to the subject of the crime, based on the immediate object, according to the similarity of the signs of the objective side, and also based on their object of encroachment.

On the subject of the crime, all the compositions against the order of justice Sh.S. Rashkovskaya divided into two groups:

against justice, committed by officials - employees of the bodies of inquiry, investigation, prosecutor's office, judges;

against justice, committed by other persons.

VK. Glistin, in turn, identified three groups:

crimes committed by officials of the bodies of inquiry, investigation, prosecutor's office and court;

crimes committed by private individuals involved in the administration of justice;

crimes constituting punishment evasion.

The classification proposed by Yu.A. Krasikov. According to the subject of the crime, he divides crimes against justice into those committed by officials of the bodies of the court, investigation, inquiry and prosecutor's office and all other crimes against justice.

According to M.N. Golodnyuk, the most successful is the classification of crimes against justice according to the immediate object, since it reflects those social relations that certain groups of these crimes cause harm. According to the direct object of the crime against justice, it differentiates as follows: infringing on the life, health, honor and dignity of persons administering justice; hindering the performance by law enforcement officials of their duties to implement the goals and objectives of justice; committed in the course of the administration of justice by officials; preventing the execution of punishment or compensation for harm caused by a crime.

It seems that the proposed classification is inconsistent: the classification is based on, firstly, different criteria integrates acts on the basis of a special subject); secondly, a broad formulation of the concept of persons administering justice.

According to A.S. Gorelik's classification of crimes against justice should also be based on the specific types of relationships that make up the normal work of the justice authorities. Based on this, he proposes the following classification system for crimes against justice in the field:

ensuring the independence of judges and protecting their personal safety, honor and dignity;

correct administration of justice by justice officials;

fulfillment by citizens of their duties to facilitate or not to obstruct the administration of justice;

execution of sentences, decisions and other acts of justice bodies.

In Chapter 32 "Crimes against the order of administration" the legislator has included 16 articles containing a description of 30 corpus delicti. The social danger of crimes against the order of administration lies in the fact that the crimes of this group normally oppose the legislative regulation of the activities of state authorities and local self-government, undermine the foundations of administrative activities, destabilize the work of law enforcement agencies, disorganize the activities of criminal executive bodies, and weaken the established regime of the state border.

Crimes against the order of management should be understood as guilty socially dangerous acts that infringe on normal management activities and cause harm or endanger the harm to protected relations.

A fairly extensive domestic literature is devoted to the legal analysis of the corpus delicti against the management order. If we turn to the analysis of specific criminal law structures included in this chapter of data in the educational and scientific literature, we can find various classifications.

So, for example, Yu.Yu. Byshevsky classifies crimes against justice that infringe on: the authority of state power; normal activities of public authorities and local government bodies; the established procedure for maintaining, using, circulating official documentation; inviolability of the state border.

A.V. Kladkov, depending on the direct object of the crime against the management order, subdivides into the following types:

encroachments on government officials and other persons in connection with the management activities of state bodies;

encroachments on the inviolability of the state border of the Russian Federation;

encroachments on the order of circulation of official documents and state awards;

encroachments on the order of conscription for military and alternative civilian service;

encroachment on the procedure for exercising the disputed rights.

We believe that based on the immediate object, crimes against the order of government can be classified into the following three groups of crimes:

It seems that the proposed classification of crimes against the order of management is the most preferable, since it allows to take into account the peculiarity of the crimes included by the legislator in Chapter 32 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, their legal nature, the mechanism of causing harm to relations that develop in the process of making managerial decisions.

Thus, as a result of the criminological characteristics of crimes against state power, the following should be noted.

1. During the period of reforming the Russian economy, the number of registered crimes against state power is expressed in the following figures. Thus, in 2008, 20,444 crimes were registered against state power, the interests of public service and service in local self-government bodies, which is 12.7% higher than the level of 1998. In the total amount of registered crime, the proportion of the considered group of crimes amounted to 5.4%. In the period 1998-2008. in total, the total number of detected crimes against justice was 39394, of the number of identified persons who committed crimes - 24861. The number of crimes against justice by special subjects for the same period was equal to 1875, and the number of identified special subjects - 951.

2. The study of the personality of a criminal who commits a crime against state power has shown that this crime in the overwhelming majority of cases is committed by men and women. The educational level of persons who have committed a crime against state power testifies to an increase in the number of convicts with a higher and secondary specialized education.

3. Researchers see the reasons for the increase in the number of crimes against state power in economic, social and moral changes, permissiveness and lack of control, in oblivion of traditions and a false understanding of the democratic principles of community. And also in the fact that the centralized system is opposed by a hidden, secret and experienced force that gradually grows into official institutions and organizations, paralyzing their activities or subjugating them.

So, the analysis of regulatory legal acts and published literature concerning the retrospective and criminological characteristics of crimes against state power allows us to formulate the following conclusions:

the first stage, enshrined in the Sudebniks of 1497 and 1550,

the second stage was reflected in the legislation of the late 19th - early 20th centuries,

the third stage is expressed by decrees and regulations of the authorities,

the fourth stage is the consolidation of crimes against state power in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR,

the fifth stage is the reflection of this type of crime in the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Crimes of this kind undermine the foundations of power and government, discredit and undermine their authority in the eyes of the population, infringe on the constitutional rights and interests of citizens, destroy democratic foundations and the rule of law, distort the principles of legality, and impede the implementation of socio-economic reforms in society.

6. Most crimes against state power in the Russian Federation are committed by men and women. The educational level of persons who have committed a crime against state power testifies to an increase in the number of convicts with higher and secondary specialized education. the majority of persons who have committed crimes in this area are characterized by premeditated intent.

2. Modern legal regulation of criminal responsibility for crimes against state power

2.1 General characteristics of crimes against state power

Crimes against state power, the interests of the civil service and service in local self-government bodies are traditionally referred to as malfeasance in office and represent a criminal manifestation of corruption. Being a multifaceted, socially complex and largely objectively determined phenomenon, corruption from the point of view of legal regulation requires an integrated approach, within which the measures of criminal law should play a leading, but not the only role. The danger of corruption is amply described in the preamble to the European Convention, which notes that corruption threatens the rule of law, democracy and human rights, undermines the foundations of good governance, violates the principles of equality and social justice, impedes economic development and threatens the stability of democratic interests and the moral foundations of society. It should be noted that our country ranks one of the first places in the world in terms of corruption: according to some estimates, in this respect, Russia is on a par with such states as Colombia.

In this paragraph, we will consider some of the offenses related to encroachments on state power. Unfortunately, within the framework of this work, it is not considered to analyze all the elements of crimes related to the problem under study, so we will focus only on some of them.

Note that the norms of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are devoted to the establishment of criminality and punishability of acts that represent violations of the normal activities of public authorities and their bodies. These violations are committed internally, i.e. by the very subjects of power, so they have an increased danger.

Crimes against public service and service in local self-government bodies are socially dangerous acts provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, committed against the interests of the public service with the use of the guilty official position or related to failure to perform their official duties, which creates an immediate threat to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, organizations, society and the state.

The specific object of these crimes is the totality of social relations that ensure the correct, i.e. the activities of the public administration in accordance with the law - state authorities, local self-government bodies, state and municipal institutions, as well as government bodies in the Armed Forces.

The title of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation speaks of the direction of these crimes against the state power, the interests of the civil service and service in local self-government bodies. Note that in accordance with the Federal Law of May 27, 2003 No. 58-FZ "On the system of public service of the Russian Federation", public service is a professional service activity of citizens of the Russian Federation to ensure the execution of the powers of the Russian Federation, federal government bodies of the Russian Federation, as well as persons holding government positions in the Russian Federation.

The direct object of the crimes under consideration is social relations, which are formed regarding the provision of individual components of the correct functioning of the power public apparatus.

Note that from the objective point of view, some of the crimes under consideration are characterized by actions, others - by both actions and inaction. So, only in the form of an action can such crimes as bribe-giving, abuse of office be committed. Crimes such as refusal to provide information to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation or the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, negligence can be committed even by inaction.

Characterizing an action or inaction as a sign of the objective side of an official malfeasance, it should be noted that it:

is associated with official or other publicly significant activity of the person and in this sense is performed alternatively;

is committed against the interests of the service.

The essence of the first sign is that the very possibility of committing the acts specified in the law is due to the competence of the perpetrator or the significance and authority of the position he holds. In other words, by committing a crime, the perpetrator uses the opportunities actually available to him due to his official position. Thus, an action as a sign of the objective side can formally enter into the competence of the guilty party or follow from it, be associated with it.

The second sign indicates that the perpetrator is using his official position not in the interests of the public service, but contrary to them. In other words, the special opportunities provided to the perpetrator to ensure the public interest are used by him for purposes that contradict these interests, as a result of which a real threat of harm is caused or created.

Depending on the specifics of the subject, all crimes against state power can be divided into types:

crimes committed by any person meeting the characteristics of a common subject;

crimes committed by civil servants or employees of local government bodies who are not officials;

crimes committed by officials;

crimes committed by both officials and public servants.

As a result of the issues discussed in this paragraph, the following should be noted:

- the norms of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are devoted to the establishment of criminality and punishability of acts that represent violations of the normal activities of public authorities and their bodies;

- in view of the limited scope of this work, it seems appropriate to consider and analyze only some specific types of crimes against state power.

2.2 Types of crimes against state power and problematic issues of their qualification

Within the framework of this work, it is not possible to analyze all the corpus delicti related to the problem under study, therefore we will focus only on some of them.

Within the meaning of the law, high treason can be committed in three forms: a) espionage; b) issuance of state secrets: c) other assistance to a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives in carrying out hostile activities to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation.

The concept of espionage will be considered when analyzing the crime, the responsibility for which is provided for in Art. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The issuance of a state secret is understood as an oral or written message, as well as a message made by other means and methods to a foreign state, a foreign organization or their representatives of information constituting a state secret. In accordance with Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 21.07.93 No. 5485-1 "On State Secrets" state secrets are information protected by the state in the field of its military, foreign policy, economic, intelligence, counterintelligence and operational-search activities, the spread of which may harm the security of the Russian Federation.

Information constituting a state secret is recorded on certain media, which include material objects, including physical fields. Fixation is carried out in the form of symbols, images, signals, technical solutions and processes. The carriers of information constituting a state secret have requisites indicating the degree of secrecy of this information. The degree of secrecy should correspond to the severity of damage that may be caused to the security of the Russian Federation as a result of the dissemination of this information. The Government of the Russian Federation approved the Rules for classifying information constituting a state secret to various degrees of secrecy dated September 4, 1995 No. 870, according to which the specified information is subdivided into:

1) information of particular importance is information in the field of military, foreign policy, economic, scientific and technical, intelligence, counterintelligence and operational-search activities, the dissemination of which may harm the interests of the Russian Federation in one or more of the listed areas;

2) top secret information is information in the listed areas, the dissemination of which may harm the interests of the ministry or sectors of the economy of the Russian Federation;

3) classified information is information the dissemination of which may harm the interests of enterprises, institutions or organizations in the same areas.

The crime of giving out information constituting a state secret is considered completed from the moment the state secret is actually communicated to representatives of a foreign state, a foreign organization.

Other assistance involves the commission of various actions that are not covered by previous forms of high treason and are aimed at assisting a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives in carrying out hostile activities to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation. A crime that constitutes this form of high treason is considered completed from the moment any action is taken to assist a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives in carrying out the specified activity.

It should be borne in mind that high treason is carried out in favor of a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives. A foreign organization can be both state and non-state. Representatives of a foreign state and a foreign organization are their officials.

The subjective side is characterized by direct intent. An obligatory feature is the goal – causing damage to the external security of the Russian Federation. The motives of high treason do not affect qualifications.

The subject of the crime, with the exception of such a form as extradition, is general. The subject of extradition is a special one, it is a citizen of the Russian Federation who possesses information constituting a state secret in connection with his official activities or work, as well as who received this information under other circumstances.

In accordance with the note, the person who committed crimes, the responsibility for which is established in Art. 275, 276, 278 of the Criminal Code, is exempt from criminal liability if it voluntarily and timely communicated to the authorities or otherwise contributed to the prevention of further damage to the interests of the Russian Federation and if its actions do not contain a different corpus delicti.

Espionage is defined as the transfer, as well as the collection, theft or storage for the purpose of transferring information constituting a state secret to a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives, as well as the transfer or collection of other information on behalf of foreign intelligence for use to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation.

The main object of espionage is external security as a state of protection of sovereignty, territorial integrity and defense against external influences.

The subject of this crime is information of two categories: first, it is information constituting a state secret; secondly, this is other information that is collected on the instructions of foreign intelligence and can be used to damage the external security of the Russian Federation.

Depending on the content of the subject of the crime, there are two types of espionage: a) the subject of the first is information constituting a state secret; b) the subject of the second is other information collected on the instructions of foreign intelligence and intended to be used to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation.

The objective side of the first type of espionage is the commission of active actions in the form of transferring, collecting, stealing information, storing state secrets. Gathering is the receipt of information in any way, carried out without the removal of objects or documents from the possession of their owners or possessors. All methods of collecting information can be divided into two groups: a) personal observation, i.e. obtaining information from surrounding objects of reality; b) undercover method - obtaining information from people who have such information. Theft involves the illegal seizure of information from their owner. The seizure can be secret or open, with the use of deception or violence, when documents and objects are seized not for a while, but forever for transfer to the addressees specified in the law.

The collected or stolen information is usually stored until it is transferred to a foreign state, foreign organization, or their representatives. From the objective point of view, storage means, firstly, that the information, which is a state secret, previously collected or stolen by the guilty person, is stored in a certain place until it is transferred, and secondly, that the guilty person himself did not directly collect and steal this information, but they are transferred to him. other persons for subsequent transfer to certain subjects, and, thirdly, a situation is possible when the perpetrator stores information collected and stolen by another person with subsequent return to the same person. Thus, the storage of information constituting a state secret, as a form of action in espionage, can be of three types: a) a person stores information collected or stolen by himself for the purpose of transferring it to a foreign state, foreign organization, their representatives; b) the person himself did not collect or steal information, but received it for the purpose of transferring it to the addressee; c) storage of information collected by another person, with the subsequent return to the same person. In this case, the perpetrator will be liable for complicity in espionage, provided that he was aware of the nature of the information stored, the purpose pursued by the person who collected it, and promised in advance to hide the items obtained by criminal means containing this information.

The main goal to which the guilty person strives when collecting, stealing or storing information constituting a state secret is to transfer it to certain addressees. Transfer should be understood as the communication of information constituting a state secret to a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives. In this case, the message can be carried out not only orally, but also by, for example, showing any documents or objects, as well as using hiding places, postal correspondence, radio communication. The transmitted information can be collected or stolen by the culprit himself, or it can be obtained from other persons. The transfer can be done in person or through intermediaries. Moreover, if the intermediary is aware of the nature of the transmitted information and the status of the addressee, then he is responsible for complicity in espionage.

The objective side of the second type of espionage is actions in the form of collecting and transmitting other information. The legislator does not provide for such forms of action as abduction and storage, since this information is open and can be obtained from various sources: official publications of scientific and technical literature, periodicals: at official symposia, conferences; by sending inquiries to various organizations, questionnaires, etc. Other information may be collected through personal observation.

The transfer or collection of other information is punishable if these actions are carried out on the instructions of foreign intelligence in order to use them to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation, i.e. in this case, the existence of two signs is assumed: the presence of a foreign intelligence mission and the purpose of causing damage to the external security of the Russian Federation.

Espionage is a formal crime. It is worth noting that an action such as storage is lasting, i.e. it is characterized by the continuous implementation of the composition of the act.

The subjective side of espionage is characterized by guilt in the form of direct intent. In addition, the second form of espionage is characterized by a special purpose - to harm the external security of the Russian Federation, and the collection, theft or storage of information constituting a state secret is carried out in order to transfer it.

The subject of espionage can be foreign citizens and stateless persons who have reached the age of 16.

Note that if a citizen of the Russian Federation acts as an organizer, instigator or accomplice of espionage, responsibility for which is provided for in Art. 276 of the Criminal Code, his actions are qualified as high treason in the form of other assistance to a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives in carrying out hostile activities to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation.

With regard to a group of crimes that encroach on the foundations of the political system, the legitimacy of state power is understood, i.e. the constitutional basis of its functioning, as well as the unimpeded exercise of their political functions by state and public figures. This group of crimes includes acts under Art. 277-279 CC.

Encroachment on the life of a statesman or public figure. The direct object of this crime is not only the foundations of the political system of the Russian Federation, but also the life of a statesman or public figure.

Only a state or public figure can be a victim in the commission of the crime in question. The statesmen include heads and other officials of the highest bodies of legislative, executive, judicial power and the prosecutor's office both at the federal level and at the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Public figures are understood as leaders and active functionaries of political parties, social movements, foundations, professional and other unions at the federal or regional levels.

The objective side of the crime is encroachment on the life of a statesman or public figure. This concept in relation to encroachment on life was clarified by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR in a resolution dated 09.22.89: “Murder or attempted murder should be considered under encroachment on life .... The same interpretation of the concept of encroachment on life was given by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR in a resolution of 09.24.91.

The composition of a terrorist act is a formal, completed crime, it is recognized from the moment of committing socially dangerous actions aimed at depriving the victim of life, but the actual causing of his death is covered by the composition of the crime in question and does not change the legal essence of the act.

The subjective side of the crime is characterized by direct intent and special purpose or special motive. If the murder of a statesman or public figure was committed for a different purpose or for other reasons than those specified in the disposition of Art. 277 of the Criminal Code, the act is qualified under Art. 105 of the Criminal Code.

The subject of an act of terrorism is a person who has reached the age of 16. If this act is committed by a person between the ages of 14 and 16, then liability arises under paragraph "b" of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code.

Violent seizure of power or forcible retention of power. The immediate object of the crime is the foundations of the political system of the Russian Federation in terms of the legitimacy of state power, the constitutional procedure for the establishment and functioning of state power and its bodies. An additional object is the health, bodily integrity, honor and dignity of persons affected by violence.

The objective side of the crime can be expressed in actions aimed at the violent seizure of power, or the forcible retention of power in violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, or the violent change of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation.

Actions aimed at the violent seizure of power mean an attempt at an unconstitutional way of coming of specific individuals, political parties, movements and other political forces to power in the Russian Federation or its subjects without changing the constitutional structure in the country. Violence as an unconstitutional way of seizing power or retaining it can consist, for example, in custody, internment, forced physical isolation, physical humiliation, beatings, harm to the health of persons representing the authorities formed in accordance with the Constitution and laws of Russia.

Actions aimed at forcibly retaining power are a refusal to surrender power despite the results of elections, referendum or other legal act based on the Constitution of the Russian Federation, combined with the use of violence against representatives of political forces, to which, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, state power must pass. Violence in an unconstitutional attempt to retain power is no different in substance from violence in an unconstitutional attempt to seize power.

The most dangerous type of the analyzed crime is actions aimed at forcibly changing the constitutional system of the Russian Federation. They consist in violent actions aimed at changing the social system, political system, state structure, or the main political institutions of the Russian Federation and to form a new system of government bodies.

The most extreme form of violence is the use of weapons. But if it takes the form of an armed rebellion in order to overthrow or forcibly change the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, then the act is fully covered by the composition of the armed rebellion and does not require additional qualifications under Art. 278 of the Criminal Code, since the named goals are provided for in Art. 27.8, and in Art. 279 of the Criminal Code. If the rebellion is aimed at seizing power, which goes beyond the scope of Art. 279 of the Criminal Code, and at the same time the purpose of violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, which is not covered by the corpus delicti described in Art. 278 of the Criminal Code, then it should be qualified by the totality of Art. 278 and 279 of the Criminal Code.

The corpus delicti is formal. Such a crime shall be recognized as completed from the moment of the commission of actions aimed at the violent seizure of power, or the forcible retention of power, or the violent change of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation, regardless of whether the perpetrators succeeded in carrying out the criminal plans.

If, in the process of using violence, death is caused to a person, it is not covered by the corpus delicti and requires additional qualifications under Art. 277, 317 or 105 of the Criminal Code.

The subjective side of the crime is characterized by direct intent and a special purpose - an unconstitutional seizure of power, an unconstitutional retention of power, or a violent change in the constitutional order of the Russian Federation.

The subject of the crime is a person who has reached the age of 16. With the forcible retention of power, the subject is special: a representative of the authorities formed in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but obliged, in accordance with it, to transfer state power to political forces that came to power by constitutional means.

Armed rebellion. The immediate object of the crime is the foundations of the political system of the Russian Federation in terms of the inviolability of the foundations of the constitutional order and territorial integrity of Russia.

The objective side of the crime is characterized as the organization of an armed rebellion or active participation in it.

Rebellion is defined as "a spontaneous uprising, an armed uprising against the government", as "indignation, confusion, insurrection, popular excitement, sedition, revolt, a conspiracy in fact, general disobedience." But in the sense of Art. 279 of the Criminal Code, the rebellion is understood not as a spontaneous uprising, but as a provoked, organized armed uprising against the legitimate power, constitutional order and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.

The organization of an armed insurrection is various actions aimed at provoking an armed uprising against the legitimate government in the Russian Federation. They can consist, in particular, in the propaganda of an armed insurrection, in the recruitment of its participants, in the supply of the insurgents with weapons, military equipment, in the planning of armed operations and other actions for the ideological, material or organizational support of the insurrection.

Active participation in an armed insurrection means committing violent actions with other participants in the insurrection, using or attempting to use weapons aimed at achieving the goals of the insurgency. However, intentional infliction of death in the process of using violence is not covered by the corpus delicti and is subject to additional qualifications under Art. 105 of the Criminal Code, and if the victims are state or public figures or law enforcement officers, then according to Art. 277, 295 go Art. 317 of the Criminal Code.

The legislator, describing the two forms of this crime - organizing a rebellion and actively participating in it - in both cases implies a real performance by the rebels. Therefore, an armed rebellion in the form of its organization should be recognized as a completed crime from the moment of the first armed uprising of the rebels. If the actions of the organizer did not actually lead to armed uprisings against the legitimate authority, they should be qualified as preparation for an armed rebellion.

Active participation in an armed insurrection may be considered completed from the moment a participant in the insurgency commits specific violent actions with the use or attempted use of weapons aimed at achieving the goals of the insurgency, regardless of the actual implementation of these goals or other consequences.

The subjective side of the crime is characterized by direct intent and a special chain:

1) overthrow of the constitutional order;

2) forcible change of the constitutional order;

3) violation of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.

The purpose of overthrowing the constitutional system of the Russian Federation involves the desire to violently abolish the foundations of the constitutional system, enshrined in Ch. 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to eliminate the rights and freedoms enshrined in Ch. 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and establish a social and state system that does not correspond to the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The purpose of forcibly changing the constitutional order of the Russian Federation has the same content as in Art. 278 of the Criminal Code.

The purpose of violation of territorial integrity means the intention to destroy the principles of the federal structure, enshrined in Ch. 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and forcibly sever part of its territory with the proclamation of its independence from Russia or joining a foreign state.

The subject of the crime is a person who has reached the age of 16. When a crime is committed in the form of organizing an armed rebellion, it may be its organizers and leaders. Active participants in an armed insurrection are those who directly commit violent acts with the use of weapons in order to achieve the goals of the insurgency.

Next, we will analyze from the criminal-legal point of view the encroachment on the economic security and defense capability of the Russian Federation. Thus, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation classifies sabotage as one of the offenses of this group. The direct object of sabotage is the economic security and defense capability of the Russian Federation.

Security is defined in Art. 1 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 05.03.92 No. 2446-1 "On Security" as a state of protection of the vital interests of the individual, society and the state from internal and external threats. It follows from this that economic security is understood as the state of protection of the most important economic interests of the Russian Federation.

The defense capability of the Russian Federation means the state of its protection from a possible attack by an external aggressor and includes such elements as the economic and military potential of Russia, the combat training and professionalism of the personnel of the RF Armed Forces, the mobilization readiness of the civilian population, etc.

The objective side of sabotage is characterized by the commission of an explosion, arson or other actions aimed at destroying or damaging enterprises, structures, means of communication, communications, life support facilities of the population.

This crime is usually committed against economically important and vulnerable in sabotage power centers, enterprises of the defense industry and military facilities, enterprises and facilities of railway, water, air and pipeline transport, communications and signaling facilities, and facilities for ensuring the life of the population.

The methods of sabotage are not only explosions and arson , directly allocated by the legislator, but also other actions that, like explosions and arson, are also generally dangerous and are also aimed at destroying or damaging objects listed in the disposition of Art. 281 of the Criminal Code. Other actions include, for example, the device of accidents and disasters, landslides, floods, radioactive and other similar contamination or pollution, etc.

Destruction of the objects listed in the disposition means their physical destruction, loss of national economic significance, impossibility or economic inexpediency of restoration. Damage is understood as causing such damage to the objects of sabotage actions, which significantly reduces their national economic significance and economic value, but can be eliminated by repair or restoration.

The composition of sabotage is formal, it is a completed crime from the moment of committing socially dangerous actions aimed at destroying or damaging the objects named in the law, even if they were not actually destroyed or damaged.

The death of people as a result of an act of sabotage is not covered by the composition of sabotage and forms a combination of this crime with murder under aggravated circumstances.

The subjective side of sabotage is characterized by direct intent and a special purpose - to undermine the economic security and defense capability of the Russian Federation.

The subject of sabotage is a person who has reached the age of 16. If an act of sabotage is committed by a citizen of the Russian Federation on the instructions of foreign special services, the act must additionally qualify as treason in the form of assisting a foreign state in carrying out hostile activities to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation.

The Criminal Code provides not only the main, but also the qualified composition of the sabotage: its commission by an organized group.

Of course, the Criminal Code provides for other types of crimes against state power, however, given the scope of our work, we cannot stop at all.

Thus, the general sign of all crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state, provided for in section X of the Criminal Code, should be considered: a set of social relations that ensure the inviolability of the foundations of the constitutional order and the security of the state, civil service and service in local government.

We emphasize that the system of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation plays a significant role in solving problems of protecting the individual, society, and the state. As N.F. Kuznetsov, the structuring of the system of the Special Part has not only an applied, but a legal and technical search meaning, similar to the alphabetical-subject index of articles of the Criminal Code, and shows the hierarchy of social values ​​protected by it, carries out the relationship of sections, chapters, articles within the system and outside it with other systems legislation. Taking into account the place of a particular article, a group of norms in the structure of the Special Part makes our understanding of the relevant criminal-legal prohibitions more meaningful, and sometimes indicates some contradictions in legislative structures, errors in the chosen tactics of protecting public relations.

So, in the aspect under study, Chapter 33 "Crimes against military service" attracts attention. The legislator placed it in the section XI of the same name, which is the penultimate in the structure of the Special Part of the Criminal Code and is located between Section X "Crimes against state power" and Section XII "Crimes against the peace and security of mankind." But it is not the neighborhood that is noteworthy, but the actual separation of military service from state power, obviously, the legislator considered that social relations developing in these areas are heterogeneous.

Note that in the criminal codes of the RSFSR in 1922, 1926 and 1960. military crimes have always been combined into separate chapters, which closed the Special Part. But within the framework of the three-term division of objects of criminal law protection, this approach was acceptable and understandable. For example, the 1960 Criminal Code of the RSFSR, along with Chapter 12 "Military Crimes", contained such chapters as "Official crimes", "Crimes against justice" and "Crimes against the order of government." The analogs of the last three chapters in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996 are reasonably combined into one section X "Crimes against state power". State power acts here as a generic object. We share the opinion of N.F. Kuznetsova, who believes that the Generic object performs the function of the foundation of the division of the common object into objects of large subsystems - blocks, the generic objects of which are the criteria for structuring the Special part into sections. Traditionally, in textbooks on the theory of state and law, one of the features that distinguish the state from pre-state and non-state organizations is called public authority. The army can exist only to the extent that it is animated by the state sense of justice.

In Art. 2 of the Federal Law of March 28, 1998 No. 53-FZ "On Military Duty and Military Service" states that military service is a special type of federal public service and lists the types of military formations in which it is performed.

Let's pay attention to the fact that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the Decision of December 27, 2005 clarified the provision that military service is a special type of public service directly related to ensuring the country's defense and state security, the rights and freedoms of citizens and, therefore exercised in the public interest.

Thus, the recognition of the public nature of military service makes it possible to classify infringements on its interests as infringements on state power, therefore, Chapter 33 "Crimes against military service" should be included in section X "Crimes against state power".

Opponents may argue: for example, the normal development of relations in the field of economic activity or with regard to public safety is also of great importance for the entire society. In general, any crime is ultimately a blow to the state. But the criminal-legal significance of encroachments on state power lies in the fact that the object here is social relations, which the state not only controls and protects, but is their main subject, or, figuratively speaking, “the main player”.

In addition to the official division of crimes against state power according to the specific object enshrined in the Criminal Code, the following groups can be noted in their most general form. Firstly, these are encroachments on the bodies of state power and the persons who carry it out, secondly, encroachments on the attributes and symbols of the state, and thirdly, these are crimes committed by representatives of the authorities, as well as by those who directly ensure their activities.

The above general groups of offenses are also present in the chapter on crimes against military service. The norms providing for liability for physical or psychological violence, as well as humiliation of servicemen in connection with the performance of their official or official duties include: Art. 333 of the Criminal Code "Resistance to the chief or forcing him to violate the duties of military service", Art. 334 of the Criminal Code "Violent actions against the chief", art. 336 of the Criminal Code "Insulting a serviceman."

It should be noted that the specifics of crimes against military service are determined by its specifics. There are structures in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code, described in which crimes can be fully attributed to officials. The implementation of public interest is associated with the performance of certain functions, the exercise of powers. In the same way as a judge, prosecutor, investigator and interrogator, in connection with the exercise of their procedural powers, enter into relations with participants in criminal proceedings, military personnel, by virtue of the specifics of the performance of their official duties, interact with each other and with other persons.

As shown above, the fact that the military are civil servants is beyond doubt. Part 1 of Art. 2 of the Federal Law of May 27, 2003 "On the system of public service in the Russian Federation" military service is called as one of the types in the system of public service. Clause 1 of the note to art. 285 of the Criminal Code provides for the possibility of committing crimes against state power, public service by officials performing the functions of a representative of power, organizational and administrative or administrative and economic in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation. " A number of authors quite rightly draw attention to the mistake of the legislator, who extended the criminal law definition of an official only to articles of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

To a greater extent, officials of the Armed Forces have organizational and administrative powers to manage military collectives, or administrative functions to manage military property or budgetary funds that go to the accounts of districts and units. Offenses committed in connection with their implementation, most often, fall under the rules provided for in Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code. Thus, the head of the garrison hospital Ch. Was convicted of accepting a bribe. The defendant agreed to receive money for a positive decision on the issue of sending subordinates on a business trip to Bosnia. Under Part 1 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code qualified the actions of the military commissar of the Perm region D., who demanded that the military commissars of the regions subordinate to him make their material contributions to the creation of the "gift room". The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized as justified the qualifications of the actions of a doctor of a military unit, who, in exchange for bribes, provided conscripts with fictitious certificates of illness with the conclusion of a military medical commission about their limited fitness for military service under Art. 290 of the Criminal Code and Art. 286 of the Criminal Code.

A number of military service crimes provided for in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code can be classified as alternative official. For example, failure to comply with an order may result not simply in inaction in the service, but in the failure to use organizational and administrative or administrative and economic powers. Such indiscriminateness may consist in evading the appointment of servicemen for service, in not calculating bonuses, combat payments. In addition, the senior commander can prohibit something to the unit commander in an order form. For example, send conscripts to build facilities and carry out work not related to combat training. Ignoring such an order should be viewed as a special type of abuse of office.

Part 2 of Art. 336 of the Criminal Code regarding insults "... by the head of a subordinate during the execution or in connection with the performance of military service duties ...".

Some of the elements of military service crimes are notable for the fact that they provide for liability at the same time for both a special type of abuse and abuse of office. So, a violation of the statutory rules of the guard service can be expressed both in the adoption by the head of the guard of an administrative decision that is contrary to the interests of the service, and in the commission of actions by the guard that clearly go beyond his powers. “Being a lead in the guard assigned to guard and defend the guardhouse, Private Kmitov, for refusing to fulfill his demand, beat privates Zyryanov and Vasiliev, who were kept in the guardhouse, inflicting moderate harm to the first victim, and beatings to the second.

Kmitov's actions “... along with Part 2 of Art. 335 of the Criminal Code, were qualified by the military court of the Borzin garrison and under Part 1 of Art. 342 of the same Code ”. Analysis of Art. 201 of the Charter of the Garrison and Guard Services of the Russian Federation, approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 14, 1993, No. 2104, establishing the duties of a detainee gives every reason to believe that he is endowed with administrative powers in relation to those arrested.

According to the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 10, 2000 No. 6 "On judicial practice in cases of bribery and commercial bribery," military personnel in the performance of their duties to maintain public order, ensure security and other functions, in the performance of which military personnel are empowered administrative powers ”are representatives of the authorities. It would be appropriate to cite here two norms that protect the normal development of social relations arising in the process of external regulation by the Armed Forces. This is Art. 341 of the Criminal Code "Violation of the rules of carrying the border service" and Art. 343 of the Criminal Code “Violation of the rules for the maintenance of public order and ensuring public safety. Violation can be expressed in non-fulfillment of duties, non-observance of prohibitions and restrictions. We also believe that the perpetrator, representing the power in the protection of the state border and ensuring public safety, may abuse this power or exceed his powers.

Attention is drawn to the formal-material construction of Part 1 of Art. 341 of the Criminal Code. Responsibility for violation of the rules of the border service will arise if this act has caused or could have caused harm to the security of the state. Thus, by the Military Court of the Tbilisi Garrison, corporal Abgaryan, privates Uvarov and Alekseev were found guilty of violating the statutory rules of the border service and were convicted on the basis of Part 1 of Art. 341 of the Criminal Code.

As indicated in the verdict, Abgaryan, Uvarov and Alekseev, being in the border patrol at the observation post of the border section, in violation of the requirements of Art. 15 of the Provisional Charter of the Border Troops of the Russian Federation, distracted from service, weakened their vigilance and fell asleep, leaving the weapons entrusted to them unattended and without guarding the state border for 20 minutes. During a check by the chief of duty, they were found sleeping. For a similar violation - sleeping for 20 minutes in a border guard at the border - they were convicted by the same court under Part 1 of Art. 341 of the Criminal Code and privates Baidin, Rozhkov and Oganesyan.

The violation of the rules of carrying out border service by the named servicemen, both in the first and in the second case, is obvious. Moreover, the violation committed by the perpetrators objectively stipulated the possibility of illegal crossing of the protected section of the border and thus created a real threat of harm to the security interests of the state.

This approach of the legislator, as well as its materialization in judicial practice, emphasize the importance of the border as one of the most important elements of state power and occupy an essential place in a series of arguments in favor of including Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code in Section X "Crimes against State Power".

On the other hand, the sanctions of the investigated compositions cause bewilderment; they are much milder than the possible punishments provided for general types of malfeasance. For violation of the rules for carrying out border service, committed without aggravating circumstances, the upper limit of the sanction is three years in prison, for violation of the rules for the maintenance of public order, we note, provided that this violation inflicts harm on the rights and legitimate interests of citizens - two years. Thus, Major Usov and Warrant Officer Strekolovsky were found guilty of deliberately allowing fishing vessels to illegally cross the sea border of the Russian Federation by fishing vessels, poaching for crab, disembarking and unloading outside checkpoints across the border of people and goods, in violation of the rules for carrying out the border service, warned the captains of the above-mentioned ships on the entry of border ships into service. Since the listed consequences actually caused harm to the interests of the economic security of the state, the court reasonably qualified the offense as guilty under Part 1 of Art. 341 of the Criminal Code.

Without disputing the qualifications, we note that the perpetrators abused their official powers in the form of inaction and exceeded them, betraying the interests of the service. We believe that the maximum possible punishment in the form of three years' imprisonment does not adequately reflect the social danger of the crimes committed by border guards. The reasons for this discrepancy lie in the insufficient integration of military offenses into the system of malfeasance in the current Criminal Code.

Violation of the rules for maintaining public order and ensuring public safety is positioned as a special type of malfeasance. The composition of this crime is material. In the review of judicial practice in cases of crimes against military service, it is noted that one of the mandatory grounds for prosecution under Part 1 of Art. 343 of the Criminal Code is the fact of inflicting, as a result of violation of the rules of service, by a person who is part of a military detachment for the protection of public order and ensuring public safety, harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens. This harm can be expressed in causing property damage to a citizen, physical or mental suffering. In the latter case, based on the nature and degree of public danger, reflected in the sign of punishment, the amount of such harm is limited to inflicting moderate harm to the health of the victim. But recall that the sanction in Part 1 of Art. 343 of the Criminal Code - up to two years in prison, and for inflicting average gravity harm to health is punishable by up to three years.

The verdict of the military court of the Odintsovo garrison also testifies to the inconsistency of the measure of responsibility established in the general norms of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code and the articles intended for military personnel. The defendant was found guilty of violating the rules of service as part of a military detachment for the protection of public order and ensuring public safety, which entailed grave consequences. His actions were qualified by the court under Part 2 of Art. 343 of the Criminal Code. According to the verdict, Larionov, using methods of struggle, several times threw Skvortsov and Zhelonkin to the ground, thereby causing them physical pain. In addition, with his blow, he broke the lower jaw of Grinevich, that is, caused the latter harm to his health of moderate severity. When considering this case by way of supervision, the Military Collegium indicated that grave consequences within the meaning of Part 2 of Art. 343 of the Criminal Code should recognize the infliction of grievous bodily harm as a result of the illegal use of physical force, special means and service weapons, or the infliction of various kinds of harm to the health of several citizens in the aggregate. Since the actions of Larionov suffered moderate harm to the victim Grinevich, and beatings were inflicted on Skvortsov and Zhelonkin, the court did not have sufficient grounds to conclude that grave consequences from the actions of the convict had occurred. In view of the above, the deed by Larionov was retrained by the Military Collegium from Part 2 to Part 1 of Art. 343 of the Criminal Code.

Note that for violation of the rules for the maintenance of public order, which entailed grave consequences, punishment is provided for up to five years in prison, and for causing grievous harm without aggravating circumstances - up to eight. In addition, the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized that when committing a crime under Part 2 of Art. 343 of the Criminal Code, injured citizens can be illegally used: physical force, special means, service weapons, i.e. actually reproduced the signs of abuse of office, committed under especially aggravating circumstances. In turn, the upper limit of the sanction for the general type of excess is exactly twice the maximum possible punishment for a similar crime committed by a serviceman. It is difficult to agree with such a differentiation of responsibility for general malfeasance and encroachments of officials of the Armed Forces.

A.V. Kudashkin reasonably emphasizes the special nature of military service and notes that it ensures the independence, state sovereignty and integrity of the state by specific military methods. Indeed, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the army for the state and not understand the need to use exceptional means and methods to solve, again exceptional, sometimes fateful, both for the state as a whole and for each individual citizen. But it is precisely because of these features that the activities of military institutions should be strictly subordinate to the law, which, by the way, is one of the main traditions of the army.

In conclusion, the following should be noted. Features of crimes against military service are due to its specificity. There are structures in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code, described in which crimes can be fully attributed to officials. Taking into account the above, we consider it expedient to place Chapter 33 "Crimes against military service" in section X "Crimes against state power". This step will eliminate the systemic inaccuracy of the Special Part of the Criminal Code and will allow to combine in one section the chapters that have as a specific object public relations in the field of public interest, the main subject of which is the state. We believe this will emphasize the closest connection and mutual responsibility of the army and the state.

At the conclusion of this chapter, we draw the following conclusions:

1. The general sign of all crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state, provided for in Section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, should be considered:

2. The most dangerous of the crimes forming this section are encroachments on the foundations of the constitutional system and the security of the state, since they affect the foundation of the social, political and state system of the Russian Federation, its sovereignty, external and internal security.

3. In section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the state power acts as a generic object.

A generic object unites a subsystem of homogeneous similar interests, which are also damaged by crimes related to the nature of social danger. In this case, the degree of public danger of acts may be different.

4. The objective side of almost all crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and state security is characterized by actions. And only the disclosure of state secrets and the loss of documents containing state secrets can be committed both by actions and by inaction. The compositions of these two crimes are designed as material ones, and the rest of the compositions are formal, and the crimes are completed from the moment the actions described in the law are committed, regardless of the occurrence of any harmful consequences.

5. In addition to the official division of crimes against state power according to the specific object enshrined in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the following groups can be noted in their most general form:

6. A number of military service crimes provided for in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code can be classified as alternative-official. For example, failure to comply with an order may result not simply in inaction in the service, but in the failure to use organizational and administrative or administrative and economic powers.

7. Notable for some elements of military crimes is the fact that they provide for liability simultaneously for both a special type of abuse and abuse of office.

8. Servicemen in the performance of the duties assigned to them to protect public order, ensure security and other functions, in the performance of which the servicemen are endowed with administrative powers ”are representatives of the authorities.

9. Features of crimes against military service are due to its specificity. At the same time, the recognition of the public nature of military service makes it possible to classify encroachments on its interests as encroachments on state power, therefore, Chapter 33 "Crimes against military service" should be included in section X "Crimes against state power".

This step will eliminate the systemic inaccuracy of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and will allow to combine in one section the chapters that have as a specific object public relations in the field of public interest, the main subject of which is the state. This seems to highlight the close relationship and mutual responsibility of the army and the state.

3. Methodical recommendations for teaching law in educational institutions

3.1 Methodology for Teaching Law: General Issues

In the context of the transformation of all aspects of the life of our society, the social role of the teacher is becoming more complicated and increasing, and therefore, a complex restructuring of the work of the secondary school is currently underway.

It should be noted that the law on education allows for the existence of different types of schools, which gives the right to the family in which the child is brought up to make an independent choice of any general educational institution. This law, in turn, allows the school to independently determine the content and methods of teaching. New disciplines, new areas of knowledge are introduced into the educational process. Changes in school curricula come in two main ways: extensive and intensive. In the first case, the training period is extended, the volume of educational material increases, in the second, fundamentally new programs are created. Integrated courses are being introduced into the teaching practice, the teacher got the opportunity not to follow strict methodological prescriptions, but to almost completely focus on a creative approach to organizing the learning process: choose a problem and a textbook from several options, evaluate them, and in some cases - compose his own program and teaching materials To her. Under these conditions, the social and professional functions of the teacher become more complicated, the question of his methodological skill, the ability to approach the organization of the educational process from a creative standpoint, and to make the transition from the school of memory to the school of thinking and action. The ability to be creative in work requires the teacher to have deep and solid knowledge of the methodology of his subject. Let us emphasize that methodology, like pedagogy, is characterized by the unity of two principles - science and art, science and creativity are closely intertwined in it.

However, in the current situation, methodological nihilism, methodological projecting, which are ready to deny the norms established in the teaching methodology and the proven practice of the school, are very dangerous in the work of the school. The most important quality of a teacher is initiative and methodological creativity based on knowledge of the subject.

The formation of a legal culture among students as an integral part of the general culture of a person is one of the most important tasks of teaching law in a general education school. In this matter, we propose to take the division of general legal knowledge into two groups as a basis:

Consider first the first group of knowledge, in which we include the following main parts.

First, it is the legal knowledge involved in the formation of the scientific worldview of schoolchildren. Law has always been and remains an important discipline. The leading ideas of the school course in law should, in our opinion, include:

1) ideas reflecting the manifestation of the main features and laws in dialectics in the legal shell and its parts:

a) the legal shell as a qualitatively unique material system of interpenetrating and interacting all its branches;

b) the legal envelope is heterogeneous in its structure: each part of it has its own individual characteristics and, at the same time, it is characterized by general laws of development;

2) ideas reflecting the manifestation of the laws of dialectics:

a) all the elements that make up the processes taking place both in law as a whole and in its individual branches.

Note that the effectiveness of the formation of a legal map is determined by the amount of knowledge gained and increases if the learning process is built taking into account the age and individual capabilities of schoolchildren, therefore, the search for effective ways of transferring the system of legal knowledge involves, among other things, identifying the personal prerequisites of the teacher.

The second option is associated with the implementation of the ideas of developmental pedagogy in the practice of teaching law. Comparing this variant of organizing the interaction of the individual picture of the world with the scientific and legal one, it should be noted that the content core of the educational process should include concepts from the field of theoretical thinking. However, their selection is predetermined not by the logic and structure of legal science, but by the significance in transforming the individual legal picture of the world, which is also based on concepts. Based on this, the academic discipline should focus on those concepts that reflect the specifics of the legal way of expressing reality, and not the entire content of legal knowledge. The means of implementing such a transformation of the individual legal picture of the world is the independent educational activity of schoolchildren.

The main result of the formation of a legal picture of the world according to the second option is the ability of schoolchildren to develop their own personal outlook on the world. This achievement becomes a personal acquisition of the student and turns him from a bearer of culture into its source.

Thus, the legal picture of the world should be understood in this case as the result of interaction in the process of teaching the scientific and legal picture of the world and the individual one created by each student. In our opinion, it is this approach to the interpretation of this concept that most fully corresponds to the tasks of student-centered learning.

It should also be borne in mind that each science and each school subject has its own language. And the law in this sense is no exception, since there is every reason to talk about the existence of a "legal language", which has a certain set of terms, which gives it individuality and flavor.

3.2 Methodology for teaching law in the field of studying crimes committed against state power

As a science, the method of teaching law has two aspects - theoretical and applied. The main methodological and theoretical problems that she considers include: the subject and methods, the goals of teaching the subject, the principles of selecting the content and determining the structure of the school subject, the psychological and pedagogical basis of teaching law.

At the present stage of development of secondary education, the tasks of teaching methodology are changing and becoming more complicated, which focuses on adjusting the goals of teaching law, which should be aimed at educating the student's personality by means of the subject. The methodology of teaching law is designed to solve the question of how to make teaching law personality-oriented.

At present, it is especially important to develop criteria for the selection of content, principles for constructing programs for the subject as a whole and for its individual courses, determining the system of values ​​that must be formed in schoolchildren through legal science. Therefore, methodological science must correlate the content of the subject and the types of activity with the functions that the generation currently studying at school will perform in society in the near future.

Success in the work of a teacher is largely determined by an interest in pedagogical activity, in creativity, which are impossible without the development of methodological thinking, the ability to rationally organize pedagogical work and conduct research activities according to the methodology of teaching law.

Note that in the methodology of teaching law, several methods are used, which are grouped into methods of the experimental-empirical and theoretical level.

So, empirical methods should be used at the stage when there is an accumulation of facts on the problem under study, in this case - examples of crimes committed against state power.

Theoretical methods should be applied at the stage of comprehending the facts.

It should be noted that the methodology increasingly uses a systemic-structural approach, in which the relationship between the content and teaching methods is analyzed.

Mathematical and statistical methods are used in the processing of results and in checking the quality of teaching.

Methodological work consists of several stages. So, in relation to the study of crime and crimes against state power, the following stages can be distinguished.

So, at the first stage, it is important to substantiate the relevance of studying the issue of crimes against state power.

At this stage, it is necessary not only to study the history of the issue, but also to note that these crimes are dangerous acts committed against the interests of the public service using the official position occupied by the guilty person and causing or creating an immediate threat of causing significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations, society and state.

It is especially important at this stage to emphasize that corruption has become widespread in all branches of government, it affects all spheres of society. Crimes committed by public servants using their official position threaten the rule of law, human rights, undermine the moral foundations of society, trust in the authorities, the principles of government, equality and social justice. The special danger of such crimes is due to the fact that they are committed by persons who, by the nature of their activities, themselves are obliged to fight various offenses and ensure law and order in a particular area.

At the second stage, the main problem should be established, indicating that the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes and consolidates the functioning of legislative, executive and judicial bodies of state power, as well as local self-government bodies; it is these bodies that exercise public power, i.e. endowed with the right to make volitional decisions dictated by social needs. Since public authority functions for public purposes, and its decisions are generally binding, the constitutions and legislation of each state establish a certain framework and rules for its implementation. In its most general form, we can say that the main requirement for public authorities, its bodies, is the requirement of legality. Violation of the principle of legality in any form not only significantly complicates the implementation of the tasks of public authorities, but also casts doubt on its right to present mandatory requirements to citizens and monitor their correct implementation, undermines its authority. Certain violations of the normal functioning of public authorities have such a high degree of public danger that the fight against them is impossible without the use of criminal repression.

The next step is to formulate the goals and objectives of training, which are to prevent such crimes.

At the last stage, conclusions are formed on the studied problem.

It should be noted that the goal of teaching schoolchildren the section of the law on crimes against state power is to understand the world around it, which exists according to objective laws, to assign students the historical experience of fighting this type of crime, and to increase legal culture. At the same time, training in this industry should be understood not just as the transfer of knowledge for memorization, but as the formation of the student's personal qualities.

We consider the following as the main ideas in the studied area:

1) to reveal the legal picture of the world as part of criminal law in the field of crimes against state power, for which it follows:

a) to develop among students scientific views on the specified problems, on the relationship of sociology, economics, politics with criminal law in general and with crimes committed against state power;

b) promote the formation of a student's legal consciousness in order to rethink the place and role of civil servants in society and their norms of behavior;

d) prepare students for self-education in the field of law in general and in the field of crimes committed against state power;

e) develop students' legal thinking, teach them to think in a complex way;

2) to orient schoolchildren to study the experience of foreign countries on the problem under study;

3) contribute to the formation of students' consciousness of the need to assimilate moral values, norms and rules of civilized communication in order to prevent and prevent crimes against state power.

We would like to emphasize that the study of crimes against state power can and should be preceded by the course "jurisprudence". In this case, the section dealing with crimes against state power will be a logical continuation of the training in the general legal system and structure. Studying the general course of law, the student gets a holistic picture, where all objects and objects are interconnected. As part of such a course, students must learn the concept and signs of crime, punishment, responsibility in general. The main goal here is to understand general issues and problems of jurisprudence in order to comprehend the dependence of general problems with crimes against state power.

When developing guidelines for teaching schoolchildren, we consider it appropriate to refer to foreign experience. So, among the most important aspects in this regard in the American education system, one can single out familiarity with the methodology of teaching students, the construction of research work. Even apart from the specifics of philosophical, legal or other education, we can talk about the principles and methods of teaching in Russian and American schools.

Each country has its own traditions of teaching at school. Russian teaching is characterized by the presence of independent work, the transfer of knowledge by the teacher in the form of lectures, in some cases, seminars are allowed in combination with business games, etc. It has long been recognized that while European teaching models have significant similarities, American law teaching is fundamentally different. It was in the USA, back in 1871, that the Socratic method of teaching law was introduced. The named method corresponds to the way Socrates structured his studies: he asked questions that forced students to make their own decisions. We believe that this is an effective way of teaching and it is advisable to use it in Russian schools as well.

Note that the goal of training also determines the difference in the methodology - American education seeks not only to teach, but also to instill professional skills. It is this aspect of teaching that is often overlooked in the Russian teaching system. However, the introduction of new teaching methods often collides with the conservatism of teachers.

Conclusion

In accordance with Art. 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is the people, who exercise it directly or through state authorities and local self-government bodies. In Art. 11 of the Constitution provides an exhaustive list of government bodies that have the right to make government decisions at the federal level and at the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The powers of power exercised by local self-government bodies also have a public-law nature, but they are not of a state nature, since in accordance with Art. 12 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, local government bodies are not included in the system of government bodies. The Constitution of the Russian Federation does not provide for the possibility of exercising power powers of a public law nature by other subjects of law.

Summing up the work, it is necessary to formulate the following conclusions:

1. In the history of Russian legislation, one of the first mentions of criminal liability for malfeasance in the Pskov Charter and Sudebniks of 1497 and 1550.

2. In the development of legislation on state crimes, the following stages can be distinguished:

the first stage, enshrined in the Sudebniks of 1497 and 1550,

the second stage was reflected in the legislation of the late 19th - early 20th centuries,

the third stage is expressed by decrees and regulations of the authorities,

the fourth stage is the consolidation of crimes against state power in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR,

the fifth stage is the reflection of this type of crime in the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

3. The study showed that the most severe punishment, often the death penalty, was imposed for crimes against state power in different historical periods.

4. According to legal statistics, over the past ten years the number of crimes committed in Russia against the state power has stabilized at a fairly high level and occupies one fourth of the total structure of crime.

5. The social danger of crimes against state power lies in the fact that as a result of their commission, the normative, statutory activities of the apparatus of legislative, executive and judicial power, as well as local self-government bodies are violated.

Crimes of this kind undermine the foundations of power and government, discredit and undermine their authority in the eyes of the population, infringe on the constitutional rights and interests of citizens, destroy democratic foundations and the rule of law, distort the principles of legality, and impede the implementation of socio-economic reforms in society.

6. Most crimes against state power in the Russian Federation are committed by men and women. The educational level of persons who have committed a crime against state power testifies to an increase in the number of convicts with a higher and secondary specialized education. the majority of persons who have committed crimes in this area are characterized by premeditated intent.

7. The reasons for the growth in the number of crimes against state power are: economic, social and moral changes, permissiveness and lack of control, forgetting of traditions and a false understanding of the democratic principles of community; corruption of representatives of state bodies, their merging with organized criminal groups.

8. The general sign of all crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state, provided for in Section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, should be considered:

- a set of social relations that ensure the inviolability of the foundations of the constitutional system and the security of the state;

- normal functioning of state bodies belonging to various branches of state power;

- interests of public service and service in local government.

9. The most dangerous of the crimes forming this section are encroachments on the foundations of the constitutional system and the security of the state, since they affect the foundation of the social, political and state system of the Russian Federation, its sovereignty, external and internal security.

The specific object of this group of crimes is social relations that ensure the inviolability of the foundations of the constitutional system and the security of the state.

10. In section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the state power acts as a generic object.

A generic object unites a subsystem of homogeneous similar interests, which are also damaged by crimes related to the nature of social danger. In this case, the degree of public danger of acts may be different.

11. The objective side of almost all crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and state security is characterized by actions. And only the disclosure of state secrets and the loss of documents containing state secrets can be committed both by actions and by inaction. The compositions of these two crimes are designed as material ones, and the rest of the compositions are formal, and the crimes are completed from the moment the actions described in the law are committed, regardless of the occurrence of any harmful consequences.

The subjective side of almost all crimes of the group under consideration is characterized only by direct intent: the perpetrator realizes the socially dangerous nature of the actions committed and wants to commit them.

12. In addition to the official division of crimes against state power according to the specific object enshrined in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the following groups can be noted in their most general form:

- encroachments on public authorities and persons exercising it;

- encroachments on the attributes and symbols of the state;

- crimes committed by representatives of the authorities, as well as by those who directly support their activities.

13. A number of military service crimes provided for in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code can be classified as alternative-official. For example, failure to comply with an order may result not simply in inaction in the service, but in the failure to use organizational and administrative or administrative and economic powers.

14. Notable for some of the elements of military crimes is the fact that they provide for liability simultaneously for both a special type of abuse and abuse of office.

15. Servicemen in the performance of the duties assigned to them to protect public order, ensure security and other functions, in the performance of which the servicemen are endowed with administrative powers ”are representatives of the authorities.

Provisions for Defense:

1. It is proposed to move Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Crimes against military service" to section X of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Crimes against state power".

Features of crimes against military service are due to its specificity. There are structures in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Code, described in which crimes can be fully attributed to officials. The implementation of public interest is associated with the performance of certain functions, the exercise of powers. In the same way as a judge, prosecutor, investigator and interrogator, in connection with the exercise of their procedural powers, enter into relations with participants in criminal proceedings, military personnel, by virtue of the specifics of the performance of their official duties, interact with each other and with other persons. This step will eliminate the systemic inaccuracy of the Special Part of the Criminal Code and will allow to combine in one section the chapters that have as a specific object public relations in the field of public interest, the main subject of which is the state. We believe this will emphasize the closest connection and mutual responsibility of the army and the state.

2. The norms of Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are devoted to the establishment of criminality and punishability of acts that constitute violations of the normal activities of public authorities and their bodies. These violations are committed internally, i.e. by the very subjects of power, so they have an increased danger.

3. The main criterion of criminal law protection and the basis of classification are public relations that ensure the stability of the state, the normal, legally regulated functioning of state power and its individual components: institutions and bodies.

4. It seems that, based on the immediate object, crimes against the order of administration can be classified into the following three groups of crimes:

infringing on normal management activities;

encroaching on the established regime and the inviolability of the state border;

infringing on the established procedure for the circulation of official documentation.

5. The formation of a legal culture among students as an integral part of the general culture of a person is one of the most important tasks of teaching law in a general education school. In this matter, we propose to take the division of general legal knowledge into two groups as a basis:

knowledge, in the formation of which law is studied along with other school subjects;

knowledge that makes up the specifics of science itself and determines its personal contribution to the student's legal culture.

6. The study of crimes against state power in the school curriculum should be preceded by the course "jurisprudence". In this case, the section dealing with crimes against state power will be a logical continuation of the training in the general legal system and structure. Studying the general course of law, the student gets a holistic picture, where all objects and objects are interconnected. As part of such a course, students must learn the concept and signs of crime, punishment, responsibility in general. The main goal here is to understand general issues and problems of jurisprudence in order to comprehend the dependence of general problems with crimes against state power.

Bibliography

1. Constitution of the Russian Federation // SPS "ConsultantPlus"

2. Federal law "On the fundamentals of the state service of the Russian Federation" // ATP "ConsultantPlus"

3. Federal Law "On General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation" // ATP "ConsultantPlus"

4. Federal Law "On the Foundations of Municipal Service in the Russian Federation"

5. Federal Law of May 27, 2003 No. 58-FZ "On the system of public service of the Russian Federation"

6. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 13.06.1996 No. 63-FZ // SPS "ConsultantPlus"

7. Bazhenov A.V. Investigation of crimes against state power, interests of public service and service in local self-government bodies: analysis of problems of theory and practice // Russian investigator. M., 2008. - No. 8. S. 2-4.

8. Borkov V.N. Crimes against military service in the system of encroachments on state power // Military Law Journal. No. 11. M., 2006

9. Borkov V.N., Veklenko S.V. Criminal and legal characteristics of crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government. Omsk, 2007.

10. Borodin S.V. Qualification of crimes against life. M., 1977.

11. Budatarov S.M. Misappropriation of a bribe: a crime against property or a crime against the interests of state power? // Issues of judicial reform: law, economics, management. No. 2. Rostov-on-Don, 2009 .-- 115 p.

12. Galakhova A.V. Official crimes. Crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government. M., 2006.

13. Gorelik A.S. Criminal law. M., 2000.

14. Gorokhovskaya A.A. Problems of classification of crimes in Russian law. SPb, 2007 .-- 74 p.

15. Gupinov K.E. Criminal law. M., 2009.

16. Dyakov S.V. State crimes against the foundations of the constitutional system and state security and state crime. M., 1998.

17. Yezhov A.N., Samoilov A.S. Crimes against the foundations of the constitutional system and state security. Arkhangelsk, 2004.

18. Yezhov A.N., Mirzoev G.B., Samoilov A.S. Criminal liability for crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and state security. M., 2004.

19. Kasho V.S. The role of municipal legal acts in the prevention of crimes against service in local government bodies // Actual problems of combating crime in the Siberian region. Collection of materials of the international scientific conference: in 2 parts. Part 2. Krasnoyarsk, 2006.

20. Klimchak A.G. The concept and signs of crimes against the foundations of the constitutional system and state security in Russia. M., 2008 .-- 154 p.

21. Kokorin D.L. Subject of crimes against state power Criminological and criminal-legal issues of combating crime. Collection of scientific articles / Otv. ed .: Smirnov G.G. Yekaterinburg, 2004.

22. Kolpakov I.A. The concept and types of crimes against the foundations of the constitutional system and state security // Actual problems of criminal law and process. Digest of articles. Issue 1. M., 2006. - S. 32–48.

23. Korobeyev A.I. Complete course of criminal law: Crimes against state power. Crimes against military service. Crimes against the peace and security of mankind. International criminal law. In 5 volumes. SPb, 2008.

24. Krasikov A.Yu. Classification of crimes. M., 1992.

25. Kuznetsov E.V., Stupnitskiy A.E. Problems of legal regulation of criminal liability of subjects of crimes against state power, the interests of public service, service in local governments, in commercial and other organizations // Activities of law enforcement agencies and the state fire service in modern conditions: problems and development prospects. Materials of the All-Russian scientific-practical conference dedicated to the 60th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War April 21-22, 2005 Irkutsk, 2005.

26. Kuznetsova N.F. Problems of qualification of crimes. M., 1999.

27. Lunev M.M. Criminal law. M., 1990.

28. Lyanaev E.K. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. M., 2007 .-- 1323 p.

30. Minakova I.G. On the object of crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local governments // Severokavkazskiy juridical bulletin. No. 1 - Rostov-on-Don, 2008.

31. Murykin A.R. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. M., 2–1. - 1003 p.

32. Naumov A.V. Russian criminal law. M., 2006 .-- 572 p.

33. Poznyshev S.V. Elementary textbook of Russian criminal procedure. Moscow, 1913.

34. V. V. Prudnikov. Crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government. Krasnodar, 2003.

35. Pryanikov A.A. Legal reform in Russia. M., 2001 .-- 94 p.

36. Pyatokov E.G. Investigation of crimes against state power // Actual problems of modern law. No. 3. M., 2001. S. 43–54.

37. Rarog A.I. Criminal law of Russia. M., 2007.

38. Rashkovskaya S. Qualification of crimes. M., 1991.

• Public Safety Crimes
  • The concept and types of crimes against public safety. History of Russian criminal legislation on responsibility for crimes against public security
    • Terrorist act (Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Assistance in terrorist activities (Article 205.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Public calls for terrorist activities or public justification of terrorism (Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Hostage-taking (Article 206 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Knowingly false reporting of an act of terrorism (Article 207 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Organization of an illegal armed formation or participation in it (Article 208 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Banditry (Article 209 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Organization of a criminal community (criminal organization) or participation in it (her) (Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Hijacking of an aircraft or watercraft or railway rolling stock (Article 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Riots (Article 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Piracy (Article 227 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Hooliganism (Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Vandalism (Article 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of safety rules at nuclear power facilities (Article 215 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Termination or restriction of the supply of electrical energy or disconnection from other sources of life support (Article 215.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Destruction of life support facilities (Article 215.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Decommissioning of oil pipelines, oil product pipelines and gas pipelines (Article 215.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of safety rules during mining, construction or other work (Art.216 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of safety rules at explosive facilities (Article 217 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules for accounting, storage, transportation and use of explosive, flammable substances and pyrotechnic products (Article 218 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of fire safety requirements (Article 219 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal handling of nuclear materials or radioactive substances (Article 220 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Theft or extortion of nuclear materials or radioactive substances (Article 221 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal acquisition, transfer, sale, storage, transportation or carrying of weapons, their main parts, ammunition, explosives and explosive devices (Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal manufacture of weapons (Article 223 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Careless storage of firearms (Article 224 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Inadequate performance of duties for the protection of weapons, ammunition, explosives and explosive devices (Article 225 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Theft or extortion of weapons, ammunition, explosives and explosive devices (Article 226 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Crimes against public health and public morals
  • The concept and types of crimes against public health and public morality. The history of the development of domestic legislation on responsibility for these crimes
    • Illegal acquisition, storage, transportation, manufacture, processing of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues, as well as illegal acquisition, storage, transportation of plants containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, or their parts containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances (Article 228 Of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal production, sale or shipment of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues, as well as illegal sale or shipment of plants containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, or their parts containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances (Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules for the circulation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances (Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Theft or extortion of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, as well as plants containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, or parts thereof containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances (Article 229 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal cultivation of plants containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or their precursors (Article 231 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Organization or maintenance of dens for the consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances (Article 232 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal issuance or forgery of prescriptions or other documents giving the right to receive narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances (Article 233 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal circulation of potent or poisonous substances for marketing purposes (Article 234 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal engagement in private medical practice or private pharmaceutical activity (Article 235 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules (Art.236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Concealment of information about circumstances that create a danger to life or health of people (Art.237 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Production, storage, transportation or sale of goods and products, performance of work or provision of services that do not meet safety requirements (Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Organization of an association that infringes upon the personality and rights of citizens (Article 239 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Involvement in prostitution (Article 240 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Organization of prostitution (Article 241 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal distribution of pornographic materials or objects (Article 242 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Destruction or damage of monuments of history and culture (Article 243 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Desecration of the bodies of the deceased and their places of burial (Article 244 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Cruelty to animals (Article 245 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Environmental crimes
  • The history of the development of Russian criminal legislation on responsibility for environmental crimes
  • Concept and types of environmental crimes
    • Violation of environmental protection rules during the performance of work (Article 246 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules for the circulation of environmentally hazardous substances and wastes (Article 247 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of safety rules when handling microbiological or other biological agents or toxins (Article 248 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Water pollution (Article 250 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Atmospheric pollution (article 251 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Pollution of the marine environment (Article 252 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation on the continental shelf and on the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation (Article 253 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Damage to the land (Article 254 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules for the protection and use of subsoil (Article 255 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of veterinary rules and regulations established for the fight against plant diseases and pests (Article 249 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal extraction (catch) of aquatic biological resources (Article 256 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules for the protection of aquatic biological resources (Article 257 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal hunting (Article 258 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Destruction of critical habitats for organisms listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation (Article 259 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal felling of forest plantations (Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Destruction or damage of forest plantations (Article 261 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the regime of specially protected natural areas and natural objects (Art.262 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Crimes against traffic safety and transport operation
  • History of Russian criminal legislation on liability for crimes against traffic safety and transport operation
  • The concept and types of transport crimes
    • Violation of traffic safety rules and operation of railway, air, sea and inland water transport and metro (Article 263 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules of the road and the operation of vehicles (Art.264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Poor quality repair of vehicles and their release into operation with technical malfunctions (Article 266 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules of international flights (Art.271 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Destruction of vehicles or communication lines (Art.267 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules ensuring the safe operation of transport (Art.268 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of safety rules during the construction, operation or repair of trunk pipelines (Article 269 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Failure to provide assistance to those in distress by the captain of the ship (Article 270 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• • Crimes in the field of computer information
  • Illegal access to computer information (Article 272 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
  • Creation, use and distribution of malicious programs for computers (Article 273 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
  • Violation of the rules for the operation of computers, computer systems or their networks (Article 274 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Crimes against the foundations of the constitutional system and state security
  • The history of the development of Russian criminal legislation on responsibility for crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and state security (state crimes)
  • The concept and types of crimes against the foundations of the constitutional system and state security
    • High treason (Article 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Espionage (Art.276 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Forcible seizure or forcible retention of power (Art.278 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Armed mutiny (Art.279 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Encroachment on the life of a statesman or public figure (Article 277 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Sabotage (Art.281 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Disclosure of state secrets (Art.283 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Loss of documents containing state secrets (Article 284 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Incitement to hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity (Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Organization of an extremist community (Article 282.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
    • Public appeals to carry out extremist activities (Article 280 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Crimes against state power, interests of civil service and service in local government bodies (official crimes)
  • History of Russian criminal legislation on the fight against malfeasance
  • General characteristics of crimes against state power, interests of public service and service in local government
    • Abuse of official powers (Art.285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Inappropriate spending of budgetary funds (Article 285.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Inappropriate spending of state extra-budgetary funds (Article 285.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Adding deliberately false information to the unified state registers (Article 285.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Exceeding official powers (Art.286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Failure by an employee of an internal affairs body to comply with an order (Article 286.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Refusal to provide information to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation or the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation (Art.287 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Assignment of the powers of an official (Article 288 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal participation in entrepreneurial activity (Art.289 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Taking a bribe (Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Giving a bribe (Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Official forgery (Article 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Negligence (Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Anti-corruption issues
    • Corruption in Russia
    • Commentary on anti-corruption legislation 2008
• Crimes against justice
  • The history of the development of Russian legislation on responsibility for crimes against justice
  • The concept and types of crimes against justice
    • Bringing a knowingly innocent person to criminal responsibility (Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal exemption from criminal liability (Article 300 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Unlawful arrest, detention or detention (Art.301 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Coercion to testify (Article 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Falsification of evidence (Article 303 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Deliberately unjust verdict, decision or other judicial act (Article 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Obstruction of the administration of justice and the production of a preliminary investigation (Art.294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Encroachment on the life of a person administering justice or preliminary investigation (Article 295 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Threat or violent actions in connection with the administration of justice or the production of a preliminary investigation (Art.296 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Contempt of court (Art.297 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Libel against a judge, juror, prosecutor, investigator, person conducting the inquiry, bailiff, bailiff (Article 298.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Provoking a bribe or commercial bribery (Article 304 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Knowingly false denunciation (Article 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Deliberately false testimony, expert opinion, specialist or incorrect translation (Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Refusal of a witness or victim to testify (Article 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Bribery or coercion to testify or evade testimony or to incorrect translation (Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Disclosure of data from the preliminary investigation (Article 310 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Disclosure of information about security measures applied to judges and participants in criminal proceedings (Article 311 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal actions in relation to property subject to inventory or seizure or subject to confiscation (Article 312 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Escape from a place of imprisonment, from arrest or from custody (Article 313 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Evasion of serving the restriction of freedom, imprisonment (Art.314 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Failure to comply with a court verdict, court decision or other judicial act (Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Concealment of crimes (Article 316 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Crimes against the order of administration
  • The history of the development of Russian legislation on liability for crimes against the order of administration
  • The concept and types of crimes against the management order
    • Desecration of the State Emblem of the Russian Federation or the State Flag of the Russian Federation (Article 329 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal crossing of the State border of the Russian Federation (Article 322 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Organization of illegal migration (Article 322.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Illegal change of the State border of the Russian Federation (Article 323 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Encroachment on the life of a law enforcement officer (Article 317 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Use of violence against a government official (Article 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Insulting a representative of the authorities (Article 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Disclosure of information about security measures applied to an official of a law enforcement or regulatory body (Article 320 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Disorganization of the activities of institutions providing isolation from society (Article 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Evasion of military and alternative civilian service (Article 328 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Arbitrariness (Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Purchase or sale of official documents and state awards (Article 324 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Theft or damage to documents, stamps, seals, or theft of excise duty stamps, special stamps or conformity marks (Article 325 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Forgery or destruction of the vehicle identification number (Article 326 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Counterfeiting, production or sale of forged documents, state awards, stamps, seals, letterheads (Article 327 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Production, sale of counterfeit stamps of excise duty, special stamps or marks of conformity or their use (Article 327.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Crimes against military service
  • The history of the development of Russian legislation on liability for crimes against military service (military crimes)
  • Concept and system of crimes against military service (military crimes)
    • Failure to comply with an order (Article 332 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Resistance to the chief or forcing him to violate the duties of military service (Article 333 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violent actions against the chief (Article 334 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the statutory rules of relations between servicemen in the absence of subordination relations between them (Article 335 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Insulting a serviceman (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Unauthorized abandonment of a unit or place of service (Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Desertion (Article 338 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Evasion of military service duties by simulating illness or by other means (Article 339 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules for carrying out combat duty (Article 340 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules for carrying out the border service (Article 341 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violations of the statutory rules of the guard service (Article 342 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules for the maintenance of public order and ensuring public safety (Article 343 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the statutory rules for carrying out internal service and patrolling in the garrison (Article 344 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Abandonment of a dying warship (Article 345 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Intentional destruction or damage to military property (Article 346 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Loss of military property (Article 348 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules for handling weapons and objects that pose an increased danger to others (Article 349 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules for driving or operating machines (Article 350 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of flight rules or preparation for them (Article 351 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Violation of the rules of navigation (Article 352 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Crimes against the peace and security of mankind
  • The concept and types of crimes against the peace and security of mankind
    • Planning, preparation, unleashing or waging an aggressive war (Article 353 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Public calls to unleash an aggressive war (Article 354 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Development, production, accumulation, purchase or sale of weapons of mass destruction (Article 355 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • The use of prohibited means and methods of warfare (Article 356 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Genocide (Article 357 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Ecocide (Article 358 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Mercenary activity (Article 359 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Attack on persons or institutions that enjoy international protection (Article 360 ​​of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
    • Crimes against the peace and security of mankind and the specific content of the general principles of criminal law applied to them
    • Prospects for the development of international criminal justice
• Briefly about the future of Russian criminal law - legislation, its application and science

General characteristics of crimes against state power, interests of public service and service in local government

The norms on official (service) crimes are placed in Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It includes articles on responsibility for the following crimes:

• Abuse of official powers (Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Inappropriate spending of budgetary funds (Article 285.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Inappropriate spending of state extra-budgetary funds (Article 285.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Adding deliberately false information to the unified state registers (Article 285.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Failure by an employee of an internal affairs body to comply with an order (Article 286.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Refusal to provide information to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation or the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation (Art.287 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
• Illegal participation in entrepreneurial activity (Art.289 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

The danger of malfeasance lies in the fact that they significantly reduce the efficiency of the state apparatus and local self-government bodies, grossly violate the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, discredit the state power as a whole.

Generic the object of the crimes under consideration is the normal activity of state authorities, local self-government bodies, state and municipal institutions, as well as the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation.

According to Art. 10 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, state power is understood as bodies of legislative, executive and judicial power.

The head of state is the President of the Russian Federation (Article 80 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

The legislative power at the federal level is represented by the Federal Assembly - the parliament of the Russian Federation, consisting of two chambers: the Council of Federations and the State Duma (Art. 94.95 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

TO federal executive bodies of the Russian Federation include: the Government of the Russian Federation (Article 110 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), federal ministries, state committees of the Russian Federation, federal services of Russia (for example, the Foreign Intelligence Service), Russian agencies (for example, Rosaviakosmos), federal supervision (for example, Federal supervision of nuclear and radiation safety ), other federal executive bodies (for example, the Administrative Department of the President of the Russian Federation).

According to Art. 118 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation judicial branch carried out through constitutional, civil, administrative and criminal proceedings. In accordance with the Federal Constitutional Law of December 31, 1996 No. 1-FKZ "On the judicial system of the Russian Federation" in the Russian Federation operate: federal courts, constitutional (statutory) courts and justices of the peace of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, all together they constitute the judicial system of the Russian Federation. Federal courts include: the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of the republics, regional and regional courts, courts of federal cities, courts of an autonomous region and autonomous okrugs, district courts, military and specialized courts (with the exception of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, these courts constitute a system federal courts of general jurisdiction); The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, federal arbitration courts of districts, arbitration courts of appeal, arbitration courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (all of them constitute the system of federal arbitration courts). The courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation include: constitutional (statutory) courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and justices of the peace, who are judges of general jurisdiction of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The judges of all these courts represent the judiciary.

In addition to public authorities (as noted, legislative, executive and judicial), the Constitution of the Russian Federation also provides for the functioning of other state bodies: the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Article 75), the Security Council of the Russian Federation (Article 83), the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation (Article 83), plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation (Article 83), diplomatic representatives of the Russian Federation in foreign states and international organizations (Article 83), the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation (Article 101), the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation (Article 129).

In accordance with Art. 77 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the system of state power bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is established by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation independently in accordance with the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation and the general principles of organizing representative and executive bodies of state power established by federal law.

Activity local government that are not part of the system of public authorities is determined by the Federal Law of October 6, 2003 No. 131-FZ "On the General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation."

The activities of bodies operating in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations, which, as noted, are also the object of the official (official) crimes under consideration, is determined by federal laws (for example, Federal Law No. 61-FZ of May 31, 1996 "On Defense ").

WITH objective side the crimes in question (except for giving a bribe under Art. 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) are characterized by two mandatory signs. They are committed, firstly, due to the use of the subject of his official position, and, secondly, contrary to the interests of the service. Some of the corpus delicti of such crimes (Articles 285, 286, 288 and 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) are designed according to the type material compositions, and the objective side of these crimes includes: a) an act (action or inaction), b) harmful consequences and c) a causal relationship between the act and the consequence.

Other compositions (Art.285 1 285 2, 287, 289, 290, 291, 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) are designed according to the type formal compositions and, accordingly, they are recognized as completed from the moment the acts specified in the criminal law were committed, regardless of whether harmful consequences occurred as a result of this or not.

Their subject... The concept of an official is given in the notes to. In accordance with note 1 under the officials in the articles of ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation means persons who permanently, temporarily or by special authority perform the functions of a representative of the government or perform organizational and administrative, administrative and economic functions in state bodies, local governments, state and municipal institutions, state corporations, as well as in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation.

Concept a government official formulated in the footnote to Art. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In accordance with it, an official of a law enforcement or supervisory body, as well as another person endowed in the manner prescribed by law with administrative powers in relation to persons who are not in official dependence on him, is recognized as a representative of authority. This definition is concretized in the decree of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces of February 10, 2000 No. 6 "On judicial practice in cases of bribery and commercial bribery", according to which the representatives of the authorities should include persons exercising legislative, executive or judicial power, as well as employees of state , supervisory or regulatory bodies, endowed in the manner prescribed by law with administrative powers in relation to persons who are not in their service dependence, or the right to make decisions that are binding on citizens, as well as organizations, regardless of their departmental subordination. Thus, representatives of the authorities are, for example, deputies of the State Duma and the Federation Council of the Russian Federation, prosecutors and their assistants, investigators, judges, employees of internal affairs bodies (including the rank and file).

The concept of organizational and administrative and administrative and economic functions, the implementation of which turns a person into a subject of the crimes under consideration, is concretized in judicial practice.

Organizational and administrative functions include, for example, team management, placement and selection of personnel, organization of work or service of subordinates, maintenance of discipline, application of incentive measures and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. Such functions are vested in the heads (chiefs) of ministries, departments, other institutions, departments and other subunits (including the commanders of units and subunits in the RF Armed Forces, other troops and military formations) who have persons subordinate to them.

TO administrative the functions of judicial practice include: the powers to manage and dispose of property and monetary funds on the balance sheet and bank accounts of organizations and warrants, military units and subdivisions, as well as the commission of other actions; making decisions on the calculation of wages, bonuses, monitoring the movement of material assets, determining the procedure for their storage, etc. (such powers are possessed, for example, by the heads of planning and economic, financial, procurement departments and services and their deputies, heads of storage facilities, accountants, cashiers and other employees). It should be borne in mind that judicial practice, for example, in itself the conclusion of an agreement between an employee and the administration on full financial responsibility for the safety of entrusted values ​​does not consider the basis for recognizing this employee as a subject of an official crime. For this, it is also necessary that, in addition to the responsibilities for the direct storage of property, the materially responsible person also performs the functions of managing or disposing of it (organizing the delivery of goods, distributing them to other supply points, etc.).

In the theory of criminal law, it is considered mandatory that special powers, on the basis of which a person performs the functional duties of a representative of authority, organizational and managerial or administrative and economic duties, must be duly and in compliance with the established procedure, legally formalized (by decree, order, written order of an authorized official, other officially issued document, for example, general power of attorney, etc.). The same requirement is recognized by judicial practice. So, in the specified resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces, it is emphasized that the performance of the functions of an official by special authority means that these functions are entrusted to this person by law, regulatory act or order of a higher official or an authorized body or official (for example, jurors in courts, public inspectors of various state inspections - fish supervision, forest protection).

The activities of public service bodies are regulated, first of all, by the Federal Law of July 27, 2004 No. 79-FZ "On State Civil Service", as well as other laws and regulations, reference to which is mandatory to determine whether this or that a subject in the civil service to a subject of an official crime.

The activities of local self-government bodies that are not part of the system of public authorities are determined by the Federal Law “On General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation”. At the same time, employees of municipal institutions (as well as employees of state institutions) can be classified as officials when they have the right to perform periodically significant actions in their service that can generate, change or terminate legal relations, which suggests that these actions have organizational and administrative or administrative and economic nature.

In accordance with this law, local self-government bodies are understood as elective and other bodies vested with powers to resolve issues of local importance and are not part of the system of public authorities. A local self-government official is an elected person or a person who has concluded a contract (employment contract), endowed with organizational and administrative powers to resolve issues of local importance and (or) to organize the activities of a local self-government body and who does not belong to the category of civil servants. Municipal service is understood as professional activity on an ongoing basis in local government bodies in the exercise of their powers.

We must agree with the categorical statement of B.V. Volzhenkin that “an official must recognize a subject who has the right to issue official documents on behalf of a state or municipal proactive that confirm a certain legal fact, and thereby somehow organize, direct the behavior of other persons for whom this act (document) has a legal force " 1 See: B.V. Volzhenkin Service crimes. M., 2000.S. 118.... The specialists of these predictions, performing purely professional or technical duties, are not officials (for example, ordinary workers and employees, security guards, postmen, train conductors, diesel locomotive driver).

However, judicial practice in relation to some categories of such persons proceeds from the fact that in specific cases they can be recognized as officials if, in addition to fulfilling their professional duties, they are endowed with functions of an organizational and administrative or administrative and economic nature. For example, they were recognized as subjects of malfeasance: a municipal hospital doctor who illegally issues a document certifying temporary disability (certificate of incapacity for work), a university teacher who gave credit to students for a bribe. On the contrary, for example, a doctor who has neither organizational-managerial nor administrative-economic functions is not an official and cannot be considered as a subject of an official crime.

So, the regional court N. was convicted under paragraph "b" of Part 4 of Art. 290, according to part 5 of Art. 33. - Part 2 of Art. 234 and Art. 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. According to the court's verdict, he was found guilty of committing an official forgery while working as a pediatrician, illegally issuing and actually forging prescriptions for the purchase of a potent substance used for drug manufacture by other persons who later sold the substance. At the same time, he repeatedly received bribes in the form of a reward for each prescription and was an accomplice in the illegal acquisition and transportation in order to sell a potent substance. The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, having considered the case on the cassation complaints of lawyers, the verdict against N. in terms of his conviction under Art. 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (official forgery) canceled, the proceedings were terminated due to the absence of corpus delicti in his actions, the same verdict against him was changed: his actions, qualified under paragraph "b" of Part 4 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, re-qualified to, indicating the following.

As can be seen from the job description in relation to the pediatrician of the city hospital and from the orders on the powers of the doctor, N. as an ordinary pediatrician did not have any organizational, administrative, or administrative functions and therefore was not an official. Consequently, he cannot be considered as the subject of a crime under Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (taking a bribe). N.'s actions to counterfeit prescriptions are covered by Art. 233 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Thus, similar categories of employees, i.e. The same doctor in the field of treating and the same teacher in the field of purely pedagogical are not officials, but in those cases when they carry out organizational and administrative or administrative functions, they turn into officials - subjects of malfeasance.

Speaking about the subject of malfeasance, it must be remembered that persons performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization cannot be subjects - perpetrators of malfeasance and their actions, in appropriate cases, are qualified under the articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provide for liability for crimes against the interests of service in commercial and other organizations (Note 1 to Art. 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). And if the organization is commercial, the purpose of which is to make a profit, then regardless of the type of this organization, the form of ownership, the nature and scope of the powers of the managerial staff of this organization, the latter are not officials and cannot be held responsible for crimes against the interests of the public service and service in local government bodies. The above also applies to the heads of state and municipal unitary enterprises, which, in accordance with civil law, are commercial enterprises.

Thus, P. was convicted by the city court under Part 3 of Art. 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and M. - under Part 1 of Art. 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. M. - the director of Fortuna LLP - suggested P., the representative of the Mayak production association, to conclude a contract for the supply of overalls to the association, knowing that she was an official - the head of the logistics group. By mutual agreement between themselves, in the event of a contract, M. agreed to transfer money to P. in the amount of 5% of the payment for the delivered products. Such an agreement was concluded, and M. transferred P. 18,500 rubles in a few months. The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Regional Court upheld the verdict. The Presidium of the Regional Court canceled the court decisions and sent the case for a new trial, considering the qualification of P. and M.'s actions to be incorrect. The Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, in protest, raised the issue of canceling the ruling of the presidium of the regional court and leaving the verdict and cassation ruling unchanged. The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation satisfied the protest, indicating the following.

Canceling the court decisions, the presidium of the regional court proceeded from the fact that P. was the head of the material and technical supply group of the state unitary enterprise - the production association "Mayak", i.e. an official of a state enterprise. However, the presidium of the regional court did not take into account the difference between a state institution and a state enterprise, which led to an incorrect conclusion about the official position of M. and P. As established by the case materials, the production association "Mayak" is a state unitary enterprise in federal ownership. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 113 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a unitary enterprise is a commercial organization that is not endowed with ownership of the property assigned to it. Only state and municipal enterprises can be created in the form of unitary enterprises. The action of the articles of ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation according to the footnote to Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation applies to state institutions. A state institution refers to non-profit organizations, the procedure for the creation and activities of which are regulated by Art. 120 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The production association "Mayak" is a state enterprise, not an institution, and acts as a commercial organization in the form of a state unitary enterprise. Therefore, the actions of P. and M. cannot be qualified under Articles of Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In such circumstances, the court of first instance gave the correct qualification to the actions of P. and M. according to, providing for the responsibility of persons performing organizational and administrative or administrative duties in a commercial organization, regardless of the form of ownership. Consequently, the decision of the presidium of the regional court cannot be recognized as legal and must be canceled.

Another typical case in this respect is the case of E. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. He was found guilty of receiving a bribe from K. in the amount of $ 1,500 by means of extortion while working as the director of a park of culture and recreation. The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, having considered the case on the cassation complaints of the convicted person and his lawyer, changed the sentence and re-qualified the actions of the convicted person to paragraph "c" of Part 4 of Art. 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, indicating the following.

Having correctly established the factual circumstances, the court erroneously qualified E.'s actions under paragraph “c” of Part 4 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, recognizing him as an official. In this case, the court proceeded from the fact that the park of culture and recreation, the director of which he worked, is in accordance with Art. 120 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as an institution. Meanwhile, according to its charter, the park of culture and rest is an enterprise. From the contract (employment contract) it is clear that E. was appointed director of the municipal enterprise "Park of Culture and Leisure" for three years. Thus, being the director of a municipal unitary enterprise, exercising managerial functions in it, E. was not an official. Based on the foregoing, the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation re-qualified E.'s actions from paragraph "c" of Part 4 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on clause "c" part 4 of Art. 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (illegal receipt by a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization of money for performing actions in the interests of the giver in connection with the official position held by this person through extortion). "

Subjective side crimes under Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (except for the negligence provided for by Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), is characterized by willful fault... Compositions of some crimes (provided for by Art. 285.292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) as mandatory signs also provide for a motive - selfish or other personal interest.

The development of criminal-legal aspects of the fight against malfeasance has always occupied a significant place in the theory of domestic (especially Soviet) criminal law. A lot of monographs, various kinds of manuals, scientific articles, Ph.D. theses are devoted to this problem (in terms of its theoretical development, this problem can be comparable to the problems of criminal liability for crimes of life, property and economic crimes).

Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains criminal and legal norms establishing responsibility for committing crimes against state power, public service and service in local governments.

Crimes of this kind are aimed at obstructing the activities of state authorities and local self-government bodies established by law. As a result of committing such crimes, trust in the authorities at all levels and a disdain for the law are undermined. Such crimes have an extremely negative impact on state development. This is precisely the social danger of such crimes.

The specific object of such crimes is public relations that regulate the functioning of state and local government bodies, state corporations and institutions, and municipal institutions.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation divides the state power of the Russian Federation into legislative, executive and judicial, the functioning of which is carried out through the exercise of powers by state bodies and bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Certain state bodies (the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation) are not included in any of the above branches of government.

For the direct exercise of the powers of state authorities, state positions of the Russian Federation and state positions of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are established. The legislation of the Russian Federation provides for the passage by citizens of the Russian Federation of public service in public positions. The main documents governing the procedure for passing civil service in the Russian Federation are federal laws of 2003 No. 58-FZ "On the system of public service", 2004 No. 79-FZ "On the state civil service in the Russian Federation", Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation 2005 " On the register of positions of the federal state civil service ", 1995 No. 32" On state positions in the Russian Federation ".

Civil service is a professional activity of citizens to ensure the powers of the Russian Federation and its subjects.

The civil service is divided into:

State civil service;

Military service;

Law enforcement service.

Civil service positions are divided into:

Positions of the federal state civil service;

Positions of the state civil service of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation;

Military positions;

Law enforcement positions.

Local self-government bodies are intended to address issues of local importance provided for by the 2003 Federal Law No. 131 - FZ "On the General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation" and are not part of the system of state power.

Local self-government bodies are elected directly by the population in the course of municipal elections. Local self-government bodies include the representative body of the municipality, the head of the municipality, local administration, and control body.

The main document governing the passage of municipal service is the 2007 federal law No. 25-FZ "On municipal service in the Russian Federation."

The main feature of the commission of malfeasance is the possibility of their implementation only after taking up a certain position or using official powers. Based on this, the objective side of the corpus delicti is expressed in an action or inaction (depending on the disposition of the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), contrary to the interests of the service and the powers of an official, the onset of consequences (in the case of material compositions) and a causal relationship between the action (inaction) and the consequences.

Most of the crimes, responsibility for the commission of which is provided for by Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, are committed by action, however, in Art. 285, 287, 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the objective side can be expressed both by action and by inaction, and according to Art. 2861 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation only by inaction.

The subjective side of the corpus delicti is characterized by a deliberate form of guilt (with the exception of a crime under Part 2 of Art. 2921 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, where guilt is expressed in the form of negligence).

In a number of offenses (Articles 285, 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), motive (selfish or other personal interest) is a mandatory sign of the subjective side.

The subject of the crime is special, with the exception of the offenses provided for in Art. 291, 2911 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

More on the topic General characteristics of crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government:

1. 16.1 General characteristics of crimes against state power, interests of public service and service in local government
2. 16.2 Types of crimes against state power, interests of public service and service in local government
3. Types of crimes against state power, interests of civil service and service in local government
4. 9.1. General characteristics of crimes against the interests of service in commercial and other organizations
5. General characteristics of crimes against the interests of service in commercial and other organizations
6. § 1. The legal nature of participation in civil proceedings of public authorities, local governments, organizations and citizens protecting the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of others
7. 19.1 General characteristics of crimes against military service
8. General characteristics of crimes against military service
9. Participation in civil proceedings of public authorities, local governments, organizations and citizens protecting the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of others
10. § 2. Grounds and forms of participation in the civil process of public authorities, local authorities

Generic object crimes under section. X A special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is state power. Specific object crimes under Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, state power, the power of local self-government bodies, the interests of public service and service in local self-government bodies, as well as the interests of service in state and municipal institutions, state corporations are recognized.

According to Art. 10 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, state power is exercised on the basis of division into legislative, executive and judicial.

State service of the Russian Federation in accordance with the Federal Law of 27.05.2003 No. 58-FZ "On the system of public service of the Russian Federation" - this is the professional service activity of citizens of the Russian Federation to ensure the execution of the powers of: the Russian Federation; federal government bodies, other federal government bodies; subjects of the Russian Federation; state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, other state bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation; persons filling positions established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws for the direct execution of the powers of federal state bodies; persons filling positions established by the constitutions, charters, laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for the direct execution of the powers of state bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The civil service system includes the following types of civil service: state civil service; military service; law enforcement service.

The state civil service is subdivided into the federal state civil service and the state civil service of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation. Military service and law enforcement service are types of federal public service.

Local self-government in the Russian Federation is a form of the people exercising their power, ensuring, within the limits established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws, and in cases established by federal laws, by the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, an independent and under its responsibility decision by the population directly and (or) through the authorities local self-government issues of local importance based on the interests of the population, taking into account historical and other local traditions.

Service in local government bodies(municipal service) in accordance with the Federal Law of 02.03.2007 No. 25-FZ "On municipal service in the Russian Federation" - the professional activity of citizens, which is carried out on an ongoing basis in municipal service positions, replaced by concluding an employment agreement (contract).

Service interests - normal activity of the public administration apparatus represented by state legislative, executive and judicial authorities, local self-government bodies, state and municipal institutions, state corporations, as well as administration in the Armed Forces, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation to fulfill their tasks.

The interests of the service are determined by the principles and goals of the service, as well as by establishing restrictions and prohibitions for employees.

The crimes included in ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in theory, are often called official. This is due to the fact that officials are recognized as the subject of most of these crimes. Together with crimes against the interests of service in commercial and other organizations (Ch. 23

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) in the doctrine of criminal law, malfeasance is sometimes called service 1, or managerial. The concept of an official will be discussed in more detail below.

Civil servants and municipal employees who are not officials are criminally liable under Articles of Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in cases specifically provided for by the relevant articles (Note 4 to Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

The fact that the subject of most crimes under Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, special, says that, as a rule, an encroachment on a selected object of criminal law protection is carried out, so to speak, “from within” - by persons who are endowed with certain powers. Only two crimes against state power, the interests of public service, service in local government bodies (bribery and mediation in bribery) are associated with an encroachment on an object "from outside" by a common subject.

The general signs of malfeasance include the fact that they are: 1) committed by persons vested with powers (officials, employees); 2) are committed due to their official position; 3) are committed against the interests of the service; 4) as a rule, they encroach on several objects.

By design, the corpus delicti under Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, presented as material and formal compositions (art. 285 1, 285, part 3 of art. 285, art. 287, 289, 290, 291, 291 1, part 1 of art. 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). As socially dangerous consequences in the composition of abuse of office, abuse of office, qualified official forgery, the legislator provided for a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the interests of society or the state protected by law.

Most crimes can be committed only by action (Art.285 1, 285, 285, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 291 1, 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), some - by action or inaction (Art.285, 292 1, 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), or only through inaction (Art.286 1, 287 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Crimes under Part 2 of Art. 292 *, art. 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, are careless, all other crimes provided for by Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, can be committed intentionally and some with two forms of guilt. In the compositions of abuse of office (Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and official forgery (Article 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), the subjective side is represented, in addition to guilt, by selfish or other personal interest.

Recently, the state has been paying more and more attention to countering encroachments aimed at undermining the authority of state power, public service, and service in local government bodies. In January 2009, the Federal Law of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ "On Combating Corruption" came into force. Corruption manifests itself in corruption crimes, which include some crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government bodies.

According to the specified Federal Law corruption - This:

• a) abuse of office, giving a bribe, accepting a bribe, abuse of authority, commercial bribery or other illegal use by an individual of his official position contrary to the legitimate interests of society and the state in order to obtain benefits in the form of money, valuables, other property or services of a property nature, etc. property rights for oneself or for third parties, or illegal provision of such benefits to the specified person by other individuals;
• b) committing the listed acts on behalf of or in the interests of a legal entity.

The corruption should include abuse of office, receiving and giving a bribe, mediation in bribery.

The concept of an official is defined in note 1 to art. 285

Of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Officials are persons who permanently, temporarily or by special authority exercise the functions of a representative of the government or perform organizational and administrative, administrative and economic functions in state bodies, local governments, state and municipal institutions, state corporations, as well as in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, and others. troops and military formations of the Russian Federation.

According to this definition, officials can exercise their official powers permanently, temporarily or by special authority.

The exercise of official powers constantly takes place in the case when these powers are included in the range of the main ones and the person is endowed with them for the entire duration of the duties of the position. Temporarily, a person performs duties when a period is established during which the person has the appropriate powers and these powers are included in the range of the main ones.

According to clause 6 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 16, 2009 No. 19 "On judicial practice in cases of abuse of office and abuse of office", the performance of official functions by special authority means that a person performs certain functions assigned to him by law ( trainees of the police, prosecutor's office, etc.), a normative act, order or order of a higher official or an authorized body or official. Such functions can be carried out for a certain time or once, or be combined with the main work (jurors, etc.).

Official powers should be assigned to a person in the prescribed manner. If the imposition of the relevant duties requires the issuance of a written order, then the person who exercised these powers on the verbal order of the head can hardly be recognized as exercising official powers.

If a person appointed to a position in violation of the requirements or restrictions established by law or other regulatory legal acts has committed actions that form the objective side of the malfeasance, then such actions should be classified as malfeasance (paragraph 6 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 16.10.2009 No. 19).

In accordance with the legislative definition, two types of officials should be distinguished:

• 1) representatives of the authorities;
• 2) persons performing organizational and administrative or administrative and economic functions in state bodies, local self-government bodies, state and municipal institutions, state corporations, as well as in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation.

Concept a government official defined in the footnote to Art. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This is an official of a law enforcement or regulatory body, as well as another official, endowed in the manner prescribed by law with administrative powers in relation to persons who are not in official dependence on him. The key in establishing the characteristics of a representative of authority is that the person concerned has the legal ability to issue orders to persons who are not dependent on him / her.

Representatives of power should include persons exercising legislative, executive or judicial power, as well as employees of state, supervisory or regulatory bodies, endowed in the manner prescribed by law with administrative powers in relation to persons who are not in official dependence on them, or the right to make decisions that are binding for execution by citizens, as well as organizations, regardless of their departmental subordination (for example, members of the Federation Council, deputies of the State Duma, deputies of legislative bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, members of the Government of the Russian Federation and executive bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, judges of federal courts and justices of the peace, endowed with appropriate the powers of employees of the prosecutor's office, tax, customs authorities, bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB of Russia, auditors who are in the public service, state inspectors and controllers, military personnel in the performance of their responsibilities for the protection of public order, security and other functions, in the performance of which military personnel are endowed with administrative powers).

Organizational and administrative functions These include, for example, team leadership, placement and selection of personnel, organization of work or service of subordinates, maintenance of discipline, application of incentives and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.

Organizational and administrative functions include the powers of persons to make decisions that have legal significance and entail certain legal consequences (for example, for a medical worker to issue a certificate of temporary disability, an employee of an institution of medical and social examination of the fact that a citizen has a disability, taking exams and giving marks by a member state examination (certification) commission) 1.

To administrative and economic functions may include, in particular, the powers to manage and dispose of property and funds on the balance sheet and bank accounts of organizations and institutions, military units and subunits, as well as taking other actions: making decisions on the calculation of wages, bonuses, exercising control over movement of material assets, determination of the order of their storage, etc.

The assertion of the lawyer O. in the complaint that although Ch. Was the head of the hospital, he could not be recognized as the subject of receiving a bribe, since he was only charged with the responsibility of presenting a list of candidates, and the final decision on sending him on a business trip to Bosnia depended on higher officials and that Ch. in any way could not participate in the final resolution of this issue, does not correspond to the materials of the case and cannot influence the decision taken by the court. The court established that Ch. (In accordance with the order of the command to present a list of candidates for sending on a business trip) had the powers of an official and at the stage of selecting candidates could facilitate or refuse subordinates to send them abroad. The court reasonably indicated in the verdict that confirmation of this conclusion is that some of the subordinates who submitted reports with a request to be sent on a business trip abroad, Ch. Immediately refused, and according to the report K. made a positive decision and he was presented as a candidate for a trip on such a business trip.

When deciding on the qualification of Ch .'s criminal acts, the court thoroughly examined his official position and powers and came to the correct conclusion that, as an official, he illegally received from his subordinate K. money in the amount of USD 1,000 for his inclusion in the list of candidates. to be sent on a business trip to Bosnia. The inclusion of K. in the lists was included in his official powers, and along with this he took measures to send K. on a business trip. The actions committed by Ch. Were reasonably regarded by the court as taking a bribe.

In the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops, military (special) formations and bodies performing functions but ensuring the defense and security of the state, officials who permanently, temporarily or by special authority perform organizational and administrative and (or) administrative and economic functions may be chiefs by official position and (or) military rank (Articles 34, 36 of the Charter of the Internal Service of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation).

Civilian personnel are supervisors for subordinate military personnel in accordance with their regular position.

Employees performing professional or technical duties that do not relate to organizational and administrative or administrative functions are not officials.

The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation November 6, 2001, having considered the criminal case on the cassation complaints of lawyers, the verdict against II. changed: his actions, qualified under clause "b" of Part 4 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, retrained to Art. 233 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

As can be seen from the job description in relation to the pediatrician of the city hospital and the orders on the powers of the doctor, N. as an ordinary pediatrician did not have any organizational, administrative, or administrative functions and therefore was not an official. Consequently, he cannot be considered as the subject of a crime under Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (taking a bribe).

N. must be held liable under Art. 233 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the illegal issuance and forgery of prescriptions giving the right to receive potent substances that can be used for the manufacture of narcotic drugs.

Officials are persons who perform the relevant functions in state bodies, local governments, state and municipal institutions, state corporations, as well as in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation.

Persons who permanently, temporarily or by special authority perform organizational and administrative or administrative and economic duties in a commercial or other organization, regardless of the form of ownership, or in a non-profit organization that is not a state body, local self-government body, state or municipal institution, as well as attorneys, representing, in accordance with the agreement, the interests of the state in the governing bodies of joint-stock companies (business partnerships), part of the shares (shares, contributions) of which are fixed (located) in federal ownership, cannot be recognized by officials.

As it was established, G. was the head of the state unitary enterprise "Directorate for the operation of buildings, engineering structures and communications."

It is clear from the charter of this enterprise that one of the goals of its creation is to make a profit.

In accordance with Art. 113 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a unitary enterprise is a commercial organization that is not endowed with the ownership right to the property assigned to it by the owner.