Статья посвящена вопросам стимулирования позитивного посткриминального поведения в борьбе с преступлениями против собственности

The property makes an economic basis of existence of any society, and the non-alienable right to be the owner is the most important guarantee of implementation of the rights and personal freedoms. In the article 17 of the Universal declaration of human rights is stated: "… Each person has the right to own property as individually, and together with the others. Nobody has to be randomly deprived of the property".

Meanwhile, the crimes against property are the most widespread both in Russia, and in its certain regions, having a tendency to increase.

So, according to IC of the Regional Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia across the Khabarovsk territory, in the Far-Eastern federal district it is registered the crimes against property:

 in 2009 – 24141, from them robberies – 396, plunders – 3434, thefts – 17105, extortion – 175;

– in 2010 – 80932, from them robberies – 1104, plunders – 9444, thefts – 62391, extortion – 332;

– in 2011 – 75400, from them robberies – 920, plunders – 7998, thefts – 60263, extortion – 287;

– in 2012 – 81808, from them robberies – 940, plunders – 6711, thefts – 59477, extortion – 296;

– in 2013 – 82892, from them robberies – 877, plunders – 6010, thefts – 59851, extortion – 285.

In 3 months 2014 16978 crimes, from them robberies – 200, plunders – 1117, thefts – 11845, extortion – 98 are registered.

Thus, from the provided data follows that the quantity of registered crimes against property across the Far-Eastern federal district for the last five years increases (except 2011).

The mercenary orientation considerably determines the general motivation of the crime. In the structure of registered crimes every second is an infringement on the property.

Specific weight of the crimes against property from the all registered made, on the researches of one criminologists, 60% [1, p. 251], others – 75% [2, p. 432]. According to V. V. Lunev, the specific weight of crimes against the property from all registered made 80% [3, p. 392].

The problem of fight against the crimes both in the sphere of economy, and with the other types of crimes gets exclusively great value now. The effective solution of this problem as it is represented is impossible to carry out only by the means of building of retaliatory policy of the state. A lot of things depend on the integrated approach including, in particular here: humanization of criminal policy, criminal and criminal procedure legislations; development of the institutes of social and legal protection of participants of the criminal trial; timely response of the law enforcement bodies to the messages about illegal acts; improvement of application of the criminal precepts of law encouraging the offenders, giving help to the public authorities in disclosure and investigation of the crimes.

In this regard, studying of the question of further development of incentive norms of the criminal law which represent legal incentives for the socially useful behavior of the person who is committing or already committed a crime is especially actualized.

The orientation of incentive norms of the criminal law is expressed, first of all, that they, stimulating behavior of the person, desirable for the society, promote excitement by the separate criminal elements state of repentance, predetermine their readiness for interaction with the law enforcement bodies and, thereby, definitely influence on an increase of solvability of the registered crimes, reduce the level of latent crime, therefore, increase the efficiency of legal regulation of the process of fight against the crime in general.

Many lawyers support for widening of the sphere of criminal and legal stimulation of the socially positive behavior of the persons who committed crimes reasonably believing that it would promote their prevention and disclosure, prevention of the done harm, compensation of damage, reduction of application of the measures of the state coercion. The majority of made proposals consists in adding with incentive norms the separate articles of CC RF providing responsibility for plunders, obviously false testimonies, transport offenses, official and other crimes [4, p. 71, 17, 61 – 67].

The given problem is actual and today in spite of the fact that a large number of incentive norms providing both the release from criminal liability, and its mitigation is provided in the Criminal code of Russia.

According to the existing CC RF, are among such norms: the norms encouraging voluntary refusal of further continuation of the criminal activity (Art. 31 of UK), and also the norms encouraging the actions of the criminal connected with the active assistance to disclosure and investigation of the crimes, prevention of harmful consequences of the criminal encroachment (items" and", "to" p.1 Art. 61; Art. 631; Art. of Art. 75, 76; 761 of CC RF references to the articles 122, 126, 1271, 178, 184, 198, 199, 1991, 2001, 204, 205, 2051, 2053, 2054, 2055, 206, 208, 210, 222, 223, 228, 2283, 275, 276, 278, 2821, 2822, 291, 2911, 307, 3222, 3223 of CC RF). Thus, many of the listed norms as encouragement provide considerable concessions to the person, exempting him from the criminal liability for the follow-up socially useful activity. For comparison, in CC of RSFSR there were only ten articles having the similar legal nature (articles 50, 501, 51, 52, 64, 772, 174, 2133, 218, 224).

Increase of the bases for release from the criminal responsibility, and also mitigation of a punishment for positive post-criminal behavior speak, first of all, not only about humanization of the state policy in the field of fight against the crime, but also about stimulation of socially positive behavior of the persons who committed crimes.

Thus, through the content of these norms the idea of admissibility of a compromise in the fight against crime which expediency is rather reasoned in a number of works stands out [5].

Quite reasonable question is asked by H.D. Alikperov: "… It is difficult to explain the logic of the legislator why is he for the more dangerous ended crimes (for example, high treason) guarantees liberation from the criminal liability in exchange only for the fact of surrender, and for the voluntary and full elimination of harmful consequences of the committed heft refuses to make with him a compromise?" [5, p. 113].

After all, as it is fairly noted in the literature if we recognize that one of the main requirements to the criminal law is justice, obviously, similar practice more than it takes place, has to consider also the interests of the persons breaking the criminal law [6, p. 102].

We support H.D. Alikperov's position about the need of assumption of a compromise with the person who stole someone else's property, in exchange for its voluntary and full recovery of the caused material damage to the owner or return of the stolen, considering thus and the characteristic of the persons committing these crimes [5, p. 114].

Today in the chapter No. 22 "Crimes in the sphere of economic activity" the legislator uses incentive norms in the fight against crimes in six structures (prevention, restriction or elimination of the competition – Art. 178 of CC RF; rendering illegal influence on the result of official sports competition or spectacular commercial competition – 184 of CC; evasion of taxes and (or) collecting from the natural person – Art. 198 of CC; evasion of taxes and (or) collecting from the organization – Art. 199 of CC; non-exercising of duties of the tax agent – Art. 1991 of CC; smuggling of cash and (or) monetary instruments – 200 of CC).

Besides, Art. 761 of CC RF "Release from the criminal liability on cases about the crimes in the sphere of economic activity" provides the release from criminal liability of the persons who for the first time committed crimes in the sphere of economic activity and who satisfied the conditions specified in the disposition, on the 21 structure. In total the release from criminal liability on 27 structures of the crimes provided by the chapter 22 of CC RF is provided.

In the chapter "The crime against property" isn't present any incentive norm and it in spite of the fact that all-criminal mercenary crimes have mass character and on this sign far leave behind the all others. Their specific weight in the general crime, according to the statistics, is the highest and makes more than 60%. As criminologists note, this indicator is almost stable for the last years [4, p. 466].

When questioning the law enforcement officers with a question of expediency in the criminal legislation of adoption of the incentive norm exempting from the criminal liability for commission of plunders of someone else's property provided by the articles 158 – 160 of CC RF, 55% (from 360 investigators interrogated by us, public prosecutor's workers, judges) expressed the need of adoption of such norm.

If to consider the answers only of the public prosecutor's workers, the majority of them spoke against the release from criminal liability on the crimes against property, motivating with that the criminals can pay off, in terms of money indemnifying the caused loss, making the other thefts. Thus, some of them offered the variant of compensation of damage to the victim in nature then the termination of criminal case is possible.

Due to the above, we offer the adoption of the "mixed" norm in the articles158, 159, 160 of CC RF:

The person who indemnified the loss caused by the plunder, and promoting disclosure and investigation of a crime is exempted from the criminal liability in case of commission of the crimes provided in the p.1 of the articles 158 – 160 of CC RF.

In case of commission of the specified plunders under the aggravating circumstances the sentence can be imposed to this person on the p. 2 of the articles 158 – 160 no more than a half of the maximum term of punishment.

We offer the draft of the note to the articles 161 and 162 of CC RF:

The sentence according to the p.1 of the articles 161 – 162 no more than two thirds of the maximum term of punishment can be imposed to the person who indemnified the loss caused by plunder, and to the promoting the disclosure and investigation of the specified crimes.

Earlier the author said about the need about possibility of the release from criminal liability of ordinary participants of the organized criminal groups and communities who, wishing to leave these associations, voluntary promote to the law enforcement bodies in exposure of the leaders of criminal groups and communities, give help in disclosure and investigation of the crimes [8, p. 23 – 26].

The author was heard by the legislator and as a result, practically in ten years the Federal law of November 03, 2009 No. 245-FL made changes and additions in the article 210 of CC RF. Release of the person who voluntary stopped participation in the criminal community (criminal organization) or the structural division entering it or meeting of the organizers, heads (leaders) or other representatives of the organized groups and actively promoting disclosure or suppression of these crimes if his actions don't contain the other corpus delicti is provided.

The feature of encouragement is in criminal law that the person who broke a criminal and legal ban further seeks to eliminate or smooth down with the positive activity (positive post-criminal behavior) the damage caused by the act, as much as possible to minimize consequences of the committed crime, to reconsider the valuable orientations in a positive side or to change social reference points.

In the criminal legislation it is said not about encouragement of a crime, and about the positive post-criminal (post-criminal) behavior of the subject. In this connection, in CC RF there are criminal and legal means stimulating positive post-criminal behavior of the persons who committed a crime, including also incentive criminal norms of the law.

1. 
   Криминология : учебник / под ред. В. Д. Малкова. – М., 2006.
   
2. 
   Криминология : учебник / под ред. Г. А. Аванесова. – М., 2010.
   
3. 
   Лунеев, В. В. Курс мировой и российской криминологии. Особенная часть / В. В. Лунеев. – М., 2011. – Т. 2.
   
4. 
   Сафронов, А. Д. Об одном аспекте профилактического действия уголовного закона / А. Д. Сафронов // Вестник МГУ. Право. – 1976. – Сер. 11. – № 4. – С. 71 ; Владимиров, В. А. Некоторые уголовно-правовые аспекты профилактики преступлений / В. А. Владимиров // Проблемы профилактики правонарушений в развитом социалистическом обществе. – М., 1982. – С. 17 ; Павлова, О. К. Профилактическая роль советского уголовного закона и конструкция уголовно-правовых норм / О. К. Павлова // Вестник МГУ. Право. – 1984. – Сер. 11. – № 4. – С. 61 – 67 и др.
   
5. 
   Аликперов, Х. Д. Преступность и компромисс / Х. Д. Аликперов. – Баку, 1992 ; Голик, Ю. В. Уголовно-правовое стимулирование позитивного поведения: вопросы теории / Ю. В. Голик. – Новосибирск, 1992 ; Сабитов, Р. А. Теория уголовно-правового регулирования поведения лица после совершения им преступления и вынесения ему приговора : монография / Р. А. Сабитов. – М., 2013.
   
6. 
   Звечаровский, И. Э. Уголовно-правовые нормы, поощряющие посткриминальное поведение личности / И. Э. Звечаровский. – Иркутск, 1991.
   
7. 
   Криминология : учебник для юридических вузов / под ред. А. И. Долговой. – М., 1997.
   
8. 
   Кашапов, Р. М. Поощрительные нормы уголовного права как средство борьбы с преступлениями в сфере экономики / Р. М. Кашапов // Актуальные проблемы борьбы с преступностью в сфере экономики : сборник научных трудов по материалам региональной межвузовской научно-практической конференции 28 апреля 2000 г. – Хабаровск : Дальневосточный юридический институт МВД РФ, 2000. – Ч. 1. – С. 23 – 26.