THE CHARACTERISTIC AND FEATURES OF INTERPRETING SIGNS OF ACTUS REUS OF BRIBERY MEDIATION (p.1 of art. 291.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
Keywords:
criminal law, crime, corruption, state power, service, bribery, mediation, complicity, organized groupAbstract
The problems associated with framing, interpreting and applying the norm on liability for bribery mediation (Article 291.1 of the Criminal
Code) become particularly relevant today. The national legislator when regulating responsibility for bribery in the Criminal Code of 1996 initially opted out of the norm, providing responsibility for bribery mediation and commercial bribery, believing that the intermediary’ acts should be qualified as complicity in bribe taking or bribe giving (commercial bribery). Now the legislator has established responsibility for bribery mediation, which considerably strengthens normative countering illegal activity of the persons promoting bribery. Therefore, such mediation is not a type of complicity
in the form of aiding, organizing or abetting, but it is an independent encroachment. The legislator has considerably expanded the legal
framework of responsibility for bribery mediation thereby the end of the crime is postponed to earlier stage of criminal behavior. While
analyzing Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the author gives the criminal and legal characteristic of actus reus
of the main element of bribery mediation, pays attention to a number of debatable formulations in dispositions of the norms contained in this article, reveals some theoretical and practical problems of qualification of the studied act, formulates proposals to solve them.
References
Волженкин Б.В. Служебные преступления : монография. М. : Юристь, 2000.
Капинус О. Изменения в законодательстве о должностных преступлениях: вопросы квалификации и освобождения взяткодателя от ответственности // Уголовное право. 2011. № 2. С. 21-26.
Кочина М.С. Посредничество во взяточничестве: история законодательства и практики противодействия // Актуальные проблемы российского права. 2017. № 4. С. 117-123.
Шарапов Р., Моисеенко М. Отличие физического посредничества во взяточничестве от дачи взятки // Уголовное право. 2013. № 1. С. 71-77.
Яни П.С. Посредничество во взяточничестве // Законность. 2011. № 9. С. 12-18.
Яни П.С. Проблемы квалификации посредничества во взяточничестве // Законность. 2013. № 2. С. 24-29.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format; remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, unless appropriate credit is given, a link to the license is provided, and all made changes are indicated.




