Commentary to Art. 19 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The commented article defines the general characteristics of a person subject to criminal liability. This person must be natural, reach the age of criminal responsibility and be of sound mind. These signs form the legal structure of the subject of the crime.
The criminal law of the Russian Federation recognizes only an individual (person) as the subject of a crime. Legal entities are not considered subjects of crime. This approach to resolving the issue of the subject of a crime is not characteristic of the criminal legislation of all countries. In a number of countries, legal entities are also recognized as subjects of a crime (for example, in France, the USA).
The position of the Russian legislator in resolving this issue is due to the fact that only the person guilty of committing a crime is subject to criminal liability. It is the principle of subjective imputation that makes it possible to recognize exclusively an individual as the subject of a crime, since the mental attitude to an act and its consequences is characteristic only of a person. Therefore, even in cases where a crime is committed in connection with the activities of a legal entity, only a person who has committed a socially dangerous act and shown consciousness and will in relation to it can be guilty.
Awareness of the social significance of one’s action and its consequences is characteristic only of man, but not of any person, but of a person who has a certain degree of moral, intellectual, mental development, a certain life experience, which is not acquired simultaneously, but accumulates gradually. A person’s achievement of these positions is associated with the factor of the time of his life in society, the assimilation of accepted (both formally and informally) standards of behavior.
Therefore, the second sign of the subject of a crime is the person reaching the age of criminal responsibility, upon reaching which the state could demand accountability for socially significant behavior, and the person could be held accountable for it.
The third sign of the subject of a crime established by law is sanity. Sanity means the presence of mental health at such a level when a person is able to fully understand the actual nature and social danger of his actions (inaction) or manage them. Bringing criminal responsibility to an insane person would be contrary to the principles of guilt, justice and humanism. That is why the sign of sanity, along with others, is a mandatory sign of the subject of a crime.
In some cases, along with the signs of a general subject of a crime, the legislator uses some additional signs, thereby emphasizing that a special subject is necessary for the presence of a specific crime. The presence of a special subject, on the one hand, limits the range of crimes committed by a general subject, and on the other hand, highlights the specifics of a certain act, correlating its social danger with the properties of the actor.
The indication of a special subject is used quite widely in criminal law. Additional characteristics that define a special subject are very diverse: citizenship, gender, age, family relationships, social status, profession, etc. Thus, the subject of crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local government, with certain exceptions, may be only an official, the subject of high treason (Article 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) - only a citizen of the Russian Federation, etc.
An additional feature of a special subject of a crime is used not only to form any corpus delicti, but also to construct privileged offenses or offenses with aggravating circumstances. For example, the subject of murder by the mother of a newborn child (Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) can only be the biological mother of the child. Involvement of a minor in the commission of a crime by a parent or teacher is a more serious act compared to the same, but committed by another person (Part 2 of Article 150 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
To summarize, we can say that those listed in Art. 19 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the signs of the subject of a crime are the minimum necessary set of signs that allow us to judge the presence of a general subject of the crime, and the addition of this set with other signs is an indication of the need for a special subject of the crime for specific crimes.
Article 3. Principle of legality
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 13, 2018 N 578-O Such legal regulation is aimed at preventing non-execution of sentences that have entered into legal force and exemption from serving criminal sentences of citizens on grounds not provided for by the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation (Articles - and - of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), thereby guaranteeing the inevitability of criminal punishment, the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens, the effectiveness of the constitutional foundations of the judiciary, its high authority (Articles 1, 2, 17, 19 and 118 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 12, 2019 N 53-APU19-18
OSIPOV ALEXEY ANATOLEVICH, ..., previously convicted: July 18, 2013 under Part 1 of Art. 158; pp. “c”, “d” part 2 art. 158; Part 2 Art. 159-; clause "c" part 2 art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to four years in prison, released on October 11, 2016 on parole for an unserved term of seven months and twelve days
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 04/03/2019 N 275P18
By the appeal ruling of the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated April 26, 2022, the verdict against Kopalov M.E. changed: it was decided to indicate in the operative part of the sentence the imposition of punishment on M.E. Kopalov. according to paragraphs “a”, “d”, part 3 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation using Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; The reference to Art. has been removed. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation when imposing punishment under Part 1 of Art. , pp. “a, g” part 3 art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The rest of the verdict against Kopalov M.E. left unchanged.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 4, 2017 N 1446-O
2.1. According to the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the criminality of an act, as well as its punishability and other criminal legal consequences, are determined only by this Code (part one), and the application of criminal law by analogy is not allowed (part two). These requirements for the quality of the criminal law, however, do not mean that when formulating its regulations, evaluative or generally accepted concepts (categories) cannot be used to take into account the need for the effective application of criminal law prohibitions to an unlimited number of specific legal situations (definitions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation). Federation dated December 4, 2003 N 441-O, dated April 15, 2008 N 260-O-O, dated April 2, 2009 N 484-O-P, dated March 23, 2010 N 368-O-O, dated November 25 2010 N 1561-О-О, dated April 21, 2011 N 572-О-О and dated March 5, 2013 N 323-О).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 23, 2017 N 2772-O
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY ARTICLES OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH PART ONE OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges K.V. Aranovsky, A.I. Boytsova, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, S.M. Kazantseva, S.D. Knyazeva, A.N. Kokotova, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrina, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, O.S. Khokhryakova, V.G. Yaroslavtseva,
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 23, 2017 in case No. AKPI17-898
March 2, 2010 Makoseichuk S.P. detained as a suspect in accordance with Articles 91 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, she was charged with committing a crime under Part 4 of Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and she was interrogated as an accused. On March 4 of the same year, by a decision of the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Novosibirsk, a preventive measure was chosen for her in the form of detention. December 16, 2010 Makoseichuk S.P. charged with committing crimes under Part 4 of Art. 159 and parts 1, 2 and art. 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and she was interrogated as an accused. On March 10, 2011, she was charged with committing crimes under Part 4 of Art. 159 and part 3 of Art. 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, on March 15, 2011, she was interrogated as an accused.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated January 30, 2020 N 240-O
As for the contested K.V. Vagin of Articles , and 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, then, contrary to paragraph 2 of Article 97 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,” the presented documents do not confirm the completion of the criminal proceedings against him.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 13, 2020 N 223-APU19-4
Contrary to the opinion of the convicts, the sentence they are appealing does not contradict the principles of criminal liability enshrined in Art. - The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since the criminality and punishability of the acts committed by them is determined by criminal law, their equality before the law is observed, guilt in committing crimes is established.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 23, 2020 N 1902-O
Within the meaning of Article 54 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which specifies the generally recognized legal principle of NULLum crimen, NULLa poena sine lege (no crime, no punishment unless specified in the law), in conjunction with the provisions of part two of article and article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, parts one and two Article 1, Articles 24, 27 and 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the norms of criminal law serve as a substantive prerequisite for criminal procedural activity: suspicion or accusation of committing a crime must be based only on the provisions of the criminal law defining the criminality of the act, its punishability and other criminal - legal consequences, which establishes all the elements of a crime, the presence of which in the act, being the only basis for criminal liability, is subject to establishment only in the proper procedural order, mandatory for the court, prosecutor, head of the investigative body, investigator, interrogator and other participants in criminal proceedings (decrees of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 14, 2011 No. 16-P, dated November 19, 2013 No. 24-P, etc.).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 23, 2020 N 1887-O
Within the meaning of Article 54 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which specifies the generally recognized legal principle of NULLum crimen, NULLa poena sine lege (no crime, no punishment unless specified in the law), in conjunction with the provisions of part two of article and article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, parts one and two Article 1, Articles 24, 27 and 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the norms of criminal law serve as a substantive prerequisite for criminal procedural activity: suspicion or accusation of committing a crime must be based only on the provisions of the criminal law defining the criminality of the act, its punishability and other criminal - legal consequences, which establishes all the elements of a crime, the presence of which in the act, being the only basis for criminal liability, is subject to establishment only in the proper procedural order, mandatory for the court, prosecutor, head of the investigative body, investigator, interrogator and other participants in criminal proceedings (decrees of the Constitutional Courts of the Russian Federation dated July 14, 2011 No. 16-P and November 19, 2013 No. 24-P).
Cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 24, 2017 N 45-O16-2
In accordance with paragraph “i” of Part 1 of Art. and Part 1 and Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation recognizes surrender as a mitigating circumstance and the absence of aggravating circumstances gives the right to impose a punishment not exceeding two-thirds of the maximum term or amount of the most severe type of punishment provided for in the relevant article of the article. However, this rule does not apply if the relevant article provides for life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Judicial practice under Article 19 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 19, 2017 N 74-APU17-2
Taking into account the conclusion of a forensic psychological and psychiatric examination, the examined case materials, as well as the studied data on the personality of the defendant, the circumstances of his crime and his adequate behavior during during the trial, the court rightfully recognized Vorobiev V.V. sane, and by virtue of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is subject to criminal liability and criminal punishment for the crime committed.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 12, 2019 No. 2-APU19-3
The completeness of the information about his personality reported by the convicted person, together with the case materials presented to the expert commission and the results of inpatient monitoring of him over a fairly long period of time, allowed the court to comprehensively and objectively establish the mental state of Lisov I.Yu., and, taking into account the conclusions contained in the examination, by virtue of the articles and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, make a decision on his ability to bear criminal responsibility for his actions.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated October 29, 2020 N 2570-O
According to the applicant, the application of these norms by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation does not correspond to the constitutional and legal meaning of bringing to criminal liability, contradicts Articles 10, 17 - 19, 45, 46 and 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Articles - , , , , and of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 22 of article 5, paragraph 2 of part one of article 6, part four of article 14, articles 24, 90, 171 and 172, part two of article 297, paragraph 3 of part one of article 299 and paragraph 1 of article 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, article 11 of the Federal Law dated August 12, 1995 N 144-FZ “On operational investigative activities.”
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 12, 2021 N 377-O
On the same day, the court ruled to send a request to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, indicating in it that when determining the amount of the fine, the time Ch. was under house arrest (from July 30, 2022 to January 27, 2022) was not taken into account, since the disputed The law allows, when imposing a fine, to take into account only the time spent in custody before sentencing. Based on this, in its request the court - noting that preventive measures in the form of detention and house arrest have a similar legal nature - asks to check for compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, its articles (part 2), (parts 1 and 2) and (parts 2 and 3), part five of the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as not providing, in violation of the constitutional provision on the equality of citizens before the law and the court, the possibility of taking into account the time a person was under house arrest before sentencing when assigning him the main punishment in the form of a fine.
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 3, 2019 N 87-AD19-13
Meanwhile, by virtue of an article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, only a sane individual who has reached the age established by the said Code is subject to criminal liability. Thus, bringing a legal entity to administrative liability for committing an administrative offense provided for in Article 8.38 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses does not exclude the possibility of bringing an individual guilty of committing illegal actions (inaction) to criminal liability for committing a crime provided for in Part 2 of Article 250 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Article 5. Principle of guilt
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 29, 2017 N 27P17 The specified norm of the criminal law (Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) when qualifying the actions of the organizer of a crime should be interpreted in conjunction with the provisions of Art. , part 1 art. , part 5 art. , art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In accordance with Part 1 of Art. According to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the responsibility of accomplices in a crime is determined by the nature and degree of actual participation of each of them in the commission of a crime.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 7, 2018 N 205-APU18-27
Requirements of Art. Art. , , Part 1 and Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was observed when imposing punishment by the court. The court recognized Barakhoev’s active contribution to the detection and investigation of the crime and the presence of a dependent young child as mitigating circumstances for the punishment.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 31, 2019 N 35-APU19-1
April 15, 2015 under clause “d”, part 2 of art. 161, paragraph “a”, part 3, art. 158, part 3 and art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 2 years 4 months of imprisonment; May 23, 2018 under Part 3 of Art. , part 1 art. 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 3 months of correctional labor with the deduction of 5% from the wages of the convicted person to the state income,
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 21, 2019 N 201-APU19-15
When imposing punishment, the court of first instance fully complied with the requirements of Art. , part 3 art. , Part 1 and Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which determines the general principles of sentencing, as well as the sentencing in the presence of mitigating circumstances.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 28, 2019 N 66-APU19-15
convicted under Part 2 of Art. 210, paragraph “a”, part 3, art. 163 (six episodes), based on Art. , Part 3 and Art. , art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 2 years 10 months of imprisonment with serving the sentence in a special regime correctional colony, with restriction of freedom for 6 months, with the establishment of restrictions and obligations specified in the sentence;
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 24, 2019 N 205-APU19-34
Despite the objections of Magomadov's lawyer, the punishment for the crime committed was imposed in compliance with the procedure and rules established by Art. , part 3 art. , part 1 and art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. When determining the type and amount of punishment, the court took due account of the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed by the convicted person, information about the personality of Tataev, who was brought to criminal responsibility for the first time, is positively characterized, sincerely repented of his crime, as well as information about the state of health of his parents and other circumstances of the case, including those referred to by the defense attorney in the complaint.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 28, 2017 N 558-O
According to the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the basis for the parole of a person serving a sentence, in particular, is the recognition by the court that for his correction he does not need to fully serve the sentence imposed by the court, as well as compensation for damage (in whole or in part) caused by the crime in the amount determined by a court decision. Consequently, during the remaining unserved part of the sentence, the convicted person must prove his correction by his behavior, which is the condition for his release. The fact that a crime was committed during this period refutes the correction of the parolee and provides grounds for imposing a punishment based on the aggregate of sentences, in which the unserved part of the punishment under the previous court sentence is partially or fully added to the punishment imposed by the last court sentence. Otherwise, it would be contrary to the objectives of the criminal law, the principles of guilt and justice (Articles , and of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) (Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of May 28, 2013 N 793-O). Accordingly, the period for expunging a criminal record in this case is calculated from the moment of serving the sentence imposed by the totality of sentences (Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of September 29, 2015 N 2286-O).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated June 27, 2017 N 1408-O
In this case, a person is subject to criminal liability only for those socially dangerous actions (inaction) and socially dangerous consequences that have occurred in respect of which his guilt is established (part one of Article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), he is given a punishment corresponding to the nature and degree of social danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator (part one of article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) (Determinations of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated September 29, 2011 N 1340-О-О, dated December 21, 2011 N 1733-О-О, dated December 24, 2013 N 2095- O, etc.).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 23, 2017 N 2774-O
AND ARTICLES AND 111 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges K.V. Aranovsky, A.I. Boytsova, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, S.M. Kazantseva, S.D. Knyazeva, A.N. Kokotova, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrina, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, O.S. Khokhryakova, V.G. Yaroslavtseva,
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 23, 2017 N 2779-O
1. In his complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, citizen K.V. Sonin, who is serving a criminal sentence in the form of imprisonment, asks to be declared inconsistent with the preamble of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and its articles 1, 2, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 45, 46, 48, 49 , 50, 52, 54, 68, 120, 123 and 126 Federal Law of July 3, 2016 N 324-FZ “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation”, Article 14 of the Federal Law of August 20 2004 N 119-FZ “On state protection of victims, witnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings”, Federal Law of June 1, 2005 N 53-FZ “On the state language of the Russian Federation”, Articles 10 and 16.1 of the Federal Law of April 3, 1995 N 40-FZ “On the Federal Security Service”, articles 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 15 of the Federal Law of August 12, 1995 N 144-FZ “On operational investigative activities”, articles , , , , , , , , , 290, 291, 303 and 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, chapters 9, 11, 13, 19, 20, 39, 45.1, 47.1 and articles 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 , 21, 29, 40, 47, 56, 60, 61, 62, 73, 74, 75, 83, 87, 88, 89, 140, 144, 145, 159, 165, 171, 182, 183, 220, 252 , 259, 260, 283, 299, 302, 307, 313, 389.34, 397 and 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 29, 2018 N 51-APU18-4
Believes that the court incorrectly applied the norms of criminal law in terms of determining the form of guilt and motives of A.N. Tsapyuk. according to Part 2 of Art. 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Part 3 of Art. , clause “g”, part 2 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, incorrectly applied the above articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, articles , , of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
