1. Interference in any form in the activities of the court in order to obstruct the administration of justice -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to two hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to eighteen months, or by forced labor for a term of up to two years, or by arrest for a term of up to six months, or by imprisonment for a term of up to two years.
2. Interference in any form in the activities of a prosecutor, investigator or person conducting an inquiry, in order to impede a comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of the case -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to eighty thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to six months, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to four hundred eighty hours, or by arrest for a term of up to six months.
3. Acts provided for in parts one or two of this article, committed by a person using his official position, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to two years, or by forced labor for a term of up to four years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or imprisonment for a term of up to four years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it.
- Article 293. Negligence
- Article 295. Encroachment on the life of a person conducting justice or preliminary investigation
Commentary to Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The main object of the crime under Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is the normal activity of the court and law enforcement agencies, and first of all the independence of judges. An additional object may be the property, labor, housing and other rights and interests of the persons listed in parts 1 and 2 of the article in question.
The social danger of the crime lies in the fact that it infringes on the independence of judges, which is one of the most important guarantees of the administration of justice in strict accordance with the law. Interference in the activities of the court in the administration of justice is a gross violation of the principle of the independence of judges and their subordination only to the law and can lead to the adoption of an unfair judicial decision in the case.
The objective side of the crime is to interfere in any form with the activities of the court (Part 1), prosecutor, investigator or person conducting the inquiry (Part 2), in order to obstruct the administration of justice in order to achieve an illegal verdict, court decision or other act or prevent a comprehensive, complete and objective consideration of the case. A crime is committed by an action. The nature of the actions can be very different: making requests, giving orders, promising a promotion, etc. Practice also knows cases of interference committed by forcing a witness to slander the investigator in unlawful actions in order to remove him from the investigation, although, in our opinion, responsibility for these acts is provided for by independent elements of the crimes of Art. Art. 302, 306 or 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, depending on the circumstances.
It should be noted here that any appeal to a judge, prosecutor, investigator, person conducting an inquiry, for example, with a request for one or another influence on the course of the case, formally forms a crime under Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. However, in such cases, the intensity and nature of the impact and the person making the request should be assessed to determine whether the impact could actually influence the behavior of the judge or others. If it is established that the request could have been “painlessly” ignored, the act, from our point of view, should be regarded as insignificant.
The concepts of persons specified in the dispositions of Parts 1 and 2 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as victims, were analyzed by us when considering Art. 295 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Under the activities specified in the disposition of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers to the actions of these persons (bodies) provided for by law at any stage of the constitutional, civil, arbitration, criminal or administrative process.
Intervention is any unlawful influence on such persons, not associated with an encroachment on life, threat or violence (otherwise it would fall under the characteristics of Article 295 or Article 296 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), with the aim of changing the course of justice, preliminary investigation or inquiry. Influence in the form of bribery requires qualification according to the totality of crimes provided for in Art. 291 and Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The crime in question has a formal composition and is considered completed from the moment of interference in the activities of the persons specified in Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, regardless of whether the perpetrator managed to achieve his goal aimed at impeding the normal activities of judicial or investigative bodies.
The decision made as a result of the intervention is outside the scope of this crime and must be assessed independently. It may constitute a crime against justice or against the interests of public service. For example, the issuance of a deliberately unjust sentence, decision or other judicial act should be qualified under Art. 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Forgery of documents that are not evidence, as a result of interference in the activities of the court or the prosecutor, investigator or person conducting the inquiry, must be qualified under Art. 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Analysis of Part 4 of Art. 37, part 7, 8 art. 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation allows us to conclude that Part 2 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal legal protection of all activities of the above persons to assist in the administration of justice, i.e. interference may take place at the stage of inquiry, preliminary investigation or consideration of the case in court.
The subjective side of the crime is characterized by direct intent and the presence of a special purpose. The person is aware that he is interfering in the activities of the court (Part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) or in the activities of the prosecutor, investigator or person conducting the inquiry (Part 2 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and wishes this.
The absence of such a purpose when interfering in an investigation or judicial resolution of a case means the absence of this crime.
The motives for a crime can be different (self-interest, revenge, the desire to prevent the disclosure of circumstances related to the perpetrator, the desire to assist a relative or acquaintance who finds himself in the field of legal proceedings, etc.) and do not affect the qualification of the crime, but can be taken into account when assigning punishments.
The subject of crimes under Parts 1 and 2 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a sane person who has reached sixteen years of age (general subject).
In Part 3 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation names the commission of a crime by a person using his official position as a qualifying feature. This sign refers to interference in the activities of the court and interference in the activities of the prosecutor, investigator and person conducting the inquiry. We are talking about the commission of a crime by a special subject using his official position, understood in the broad sense of the word. Firstly, as a special type of abuse of power. In this case, the subject is an official, whose definition is contained in the note to Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Secondly, as a special type of abuse of power. In this case, the subject is a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, the concept of which is given in the note to Art. 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The subject of a qualified type of crime may also be another person using the powers associated with his service. In such cases, additional qualification under Art. Art. 201 and 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not required.
Since the law specifies the use of powers, when qualifying an act it is necessary to determine exactly what powers were used.
Responsibility for obstructing the legal activities of a lawyer: qualification problems
The draft amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation presented for public discussion provide for the addition of Art. 294.1 “Obstruction of the legal activities of a lawyer”, part 1 of which establishes liability for “interference in any form with the legal activities of a lawyer in order to impede the exercise of his professional powers provided for by the legislation on advocacy and the legal profession, if this act entailed causing significant harm harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or legally protected interests of society or the state.”
Are we talking about the criminalization of the act described in the proposed norm? To some extent, yes, since not all actions containing the projected composition are currently subject to criminal liability. True, among the types of opposition to a lawyer, it is not easy to find those for which there is no liability now.
If, for example, the investigator destroys what was presented by the defense attorney in the manner provided for in clause 2, part 1, art. 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, important materials, without attaching them to the case as evidence, the crime is qualified under Part 2 or 3 of Art. 303 of the Criminal Code as falsification of evidence in a criminal case.
Despite the fact that, according to popular belief, the term “falsification” covers only “actions expressed in forgery, distortion, substitution of genuine information or its carrier with information that is false, imaginary, originating from an improper source or obtained in violation of the established procedure,” practitioners understand falsification wider.
According to the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, “in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 303 of the Criminal Code, falsification of evidence means the artificial creation or destruction
evidence, regardless of whether it is evidence of the prosecution
or defense
, and also regardless of the occurrence of any consequences, regardless of whether the purpose of falsifying evidence was the conviction of a person or, conversely, his acquittal or another goal, as established by the court in the case in accordance with the provisions of Art. 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is the subject of proof” (emphasis added – P.Ya.).
However, if the same actions are performed not by the investigator, but by the head. office of the investigative department, then, due to his non-recognition of falsification of evidence as a subject and the impossibility of classifying the purely technical functions he performs in relation to materials received by the department as organizational, administrative or administrative, according to the current Criminal Code, he cannot be held responsible for a crime against justice (Article 303) or for an official crime. With the adoption of the amendments, this person will bear criminal liability under Art. 294.1 CC.
At the same time, the addition of this norm to the Code in cases similar to the first of these will raise the question of competition between the novel and Art. 303 CC. So, if the materials were destroyed by the investigator, in the absence of those provided for in Part 3 of Art. 303 of the Criminal Code of the qualifying circumstances, the act will be qualified under Part 2 of Art. 303, since the elements of falsification of evidence do not include socially dangerous consequences, while the elements of the crime established by Art. 294.1 of the Criminal Code, on the contrary, provides for them.
If the destruction of materials entails the grave consequences specified in Part 3 of Art. 303 of the Criminal Code (which implies a punishment of up to 7 years in prison), which in other cases the law qualifies as the most dangerous type of harm to society caused by a crime to rights, legitimate interests, etc., will the novel not “overshadow” (Part 2 of Art. 294.1 of the Criminal Code, according to which for interference committed by a person using his official position, the maximum penalty is two years in prison) from the law enforcement officer the elements of falsification?
In order not to weaken the opposition to encroachments on the rights of lawyers, scientists commenting on the novel should explain to the law enforcement officer that for such cases the elements of falsification, qualified as a sign of grave consequences, are special and subject to imputation by virtue of Part 3 of Art. 17 of the Criminal Code.
The content of the concept of “obstruction” is broader than that of “interference”. But responsibility under Art. It is proposed to introduce Article 294.1 of the Criminal Code specifically for interference, even if committed for the purpose of obstruction, etc. And since the corpus delicti is imputed to the perpetrator (the perpetrator) based on the description, first of all, of the signs of the objective side of the act, set out in the article of the Special Part of the Code, and not in the title of the introduced article (the title is more of a motto nature), it is necessary to answer the question of whether it covers Is the novel not only an action, but also an inaction - for example, a refusal to provide a lawyer with the information he requested?
The professional powers of a lawyer enshrined in legislation, the obstruction of which the perpetrator sees as his goal, direct us to other, “procedural” normative legal acts. So, according to paragraph 3 of Art. 6 of the Law on the Bar, these powers include, in particular, the right to collect information necessary to provide legal assistance, including requesting certificates, characteristics and other documents from state authorities and local governments, public associations and other organizations in the manner prescribed by Art. 6.1 of this Law, while the specified bodies and organizations in the prescribed manner are obliged to provide the lawyer with the documents requested by him or their copies.
In addition, the norm of paragraph 4 of Art. 6.1 of the Law on the Bar defines the boundaries of the information array from which a lawyer can draw information of interest to him. Will a person who refuses to fulfill the obligation to provide a lawyer with the requested information be subject to criminal liability if it does not contain information classified by law as information with limited access?
It would seem that the term “interference” implies only the active actions of the perpetrator, excluding the possibility of imputing inaction to him, consisting in evading the obligation to provide information. However, the interpretation of the courts is again broader: the Supreme Court, for example, agreed with the conviction under Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the judge, who not only “withdrew from the court” the civil case (which was recognized as active actions), but also retained it, wanting to avoid review by a higher authority of the decisions made.
It is interesting that Art. 5.39 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for liability, strictly speaking, not for evasion of providing information (that is, not for failure to provide it), but for unlawful refusal to provide it, as well as untimely provision or provision of knowingly false data. But, let’s say, an official whose duties include providing information refuses to provide this to a lawyer. In this case, the official will not be held liable under Art. 5.39 Code of Administrative Offences, and under Art. 294.1 of the Criminal Code only when the refusal entails the socially dangerous consequences mentioned in Part 1 of the proposed norm.
However, if these consequences were not indicated in the bill - that is, liability under Art. 294.1 provided for inaction in the form of failure to fulfill the obligation to provide the requested information - the official would not have been held liable due to the rule established by the Supreme Court, according to which “in cases where an administrative offense committed by a person... also contains signs of a criminal offense, the specified person can only be prosecuted to administrative responsibility."
Judicial practice under Article 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 16, 2018 N 5-APU17-108SP
The conclusions of the investigative body about the absence of obstruction of justice (Article 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) are also confirmed by the protocol of the court session, according to which none of the jurors during the trial did not state that the judge or any of the court staff persuaded them to a certain decision in the case.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 26, 2018 N 51-APU18-10SP
Part 2 Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 240 hours of compulsory work, which, according to Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation corresponds to 30 days of imprisonment, on the basis of Part 3 of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the totality of crimes by partial addition of punishments imposed 19 years of imprisonment to be served in a strict regime correctional colony with restriction of freedom for 2 years with the establishment of the following restrictions:
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 31, 2018 N 19-UD18-25
In the cassation appeal, lawyer A.A. Kozlov, expressing disagreement with the court decisions taken against the convicted Meshcheryakov, believes that the verdict is based on assumptions; The descriptive and motivational part of the sentence does not meet the requirements of Part 2 of Art. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the actions of the convicted person were qualified incorrectly by the court, since they should have been qualified under Part 3 of Art. and part 2 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as an attempt to receive a bribe in a significant amount by an official. He believes that the verdict is based on the testimony of witnesses O.B., B., obtained in violation of the requirements of the law, in particular, the protocol does not contain information about explaining to these persons their procedural duties, provided for in Parts 6 - 9 of Art. 56, 117 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, Art. Art. 294, 310 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Argues that the descriptive and motivational part of the cassation court ruling does not contain any information about what specific actions committed by Meshcheryakov were declared illegal by the court and what exactly they are expressed in, as well as what sources of evidence and the information contained in them confirm the existence and Meshcheryakov committing these illegal actions for a bribe.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 16, 2018 N 73-APU18-14
3) 09/27/2017 by the Sovetsky District Court of the city of Ulan-Ude of the Republic of Buryatia under Part 2 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to a fine of 40,000 rubles to the state, convicted: - under Part 2 of Art. 209 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - to imprisonment for a term of 8 years with restriction of freedom for 6 months;
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 3, 2019 N 59P19
By the verdict of the Kuibyshevsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated June 3, 2015, Khalaf Kh. was convicted under Part 3 of Art. , clause “a”, part 3, art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law of March 7, 2011 N 26-FZ) in relation to the victim Kh. to imprisonment for a term of 8 years, under Part 2 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - to a fine of 30,000 rubles, on the basis of Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - to imprisonment for a period of 8 years in a maximum security correctional colony, with a fine of 30,000 rubles. Based on Part 2 of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation decided to carry out the imposed punishment in the form of a fine independently. The preventive measure in the form of detention in relation to Khalaf Kh. was left unchanged.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 28, 2017 N 601-O
ARTICLE 286 AND PART OF THE THIRD ARTICLE 294 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, N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, S.D. Knyazeva, A.N. Kokotova, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrina, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, O.S. Khokhryakova, V.G. Yaroslavtseva,
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 26, 2019 N 64-APU19-6
— 04/30/2019 under Part 2 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, using Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (together with the verdict of May 11, 2017), Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to 1 year 3 months of imprisonment to be served in a high-security correctional colony;
Appeal ruling of the Appeal Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 09/05/2018 N APL18-371
Alekseev Andrey Ivanovich, ... year of birth, accused of committing crimes under paragraphs “a”, “b”, part 3 of Art. 286, part 2 art. 228, part 3 art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Andrienko Dmitry Sergeevich, ... year of birth, accused of committing crimes under clauses “a”, “b”, part 3 of Art. 286, part 2 art. 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 29, 2019 N 5-UDP19-56
Lebedev Alexander Alexandrovich, ... unconvicted, accused of committing a crime under Part 1 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, returned to the prosecutor of the city of Moscow to remove obstacles to its consideration by the court. By the appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated September 19, 2022, the ruling of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dated August 21, 2022 was left unchanged.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 21, 2018 N 41-APU18-14
- according to Part 3 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law of December 7, 2011 N 420-FZ) to 1 year of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to hold positions in state authorities and local government related to the exercise of the functions of a government representative for a period of 2 years, with release on the basis of paragraph “b” of Part 1 of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, clause 3, part 1, art. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation from the imposed punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution;
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 17, 2020 No. 3-APU19-10
- May 29, 2014 under Part 2 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 5 years 11 months of imprisonment, the sentence was not served in connection with detention in the present case; sentenced to imprisonment for:
Legal practice
Let's look at a few examples from judicial practice on sentencing for obstruction of justice.
Example No. 1.
A certain Avdeev (not his last name), convicted under Articles No. 167 and No. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentenced to 5 years in prison, was summoned by the investigator to the interrogation room. Here, a representative of the authorities acquainted him with the materials of the case, after which he left, leaving Avdeev under the guardianship of the guard. Taking advantage of the moment, the convict tore out several sheets of paper from a folder lying on the table and tried to swallow them; the actions of the guard prevented him from carrying out his plan.
An appeal filed by Avdeev’s lawyer about the illegality of applying Article 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to his client was rejected by the court of the city of Syktyvkar. The suspect's guilt has been fully proven; his statement about the fabrication of facts on the part of the investigator was found to be unfounded, which was confirmed by witness testimony and the results of the examination.
The court sentenced Avdeev to 12 months in prison for attempting to obstruct an objective investigation. By adding up the sentences, the total term of imprisonment was 6 years.
Example No. 2.
When the Perm court was considering a case of an administrative violation by citizen Gribalov (not his last name), who was detained by traffic police officers for driving while under the influence of alcohol, the defendant tried to tear up the protocol handed over to him for review.
Gribalov fully admitted his guilt and was sentenced under Article 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to a fine of 40,000 rubles.
