Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the latest edition:
Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Voluntary renunciation of crime
1. Voluntary renunciation of a crime is the cessation by a person of preparation for a crime or the cessation of actions (inaction) directly aimed at committing a crime, if the person was aware of the possibility of bringing the crime to completion.
2. A person is not subject to criminal liability for a crime if he voluntarily and finally refused to complete this crime.
3. A person who voluntarily refuses to complete a crime is subject to criminal liability if the act actually committed by him contains a different corpus delicti.
4. The organizer of a crime and the instigator of a crime are not subject to criminal liability if these persons prevented the perpetrator from completing the crime by timely reporting to the authorities or other measures taken. An accomplice to a crime is not subject to criminal liability if he has taken all measures within his power to prevent the commission of the crime.
5. If the actions of the organizer or instigator, provided for in part four of this article, did not lead to the prevention of the commission of a crime by the perpetrator, then the measures taken by them may be recognized by the court as mitigating circumstances when imposing punishment.
Return to the table of contents of the document: Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the latest edition
Comments on Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Voluntary renunciation of a crime is a person’s cessation of preparation for a crime or cessation of actions (inaction) directly aimed at committing a crime (i.e., attempted crime). Voluntary renunciation is possible only before the end of the crime, since it is impossible to renounce what has already been committed, therefore any actions aimed at eliminating criminal consequences indicate the person’s repentance, but do not eliminate responsibility.
The reasons for voluntary refusal, as a general rule, do not have criminal legal significance.
Second commentary to Art. 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. A crime not completed by the will of the person is not punishable. According to part 3 of Art. 31 of the Criminal Code, a person is not criminally liable only for the crime that he renounced. Thus, a person who voluntarily refused rape, but in the process of suppressing the victim’s resistance caused harm to her health, must be held liable for intentional harm to health.
2. The voluntariness of a refusal is determined by the person’s awareness of the possibility of completing the crime. For the voluntariness of a refusal, the person’s subjective assessment of the possibility of completing the crime (“I can, I have enough strength and means”) is essential. The presence of objective obstacles to the continuation of the crime, which arose against the will of the person and are not realized by him, does not matter for recognizing the renunciation of the crime as voluntary.
3. Voluntary renunciation of a crime as a circumstance excluding criminal liability is legally possible up to a certain point, namely, before the stage of a completed crime.
4. Termination of criminal activity excludes criminal liability for an unfinished crime, subject to the renunciation of criminal intent. Refusal of the intention to continue criminal activity within the framework of a crime serves to distinguish between voluntary refusal and active repentance, in which a person, after committing a crime, actively acts in order to compensate, make amends or prevent harm (including preventing the consequences of the crime).
5. The voluntary refusal of the performer does not apply to accomplices. If the perpetrator of the crime voluntarily refuses to commit it at this stage, then complicity is failed. The alleged perpetrator is not held accountable, and the persons who created the conditions for him to commit a crime are responsible for preparing for the crime, according to the criteria provided for in Part 1 of Art. 30 CC.
6. Part 4 of Article 31 of the Criminal Code formulates special signs of voluntary refusal for accomplices. They are differentiated depending on the role of the accomplice. The organizer of a crime and the instigator of a crime are not subject to criminal liability if they, by timely reporting to the authorities or other measures taken, prevented the perpetrator from completing the crime. An accomplice is not subject to criminal liability provided that he took all measures within his power to prevent the commission of a crime (even if he failed to do so).
Signs of voluntary renunciation of crime
Voluntary refusal is characterized by three main features :
- voluntariness;
- finality;
- awareness by the person of the possibility of completing the crime.
Voluntariness means that the person who has begun the implementation of a criminal intention does not, of his own free will, complete it. In this case, a person can stop criminal activity both on his own initiative and on the initiative of other persons.
There will be no voluntary refusal in cases where the subject is faced with circumstances and obstacles that he was unable to overcome, and therefore stopped further committing the crime. A refusal that is caused by the inability to continue criminal actions due to reasons arising beyond the will of the perpetrator cannot be recognized as voluntary.
The cessation of a crime is forced, and not voluntary, if there is a real threat of exposure if it continues, or if it is impossible to complete the crime without significant harm to the life or health of the offender.
At the same time, the motive for termination (pity for the victim, reluctance to be held accountable, moral principles, faith, etc.) is not important for establishing voluntary refusal, since it does not exclude freedom of expression.
The finality of the refusal means the irrevocability of the decision, and not a temporary suspension of criminal behavior in order to continue it in the future (for example, a temporary stop in the commission of an act in order to wait for more favorable conditions for its continuation).
In addition, the person must have the opportunity to complete the crime and be aware of this possibility .
If all the above signs of voluntary refusal are present, the person is not subject to criminal liability. A person who voluntarily refuses to complete a crime is subject to criminal liability only if the act actually committed by him contains a different corpus delicti. Thus, a person who began physical pressure in order to take the life of the victim, but refused to complete it, is not subject to liability for attempted murder, but must be held accountable for the actually completed infliction of bodily harm. Or, for example, when preparing to kill, a person steals a pistol. After stealing the weapon, he abandons his intention to kill. In this case, the subject is not liable for preparation for murder, but is subject to criminal liability for theft of a firearm.
Commentary to Art. 31 Criminal Code
1. Voluntary refusal is characterized by three main features: a) voluntariness; b) finality; c) the person’s awareness of the possibility of completing the crime.
Voluntariness means that the person who has begun the implementation of a criminal intention does not, of his own free will, complete it. In this case, a person can stop criminal activity both on his own initiative and on the initiative of other persons. There will be no voluntary refusal in cases where the subject is faced with circumstances and obstacles that he was unable to overcome, and therefore stopped further committing the crime. A refusal that is caused by the inability to continue criminal actions due to reasons arising beyond the will of the perpetrator cannot be recognized as voluntary.
The finality of the refusal means the irrevocability of the decision made, and not a temporary cessation of criminal activity.
In addition, the person must have the opportunity to complete the crime and be aware of this possibility.
2. Voluntary refusal is possible at the stage of preparation, as well as at the stage of attempt, up to the moment when the perpetrator retains the opportunity to prevent the onset of socially dangerous consequences or not to complete his criminal actions (if the onset of consequences is not required to recognize the crime as completed).
3. Active repentance should be distinguished from voluntary refusal, i.e. making amends for moral or physical harm caused by the crime, providing immediate assistance to the victim. Active repentance can be considered as a circumstance mitigating responsibility (Article 61 of the Criminal Code), and in some cases exempting from criminal liability (Article 75 of the Criminal Code).
Voluntary refusal in case of an unfinished attempt
Termination of criminal actions at the attempted stage is possible only when the perpetrator has not yet completed all the actions that form the objective side of the crime. It is this failure to perform all actions that makes it possible to refuse to continue the crime and stop committing it. If all actions are completed to the proper extent, then their continuation is impossible, and therefore, voluntary refusal is also impossible. In other words, at the stage of the attempt, voluntary renunciation of the crime is possible only if the attempt is not completed . Thus, voluntary refusal is impossible if a person, intending to kill a person, shoots at him, but misses. In this situation, all actions aimed at causing the death of another person have been completed; their continuation is impossible, but only repetition is possible. Therefore, refusal to repeat, rather than continue, criminal actions cannot be regarded as a voluntary renunciation of a crime.
Conditions for voluntary refusal of accomplices
Voluntary renunciation of the crime by the perpetrator
The perpetrator must stop committing the crime upon realizing the possibility of completing it.
If the perpetrator voluntarily renounces the crime, he does not bear criminal liability, while the remaining accomplices are subject to liability for the preparation or attempt to commit a crime, which the perpetrator renounced, depending on the stage at which the perpetrator interrupted the crime.
Voluntary renunciation of the crime of the organizer and instigator
The requirements for the voluntary refusal of organizers and instigators are that their actions must lead to the elimination of the opportunity they created for the perpetrator to commit a crime, if the perpetrator has not yet completed the crime. That is, they are required to take active actions or inaction aimed at preventing a crime. Prevention of crime can be achieved by timely reporting to authorities or other measures. If the measures taken by the organizer and instigator did not lead to the prevention of the crime, then they are subject to liability, and the measures they took can be taken into account as mitigating circumstances when assigning punishment.
Voluntary renunciation of the crime of an accomplice
The accomplice must eliminate the assistance, the contribution that he makes to the crime, for example, confiscate those material resources that were provided to him to commit the crime.
Judicial practice under Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 24, 2018 N 201-APU18-27
The defender of the convicted Muminov, lawyer Jafarov, in the appeal and additions to it, expresses his disagreement with the verdict. Argues that the court's conclusions set out therein do not correspond to the factual circumstances of the case. The court did not take into account that Muminov was under psychological influence from the organizer of the terrorist act. Muminov rendered the improvised explosive device inoperative. Thus, he voluntarily refused to complete the crime and it is necessary to apply Part 2 of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the provisions of the note to Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Muminov’s conviction under Art. is also erroneous. 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since evidence of his training for the purpose of carrying out terrorist activities was not obtained in the case. Muminov’s participation in the activities of a terrorist organization has also not been established. When assigning punishment, the court did not take into account as mitigating circumstances the presence of Muminov’s young children, elderly parents, or the commission of crimes due to a combination of difficult life circumstances. Muminov repented of what he had done and realized the error of his views. The lawyer asks to change the sentence, to release Muminov from criminal liability under Part 3 of Art. , clause “a”, part 2, art. 205, art. 205.3 and part 2 of Art. 205.5 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 March 26, 2019 N 45-APU19-4
The court did not pay attention to Ibragimov D.’s explanations that he had repeatedly refused Ch.’s offer to participate in the attack on M., and therefore his actions must be qualified as a voluntary refusal to commit a crime, and therefore, by virtue of Part 2 of Art. Under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Ibragimov is not subject to criminal liability.
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 February 14, 2019 N 33-APU18-18
Based on the fact of the seizure of narcotic drugs from the stash in his presence, there are all grounds for applying the provisions of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since the employees of the Federal Drug Control Service were not aware of the location of the stashes, he had the opportunity to dispose of these drugs at his own discretion, but decided to admit the facts of the stashes and voluntarily indicated their location.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 15, 2017 N 44-APU17-9SP
All questions for jurors, including questions No. 1, 5, are formulated by the presiding officer in accordance with the requirements of Art. 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, while the prosecution and defense were provided with equal rights and opportunities to participate in posing questions to the jurors. None of the questions posed in the question paper go beyond the scope of the charge, and the answers received are clear and understandable and correspond to the wording of the questions posed. Question No. 11 about Kalinin’s refusal to participate in a robbery included, among other things, the circumstances necessary for the correct application of the provisions of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The verdict of the jury established that he, in a group with other convicts, took part in preparing the attack and provided his car for this, but, refusing to participate in the attack, did not inform the authorities about the impending crime and did not take measures to prevent it (question No. 11) . Therefore, the court reasonably did not find any grounds for applying the provisions of Art. to Kalinin. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation states that a person is not subject to criminal liability for a crime if he voluntarily and finally refused to carry out this crime to the end and promptly informed the authorities or took all other measures depending on him to prevent the commission of the crime.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 17, 2018 N 18-UD17-98
In addition to the complaint of lawyer M.G. Prosvetova. convicted Tryakin A.Yu. indicates that the investigator did not involve a cadastral engineer in the investigative actions to clarify special terms and land law, a number of land plots were removed from cadastral registration and there is no corpus delicti for them, the boundaries of individual land plots were not established and they are not objects of land relations, crimes against them are unfinished. He believes that in relation to 7 of the nine land plots incriminated against him there is no crime, the court made an incorrect application of the criminal law, which is the non-application of Art. Art. , , of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, resulting in an unfair verdict and the imposition of an excessively harsh punishment. He considers all subsequent court decisions unfair. He asks that the verdict and subsequent court decisions be cancelled, that the case be returned to the prosecutor due to the incorrect classification of the crime, and that a preventive measure be chosen against Tryakin in the form of a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior. The complaint is accompanied by information materials in the amount of 15 pieces, which he requests to be included in the case materials.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 26, 2018 N 78-APU18-7
By virtue of Part 4 of Art. Under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, an instigator of a crime is not subject to criminal liability if he, by timely reporting to the authorities or other measures taken, prevented the perpetrator from completing the crime. An accomplice to a crime is not subject to criminal liability if he has taken all measures within his power to prevent the commission of the crime.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 28, 2019 N 3-APU19-12
In the appeal filed in defense of the convicted Alfutov, lawyer Emelyanov S.A. asks for a court verdict regarding the conviction of Alfutov under Part 3 of Art. , part 5 art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is amended by reducing the amount of the main punishment and abolishing the additional punishment in the form of a fine, and in terms of Alfutov’s conviction under Part 5 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the verdict is canceled and the proceedings in the case are terminated on the basis of clause 2 of part 1 of Art. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, due to the lack of corpus delicti in Alfutov’s actions. Draws attention to the fact that only as a result of the active actions of Alfutov, who voluntarily reported and indicated to law enforcement agencies the location of two stashes of narcotic drugs on the territory of the Republic ... their detection and seizure became possible, and therefore, based on the provisions of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in connection with the voluntary refusal of the convicted person to commit a crime, Alfutov is not subject to criminal liability. In conclusion, the complaint points to information about the personality of Alfutov, who is unemployed and has two dependent young children, and therefore believes that the main and additional punishments imposed for a crime committed in the territory of the ... region are excessively harsh and violate the balance of interests not only the state, but also the family of the convicted person.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 14, 2019 N 82-APU19-7
By virtue of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the cessation by a person of preparation for a crime or the cessation of actions (inaction) directly aimed at committing a crime, if the person was aware of the possibility of completing the crime, is recognized as a voluntary renunciation of the crime (Part 1); a person is not subject to criminal liability for a crime if he voluntarily and finally refused to complete this crime (Part 2).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 17, 2018 N 1988-O
According to the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, voluntary renunciation of a crime is recognized as the cessation by a person of preparation for a crime or the cessation of actions (inaction) directly aimed at committing a crime, if the person was aware of the possibility of completing the crime (part one); a person is not subject to criminal liability for a crime if he voluntarily and finally refused to complete this crime (part two); a person who voluntarily refuses to complete a crime is subject to criminal liability if the act actually committed by him contains a different corpus delicti (part three).
Cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 30, 2021 N 3-UD21-9-A2
The communication by the convicted Lysenko to the investigative authorities of information previously unknown to them about two bookmarks after his arrest does not constitute a voluntary renunciation of the crime and does not entail his release from criminal liability on the basis of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The punishment imposed on Lysenko under Part 3 of Art. , part 5 art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation corresponds to the provisions of Art. and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is appointed taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime he committed, data about his personality, the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and on the living conditions of his family, the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Voluntary renunciation and active repentance
Voluntary refusal must be distinguished from active repentance (i.e., making amends for moral or physical harm caused by the crime, providing immediate assistance to the victim). If voluntary refusal is possible at the stages of preparation or attempt, then active repentance is possible after the end of the crime.
Active repentance is a circumstance mitigating punishment (clause “and” part 1 of article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In a number of cases and in the presence of signs provided for in Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, active repentance serves as the basis for releasing a person who has committed a crime for the first time from criminal liability not only for a crime of minor or moderate gravity, but also for more serious crimes, if this is indicated in the note. to the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
