The direct term “plurality” is not used in criminal law, but its forms are revealed in Articles 17-18 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In accordance with the norms specified in the article, the plurality of crimes is defined as cases of sequential commission of crimes by the perpetrator (at least two acts), as well as cases of commission of criminal acts during a period when restrictions on previously committed crimes are in effect. At the same time, the crimes committed may be of the same type or completely different from each other in terms of characteristics and composition. Characteristic features for multiple crimes are:
- commission by one person of at least two independent acts that entail criminal liability;
- acts can be completed or unfinished, as well as committed by another accomplice to the crime or directly by the perpetrator;
- the absence of a procedural obstacle to bringing the perpetrator to justice for at least two of the committed acts;
- the presence of these crimes being reflected in the court’s conviction or in the main procedural documents.
Forms of multiplicity of crimes
Directly in the theory of criminal law, there are a large number of forms of multiplicity of crimes - these are repetition, repetition, aggregate, relapse, criminal activity, criminal enterprise and others. However, the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation gives reason to believe that it contains only four main types of plurality of crimes: 1. A set of crimes is one of the main forms of plurality of crimes. In accordance with Part 1 of Article 17 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, this is a case of one person committing two or more crimes, for none of which the perpetrator was convicted. In addition, a set of crimes is recognized as one action or inaction of the perpetrator, which contains elements of a crime provided for by at least two articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The totality of crimes is divided into:
- real, when each of the crimes is a completed act, one of them seems to be preparation for another more serious one (for example, the theft of weapons for a terrorist act);
- ideal, when the totality is defined as one action that contains the signs of a crime provided for by at least two articles of the Code, and it does not matter whether these actions are provided for by different articles of the Criminal Code or by one article (for example, the actions of a perpetrator who does not have the appropriate education and who performed an abortion on several women at the same time and in the same place, will be qualified under Part 1 of Article 123 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for each victim separately, for the totality of crimes).
Important! The totality of crimes is recognized as an aggravating circumstance. It is worth noting that the real population, as a rule, is more socially dangerous than the ideal one.
2. Committing two or more criminal acts , which are provided for in the articles of the Code as a circumstance entailing a more severe punishment. This type of multiplicity of crimes is not the main one; it was introduced into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by Federal Law No. 73-FZ of July 21, 2004 “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.” The form provides for the declaration of a single criminal act at least two crimes that are not related in any way, except that they were committed by one person. 3. Recidivism of crimes is another main form of multiplicity of crimes. In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 18 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, recidivism is the commission of an intentional criminal act by a person who already has a criminal record for a previously committed crime.
Important! This form of multiplicity of crimes as relapse, as a rule, carries with it increased criminal liability measures.
Recidivism of crimes is divided into:
- general – when a person commits various crimes;
- special – when a person commits the same or homogeneous crimes;
- penitentiary - when a person commits crimes in places of deprivation of liberty.
However, the most important qualification is the division of relapse according to the degree of danger, distinguished:
- dangerous recidivism - when a person has committed a serious crime, if this person was previously sentenced to imprisonment for at least two intentional crimes of moderate gravity or for a serious or especially serious crime;
- especially dangerous recidivism - when a person has committed a serious crime, if this person was previously sentenced to imprisonment for at least two intentional grave crimes, or when a person committed a particularly serious crime, if this person was previously sentenced to imprisonment for no less than two intentional serious crimes or was convicted of a particularly serious crime.
It is also worth noting that Part 4 of Art. 18 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes types of criminal records that are not taken into account when recognizing a recidivism, these are:
- convictions for minor crimes;
- convictions for crimes committed by a minor;
- suspended convictions for crimes or convictions for which there is a deferment of execution of the court sentence, provided that the sentence was not canceled due to the appointment of a new assignment to the perpetrator in the form of actual imprisonment;
- criminal records that have been expunged or removed in accordance with Article 86 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Important! When recognizing a recidivism, criminal records related to convictions of a person in other countries, including in the CIS countries, as well as convictions for crimes against life that were committed under extenuating circumstances are not taken into account (Article 106-107, Part 2 of Article 108 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
4. The totality of sentences is a very complex form of multiplicity of crimes, which is actually not recognized as such in the theory of criminal law, since for many years it was identified with recidivism. However, the totality of the sentence has a broader concept than recidivism and can be either combined with this form of multiplicity of criminal acts or not, precisely in those matters when it comes to convictions that are not taken into account when recognizing recidivism. The imposition of punishment based on the totality of sentences is regulated by the provisions of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The ideal set of actions
As follows from the definition, in his complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, a citizen serving a sentence for committing a number of crimes argued that his constitutional rights were violated by a number of provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, due to the uncertainty of which his actions were classified incorrectly.
The complainant indicated that Art. 17 “Collection of crimes”, part 1 of Art. 285 “Abuse of official powers”, Part 1 of Art. 286 “Exceeding official powers”, parts 3 and 5 of Art. 290 “Taking a bribe” and Part 2 of Art. 292 “Official forgery” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, due to its uncertainty, made it possible to qualify the acts committed by him as an official not as fraud using his official position, but as receiving a bribe in conjunction with other official crimes, which allowed repeated punishment for the crime.
In addition, according to the applicant, the provisions of Art. 48 “Deprivation of a special, military or honorary title, class rank and state awards” and Art. 60 “General principles of sentencing” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation resulted in the indefinite deprivation of his right to receive a well-deserved pension for length of service, which is a negative consequence that lasts longer than the term of criminal punishment and puts him in an unequal position with other categories of military personnel.
The applicant also believed that a number of articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation allow the court, when considering appeals and cassation complaints of a convicted person, to refuse to study and evaluate all the arguments presented in them, as well as motivate its decisions by indicating specific, sufficient from the point of view of the principle of reasonableness, grounds on which these the arguments are rejected by the court or judge considering the relevant complaint.
In its definition, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation relied on the principle of non bis in idem, the contradiction of which is unacceptable in a rule-of-law state. According to this principle, the possibility of repeated conviction and punishment of a person for the same crime, qualification of the same criminal event under several articles of the criminal law is excluded, if the norms contained in them are related to each other as general and special or as a whole and a part, as well as double counting of the same circumstance.
The court recalled that the norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in conjunction with its Art. 17 and 69, which regulate the concept of a set of crimes and the rules for assigning punishment for a set of crimes, are designed to ensure the implementation of the principle of justice in the application of criminal law, by virtue of which the punishment must correspond to the nature and degree of social danger of the crime. “Such compliance in cases where a person has committed acts that differ in the object of the attack, the objective and subjective side and thereby form crimes provided for in various articles of the criminal law, is achieved, inter alia, by qualifying the act and imposing punishment for the totality of crimes,” it is specified in definition. At the same time, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation emphasized that there are no exceptions when acts committed by a person are covered by the dispositions of Art. 285, 286, 290 and 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which differ significantly in terms of the objective and subjective aspects.
Regarding the deprivation of a military rank by a court verdict, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation explained that this means a change in the legal status of a citizen, including as a subject of pension relations. Under such circumstances, the loss of the right to a pension for long service cannot be considered as an additional punishment, but is a consequence of a change in the legal status of a citizen.
Senior partner of ZKS Law Firm Alexey Kasatkin called this clarification of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation useful both for law enforcement officers and for the defense, since disputes about the correct qualification of the actions of an official who illegally received remuneration often arise. According to the lawyer, this happens especially often when the official’s actions contain signs of crimes under Art. 290 “Taking a bribe” or Art. 159 “Fraud” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
He also noted that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation once again indicated the differences between the crimes provided for in Art. 159, 285, 286, 290 and 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which were previously explained in the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
As commented by Associate Professor of the Department of Criminal Procedure Law at the University. O.E. Kutafina Artem Osipov, the definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is interesting primarily by the use of the legal construction non bis in idem as a means of constitutional and legal interpretation of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the totality of crimes.
“In accordance with international standards of protection from repeated prosecution for committing identical acts, the Constitutional Court clarified that the classification of official crimes in aggregate is possible only if we are talking about objects of encroachment that are not identical to each other, signs of the objective and subjective aspects of the crime (time, place , method, etc.). The ideal set of such acts is thus excluded,” he noted.
Artem Osipov also noted that the absence of constitutional and legal uncertainty in regulating the grounds of criminal liability for official crimes committed in the aggregate does not eliminate a lot of law enforcement problems. “Many of them are associated with a large number of evaluative features in the construction of the relevant crimes: “other personal interest,” “significant violation of rights,” the ability to “promote” some actions,” he explained.
Distinguishing between a single crime and multiple acts
Usually, the distinction between concepts such as a single crime and multiple crimes does not cause any difficulties, since the qualification of a single crime fully covers the characteristics of one crime, provided for in one article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A single crime is an act or omission, encroaches only on one object and is committed with one form of guilt. However, in criminal law there is such a concept as a complex single crime; it is externally similar to a plurality of crimes, since it consists of a number of homogeneous or heterogeneous actions and is a continuing or continuing crime. A complex single act is recognized as a crime based on an alternative/repeated action, for example, Art. 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - illegal acquisition, storage, transportation, production, processing of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues. The commission by a person of each of these actions is already a sufficient basis for recognizing the crime as completed, but at the same time, the implementation of all actions together will be regarded as a single ongoing crime, without the formation of plurality. In general, criminal law distinguishes the following several types of complex single crime: continued, ongoing, composite, with two mandatory actions, with several alternatives, with two forms of guilt, with repeatedly committed actions, multi-objective, with additional severe consequences.
When resolving the issue of defining a crime as single or multiple, one should proceed from the norms of a separate article of the Code and identify the socio-psychological content of criminal behavior.
