1. Bribery of a witness, victim for the purpose of giving false testimony, or an expert, specialist for the purpose of giving a false conclusion or false testimony, as well as a translator for the purpose of making an incorrect translation -
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 and eighty hours, or by corrective labor for a term of up to two years, or by arrest for a term of up to three months.
2. Forcing a witness, a victim to give false testimony, an expert, a specialist to give a false conclusion or a translator to carry out an incorrect translation, as well as forcing these persons to evade testifying, combined with blackmail, threats of murder, harm to health, destruction or damage property of these persons or their relatives, -
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 three years, or by arrest for a term of three to six months, or by imprisonment for a term of up to three years. .
3. An act provided for in part two of this article, committed with the use of violence that is not dangerous to the life or health of these persons, -
shall be punishable by forced labor for a term of up to five years or imprisonment for the same term.
4. Acts provided for in parts one or two of this article, committed by an organized group or with the use of violence dangerous to the life or health of these persons, -
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three to seven years.
- Article 308. Refusal of a witness or victim to testify
- Article 310. Disclosure of preliminary investigation data
Commentary to Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
This crime is one of the forms of opposition to justice, the interests of which will be its main object. As an additional object, a crime under Part 1 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the interests of the accused, the defendant, the civil plaintiff, the civil defendant can act, and the crimes provided for in Part 2 - 4 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - property relations, health, honor, dignity and safety conditions for the lives of citizens.
The social danger of the crime under comment is that the commission of the actions specified in this norm may entail the adoption by the court of an illegal and unfounded decision or resolution, an illegal and unfounded conviction or acquittal. In addition, bribery and coercion of a witness, victim, expert, or translator prevent them from conscientiously performing procedural duties.
According to the legislative structure of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is formulated in four parts: 1) bribery of a witness, victim, expert, specialist or translator; 2) coercion of these persons to give false testimony (expert opinion, specialist testimony, incorrect translation), as well as to evade testimony, combined with blackmail, threats of murder, harm to health, destruction or damage to the property of these persons or their loved ones; 3) coercion of the named persons, committed with the use of violence not dangerous to life and health; 4) bribery or coercion committed by an organized group or with the use of violence dangerous to the life and health of these persons.
All these actions can be performed at any stage of the criminal, civil, arbitration, and administrative process. These actions can be performed in advance - before the process, and even after it - in anticipation of a review of the relevant court decision.
———————————
Course of Russian criminal law. Special part / Ed. V.N. Kudryavtseva, A.V. Naumova. M., 2002. P. 898.
The objective side of the crimes provided for in Parts 1 and 2 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is carried out through action (bribery or coercion). The elements of crimes are constructed as formal and are complete from the moment the actions specified in the law are committed, regardless of whether the perpetrator achieves the required result.
Part 1 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for bribing a witness, victim, expert, specialist or translator for the purpose of giving false testimony, false conclusions or incorrect translation.
Under bribery in Part 1 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be understood as an illegal transfer to a witness, a victim for the purpose of giving false testimony, or an expert for the purpose of giving them a false conclusion or false testimony, a specialist for the purpose of giving them false testimony, as well as a translator for the purpose of making an incorrect transfer of money, securities, other property, as well as the illegal provision of services of a property nature to them for the commission of actions in the interests of the giver.
Thus, the subject of bribery in Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is similar to the subject of the crime in Art. Art. 290 and 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The content of the subject of bribery is disclosed in paragraph 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 10, 2000 No. 6 “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and commercial bribery.” The subject of bribery is, along with money, securities and other property, benefits or services of a property nature that are provided free of charge, but are subject to payment (provision of tourist vouchers, apartment renovation, construction of a summer house, etc.). Benefits of a property nature include, in particular, a reduction in the value of transferred property, privatized objects, a reduction in rental payments, and interest rates for using bank loans. The time of their transfer (before or after the commission of actions in the interests of the giver) does not affect the qualification of the act.
———————————
Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 2000. N 4.
The transfer of illegal remuneration during bribery is considered completed from the moment the recipient accepts at least part of the transferred values.
If the named persons refuse to receive the subject of bribery, the actions of the perpetrator should be qualified under Part 3 of Art. 30 and part 1 art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
If the conditional transfer of valuables did not take place due to circumstances beyond the control of the persons who tried to transfer the subject of bribery, what they did should be qualified as an attempted bribery.
The expressed intention of a person to give money, securities, other property or to provide the opportunity to illegally use material services in cases where the person did not take any specific actions to implement the expressed intention cannot be qualified as attempted bribery.
When deciding the issue of liability under Part 1 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it does not matter either the size of the bribe or the fact that the witness, victim, expert, specialist and translator did not fulfill the request of the person who committed the bribery. The actual fulfillment of the agreement reached is not included in this crime.
———————————
Since the size of the bribe does not matter, the criminal case cannot be terminated due to the insignificance of the transferred amount or the value of the subject of bribery, provided that the intent to bribe is proven.
Responsibility of recipients of bribery under Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not provided for, they are only responsible for false testimony, etc. (Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
Receiving the subject of bribery without the intention to perform the necessary actions should be qualified as fraud under Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The owner of valuables in such cases is liable for attempted bribery if the transfer of valuables was intended to accomplish the action he desired.
If a person receives money or other valuables from someone, allegedly for the purpose of bribery, and, without intending to do so, appropriates them, what he has done should also be qualified as fraud. The actions of the owner of valuables in such cases are subject to qualification as attempted bribery. It does not matter whether a specific person was named to whom the illegal reward was supposed to be transferred during bribery.
Part 2 Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for forcing a witness, a victim to give false testimony, an expert to give a false conclusion or testimony, a specialist to give false testimony or an interpreter to carry out an incorrect translation, as well as forcing these persons to evade testifying, combined with blackmail, threat of murder, harm to health, destruction or damage to the property of these persons or their loved ones.
As can be seen from the content of the disposition of the norm in question, coercion of these persons to commit illegal actions is carried out by the guilty in two forms - in coercion to give false testimony (conclusion), to carry out incorrect translation and in coercion to evade giving testimony.
In this case, evading testimony should be understood as a person’s refusal to appear for questioning by the person conducting the inquiry, the investigator, the prosecutor, or the court, despite their summons, concealing his location, changing his place of residence, etc.
The procedural subjects specified in this norm are forced to commit acts for which they themselves bear criminal or procedural responsibility. Thus, they are harmed not only by the use of the methods of coercion specified in the law, but also by inducing them to illegal behavior for which punishment is provided.
In law enforcement practice, when applying the norm in question, there is a problem of understanding the term “testimony”. This problem is especially relevant when considering cases of private prosecution, when the perpetrator persuades the victim, under the threat of violence, not to change his testimony, but to “withdraw the statement,” i.e. stop criminal prosecution. In this case, the intent of the offender does not include forcing the victim to give false information about the circumstances of the incident, but forcing him to refuse a statement as a procedural basis for criminal prosecution. Consequently, in this case we can only talk about crimes against the person or property of a citizen, but not against justice.
When conducting a preliminary investigation, the question also often arises about the possibility of criminal prosecution under Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if coercion to testify or to evade testifying took place at the time of the commission of a crime or immediately after its commission, when the preliminary investigation authorities have not yet become aware of the act committed, or when an eyewitness or victim is forced to give false explanations as part of the collection of verification information material before the initiation of a criminal case, when law enforcement agencies already have a report of a crime. Qualification problems also arise when a criminal case has been initiated, a person has given explanations as part of the verification material, but has not yet been summoned to the preliminary investigation body to testify, and at this moment pressure is put on him in order to induce him to give false testimony.
Due to the fact that in this situation, from the point of view of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, there are no subjects of encroachment, such as the victim or witness, i.e. These persons are procedurally outside the scope of the preliminary investigation and trial, then the crime provided for in Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is absent, but there is a crime against the person. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation takes a similar position.
———————————
A similar point of view was expressed earlier. See: Barysheva V. Responsibility for perjury and coercion to testify // Legality. 2003. N 5. P. 50.
Review of judicial practice in criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the second quarter of 2002. Resolution No. 155p02pr in the case of Shiganov and Admaev // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 2002. N 12.
Coercion is mental violence against a witness, victim, expert, specialist or interpreter as a way to force them to give false testimony, conclusion, mistranslation or avoid testifying. Such mental influence is carried out through threats, an exhaustive list of which is given in the law. These include: blackmail, i.e. the threat of dissemination of disgraceful, as well as other information, the disclosure of which could damage the honor and dignity of the victim or his relatives, regardless of whether they really are such for a given person, whether they correspond to the truth or not; threat of murder, harm to health, threat of destruction or damage to the property of these persons or their loved ones.
———————————
See: paragraph 3 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of May 4, 1990 No. 3 “On judicial practice in cases of extortion” (as amended in 1996) // Collection of resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on criminal cases / Compiled . S.G. Lastochkina, N.N. Khokhlova. 4th ed., revised. and additional M., 2004. P. 206.
The threat to commit other actions not specified in the law does not constitute the crime in question.
To qualify such actions, it does not matter whether the perpetrator intended to carry out the threat. It is important that it is significant for the person who is forced to give false testimony, false conclusion, incorrect translation, and is perceived by him as a real danger and is in a causal connection with coercion. The form of expression of the threat does not matter for qualification.
Coercion to give false testimony, imprisonment, incorrect translation or evasion of testimony is considered completed from the moment the corresponding demand is presented, supported by a threat, regardless of whether the perpetrator has achieved his goal or not. If the threat is fully or partially carried out, the deed is further qualified under the relevant article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, except for the cases specified in Parts 3 and 4 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
As explained in one of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the actions of a person who invited another person to give false testimony, but did not threaten the latter with murder, violence, or destruction of property, do not constitute the crime in question.
———————————
Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1962. N 8. P. 11.
Influencing a witness, victim, expert or translator with the aim of getting them to give false testimony (conclusion) in another way (requests, persuasion, attempts to mollify) may entail liability not under Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but as incitement to give false testimony under Art. Art. 33 and 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The subjective side of the crime is expressed in direct intent.
In bribery, the perpetrator is aware that he is providing a witness, victim, expert or translator with a specific property benefit for giving false testimony, conclusion, translation, and wants to commit similar actions.
A person who forces the giving of false testimony, imprisonment, translation or evasion of testimony is aware that he is forcing, by suppressing the will of the victim through blackmail, threats of murder, harm to health, destruction or damage to property, persons specified in the law or their relatives to give false statements. testimony, conclusion, translation, or to evade testifying, and wishes to do so.
The purpose of the crime is to obtain false testimony, imprisonment, mistranslation or refusal of testimony.
The motives for the crime in question can be different: revenge, self-interest, the desire to avoid prosecution, etc.
The general subject of the crime is a sane person who has reached the age of sixteen.
The subject of a crime under Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, there can be both participants in the process (for example, a plaintiff, a defendant, an accused, another witness, etc.) and third parties. When an organized group operates, the perpetrator of bribery or coercion may be one person, but he acts on behalf of or with the consent of the group.
Part 3 Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for committing a crime with the use of violence that is not dangerous to the life and health of these persons. Such violence should be understood as beatings or other violent acts associated with causing physical pain to the victim or restricting his freedom (tying his hands, using handcuffs, leaving him in a closed room, etc.).
According to Part 4 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a particularly qualified type of crime is the actions provided for in Part 1 (bribery) and Part 2 (coercion), if they were committed by an organized group or with the use of violence dangerous to life or health, i.e. such violence that resulted in the infliction of grave and moderate harm to the health of the victim, as well as the infliction of minor harm to health, causing a short-term health disorder or a minor permanent loss of general ability to work. This type also includes violence, although it did not cause harm to the health of the victim, but at the time of use it created a real danger to his life or health.
At the same time, taking into account that the sanction of Part 4 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for imprisonment for a term of up to seven years, and the sanction of Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - up to eight years, we can conclude that the concept of violence dangerous to life or health, in the composition provided for in Part 4 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, covers only harm to health of moderate severity. When causing serious harm to health, the person’s actions are classified as a set of crimes provided for in Part 4 of Art. 309 and art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The concept of an organized group is given in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and is also disclosed in paragraph 15 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2002 N 29 “On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and robbery.”
If the crimes in question are recognized as committed by an organized group, the actions of all accomplices, regardless of their role in the crime, are subject to qualification as co-perpetrators without reference to Art. 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The issue of criminal liability of persons who fulfilled the demands of the subject of a crime under duress must be resolved taking into account the provisions of Art. 40 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on physical and mental coercion.
Objective signs
Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the commentary to it provides for all the elements of the crime in question, which is necessary for the correct qualification of the crime.
Without establishing all the mandatory signs of an assault, the initiation of a case will not be carried out, therefore it is necessary to indicate how such a crime is expressed, who commits it and which person is the victim.
The corpus delicti of any crime necessarily includes an object, an objective and subjective side, and the subject itself. The determination of these elements is carried out by identifying their main and optional characteristics.
The first group is a set of objective criteria that allow us to assess the manifestation of encroachment. First, the object is determined, that is, social relations that suffer from the actions of the guilty person. In this case, this is the procedure for administering justice. An additional object is the victim, on whom the impact occurred, since it can be of both a moral and physical nature.
Another significant point is the objective side. It is precisely this that is characterized by specific actions that are socially dangerous and have a negative impact on these social relations. The nature of the acts committed also leads to the determination of the severity of the act and the corresponding jurisdiction.
Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation involves direct influence on a person in order to obtain false testimony or a transfer. Accordingly, you should decide on the methods of such influence:
- bribery, provided for in the first part, by which money is transferred to a person for denunciation;
- coercion under Part 2 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing for threats, blackmail, physical or psychological influence.
In a more serious version of the crime, it is possible to cause harm to both health and life, and the use of violence, including by an organized group.
It is only possible to put pressure on a witness under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as on a victim, specialist, expert or translator. Other persons cannot act as victims under this article, since they are not participants in the investigation and their testimony does not affect the course of the case. In this case, the characteristics, position, return or gender of the victims will not play a role. The main condition is that they be recognized as participants in the investigation.
When qualifying an act, the type of composition is always determined: formal or material. In this case, the first option applies. The encroachment in question is over from the moment the threat was voiced, funds were transferred, and so on. The formal composition does not require the occurrence of negative consequences, which indicates that there is no need to establish cause-and-effect relationships.
Judicial practice under Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 22, 2019 N 49-UD19-14
- July 16, 2015 under Part 3 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 1 year 8 months of suspended imprisonment with a probationary period of 8 months, - January 14, 2016 under Part 4 of Art. 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 7 months in prison;
Appeal ruling of the Appeal Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 16, 2018 N APL18-511
- accused Gobozov M.S. indicates that decisions to initiate criminal cases under Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the facts of threats to victims, given in support of the petition of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation to change territorial jurisdiction, took place in 2011 - 2012, the statute of limitations for these crimes has expired; there is no evidence of real threats to the safety of participants in the trial; The very fact that, according to the prosecution, not all members of the criminal community were detained is not a basis for changing territorial jurisdiction. Taking into account the fact that most of the incriminated crimes were committed on the territory of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, where most of the victims and witnesses live, consideration of the case in the Moscow District Military Court will complicate their appearance at the court hearing and will lead to a violation of his rights to the opportunity to interrogate those testifying against him persons will lead to unjustified delay in the consideration of the case. Requests to cancel the decision and send the case for consideration to the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania;
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/09/2017 N 81-APU17-5
He was acquitted under Part 1 of Art. 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of clause 3, part 2, art. 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation due to the lack of corpus delicti in his actions, under paragraph “a” of Part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (extortion from B.) under clause “a”, part 3 of art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (extortion from K.) under clause “a”, part 3 of art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (extortion from I.) under clause “a”, part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (extortion from G.) under clause “a”, part 3 of art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (extortion from Kh.) under Part 4 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of clause 2, part 2, art. 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation due to non-involvement in the commission of these crimes.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 09/07/2017 N 34-APU17-5
both were acquitted of committing crimes under paragraphs “a”, “d”, part 3 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 87-FZ of May 19, 2010), Part 5 of Art. 228.1, part 5 art. 228.1, part 3 art. , part 5 art. 228.1, part 1 art. , paragraphs “a”, “g”, part 4, art. 228.1, part 4 art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in accordance with clause 1, part 1, art. 27, pp. 2 hours 2 tbsp. 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, due to non-involvement in the commission of these crimes.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 9, 2017 N 14-APU17-13
according to Part 3 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 2 years in prison; 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 was finally assigned to A.V. Lavrov. 9 years of imprisonment to be served in a maximum security penal colony.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 4, 2019 N 80-APU19-2sp
In addition, he indicates that on 12/03/18 witnesses D. and K. were brought to court. During the break, while in the corridor, K. turned to the state prosecutor Ryabov with the words that she did not intend to slander the defendant Suleymanova, which was what the employees had previously demanded of her law enforcement. As a result, K. was removed from the courtroom and on that day, December 3, 2018, she was never questioned, despite the fact that her name was announced at the court hearing among other people who appeared. Based on this, he concludes that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is untruthful due to the influence exerted on them, and in the actions of unidentified law enforcement officers there are signs of a crime under Art. 309 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 October 1, 2019 N 44-APU19-12
- part 2 art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to punishment in the form of a fine in the amount of 100,000 rubles; - part 1 art. 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to punishment in the form of a fine in the amount of 30,000 rubles; - clauses “b”, “c”, part 2, art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 16 years in prison with restriction of freedom for a period of 1 year 6 months.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 6, 2019 N 80-APU19-1sp
sentenced under Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law of March 7, 2011 N 26-FZ) (in relation to A.) to 4 years in prison, under Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to a fine of 100,000 rubles and on the basis of paragraph “a” of Part 1 of Article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, released from punishment, under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to a fine in the amount of 40,000 rubles and on the basis of paragraph “a” of Part 1 of Article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; released from punishment; under paragraph “a” of part 3 of Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for 9 years of imprisonment with restriction of freedom for 1 year 6 months, under paragraph “a” of part 3 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for the episode in relation to K.) for 8 years 6 months of imprisonment freedom with restriction of freedom for 1 year 3 months, under Part 3 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for 5 years 6 months of imprisonment;
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
Believes that the appearance of this episode was due to the fact that M. initially designated Khachemizov as a member of the organized criminal group, without having specific information, and it was necessary to somehow “involve” Khachemizov, and M. to confirm that he was fulfilling the terms of the cooperation agreement . At the same time, M. had previously lied, was prosecuted and was convicted under Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, witness M. witnessed how M. persuaded P. to give false testimony in the case. All this suggests that the court should have been more critical of his testimony.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated December 20, 2018 N 3395-O
paragraph 1 of part two and part four of Article 281 “Disclosure of the testimony of the victim and witness” of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, since they, according to the applicant, are in conjunction with part two of Article 317.1, articles 317.3, 401.6 and part one of Article 415 of the same Code, as well as Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation allows the reading in court of testimony obtained during the preliminary investigation of persons whose interrogation cannot be carried out by the defense due to the death of the victim or witness who gave this testimony or the refusal to testify in court of the accused in another criminal case separated after concluding a pre-trial agreement on cooperation in the absence of sufficient guarantees of the reliability of previously obtained testimony;
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/03/2021 N 137-P20
according to Part 3 of Art. , part 4 art. 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for 3 years 6 months. Based on Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the totality of crimes committed to Firstov S.I. sentenced to 13 years in prison with a fine of 700,000 rubles.
The verdict under Part 3 of Article 30 - Part 1 of Article 309, Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (came into force on December 4, 2010)
Case No. 1-224/10
PRI G O V O R
In the name of the Russian Federation
Yaroslavl November 23, 2010
Judge of the Leninsky District Court of Yaroslavl R.V. Prudnikov,
with the participation of the public prosecutor - Art. Assistant Prosecutor of the Leninsky District of Yaroslavl Romanova I.V.,
defendant Vardanyan K.B.,
victim FULL NAME1,
defender Kalinin N.E., who presented certificate No. 696 and warrant No. 011508,
under secretary S.V. Maltseva,
having examined in open court in Yaroslavl a criminal case on charges
Vardanyan Karine Borisovna,
not convicted
in the commission of crimes provided for in Part 3 of Article 30 - Part 1 of Article 309 and Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
INSTALLED:
Defendant Vardanyan K.B. agree with the charge of attempted bribery of the victim for the purpose of giving false testimony. According to the indictment, this crime was committed under the following circumstances:
Vardanyan K.B., being the sister of FULL NAME2, accused in a criminal case. Number is anonymized for committing crimes under Part 1 of Art. 131, part 1 art. 132, part 3 of article 30 - paragraph “c” of part 2 of article 158, part 3 of article 30 - part 2 of article 325 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in order to assist the latter in avoiding criminal liability, realizing that her actions are unlawful and illegal, she committed attempted bribery and coercion of the victim in this case to give false testimony - FULL NAME1, namely: May 16, 2010, in the period from 17:00 to 19:00, Vardanyan K.B. , arrived by car at Address1, to the place of work, Full Name1, implementing her criminal intent aimed at bribing the victim, Full Name1, in order to give the latter knowingly false testimony during the preliminary investigation and trial in a criminal case. The number is impersonal, which may entail release from criminal liability. FULL NAME2, being in the cabin of his car, located in the above-mentioned place, Vardanyan K.B. proposed to an acquaintance, Full Name 1 - Full Name 4, who did not want to meet with her, Full Name 1, to change the testimony in favor of Full Name 2, promising property benefits in favor of the victim Full Name 1 in the form of providing the opportunity to choose housing in the central part (district) of the city and pay its cost for at least 6 months, payment of the cost of a vacation package abroad, a trip to his place of stay and back, assistance in obtaining foreign passports, payment of the cost of treatment, purchase of jewelry, purchase of a car, provision of funds without specifying their amount, and other material benefits, demanding in return from FULL NAME1 changing the testimony incriminating FULL NAME 2 of committing the above crimes, that is, giving false testimony during the preliminary investigation and trial. Continuing to implement his criminal intent, Vardanyan K.B. demanded that Full Name 4 convey the conversation that took place between them Full Name 1 On the same day, May 16, 2010, after a meeting with Vardanyan K.B. FULL NAME4 told FULL NAME3 about K.B. Vardanyan’s proposal. Continuing to implement his criminal intent aimed at bribing the victim FULL NAME1 in order to give false testimony to the latter, on May 17, 2010, in the period from 14:00 to 19:00, Vardanyan K.B. met with Full Name1 at Address1. During the conversation, Vardanyan K.B. repeated her proposal to provide property benefits in favor of Full Name 1 in the form of providing the opportunity to choose housing in the central part (district) of the city and pay its cost for at least 6 months, pay the cost of a vacation package abroad, a trip to his place of stay and back direction, assistance in obtaining international passports, paying the cost of treatment, buying jewelry, buying a car, providing funds without specifying their amount, and other material benefits, demanding in return from Full Name 1 changes in testimony incriminating Full Name 2 of committing crimes, and giving false testimony during preliminary investigation and trial in a criminal case The number is impersonal. Inducing FULL NAME1 to give false testimony, Vardanyan K.B. in order to achieve a criminal result, she assured FULL NAME1 that she would pay any amount of the fine that would be imposed by the competent authority for giving false testimony. However, the specified criminal intent Vardanyan K.B. was not completed due to circumstances beyond her control due to the refusal of the victim, FULL NAME1, to give false testimony in exchange for the property benefits offered to her.
In addition, defendant Vardanyan K.B. agreed with the charge of forcing the victim to give false testimony, coupled with the threat of murder and causing harm to health. According to the indictment, this crime was committed under the following circumstances:
On May 16, 2010, in the period from 17:00 to 19:00, while in the interior of his car parked at Address 1, near the place of work, Full Name 1, during a meeting with Full Name 4, having a criminal intent aimed at coercing the victim Full Name 1 into for the purpose of giving deliberately false testimony during the preliminary investigation and trial in a criminal case. The number is impersonal, which may entail release from criminal liability, Full Name 2, after offers of bribery, Full Name 1, Vardanyan K.B. demanded that Full Name 4 convey the conversation that took place between them to Full Name 1, expressing, if Full Name 1 does not agree to accept the above-mentioned property benefits offered by her, a threat of using physical violence against Full Name 1, reinforcing her threat by expressing her intention to seek help from third parties who would track down Full Name 1 and rape her, will commit violent acts of a sexual nature against her, deal with her, and cause physical and mental harm to her life and health. On the same day, May 16, 2010, after a meeting with Vardanyan K.B. FULL NAME4 told FULL NAME3 about the threats expressed by Vardanyan K.B. addressed to FULL NAME1, which FULL NAME1 actually perceived as a threat of murder and harm to her health. On May 17, 2010, in the period from 14:00 to 19:00, being at Address 1, Vardanyan K.B., realizing that FULL NAME1 would not voluntarily renounce her testimony and would not accept the property benefits offered by her, continuing to realize her criminal intent aimed at forcing the victim, FULL NAME1, to give knowingly false testimony; when meeting with her, she expressed a threat to FULL NAME1 to use physical violence against her, backing up her threat by expressing her intention to resort to the help of third parties who would track down FULL NAME1, rape her, commit violent acts of a sexual nature against her would cause physical and mental harm to her life and health, which FULL NAME1 actually perceived as a threat of murder and harm to her health. Forcing FULL NAME1 to give false testimony, Vardanyan K.B. expressed to the victim FULL NAME1 threats of physical violence from FULL NAME 2 after his release from prison, which FULL NAME1 actually perceived as a threat of murder and harm to her health, since FULL NAME 2 raped her and in the process of rape caused her a closed craniocerebral injury, as a result of which FULL NAME1 was in hospital treatment.
Continuing to carry out his criminal intent aimed at forcing FULL NAME1 to give knowingly false testimony, Vardanyan K.B., being in an unspecified place, in the period from 19:00 on May 17, 2010 to 20:00 on May 20, 2010, during telephone conversations with Full Name 1, who at that moment was at her workplace at the address: Address 1, having once again refused Full Name 1 to change testimony in favor of Full Name 2, which could lead to his release from criminal liability, in order to suppress the will of Full Name 1 and incline her to giving false testimony, expressed a threat to FULL NAME1, expressing it in the words: “Walk and look around, walk and be afraid,” which the victim FULL NAME1 actually perceived as a threat of murder and harm to her health. As a result of the statements made by Vardanyan K.B. against FULL NAME1 of the above threats, during a meeting and by telephone, both in person and through FULL NAME4, which the victim actually perceived as a threat of murder and harm to her health, since Vardanyan K.B. the places of her residence and work were known, as well as her cell phone subscriber number, FULL NAME1 was forced to contact law enforcement agencies for the application of state protection measures against her, quit her job, change her phone number and place of residence, leaving the city.
When familiarizing yourself with the materials of the criminal case in the manner established by Article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, as well as during the preliminary hearing, Vardanyan K.B. filed a petition for a verdict without a trial. At the court hearing, the defendant agreed with the charges brought against her and supported her request to consider the case in a special manner.
The court found that the petition of Vardanyan K.B. the special procedure for the trial was declared voluntarily and after consultation with the defense lawyer. At the same time, the defendant is aware of the nature and consequences of the petition submitted to her, as well as the limits of appealing the verdict.
The victim, defense lawyer and state prosecutor did not object to the sentencing without a trial in the manner established by Chapter 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Since all the requirements provided for in Articles 314 and 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation for passing a sentence without a trial were met, the criminal case, at the request of the defendant, was considered in a special manner established by Art. 316 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Taking into account that there is sufficient evidence in the case materials confirming the validity of the charges brought, the court qualifies the actions of Vardanyan K.B. in the following way:
- under part 3 of article 30 - part 1 of article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as an attempt to bribe the victim for the purpose of giving false testimony;
- under Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as forcing the victim to give false testimony, combined with the threat of murder and causing harm to health.
When assigning punishment, the court, in accordance with Articles 60 and 66 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, takes into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crimes, the identity of the perpetrator, circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment, the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and the living conditions of her family, circumstances, due to in which the act under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was not completed.
In particular, the court takes into account that Vardanyan K.B. committed two intentional and homogeneous crimes against justice of minor and medium gravity, which were associated with the intent to interfere with the investigation, consideration and resolution of a criminal case involving four intentional crimes, two of which were directed against sexual freedom and personal integrity. At the same time, the defendant was repeatedly brought to administrative responsibility in 2009-2010, and the act in the episode under Article 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not available with the specified factual data.
At the same time, the court takes into account the circumstances mitigating the punishment of Vardanyan K.B., the state of her health, the victim’s voluntary compensation for moral damage caused by the commission of crimes, the victim’s apology as other actions aimed at making amends for the harm, and achieving reconciliation with the victim. In this case, the court does not see any aggravating circumstances.
In addition, the court takes into account the age of K.B. Vardanyan, the fact that she has not been convicted and has not been brought to criminal responsibility, is positively characterized, and has expressed remorse for her actions. The court also took into account that the motive for committing the crimes was a falsely understood family relationship, and the victim did not insist on a strict punishment. Thus, the court comes to the conclusion that all criminal goals are achievable when imposing a fine for both episodes.
When determining the amount of the fine in accordance with Part 3 of Article 46 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court additionally takes into account the fairly high level of income of K.B. Vardanyan, her lack of dependents, but also the need to undergo treatment repeatedly during the year while taking time away from work. In this regard, the court believes that the amount of the fine for both episodes should be significant, but not close to the maximum limits.
However, when assessing all the presented factual data in aggregate, the court does not find sufficient grounds for applying the provisions of Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since the positive characteristics of the personality of Vardanyan K.B., her age and state of health, behavior before and after the commission of socially dangerous acts, their motive, mitigating punishment and other circumstances of the case, in relation to the severity, intentional nature, direction and repetition of crimes, as well as the presence of negative aspects of the personality, are not exceptional, significantly reducing the degree of public danger of the acts and the guilty person.
Since the perfect Vardanyan K.B. the crimes are classified as minor and medium gravity, the final punishment is subject to the rules of Part 2 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the court believes that the principle of partial addition will meet the requirements of fairness, proportionality and adequacy when determining the amount of a fine for a set of crimes.
Based on the above and guided by Article 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court
SENTENCED:
Recognize Karina Borisovna Vardanyan
guilty of committing crimes under Part 3 of Article 30 - Part 1 of Article 309 and Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and assign her punishment:
- under part 3 of article 30 - part 1 of article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - in the form of a fine in the amount of 20,000 rubles;
- under Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - in the form of a fine in the amount of 50,000 rubles.
On the basis of Part 2 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partial addition of the imposed penalties, finally determine Vardanyan K.B. punishment for aggregation of crimes in the form of a fine to the state in the amount of 60,000 (sixty thousand)
rubles
Preventive measure against Vardanyan K.B. in the form of a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior before the sentence enters into legal force, do not change it, canceling this preventive measure from the day the sentence enters into legal force.
The verdict can be appealed in cassation to the Yaroslavl Regional Court within 10 days from the date of its proclamation through the Leninsky District Court of Yaroslavl in compliance with the requirements of Article 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The convicted person and the victim have the right to participate in the hearing of the cassation court. A convicted person has the right to entrust her defense to a lawyer of her choice or to petition the court to appoint a lawyer.
Presiding Prudnikov R.V.
V
