Commentary to Art. 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Guilt is a necessary subjective prerequisite for criminal liability. Guilt of an act is an integral component of the concept of a crime (see commentary to Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). There cannot be criminal liability without guilt, since imputation of guilt to a person for an act committed innocently (objective imputation) is not allowed (Part 2 of Article 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In accordance with the principle of subjective imputation, a person is subject to criminal liability only for socially dangerous actions (inaction) and socially dangerous consequences for which his guilt has been established (Part 1 of Article 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Criminal liability can only arise if there is guilt in relation to socially dangerous actions of a person. Innocent causing of harm, regardless of the nature and size of the consequences, completely excludes criminal liability (see commentary to Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The absence of guilt entails the absence of corpus delicti, since guilt is the main feature of the subjective side of the crime (see commentary to Article 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
The concept of guilt is absent in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; the commented article indicates only its forms. The concept of guilt was developed by the doctrine of criminal law and is based on the fact that a person commits acts with complete free will, understood as the ability for self-regulation and self-determination of a person, i.e. as the ability to make decisions, guided by the concepts and ideas that have developed in the individual’s mind. A person’s guilt reflects the person’s internal mental attitude towards his actions and their consequences. This mental attitude is manifested in the intellectual and volitional components of a person’s mental activity. Guilt is a person’s mental attitude in the form of intent and negligence towards the socially dangerous act he commits and its consequences. The content of guilt is formed by two elements of a person’s mental activity - consciousness and will, which are characterized by the intellectual and volitional components of the process of a person’s mental activity during the commission of a crime. These components are called the intellectual and volitional elements (moments) of guilt.
The intellectual element of guilt reflects awareness of the nature of the object and the actual social nature of the act committed, i.e. illegal nature and social danger of one’s action (inaction). In crimes with a material component, the intellectual element also includes the anticipation of socially dangerous consequences and awareness of the development of a causal relationship between one’s actions (inaction) and their consequences. In crimes with a formal composition, when the existence of a complete crime does not require taking into account the socially dangerous consequences that have occurred - only awareness of the social danger of the corresponding actions.
Human actions are always motivated and pursue certain goals. Motive and purpose, although they are independent signs of the subjective side of a crime, along with guilt, they determine the components of a person’s mental attitude to the crime being committed, indicate the person’s goal-setting when committing this act, and make it possible to find out from what motives the perpetrator committed the crime. The purpose of the crime, arising on the basis of the criminal motive, together with the motive to the greatest extent determines the presence of guilt at the time of the commission of the crime. Motive and purpose are characteristic of intentional crimes, and in relation to careless crimes, the law does not contain these signs. If the corpus delicti requires taking into account optional objective signs characterizing the circumstances of the commission of criminal acts (place, time, setting, etc.), or taking into account the motive and purpose of committing a crime, then awareness of these circumstances also has criminal legal significance. For example, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly pointed out the need, when assessing the social danger of an act and imposing punishment, to take into account all the circumstances in which the crime was committed: the type of intent, motives and purpose, method, situation and stage of the commission of the crime.
———————————
See: Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 27, 1999 N 1 (as amended by Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 6, 2007 N 7, dated April 3, 2008 N 4) “On judicial practice in cases of murder (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1999. N 3; Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 12, 2002 N 5 (as amended by the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 6, 2007 N 7) “On judicial practice in cases of theft, extortion and illegal trafficking of weapons, ammunition, explosives and explosive devices” // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 2002. N 5.
The nature and content of the volitional moment of guilt are determined by the structure of each specific crime. The volitional moment of guilt in intentional crimes lies in the conscious direction of intellectual and physical efforts to achieve the intended or intended result (desire). The volitional element of guilt in careless crimes is that the person did not direct the necessary efforts to prevent the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his act, although he should have and could have done so (unwillingness). In this case, the person, when performing actions or, conversely, when not performing them, shows negligence, imprudence, and frivolity.
Two forms of guilt - intent (Article 25 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and negligence (Article 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) - are formed through different combinations of intellectual and volitional elements of guilt. Intent and negligence, in turn, are divided into types: intent - into direct and indirect, and negligence - into frivolity and negligence. Reflection of forms of guilt in the norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation may be different. The form of guilt can be directly indicated in the disposition of the article (intentional causing of death (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) or causing death by negligence (Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)) or implied when the nature of the actions or their purpose indicates that a crime may be committed only intentionally, for example, torture (Article 117 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), rape (Article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), theft (Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), a terrorist act (Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Thus, the deliberate illegality of actions (inaction) when evading taxes (Articles 198, 199 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) is impossible without the person’s intent to commit them. Part 2 of the commented article determines that if an act is committed only through negligence, it can be recognized as a crime when this form of guilt is indicated in the disposition of the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. For example, a crime under Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (destruction or damage to property through negligence), committed only through negligence.
Forms of guilt make it possible to distinguish between criminal and non-criminal behavior; crimes that are similar in objective characteristics (object and objective side). They are criteria for the classification of crimes (Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), predetermine the appointment of a type of correctional institution for those sentenced to imprisonment (Article 58 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and determine the recognition of a person’s actions as a recidivist of crimes (Article 18 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
Commentary on Article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. As stated in the comment. to Art. 5, a person is subject to criminal punishment only for those socially dangerous actions (inaction) and socially dangerous consequences in respect of which his guilt has been established. This provision is enshrined in criminal law as a principle of the Criminal Code. Objective imputation, i.e. Criminal damage for innocent causing of harm is not allowed under the criminal law of the Russian Federation. The guilty commission of a socially dangerous act, prohibited by criminal law under threat of punishment, is also indicated in the legislative definition of the concept of a crime (Part 1 of Article 14).
2. In criminal law, guilt is understood as a negatively assessed by criminal law a person’s mental attitude towards an action (or inaction) prohibited by law and a possible socially dangerous consequence in the form of intent or negligence. A person who has committed an act prohibited by criminal law when guilty is found guilty by the court of committing this act. According to Art. 49 of the Constitution, everyone accused of committing a crime is considered innocent until his guilt is proven in the manner prescribed by federal law and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force. The accused is not required to prove his innocence. Irremovable doubts about a person’s guilt are interpreted in favor of the accused.
3. A person who committed an act intentionally or through negligence is found guilty of a crime. In the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, when describing the signs of specific crimes, sometimes it is directly indicated that the crime was committed intentionally (Articles 105, 111 - 115, etc.). Often no indication of the form of guilt is given (Articles 110, 116, 130, 131, 145, etc.). Moreover, in some cases we can talk about both intentional and careless crimes. The basis for this approach to the interpretation of this issue is contained in part 2 of the commentary. articles. However, an act committed only through negligence is recognized as a crime only in the case when it is specifically provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 109, 118, 143, 168, etc.).
4. If in the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, when describing the objective and subjective characteristics of a specific crime, there is no indication of the possibility of committing a certain act through negligence, but in fact it was committed with a careless form of guilt, the act does not contain corpus delicti, and the person is not subject to the Criminal Code.
5. The commission of a socially dangerous act prohibited by criminal law is recognized as innocent if the person lacks both intent and negligence to commit this act.
Judicial practice under Article 24 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 23, 2018 N 46-O18-1
Contrary to the arguments of the lawyer in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, the concept of a particularly serious crime was provided for in part one of Art. 24, which was expressly stated in this provision of the law. The crime committed by Demakov, provided for in paragraphs “a”, “d”, “e” of Art., also fell under this category of crimes. 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, for which he was convicted by the verdict of April 29, 1996, since the sanction of this article of the Criminal Code provided for punishment both in the form of imprisonment for a term of over 10 years, and in the form of a more severe punishment. Therefore, the reference in the verdict to Part 1 of Art. Criminal Code of the RSFSR and Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is lawful and complies with the requirements for the operation of the law in time, including the Federal Law “On the Enforcement of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation” of 1996, while the presence in Demakov’s actions of a particularly dangerous recidivism of crimes is correctly established in accordance with paragraph “b” » part 3 art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The court also correctly determined the type of correctional institution, that is, a special regime correctional colony (clause “g” of Part 1 of Art. 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 August 28, 2018 N 78-APU18-15
The court correctly determined V.V. Banadykova. type of recidivism of crimes and the regime of the correctional colony: by virtue of paragraph “b” of Part 3 of Art. According to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if a person was previously convicted of a particularly serious crime and again committed a particularly serious crime, then his actions constitute a particularly dangerous relapse of crimes; according to Art. Criminal Code of the RSFSR Art. 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, according to which Banadykov V.V. was convicted by a verdict dated September 6, 1997, which provided for criminal liability for committing a particularly serious crime; part 5 art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes that intentional acts are recognized as especially serious crimes, the commission of which is punishable by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the form of imprisonment for a term of over ten years or a more severe punishment.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 13, 2018 N 4-APU18-41
By virtue of Part 1 of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation recognizes a person guilty of a crime who committed an act intentionally or through negligence. According to Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation recognizes an act committed with direct or indirect intent as a crime committed intentionally (Part 1); a crime is recognized as committed with direct intent if the person was aware of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility or inevitability of socially dangerous consequences and desired their occurrence (Part 2); a crime is recognized as committed with indirect intent if the person was aware of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences, did not want, but consciously allowed these consequences or was indifferent to them (clause 3).
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 10, 2019 N 205-APU18-33
At the same time, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger committed by Daudov B.B. crimes, the circumstances of the case, as well as analyzing the provisions of Art. Art. , , 213.3 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, art. Art. , , of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court came to the correct conclusion about the impossibility of releasing the convicted person from criminal liability under Part 2 of Art. 209 and part 3 of Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation 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 October 3, 2019 N 33-APU19-21sp
Taking into account these circumstances, Dimjlis is subject to acquittal under clauses “a”, “b”, part 4 of Art. 229.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation due to the lack of corpus delicti in his actions (clause 2 of Part 1 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In connection with the violations of the law committed by the court, he asks that the verdict be quashed and that the case be transferred for a new trial to the court of first instance from the stage of preparation for the trial.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 14, 2019 N 78-APU19-4
According to the criminal law, a person who committed an act intentionally or through negligence is considered guilty of a crime (Part 1 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); a crime committed intentionally is an act committed with direct or indirect intent (Part 1 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); a crime is recognized as committed with direct intent if the person was aware of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility or inevitability of socially dangerous consequences and desired their occurrence (Part 2 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); a crime is recognized as committed with indirect intent if the person was aware of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences, did not want, but consciously allowed these consequences or was indifferent to them (Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), a crime, committed through negligence is an act committed through frivolity or negligence (Part 1 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); a crime is recognized as committed due to frivolity if the person foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), but without sufficient grounds for this he arrogantly counted on preventing these consequences (Part 2 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); a crime is recognized as committed through negligence if a person did not foresee the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), although with the necessary care and forethought he should and could have foreseen these consequences (Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 15, 2017 N AKPI17-630
At the time the decision was made by the President of the Russian Federation, the norm of Part 1 of Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR was in force (as amended by the Law of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1992 N 4123-1 “On Amendments to the Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR”), according to which, when replacing by pardon The death penalty by imprisonment can be imposed for life.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 19, 2017 N AKPI17-743
At the time the decision was made by the President of the Russian Federation, the norm of Part 1 of Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR was in force (as amended by the Law of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1992 N 4123-I “On Amendments to the Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR”), according to which when replacing by pardon The death penalty by imprisonment can be imposed for life.
Appeal ruling of the Appeal Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 12, 2017 N APL17-448
At the time of the adoption of the contested act by the President of the Russian Federation, the norm of Part 1 of Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR was in force (as amended by the Law of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1992 N 4123-I “On Amendments to the Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR”), which provided that when replacing In order to pardon the death penalty by imprisonment, it can be imposed for life.
Appeal ruling of the Appeal Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 28, 2020 N APL19-518
In support of the application, the administrative plaintiff indicated that replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment is a violation of articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Article 121.8 of the Constitution of the RSFSR, Part 1 of Article 15, Part 1 of Article 54, Part 3 of Article 90 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Part 1 of Article 8 Law of the RSFSR of April 24, 1991 N 1098-I “On the President of the RSFSR”. In his opinion, the Decree is based on the new version of the Law of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1992 N 4123-I “On Amendments to the Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR”, which entered into force on January 6, 1993, which worsened its position compared to the previous one the version of the law in force at the time he committed the crime in 1990, which provided for the replacement of the death penalty by pardon with imprisonment for a term of more than 15 years, but not more than 20 years.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 29, 2018 N 51-APU18-4
Believes that the court incorrectly applied the norms of criminal law in terms of determining the form of guilt and motives of A.N. Tsapyuk. according to Part 2 of Art. 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Part 3 of Art. , clause “g”, part 2 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, incorrectly applied the above articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, articles , , of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Forms of guilt.
Commentary on Article 24
1. The commented article (together with other provisions of Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code) form a legal mechanism for implementing the principle of guilt proclaimed in Art.
5 of the Criminal Code, according to which criminal liability for committing socially dangerous acts and for causing harmful consequences is possible only in the presence of guilt, and objective imputation is not allowed. 2. Guilt is a person’s mental attitude towards the socially dangerous act he has committed, provided for by criminal law, and its socially dangerous consequences.
The elements of guilt are consciousness and will, which together form its content. Thus, guilt is characterized by two components: intellectual and volitional. Various combinations of intellectual and volitional elements provided for by law form two forms of guilt: intent and negligence, described in Art. Art. 25 and 26 of the Criminal Code, in relation to which guilt is a generic concept.
To find a person guilty means to establish that he committed a crime either intentionally or through negligence. Consequently, proving the intentional or careless nature of a crime committed is a form of knowledge by the court of a real fact that exists outside the consciousness of the judges and independently of it. Knowledge of this fact is carried out by assessing the evidence collected in the case, relating to all the objective circumstances of the crime committed.
3. Consciousness and will are elements of human mental activity. Being in close interaction, intellectual and volitional processes cannot be opposed to each other; any intellectual activity includes volitional elements, and volitional activity, in turn, includes intellectual elements. At the same time, there is a difference between consciousness and will. The substantive content of each of them in a specific crime is determined by the constitution of the crime.
The intellectual element of guilt is reflective and cognitive in nature. It includes an idea of the object of the attack and awareness of the nature of the act committed, as well as additional objective signs (place, time, situation, etc.), if they are included by the legislator as part of this crime. In crimes with a material component, the intellectual element also includes foresight (or the possibility of foreseeing) socially dangerous consequences.
The content of the volitional element of guilt is also determined by the construction of the corpus delicti of a particular crime. The subject of the volitional attitude of the subject is the circle of factual circumstances outlined by the legislator that determine the legal essence of the criminal act. The essence of the volitional process when committing intentional crimes lies in a conscious focus on achieving the set goal, and in careless ones - in the carelessness and negligence shown by a person in behavior preceding the onset of harmful consequences. The essence of the volitional process in careless crimes is imprudence, carelessness; is that a person does not strain his mental efforts to avoid causing socially dangerous consequences of his behavior, although he has the opportunity to do so.
4. Differences in the content, intensity and certainty of intellectual and volitional processes occurring in the psyche of the subject of a crime underlie the division of guilt into forms, and within the same form - into types.
The form of guilt is a certain ratio (combination) of the elements of consciousness and will of the person committing a crime established by criminal law, characterizing his attitude to the act. Criminal law provides for two forms of guilt: intent and negligence. Guilt really exists only in the forms and types determined by the legislator; there can be no guilt outside of them. Forms of guilt, along with the motives for the crime, are subject to proof in each criminal case (clause 2, part 1, article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).
The form of guilt in specific crimes is either indicated in the dispositions of the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, or can be implied or established by interpreting the norm.
If the nature of the actions clearly indicates that the crime is committed only with intent, then the form of guilt may not be indicated in the disposition of the criminal law norm. Such crimes include, for example, theft, robbery, rape, slander, terrorism, taking and giving bribes. The form of guilt may not be indicated in cases where the intentional nature of the crime is evidenced by one or another method of legislative description of the act, i.e. special legislative techniques are used. These include, for example, an indication of the deliberate illegality of actions (Article 299 of the Criminal Code - bringing a knowingly innocent person to criminal liability), the malicious nature of actions or inaction (Article 157 of the Criminal Code - malicious evasion of payment of funds for the maintenance of children or disabled parents). The intentional nature of the crime may be indicated by an indication in the disposition of the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of a special motive or special purpose of the act.
5. The legal meaning of the form of guilt is diverse.
First, the form of guilt serves as a boundary separating criminal behavior from non-criminal behavior. This manifests itself in cases where criminal liability is established by law only for the intentional commission of a socially dangerous act (for example, Article 115 of the Criminal Code).
Secondly, the form of guilt determines the qualification of the crime if the law differentiates responsibility for committing socially dangerous acts that are similar in objective characteristics depending on the form of guilt. Thus, the form of guilt serves as a distinguishing criterion for the qualification of murder (Article 105 of the Criminal Code) and causing death by negligence (Article 109 of the Criminal Code), causing grievous bodily harm (Articles 111 and 118 of the Criminal Code), destruction or damage to property (Article 167 and 168 of the Criminal Code), destruction or damage to forest plantations (parts 1 and 2 of Article 261 of the Criminal Code).
Thirdly, the form of guilt determines the degree of social danger of the crime punishable for any form of guilt (infection with a sexually transmitted disease or HIV infection, etc.).
Fourthly, the type of intent or negligence, without affecting the qualification of the crime, can serve as an important criterion for the individualization of punishment. A crime, as a general rule, is more dangerous if it is committed with direct intent than with indirect intent, and criminal frivolity is usually more dangerous than negligence.
Fifthly, the form of guilt in combination with the degree of social danger of the act serves as a criterion for the legislative classification of crimes: in accordance with Art. 15 of the Criminal Code only intentional crimes are classified as grave and especially grave.
Sixth, the form of guilt predetermines the conditions for serving a sentence of imprisonment. According to Art. 58 of the Criminal Code, persons sentenced to this type of punishment for crimes committed through negligence serve their sentences in penal colonies, and persons convicted of intentional crimes - in correctional colonies of general, strict or special regime or in prison.
6. Some legal consequences of committing a crime are determined exclusively by the intentional form of guilt (for example, establishing a recidivism of crimes), others vary depending on the form of guilt (for example, parole from serving a sentence or replacing the assigned punishment with a more lenient type are associated with categories of crimes that are considered depending on the form of guilt).
7. In part 2 of Art. 24 for the first time enshrines the provision that an act committed only through negligence is recognized as a crime only on the condition that this is specifically provided for by a specific criminal law norm of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, i.e. when this provision directly indicates a careless form of guilt. For example, violation of veterinary rules is a crime provided that it has negligently resulted in the spread of epizootics or other grave consequences (Article 249 of the Criminal Code).
The Criminal Code provides for liability for certain crimes that can be committed either intentionally or through negligence (for example, Article 252 of the Criminal Code - pollution of the marine environment, Article 283 of the Criminal Code - disclosure of state secrets).
