Criminal Law Legislation Update

At the current stage of social development, the protection of the interests of a person, society and the state from publically dangerous infringements is reaching a conceptually new level. Russian and foreign legislation, as well as theoretical publications, are paying more and more attention to the possibilities of the lawful infliction of harm under the circumstances that preclude the criminal character of an action. The abovementioned norms have a special place in criminal or other legislation because they contain clauses that allow inflicting harm on public relations protected by criminal law. Criminal legislation, recognized worldwide as penal in its essence (e.g. the Penal Code — «penal» being the synonym of «retributive», «punitive» and «vindictive») still contains a specific chapter devoted to such circumstances and includes norms that define the conditions and grounds for inflicting harm on public relations protected by criminal legislation, and this harm is recognized as lawful and even publically beneficial. These norms should be viewed as a specific legal phenomenon not only in Russian, but also in foreign criminal legislation and other types of legislation. However, the analysis of law enforcement practice does not allow to judge the effectiveness of their use by both law enforcement employees and citizens who protects their lawful rights and interests against publically dangerous infringements or engage in other publically beneficial behavior. In our opinion, the problems of law enforcement are connected with legislative support, and specifically with the area of substantive law. The authors of the article summarize many possibilities of using the norms of Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that have not been realized yet. They take into account and stress the isolation and independence of these norms, the necessity of their presence and reflection specifically in the criminal legislation. The authors also recommend to change the method of legal regulation of the circumstances that preclude the criminal character of the action and to use it as a basis for introducing significant changes in the contents of the abovementioned norms with the aim of improving the effectiveness of their enforcement in practice.

The article establishes that the modernization of Ukraine’s criminal legislation should be carried out taking into account the general principles of lawmaking, the principles of criminal law as a branch of law, as well as the special principles of criminal lawmaking, which include the principles of reasonableness, completeness of criminal law provisions, and the absence of gaps and synchronization. The principle of reasonableness is characterized by such requirements as justification, prudence, caution, and expediency. This principle means that modernization must be justified, prudent, cautious, and expedient, which together ensure the predictability of Ukraine’s criminal legislation and its adaptability to modern challenges. Justification means sufficient grounds for modernizing Ukraine’s criminal legislation, which must be substantiated primarily in the explanatory note to the amending law and accompanying documents. Prudence is a mechanism for implementing rational, balanced, and socially oriented criminal lawmaking, according to which Ukraine’s modernized criminal legislation is capable of achieving its goals while maintaining a balance between criminal law enforcement for the protection of society and respect for human rights. Prudence is a manifestation of rational and socially oriented legislative thinking based on common sense and the desire to achieve a fair balance between criminal law protection of public interests and respect for human rights and freedoms. Appropriateness implies the adaptability of criminal legislation to contemporary challenges and technological transformations and should be based on a balance between the dynamism and stability of this legislation. The principle of completeness of criminal law provisions and the absence of gaps is a strategic guideline for adapting Ukrainian criminal law to new social realities and challenges, ensuring its effectiveness, predictability, and consistency. The principle of synchronization during the modernization of Ukraine’s criminal legislation is aimed at harmonizing Ukraine’s criminal legislation both in itself (i.e., ensuring internal synchronization) and with the norms of other branches of law regulated by regulatory legislation, as well as with international norms (i.e., ensuring external synchronization).

brill.nl/eccl © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/157181711X587783 Union Regulatory Criminal Law Competence after Lisbon Treaty Jacob Öberg* PhD researcher, European University Institute, Florence, Italy 1. Introduction This article analyse the scope of the Union’s regulatory criminal law competence subsequent to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The article is primarily focussed on examining what legal limitations that can be imposed on the Union’s competence to impose criminal penalties under the new legal basis in Article 83(2) TFEU. The examination will also analyse and scrutinize the scope of the Union’s criminal law competence in the light of the principle

Purpose. The purpose of the work is to study the extension of the principle of retroactivity to law-making and law-enforcement practice to the legal system in Ukrainian legislation. Methodology. The methodology includes a comprehensive analysis and generalization of the available scientific and theoretical material and the formulation of relevant conclusions. The following methods of scientific knowledge were used during the study: comparative law, logical-grammatical, system-structural, modeling. Results. During the study, it was recognized that in the legislation of Ukraine, in the process of creating and implementing legal norms, general principles of law are applied, which are guided by state authorities and local governments in their activities within the framework of their competence. When adopting new regulatory legal provisions or making changes to existing ones, general principles of law must be applied. The application of the principle of retroactivity of law allows individuals and legal entities to be confident in the legal assessment of their actions not only when they are committed, but also in the future. Scientific novelty. In the process of research, it was scientifically substantiated that the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine as a whole complies with the Fundamental Law of Ukraine and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights during criminal proceedings when changing the punishment for committing criminal offenses. Practical significance. The results of the study can be used in law-making activities in the further improvement of national criminal procedural, criminal legislation regarding the improvement of the institution of the application of punishment when improving the legislation on punishment for committing criminal offenses, as well as in the educational process during the teaching and study of the academic disciplines “Criminal Procedural Law of Ukraine”, “Criminal Law”, “Law Enforcement Activities”, “Advocacy”, others.

The article is devoted to the issues of “large-scale” improvement of special banking, tax and criminal legislation, filling gaps and eliminating contradictions between certain norms of Criminal, Civil and Banking Law. The development of entrepreneurship in general and the capital market in particular requires a radical revision of not only the Criminal Code, but also a coordinated change in the entire block of criminal law regulations. The need to take urgent measures to improve legislation is also due to the fact that the sphere of banking capital has become one of the most criminogenic sectors of the domestic economy. The article examines certain issues related to the lagging behind the formation of a system of legislative support for new monetary relations from the pace of the formation of a free market. The improvement of the capital market requires an integrated approach to the improvement of criminal, banking and tax legislation, the achievement of full consistency, a clear formulation and assimilation of the basic concepts and categories of financial activity, the formation of strong business traditions. The sphere of financial and credit relations, due to the complete absence of legal regulation of new types of activities, turned out to be open to illegal encroachments, in connection with which the author comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to include new articles in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation aimed at protecting “civilized” entrepreneurs from criminal encroachments. In conclusion, a proposal was made on the need to supplement the criminal legislation with a number of conceptual provisions that ensure the functioning of the capital market and the protection of civilized banking.

ntroduction: the paper analyzes the amendments made by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation no. 797 of December 14, 2020 to the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 28, 2001 no. 1500 “On commissions for pardon in the territories of constituent entities of the Russian Federation” and the norms of the new Regulation on the procedure for considering petitions for pardon in the Russian Federation. Methods: comparative legal method and method of interpretation of legal norms. Results: having analyzed legal documentation on the activities of the commissions and having considered convicts’ petitions for pardon, we point out the following positive changes: an increase in the rotation period of members of the commissions for pardon; clarification of their analytical and control functions; inclusion of social adaptation in the number of circumstances taken into account when considering the issue of pardon; exclusion of personal data of individuals recommended for pardon by the highest official of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation from publication in the mass media; taking into account the opinions of the victims of the crime. We think that negative changes are those that have created new problems in the form of contradictions with the norms of criminal and penal legislation. These include the possibility of granting pardon to persons serving other criminal law measures, and applying for pardon directly to the commission on pardons, bypassing the administration of institutions and bodies that execute sentences. Conclusion: the current task to expand the practice of granting pardon cannot be solved by adopting a new Regulation on the procedure for considering petitions for pardon in the Russian Federation. Keywords: criminal legislation; penal legislation; convict; pardon; criminal punishment; other measures of a criminal legal nature; President of the Russian Federation; commissions on pardons.

There has been consensus, for over a decade, in pointing to the acute crisis of rationality that criminal legislation is experiencing. Although we will look at this concept in greater depth later on, in the meantime, by lack of rationality, I fundamentally wish to flag up two factors. In the first place, the progressive distance in the most recent reforms from the model of criminal law emanating from the welfare state. In second place, the loss of quality of the law in all of its dimensions, from the renouncement of efficacy, through to aspects such as symbolic legislation, to the presence of very slight levels of formal technical quality or of “motorized” legislation, which puts an end to one of the inherent values of legislative rationality: legal certainty.

The article is devoted to clarifying the issue of subjects of procedural actions in criminal proceedings, the level of legislative regulation of their implementation, and the definition of the concept of “procedural actions” in the criminal procedure of Ukraine. The emphasis is on the fact that the criminal procedural law, using the concept of “procedural actions”, mainly (with some exceptions) connects them with the activities of the investigator, inquirer, prosecutor (in the cases established by the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine – also an officer of the criminal intelligence unit), investigating judge, the court in criminal proceedings. At the same time, it is emphasized that in the doctrine of criminal procedure there are both supporters of the statement that procedural actions can be performed only by the subjects listed above, and supporters of the statement that procedural actions in criminal proceedings are performed by various participants in criminal proceedings. Based on the analysis of the provisions of criminal procedural legislation and doctrinal sources, the author divides procedural actions in the criminal procedure of Ukraine into the following groups: 1) procedural actions, the performance of which is attributed only to the powers of officials of government authorities specified by the criminal procedural law; 2) procedural actions that can be performed by various participants of criminal proceedings (not only by officials of government authorities authorized in the criminal procedure); 3) procedural actions that can be performed only by those participants who are not authorized officials of government authorities in the criminal procedure. The author emphasizes that certain provisions of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, in which the legislator uses the general concept of “procedural action”, “meaning” only a procedural action, which certain officials of government authorities are authorized to perform in criminal proceedings, need clarification. The author agrees with the statements of researchers that the level of legislative regulation of procedural actions in criminal proceedings is not the same. He clarifies that the implementation of procedural actions, depending on their essence, is either regulated in sufficient detail by criminal procedural legislation, or is partially regulated by criminal procedural legislation, with respect to some procedural actions or only the purpose of their implementation, the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine contains only a mention, or the possibility of conducting procedural actions for certain participants is allowed due to the absence of relevant prohibitions in criminal procedural legislation. As a result, the author defines procedural actions in the criminal procedure of Ukraine as actions provided for and / or not prohibited by criminal procedural legislation, which constitute the essence of the direct implementation by participants in criminal proceedings of their procedural rights, obligations, and powers to achieve the objectives of criminal proceedings.

The article presents a study of the domestic legislation of the XI–XVIII centuries, aimed at criminal law counteraction to illicit trafficking in alcoholic beverages. The relevance of the study is due to the significant number of illegal alcoholic and alcohol-containing products on the modern Russian market. Studying the historical experience of the formation of criminal legislation providing for responsibility for these acts makes it possible to identify patterns in the development of legal norms and identify the most effective criminal law mechanisms for countering such crimes. The purpose of the study is a comprehensive analysis of the formation and development of Russian legislation on combating illegal production and trafficking of alcoholic beverages, as well as identifying patterns and features of this process. The subject of the study is the criminal law norms providing for liability for acts that infringe on the legal turnover of alcoholic beverages. The research methodology is represented by a set of general scientific and private scientific methods of cognition. The following general scientific methods of cognition are used: system-structural analysis, logical analysis of texts and judgments. The historical and legal method was used as a private scientific method, which made it possible to analyze the development of Russian criminal legislation aimed at protecting the legally established procedure for the production and turnover of alcoholic beverages. The scientific novelty of the research is expressed in a comprehensive analysis of the Russian legislation of the XI–XVIII centuries, aimed at countering the illicit trafficking of alcoholic beverages. The article presents a detailed analysis of the development of criminal law norms providing for liability for the illegal production and trafficking of alcoholic beverages in Russia and in Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the XVIII century. The main focus is on the evolution of legislation in the field of combating illicit trafficking in alcoholic beverages, dubbed "korchemstvo". The paper examines in detail the first mentions of punishments for illegal alcohol trafficking in the Pskov judicial charter, the development of standards of responsibility in the era of Ivan III and Ivan IV. A special place in the study is occupied by the analysis of the punishment system for drunkenness. Special attention is paid to the reign of Peter I. The author notes that the issues of criminal law counteraction to illicit trafficking in alcoholic beverages are inextricably linked with the state policy on alcohol trafficking. Excessive restrictions on alcohol turnover imposed by the State have led to an increase in the share of the grey alcohol market and an increase in corruption in this sector.

The article examines the issue of the specifics of the criminal law protection of pharmaceutical activity in the circulation of medicinal products in acts of foreign criminal legislation. The author proposes to single out the most typical types of criminal offenses that encroach on pharmaceutical activity depending on the typical types of "impact” of pharmaceutical activity, namely when ensuring various stages of trade and other circulation (turnover) of medicinal products and other items of pharmaceutical activity. The author conducts a thorough review of the criminal legislation of such countries as the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Austria, the Swiss Confederation, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Poland, Turkey, Romania, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Republic of Moldova, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Azerbaijan . Such acts of criminal legislation are analyzed from the point of view of the scope of criminal legal protection of the sphere of circulation of medicinal products and in relation to the norms defined in the criminal legislation of Ukraine. The article notes that the provisions of acts of foreign criminal legislation establish typical and atypical types of criminal offenses that encroach on pharmaceutical activity as an independent object of criminal law protection. The author's attention is drawn to the fact that acts of foreign legislation define both a more "broad" and a smaller ("narrow") scope of criminal offenses of a specific type. And in separate acts of foreign criminal legislation, the concept of illegal medicinal products trafficking as an independent type of criminal offense is defined in different ways. It is noted that the conducted comparative legal research demonstrated that the most complete scope of criminal legal protection of circulation of medicinal products and circulation of medical devices as elements of pharmaceutical activity is presented in the German and Swiss "models" of criminal legal protection. These models of criminal law protection received a detailed review and analysis, due to the detailed provisions of the criminal legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Swiss Confederation.

This research critically analyzes the influence of the omnibus law technique on the quality of criminal law formulation in Indonesia, particularly following the enactment of Law No. 13 of 2022 regarding Amendments to Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation. Although the omnibus law method formally recognizes the integration of multiple legal substances within a single statute to enhance legislative efficiency and regulatory synchronization, empirical evidence demonstrates that its application in the criminal law domain creates serious substantive and procedural challenges. The research employs a normative legal approach supplemented by conceptual analysis to examine the alignment between omnibus law practices and the principles of good legislation (good legislation principles) as stipulated in Article 5 of Law No. 13 of 2022. The findings reveal that while omnibus law offers administrative efficiency, its implementation in criminal legislation generates significant problems regarding norm clarity, public participation, and legal legitimacy. Specifically, the technique tends to obscure the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege), reduce deliberative quality in legislative processes due to executive dominance, and weaken public participation in legislative procedures. Furthermore, the rapid processing of omnibus bills with limited public consultation compromises the substantive legitimacy of resulting criminal law provisions. This research concludes that implementing omnibus law techniques in criminal legislation must be accompanied by reinforced mechanisms for meaningful public participation, enhanced transparency in legislative discussions, and rigorous norm quality testing prior to enactment. Without such safeguards, the legislative innovation intended to simplify legal frameworks risks creating new legal uncertainty within Indonesia's national criminal justice system. The research advocates for either restricting omnibus law application to non-criminal legislation or fundamentally restructuring its procedural framework to comply with constitutional standards of democratic lawmaking.

This article provides a comparative analysis of the criminal legislation of the Netherlands in terms of consideration of the mitigating factors and criminal defenses. This paper provides an overall exploration of mitigation of sentence institute in accordance with the present edition of the Penal Code of the Netherlands, adopted on March 3, 1881, and entered into force from September 1, 1886, and the existing edition of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, adopted on September 22 and entered into force from April 1, 1995, including the issues on determining the punishment for the criminal offenses committed in mental disorder as well as insanity and diminished responsibility, for not completed offenses and the criminal complicity, exemption from liability and punishment, including criminal defenses and voluntary rejection from crime as per of Netherlands’ criminal legislation. Pursuant to the results of the conducted analysis, similar and different sides of current criminal laws have been clarified, decisions on the concluded analysis and final conclusion on the implementation of some criminal law norms to the criminal law of the Republic of Uzbekistan have been provided.

传统犯罪网络变异的原因是多方面的，直接诱因是网络空间的技术性代际差异； 传统犯罪的网络变异表现为犯罪构成要件要素的变异、社会危害性的变异和犯罪形态 的变异三个方面。扩张化的司法解释是解决这一问题的首要选择，但其局限性也是明 显的；面对网络空间中传统犯罪的变异态势，将部分预备行为提升、独立化为实行行 为，将部分共犯行为加以正犯化，将会是未来刑事立法无法回避的两个选择。 关键词: 网络犯罪 传统犯罪 社会危害性 刑事立法 变异 The reasons for cyber variants of traditional crimes are many. A direct catalyst is the generation gap caused by the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. Such variation takes the following three forms: variation in the elements constituting a crime, in the social harm done and in the form of the crime. Expansion of judicial interpretation is the primary choice for handling cybercrime. However, its limitations are also obvious. In the face of cyber variants of traditional crimes, we argue that raising the status of some acts of preparation to that of independent acts of execution and making some joint offenders into principal offenders offers two important solutions that can no longer be avoided by China's criminal law legislation.

Introduction. 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, adopted by the State Duma on November 22, 2001 by Federal Law No. 174-FZ. The development of criminal procedure legislation in these years was not always consistent, often characterized by chaotic and hasty measures. Nevertheless, the main factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, as well as the key trends in the legal regulation of criminal procedure legal relations, have remained fairly stable for twenty years. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The object of the study is the norms of criminal procedure law that have emerged and developed during the period of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation since 2001. The methodological basis of the study is the general dialectical method of scientific knowledge, which allowed us to study the subject of the study in relation to other legal phenomena, as well as general scientific methods of knowledge (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, and modelling) and private scientific methods of knowledge (formal legal, historical-legal, and comparative-legal). Results. Among the variety of various factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, there are several main ones: 1. The impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal proceedings. Having ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms in 1998, Russia voluntarily assumed obligations in the field of ensuring citizens rights and freedoms, as well as creating the necessary conditions for their implementation. Among the most important criminal procedure norms and institutions that have emerged in the system of criminal procedure regulation under the influence of the positions of the ECHR, the following are notable: a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, the rights of participants in the verification of a crime report, the disclosure of the testimony of an absent witness at a court session, and alternative preventive measures to detention. 2. Optimisation of procedural resources and improvement of the efficiency of criminal proceedings. From the very beginning of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, there was a special procedure for judicial proceedings, which is a simplified form of consideration of criminal cases, provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In 2009, this procedure was extended to cases with concluded pre-trial cooperation agreements (Chapter 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), and in 2013, the institute of abbreviated inquiry appeared in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Chapter 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). 3. Social demand for increasing the independence of the court, and the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings. Society’s needs to improve the independence of judges, increase public confidence in the court, transparency and quality of justice led to the reform of the jury court in 2016 (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 190-FZ). As a result of the reform, the court with the participation of jurors began to function at the level of district courts, the jurisdiction of criminal cases for jurors was expanded, the number of jurors was reduced from 12 to 8 in regional courts and 6 in district courts. However, practice has shown that sentences handed down by a court on the basis of a verdict rendered by a jury are overturned by higher courts much more often than others due to committed violations, which are associated, among other things, with the inability to ensure the objectivity of jurors. In the context of a request for an independent court, Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the independence of judges (Federal Law of 2 July 2013 N 166-FZ) was adopted. 4. Reducing the degree of criminal repression. In the context of this trend, institutions have emerged in the criminal and criminal procedure laws that regulate new types of exemption from criminal liability. In 2011, Article 281 “Termination of criminal prosecution in connection with compensation for damage” was adopted, concerning a number of criminal cases on tax and other economic crimes (Federal Law of 7 December 2011 N 420). In 2016, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation introduced rules on the termination of a criminal case or criminal prosecution in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine (Federal Law of 3 July 2016 N 323-FZ). 5. Digitalisation of modern society. The rapid development of information technologies and their implementation in all spheres of public life has put on the agenda the question of adapting a rather archaic “paper” criminal process to the needs of today, and the possibilities of using modern information technologies in the process of criminal proceedings. Among the innovations in this area, it should be noted the appearance in the criminal procedure law of Article 1861 “Obtaining information about connections between subscribers and (or) subscriber devices” (Federal Law of 1 July 2010 N 143-FZ), Article 4741 “The procedure for using electronic documents in criminal proceedings” (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 220-FZ), the legal regulation of video-conferencing in criminal proceedings (Federal Law of 20 March 2011 N 39-FZ), and the introduction of audio recording of court sessions (Federal Law of 29 July 2018-FZ N 228-FZ), etс. Currently, the possibilities of further digitalisation of criminal proceedings, and the use of programs based on artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings, ets. are being actively discussed. Discussion and Conclusion. The main factors determining the vector of development of modern criminal justice should, in our opinion, include the impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal justice; optimisation of procedural resources and the need to improve the efficiency of criminal justice, social demands for strengthening the independence of the court, adversarial criminal proceedings; the needs of society to reduce the degree of criminal repression, and digitalisation of modern society.

The scientific article is based on the statement that Russian criminal legislation has a repressive character, which is expressed in the possibility of bringing to criminal responsibility for the commission of certain illegal acts that do not have a sufficient degree of public danger. The discussion regarding the partial decriminalization of the above-mentioned acts is also present in the scientific circles of foreign countries. For example, in the United States, some legal scholars propose decriminalizing nonviolent criminal offenses. According to the analysis of law enforcement practice, this circumstance will have a positive impact on crime prevention. For the Russian legal reality, the issue of abolishing punishment for minor crimes is not relevant, since there is legislation on administrative offenses that performs protective functions. In our opinion, minor crimes of corruption are among the acts that can be partially decriminalized by extending administrative prejudice to them. Russian law enforcement practice is predisposed to these humanistic innovations. An analysis of the regulation of the institute of administrative prejudice in foreign countries makes it possible to understand the essence of this institution and the specifics of its practical application for research purposes. According to the legislation of the Western countries of the Romano-German legal family, the institute of administrative prejudice was created in contrast to the increased number of criminal offenses during the period of active economic development, by simplifying the procedure for bringing to justice. At the same time, in the Western countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal family, prejudice refers to circumstances established by the courts in previously considered criminal and civil cases, which, under certain conditions, can be used as evidence that does not require additional verification. In neighboring countries, each State assigns different degrees of public danger to the most classic corruption-related crimes (bribery, bribery, commercial bribery). Thus, in the Republic of Belarus, the application of administrative prejudice to the above-mentioned acts is impossible due to the high degree of public danger. The criminal legislation of Georgia explicitly establishes in the anti-corruption legislation the possibility of applying administrative prejudice to acts related to the false declaration of income by public officials. There is no institution of administrative prejudice in Kazakhstan. However, the notes to individual articles of corruption-related crimes actually allow the use of this institution if the amount of funds does not exceed the amount established by criminal law. Thus, the institution of administrative prejudice can be used as a tool for the partial decriminalization of certain corruption-related crimes. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.