employee
UDK 34 Право. Юридические науки
GRNTI 10.77 Уголовное право
OKSO 40.05.01 Правовое обеспечение национальной безопасности
OKSO 40.05.02 Правоохранительная деятельность
BBK 67 Право. Юридические науки
TBK 75 Право. Юридические науки
The article is devoted to the consideration of the problems of application of Art. 327, Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, related to the operation of the norm in time; with delimitation from the norm covered by Art. 327, Part 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; with the content of such an act as use, the moment of its ending, the matching with the counterfeit, as well as with the acquisition, storage and transportation. The author substantiates the conclusion about the need to exclude Part 5 of Art. 327 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; a broader definition of the concept of “use of a knowingly forged document” is proposed, including not only the submission of such a document in order to obtain (confirm) the rights or relieve from responsibilities, but also the very use of the obtained rights or relieving from responsibilities on the basis of the submitted document; the critical assessment of the actions of a person ordered the forged document with providing personal information is done, such actions are considered as complicity in the forgery. The author’s attention is drawn to the prevalence of incompleteness of the wording of the accusation when qualifying the actions of persons who acquired, stored, transported a forged document in order to use it, and then used it. The article formulates recommendations for solving the issues of applying Part 3 of Article 327 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
knowingly forged document, other official document, forged document, counterfeit, usage, acquisition, transportation, storage, time of completion, qualification
1. Bulgakova V. R. Poddelka, izgotovlenie ili oborot poddel'nyh dokumentov, blankov, shtampov, pechatey: sovremennoe sostoyanie i puti resheniya otdel'nyh problem // Vestnik Barnaul'skogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii. – 2020. – № 1. – S. 174–176.
2. Isakov V. B. Yuridicheskie fakty v sovetskom prave. – Moskva: Yuridicheskaya literatura, 1984. – 144 s.
3. Bobylev K. A. Yuridicheskie fakty v pravovoy deystvitel'nosti // Evraziyskaya advokatura. – 2015. – № 5. – S. 49–50.
4. Styazhkina S. A. Nezakonnyy oborot oficial'nyh dokumentov: ugolovno-pravovoy aspekt // Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. – 2019. – T. 29. – Vyp. 6. – S. 892–898.
5. Bunin O. Yu. Ispol'zovanie lyubyh podlozhnyh dokumentov nespravedlivo vlechet ugolovnuyu otvetstvennost' // Biznes v zakone. – 2016. – №. 2. – S. 187–189.
6. Efremova M. A. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost' za poddelku, izgotovlenie ili sbyt poddel'nyh dokumentov, gosudarstvennyh nagrad, shtampov, pechatey, blankov // Vestnik Kazanskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii. – 2015. – № 2. – S. 35–39.
7. Tyunin V. I. K voprosu ob otvetstvennosti za ispol'zovanie zavedomo podlozhnogo dokumenta (ch. 3 st. 327 UK RF) // Ugolovnoe pravo. – 2019. – № 4. – S. 103–110.
8. Boycova Zh. A. K voprosu o sub'ekte prestupleniya, predusmotrennogo st. 327 Ugolovnogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federacii // Evraziyskaya advokatura. – 2018. – № 3. – S. 84–87.
9. Predein P. Yu. Zakonodatel'nye konstrukcii edinichnyh slozhnyh prestupleniy // Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. – 2011. – № 4. – S. 169– 178.
10. Loginova N. G., Fedorova E. A. Osobennosti yuridicheskoy tehniki sostavleniya postanovleniya o privlechenii v kachestve obvinyaemogo // Ugolovnyy process. – 2019. – № 1. – S. 47–54.
