Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

LEX RUSSICA (Russian Law)
Reference:

Lobanova, L.V. Regard for the mitigating circumstances when applying punishment to a person, who has previously concluded a pretrial cooperation settlement

Abstract: The article contains analysis of mitigating circumstances, which are of importance for the application of rules provided for by part 2 and 4 of Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author analyzes the issues of correlation between these circumstances and the grounds for providing exceptionally light punishment under Art.64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as some other aspects for the application of mitigating circumstances according to the relevant legislative list. It is stated that the purpose of the pre-trial cooperation settlement is not only (and maybe not so much in) providing an additional stimulus for the more active attitude from a person, who has committed a crime, towards assistance to the investigative bodies, but also in making these activities target-oriented and efficient, usually by providing a requirement to cooperate for the purpose of revealing or investigation of crimes of other persons (part 1 of Art. 317.6 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation). Based upon a number of assumptions, which are also supported by the judicial practice, the author draws a conclusion that part 2 of the Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be formulated as follows: “The period or amount of punishment to a person, who has previously concluded a cooperation settlement and took all measures depending on him in order to fulfill his obligations may not exceed (further provide the option for lighter punishment), if it is shall be proven that this person has also acknowledged his guilt or actively facilitated revealing (investigation) of the crime committed with his participation or of the crime committed by other person (persons)”.


Keywords:

mitigating circumstances, list of mitigating circumstances, consideration of mitigating circumstances, facilitating revealing of a crime, guilty plea, exceptional lightening of punishment, pretrial agreement, rules for lighter punishments, lighter punishment, pretrial cooperation.


This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article


References
1. Rubnikovich O. Pravosudie predlagaet massovuyu sdelku / O. Rubnikovich // Kommersant. 2012. 6 iyunya.
2. Sarkisyants, R. Rol' prokurora v dosudebnom soglashenii o sotrudnichestve / R. Sarkisyants // Zakonnost'. 2012. ¹ 8. – S. 16-22.
3. Nikolaeva T., Larkina E. Nekotorye voprosy zaklyucheniya dosudebnogo soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2009. ¹ 6. – S. 85-88.
4. Myasnikov, A.A. Institut smyagcheniya nakazaniya: problemy zakonodatel'noy reglamentatsii i pravoprimeneniya: avtoref. diss. … kand. yurid. nauk / A.A. Myasnikov. – Krasnodar, 2011. – 24 s.
5. Kruglikov L.L. Problemy teorii ugolovnogo prava: izbrannye stat'i, 2000-2009 g.g. – Yaroslavl': YarGU, 2010.
6. Zvecharovskiy, I. Institut naznacheniya bolee myagkogo nakazaniya, chem predusmotreno za dannoe prestuplenie / I. Zvecharovskiy // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2012. ¹ 2. – S. 35-44.
7. Kassatsionnoe opredelenie Verkhovnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 8 aprelya 2010 goda po delu M.M. Kubareva. Delo ¹ 4-010-33.
8. Kolokolov, N.A. Praktika naznacheniya nakazaniya litsu, s kotorym zaklyucheno dosudebnoe soglashenie o sotrudnichestve / N.A. Kolokolov // Ugolovnyy protsess. 2010. ¹ 11. – S. 68-75.
9. Kruglikov L.L. Smyagchayushchie i otyagchayushchie obstoyatel'stva v sovetskom ugolovnom prave: Uchebnoe posobie. – Yaroslavl': izd-vo YarGU, 1977. – 83 s.
10. Shatalov, A.S. Zaklyuchenie dosudebnogo soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve: pravovaya reglamentatsiya, dostoinstva i nedostatki/ A.S. Shatalov//Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2010. ¹ 5. – S. 35-44.
11. Ugolovnyy kodeks Kitayskoy Narodnoy Respubliki. Prilozhenie k kn.: Akhmetshin, Kh.M., Akhmetshin, N.Kh., Petukhov, A.A. Sovremennoe ugolovnoe zakonodatel'stvo KNR / Kh.M. Akhmetshin, N.Kh. Akhmetshin, A.A. Petukhov. – M.: ID «Muravey», 2000. – 432 s.
12. Timoshenko, A. Dosudebnoe soglashenie o sotrudnichestve: otsenka effektivnosti protsessual'nogo instituta / A. Timoshenko // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2011. ¹ 4. – S. 105-111.
13. Sundurov, F.R. Nakazanie i al'ternativnye mery v ugolovnom prave / F.R. Sundurov. – Kazan': Kazanskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet im. V.I. Ul'yanova-Lenina, 2005. – 300 s.
14. Byulleten' Verkhovnogo Suda RF. 2005. ¹ 4. – S. 21.
15. Byulleten' Verkhovnogo Suda RF. 2007. ¹ 4.
16. Byulleten' Verkhovnogo Suda RF. 2012. ¹ 8.
17. – S. 21-26. 3.Brusnitsyn L.V. Sotrudnichestvo so sledstviem: kakie trudnosti v realizatsii novykh norm UPK ozhidayut pravoprimenitelya / L.V. Brusnitsyn // Ugolovnyy protsess. 2009. ¹ 12.-S. 13-18.
18. Arkhiv Volgogradskogo oblastnogo suda za 2011 god. Delo ¹ 2-28/2011.
19. Blagov, E. Naznachenie nakazaniya v sluchae zaklyucheniya dosudebnogo soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve / E. Blagov // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2010. ¹