Abstract: The subject of the research is the provisions of the criminal law on cybercrime and computer information crimes committed using electronic or telecommunication networks including those on the Internet as well as legal acts and regulations in the fields of information security and information technologies. The aim of the research is to define a circle of actions that can be acknowledged as cybercrime by the Russian law and to develop improvements of the criminal law that would help to differentiate between criminal responsibility for the commitment of crime using information technologies. The researcher analyzes different points of view on the definition of cybercrime and describes features of this kind of crime. The research is based on the systems approach using such methods as logical, dogmatic and comaprative law research methods. By analyzing different points of view and using the systems interpretation of legal provisions, the author comes to the conclusion that cybercrime is a universal term that describes crimes committed with the use of information technologies despite the fact that the legal acts lack a particular definition. The novelty of the research is caused by the fact that the author offers a modern definition of cybercrime that covers all crimes committed using IT technologies. The researcher underlines that there is a certain inconsistence in the legal enforcement of features of the wrongdoing committed with the use of electronic and telecommunication networks including Internet. In order to differentiate between criminal responsibility, the author proves the need to complete all corpus delicti of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federatin that may be committed using information technologies. 

Abstract: The research subject is the provisions of the theory of criminal law on illegal psychiatric committal, the provisions of criminal legislation, imposing responsibility for such activity, particular legal provisions, regulating the grounds and the procedure of psychiatric care delivery in the Russian Federation, and the provisions of the resolutions of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on particular crimes involving the category of persons, who misuse their official positions. Special attention is paid to the possibility of commitment of this crime only by a person whose job is connected with deciding on psychiatric committal.
The research is based on the system approach; the authors use the logical, normative-dogmatic and comparative-legal methods of cognition. The scientific novelty of the research consists in the study of the category of misuse of official position in relation to illegal psychiatric committal, and in the proposed qualification of actions of direct superiors of the psychiatrist. Taking into consideration that the subject of this crime is always very specific (the decision about psychiatric committal can be made only by a psychiatrist or a commission of psychiatrists), the reference to the “use of official position” in the part 2 of the article 128 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is excessive. All other persons, involved in the process of illegal psychiatric committal, under certain circumstances, are subject to responsibility as accomplices in a crime. The issue of responsibility of a psychiatrist and his direct superiors, who had influence his decision about illegal psychiatric committal, should be considered on the base of the psychiatrist’s guilt or the absence of circumstance excluding the criminal nature of the deed.