Abstract: The author analyzes separate explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding the qualification of the actions of all members of an organized group as co-perpetrators of a crime, regardless of their actual role, i.e. without reference to Article 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author examines the structure of an organized group with one perpetrator, including in crimes with a special subject, compares various common features forms of complicity, clarifies the legal meaning of joint criminal activity, studies the actions of a participant in a criminal community (criminal organization) who is not the perpetrator of a specific crime, but in accordance with the distribution of roles within this community performing the functions of an organizer, instigator or accomplice. Judicial practice (case law) is given, solutions are proposed aimed at optimizing the criminal law and its practice applications. The methodological basis of the research was made up of general scientific methods: analysis and synthesis, logical, as well as private scientific methods: formal logical, comparative legal, and system analysis. Based on the results of the study, the author outlined some areas in which criminal legislation and the practice of its application can develop. Using the original argumentation, the structure of an organized group with one perpetrator is considered, including in crimes with a special subject. The issues of the validity of the qualification of the actions of all members of an organized group and a participant in a criminal community (criminal organization) who is not the perpetrator of a specific crime, but in accordance with the distribution of roles within this community performing the functions of an organizer, instigator or accomplice, as co-perpetrators of a crime, regardless of their actual role, i.e. without reference to art. 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and the need to return to the practice of qualification by roles.

Abstract: The article examines the theoretical and applied problems of the prohibition of the use of the information and telecommunications network "Internet" by a suspect or accused when choosing a preventive measure in the form of a ban on certain actions, bail or house arrest; analyzes, in connection with the fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the changes introduced by Federal Law No. 72-FZ of 18.04.2018 changes in The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; thematic judicial practice is given; legal solutions aimed at optimizing the current legislation and the practice of its application are proposed, while legal issues are correlated with the role of the Internet in modern society and human life. According to the results of the study, the authors come to the conclusion that the legal stereotypes that have existed for a long time about the inseparable connection of the restriction of the constitutional right to freedom when placed under house arrest with other restrictions of constitutional rights, although not explicitly specified in the law, are actually applied to a suspect or accused under house arrest. Among such restrictions, we will find, for example, a ban on performing labor (official) duties, searching for and receiving information, various types of creative activity (literature, painting, science, technology, etc.). These restrictions could have been formed only in a "pre-digital" society and therefore require revision.

Abstract: The authors offer the ways of implementation of principles of independence and competitiveness in criminal proceedings as a governmental activity in the sphere of justice which saliently forms the citizens’ comprehension of the existing level of social justice. In the authors’ opinion, the observation of certain conditions in the activity of judicial and law enforcement bodies would enhance their efficiency, in particular: 1) would exempt legislative bodies from participation in bureaucratic “games”; 2) the level of accessibility of justice for citizens would significantly increase; 3) the confidence of citizens in the possibility of their rights and interests defending would strengthen; 5) citizens would more actively assist the authorities in combating crime; 5) the workload of public administration would significantly decrease due to activization of internal potential of public and business institutions in combating crimes, etc. The methodology of the research is based on the general and special methods of scientific cognition: the methods of empirical research (observation, comparison, collection and analysis of data), analysis and synthesis of theoretical and practical material. The authors analyze normative-legal acts, educational literature, special literature, statistical data and law enforcement practice. The authors offer the ways of implementation of principles of independence and competitiveness in criminal proceedings by means of formation of political will capable of improvement of the ideology of an official in relation to the role of legal proceedings in the country, effective prohibition of “telephone law”, development of the institute of advocatory investigation, public expertise of criminal cases, enhancement of professionalism of the prosecution. 

Abstract: The authors comment on the decision of the Supreme Court oo July 9, 2013 № 24 "On the court practice in cases of bribery, commercial bribery and other corruption crimes". The article presents the criticisms aimed at optimization of law enforcement activities, considers complicated and ambiguous issues of qualification, analyzes the conditions of criminal responsibility for the provocation of bribery or commercial bribery, offers the decisions with regard for the changes containing in the Federal Law of 02.11.2013 No 302 "On amending separate legislatives of the Russian Federation". The methodology of the resarch is based on the general and specific methods of cognition: methods of empirical research (observation, comparison, collection and study of information), analysis and synthesis of theoretical and practical materials. The authors analyze normative-legal acts, teaching aids, special literature including statistical data and law-enforcement practice. The authors present criticisms and suggestions aimed at optimization of law enforcement activities, reveal and describe the mechanisms of some corruprion crimes, outline the peculiarities of qualification and the problems of their destinguishing from other corpora delicti. 

Abstract: The author of the article provides analysis of theft according to the current legislation in order to establish whether it is rightfully construed as a materially defined crime. In the opinion of the author the moment when a person guilty of theft  gains a real opportunity to use and dispose of stolen property as his own needs clarification, and he offers subjective and objective criteria for it. Having concluded that the moment when the crime of theft is completed may be far away from the moment when the property is taken or used by a guilty person or by the third parties in connection with material damage to the victim, and the author offers to exclude this element from the determining elements of crime of theft, and recognize it as a formally defined crime.  In the opinion of the author such an approach shall allow to achieve compliance with the principles of lawfulness and unity of investigative and judicial practice when dealing with the issue of the completion of a crime committed by theft. It shall also facilitate better criminal law protection of property, since the moment, when the crime is committed shall be moved to an earlier stage - to the moment when the property was seized separately from the issue of material damage. It shall also allow to deal with some issues of crime determining regarding consumer quality of such property (the property that can be consumed, and the property that cannot be consumed), and theft from guarded territories, lowering the number of victims on criminal cases with respect to situations, when recognition of victims is formal and is not truly necessary. Finally, it shall allow correct determination of one continuining crime when a guilty person was caught before the last of series of similar criminal episodes was completed.

Abstract: The author attempted to correlate the services provided without consumer consent and unnecessary services with the existing criminal legal prohibition.  These services may take place in medicine, legal counseling, housing and utilities, in the cell phone market, etc.  IN such cases it is not the issue that a customer fails to have a service he paid for, or does not get it in full, as it would be the case with theft or fraud.  In the opinion of the author the novel form of taking property away from a person, and it cannot be directly qualified in legal terms. The danger of such services forced upon a customer that in each case the damage is rather small, so it does not cause legal consequences for the perpetrators due to the absence of initiative of the consumers.  That is why these services keep developing unconstrained and take upon new territories. 

Abstract: The author of the article offers a classification of penal acts associated with causing loss or damage to property by deception or abuse of confidence as set forth in Article 165 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author proves that there is a need in decriminilization of this regulation because it repeats the penal prohibition. Cases of damage to property by deception or abuse of confidence are classified in the following way: loss or damage to property by deception or abuse of confidence due to unpaid service or work; loss or damage to property by deception or abuse of confidence due to non-transfer of property to a holder of title or any other owner when such property is supposed to be transferred from third parties through or without the guilty party (transit property); loss or damage to property by deception or abuse of confidence due to amortization (wear) of the property belonging to a holder of title or any other owner without dequate compensation for using property.