Self-interest as a qualifying sign of crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity

Il'in Ivan Yurievich Postgraduate student, Department of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Law Enforcement, Russian University of Transport (MIIT) 127994, Russia, Moscow, Obraztsova str., 9c9 ilin.iu00@gmail.com

Introduction

Many thousands of years have passed since the moment when humanity learned to produce more resources than it needs for its own food and survival. The resulting surpluses were used to improve mining processes, to be sold by exchange or sale, and to build monumental structures. The emergence of an excess product naturally led to the formation of a stratum of society that began to engage in various types of entrepreneurship. One way or another, entrepreneurship took an important place in the life of society, which could not be ignored by the state.

In the process of carrying out legally permitted entrepreneurial activities, jobs are created, surplus product is produced, taxes are paid and, as a result, the welfare of the entire population increases. Based on this, the protection of legitimate business activity is of high importance to the state. Therefore, the state begins to use the apparatus of coercion to protect a socially valuable phenomenon for itself.

D. A. Shestakov believes that: "economic crime is a transformed form of economic (entrepreneurial) activity carried out by its subjects in order to achieve socially unfair enrichment by violating the principle of equivalence of exchange" ^{[1, p. 227]}.

Crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity have, for the most part, the latency characteristic of nonviolent crimes. This circumstance becomes a factor attracting various kinds of criminal elements, and the absence of violence as a mandatory feature of the composition of this type of crime is qualified as representing a relatively lesser public danger in the eyes of society, and therefore entailing a lesser severity of punishment.

Self-interest appears in the Criminal Law as such a specific feature that does not have a clear definition by the legislator, which causes quite a few difficulties in the process of proof and law enforcement. From the point of view of everyday consciousness, self-interest is a form of base motives that take over a person on the path of life. It is not for nothing that such behavior is classified as one of the seven deadly sins. Greed, also known as avarice, greed, or greed, is, like lust or gluttony, the sin of desire. However, the concept of greed (from the point of view of the Church) is applied to artificial, predatory desire and the pursuit of material goods. In Dante's Purgatory, penitents are tied up and laid face down on the ground for excessive concentration on earthly thoughts. The accumulation of materials or objects, theft and robbery, especially with the use of violence, deception or manipulation of power, are all actions that can be caused by greed. According to the definition given outside the Christian scriptures, greed is an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than a person needs, especially in relation to material wealth. Like pride, greed can lead not only to some evil deeds, but to all evil.

V. I. Dahl presents self-interest as "passion for acquisition, greed for money and wealth, covetousness, greed for profit, benefit, benefit, profit, loot, captured wealth" ^{[2, p. 784]}.

However, it is obvious that self-interest is an integral part of entrepreneurial activity, because the very essence of entrepreneurship is: "an activity carried out at your own risk, aimed at systematically making a profit from owning property, selling goods, performing works or providing services." Based on the above definition given in Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Civil Code of the Russian Federation), it seems impossible to carry out entrepreneurial activity without the desire to make a profit.

The Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the review of supervisory practice for 2001 dated 01.10.2001, indicates: "The concept of "selfish motives" implies that a person commits specific actions in order to obtain material benefits." Thus, the assumption of an inextricable link between self-interest and entrepreneurship finds indirect confirmation in the position of the supreme court. However, this guess is not new, back in 1905, the famous German sociologist and economist Max Weber first clearly outlined this concept in his book Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism.

I. G. Tyutyunnik's position on this issue is as follows: "since self-interest expresses a desire for illegal enrichment, it is carried out at the expense of other people's interests, insofar as it is always associated with a violation of property relations, the property rights of others. However, in order to recognize a crime committed out of self-interest, it is not necessary that the property at the expense of which the perpetrator seeks to satisfy his selfish interests belong to the victim. It is important that the crime is based on the desire to obtain some kind of material benefit or benefit" ^{[3, pp. 36-38]}.

Thus, self-interest acquires a "base" character at the moment when a business entity receives benefits or gets rid of costs by reducing the counterparty's property sphere or harming general socio-economic relations.

In this regard, the need to improve legislation in the field of protection of entrepreneurial activity as a socially significant area of human activity, as well as the need to rid the law of collisions and inconsistencies, fits into the rationale for the relevance of the topic of this study.

The purpose of this study is to consider the theoretical side of self-interest as a qualifying feature in the regulatory framework of crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity, as well as the formation of normative-based proposals to amend the existing articles of the criminal law in order to improve them.

The methodology of this article is expressed in dialectical, logical, historical-legal, formal-legal, hermeneutical methods of scientific cognition.

The topic of this study is characterized by an insufficient level of scientific sophistication. Such jurists as A.V. Brilliantov, A.V. Shesler, G. R. Smolitsky, I. G. Tyutyunnik, D. A. Shestakov, A. A. Turyshev, K. V. Vishnevetsky contributed to the study of various aspects of greed. 

The main part. The origins of self-interest as a sign of the subjective side of economic crimes in domestic legislation.

Self-interest in its various interpretations, as a qualifying sign of crimes, is present in an extensive part of the articles of the Criminal Code. Some of them establish responsibility for crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity.

"Self-interest is understood as the desire to obtain for oneself or other persons a benefit of a property nature that is not related to the illegal gratuitous circulation of property in one's favor or in favor of other persons (for example, illegal receipt of benefits, credit, exemption from any property costs, repayment of debt, payment for services, etc.)" (Inogamova-Hegai L. V., Kibalnik A.G., Klenova T.V., Korobeev A.I., Lopashenko N.A. Actual problems of criminal law. The part is special; M.: Prospekt (Moscow). 2021. p. 180.).

A similar definition is given by A. V. Brilliantov: "Self–interest is the extraction of property benefits or getting rid of material costs for oneself and one's loved ones" (Commentary to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: in 2 vols. Ed. Brilliantova A.V. M.: "Prospect", 2015. Volume 1.).

For the first time in Russian legislation, the terms "base and selfish motives" appeared in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1922. Thus, in paragraph "d" of Article 25, "base and selfish motives" appear as an aggravating circumstance in determining the public danger of the committed act and is used in differentiating punishment by the court. Also, the above-mentioned Code establishes responsibility for the commission of illegal acts, guided by selfish motives, which indirectly relate to crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity.

For example, Article 190 defines liability for "falsification, i.e. deceptive alteration for selfish purposes of the type or property of items intended for sale or public use, as well as the sale of such items."

In terms of crimes related to patent and copyright infringement, the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922 also establishes a mandatory mercenary qualifying feature. Thus, in Article 198, "unauthorized use for selfish purposes of someone else's invention or privilege registered in accordance with the established procedure" is punishable by forced labor for up to one year or a triple fine against the benefits derived from unauthorized use.

Article 199 also implies liability for patent infringement, namely: "Unauthorized use for the purpose of unfair competition of someone else's trademark, factory or craft sign, drawing, model, as well as someone else's company or someone else's name", but no longer indicates self-interest as a mandatory qualifying factor, although under "unfair competition" The extraction of excess profits is seen, as a general rule, carried out for selfish purposes.

Greed as an aggravating circumstance was also transferred to the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1926. In it, it is also present as a public danger factor in determining the measure of "social protection".

The Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960 perceived greed as an aggravating factor and as a separate qualifying feature of many crimes. With the exception of crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity, where the legislator did not mention either selfish or base motives in criminal law norms, probably believing that greed is inseparably linked with entrepreneurial activity and serves as the main motivating factor for systematic, at his own risk, profit-making by selling goods, performing works or providing services.

The next regulatory legal act that establishes criminal liability in our country was the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation became the legal successor of the Soviet Criminal Codes, including the concepts of "selfish interest", "selfish motives" and "selfish purpose". The essence of these concepts can be summarized as "the internal motivation of a person aimed at extracting property benefits for himself or loved ones through the commission of a crime."

Criminal law characteristics of self-interest as a sign of crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity under the legislation of the Russian Federation.

A selfish motive can act as a factor prompting the commission of most crimes, but unlike the Criminal Codes in force earlier, today the "selfish motive" no longer finds a place in the exhaustive list of aggravating circumstances. Despite this, it is still present in the Criminal Code both in the form of a mandatory qualifying feature of some crimes, and in the form of a sign of a qualified or specially qualified composition of other crimes.

Regarding crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity, the selfish motive is reflected in the following criminal law norms:

1. In the form of a mandatory qualifying feature:

Article 170 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

Article 200.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

2. In the form of a sign of qualified personnel:

Paragraph 3 of Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

Paragraph 3 of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

Within the meaning of Article 170 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, criminal liability is established for registration of illegal transactions with real estate, intentional distortion of the state cadastre of real estate and (or) the Unified State Register of Real Estate and transactions with it, as well as understatement of the cadastral value of real estate objects, if these acts are committed out of selfish or other personal interest by an official using his official position. The person who committed this illegal act is not a business entity. But since this crime can be directed against legally carried out business activities, it was placed by the legislator in the appropriate chapter of the Criminal Code.

In this case, self-interest was chosen by the legislator as a mandatory qualifying sign of a criminal act, probably based on the fact that the most dangerous illegal actions provided for in this article become precisely when a special subject has a selfish motivation. Otherwise, the legislator does not see the need to establish criminal liability for such actions. Thus, for violation of legislation in the field of state cadastral registration, real estate and cadastral activities, officials bear only administrative responsibility in accordance with Article 14.35 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

The presence of a special subject of the composition of the crime in question indicates the application of this article in conjunction with other articles of the Criminal Code, namely "Abuse of official authority" 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and "Official forgery" 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A. A. Turyshev writes: "the idea of "disinterested bribery" contradicts the very essence of bribery, where the main thing is the seizure of material assets by the guilty values. These situations of official involvement should be considered in the presence of signs such as abuse or abuse of official authority" ^{[4, p. 21]}. Based on this, there is a clear corruption orientation in the crime under consideration.

Also, based on the analysis of related articles of the criminal law, it becomes obvious that there is a low public danger in the eyes of the legislator of registering illegal real estate transactions committed out of self-interest or other personal interest. For example, the most severe sanction defined by Article 170 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is compulsory work for up to three hundred and sixty hours with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years. Whereas the sanction of the main part of Article 170.1 "Falsification of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, the register of owners of the Central Bank or the depository accounting system" provides for the imposition of punishment in the form of imprisonment for up to two years with a fine.

The fundamental differences in the severity of crimes provided for in Articles 170 of the Criminal Code and 170.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation leave some questions regarding motivation in these actions. It can be assumed that the reduction of liability occurred in order to expand the range of persons subject to criminal liability under Article 170 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but in this case it would also be necessary to exclude selfish/personal interest from the disposition of the criminal law norm as a mandatory sign of the corpus delicti. Because it follows from judicial practice that in 2022-2023, according to Article 170 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, not a single criminal was involved. From this, it can be concluded either about the high effectiveness of this criminal law strategy, or the opposite, that is, due to the classification of the crime under investigation into the category of crimes of minor gravity, the law enforcement officer does not seek to carry out operational investigative measures to uncover and bring to justice the perpetrators because of the low public danger of the act committed by them.

Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes liability for unauthorized manufacture, sale or use of an assay stamp committed out of selfish or other personal interest. The provision of this article also includes selfish motivation as a mandatory qualifying feature, at the same time implying a common subject of the crime. It is worth noting that the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 23 of 11/18/2004 "On judicial practice in cases of illegal entrepreneurship" contains an explanation of how to qualify the act committed under this article, namely: "If illegal entrepreneurial activity involves unauthorized manufacture, sale or use, as well as forgery of the state assay stamp, the actions of a person should be qualified according to the totality of crimes: under Article 171 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Illegal entrepreneurship), as well as under Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as committed out of selfish or other personal interest."

It follows from this that if the crime covered by this article was committed in the course of entrepreneurial activity, then the selfish motive does not require separate proof, if the specific episode of manufacture, sale, use and forgery of state assay stamps does not have a clear connection with the conduct of entrepreneurial activity, then the existence of mercenary intent will need to be proved separately to qualify the committed act under Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the hypothesis that entrepreneurial activity by its nature is inextricably linked with the selfish beginnings of its participants.

According to K. V. Vishnevetsky: "self-interest becomes the main motive of human actions, since excessive material values ensure the economic independence of a person" ^{[5, p. 90]}. This circumstance only confirms the general conclusion about the ineradicability of this motivating factor from the human essence.

"Collecting information constituting a commercial, tax or banking secret by stealing documents, deception, blackmail, coercion, bribery or threats, as well as by other illegal means" is the content of the disposition of Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The main compositions of this article do not include a qualifying feature in the form of a "selfish motive". But selfish motivation is defined as an optional feature of the qualified corpus delicti covered by the article in question, along with the commission of a crime by a group of persons by prior agreement or an organized group, or with the infliction of major damage. In the context of this article, self-interest is also understood as collecting information on a professional basis, for example, commercial espionage.

Based on the public danger of the act provided for in Part 3 of Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the legislator classified it as a crime of moderate gravity. But despite this, Part 1 of Article 108 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for a restriction in the form of detention in relation to the subject of the crime. It is applied only if the suspect does not have a place of residence or place of stay in the Russian Federation, or he violated a previously chosen preventive measure, or if he previously hid from the preliminary investigation or court authorities. The provision of this criminal law norm is also indicated by the Plenum of the Supreme Court in paragraph 10 of Resolution No. 48 of 11/15/2016 "On the practice of applying legislation by courts regulating the specifics of criminal liability for crimes in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities", as the basis for resolving in pre-trial proceedings petitions of preliminary investigation bodies and complaints against actions (inaction) and the decisions of these bodies.

Regarding Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is worth noting that the disposition of Part 2 was defined by the legislator as "Illegal disclosure or use of information constituting a commercial, tax or banking secret without the consent of their owner by a person to whom it was entrusted or became known through service or work." The legislator singled out the qualified staff with one of the signs in the form of "selfish interest" in part 3 of the specified article. This circumstance, in the author's opinion, raises doubts about the appropriateness of applying such a qualifying feature in relation to the article in question. Since, if the disclosure of commercial, tax or banking secrets is presented out of personal or other interest, then the use of the same information without self-interest, namely in personal interests without the purpose of enriching oneself, seems rather unlikely. A similar position is expressed by C. D. Petrochenkov: "collecting relevant information out of self-interest in the absence of other qualifying circumstances requires qualification not according to Part 3, but according to Part 1 of Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation" ^{[6, p. 78]}.

So, for example, from the materials of judicial practice contained in verdict No. 1-160/2015 of September 29, 2015 in case No. 1-160/2015 of the Uraisk City Court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug, it follows that crimes initially qualified by the legislator and law enforcement officer as crimes of a mercenary orientation accompany together the act provided for in Part 2 of Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which does not provide for the presence of self-interest in its composition. So, in case No. 1-160/2015, R.I. Yapparova, being an employee of Sberbank of Russia, in order to extract benefits and advantages for himself in the form of receiving bonuses for fulfilling the standard (business plan), the absence of grounds for depriving these bonuses and bringing to disciplinary responsibility, maintaining his good reputation in front of higher management, organized in the managed division the formal implementation of the standard (business plan) for issuing credit cards on DD.MM.YYYY, by issuing, in violation of the established procedure, bank credit cards in the names of individuals, without personal participation and consent of the latter, after which he intentionally transferred, also without the consent of customers, to an outsider issued credit cards and documents containing information about customers, their bank accounts, terms of service, PIN codes, knowing that their deliberate actions can cause significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of Sberbank of Russia and individuals. Finding no mercenary intent in the crime, the court proceeds from the fact that, as a result of the disclosure of information, the criminal did not make a profit, which means that the act in question should be qualified under part 2 of Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

At the same time, from the Verdict No. 1-371/2020 of July 10, 2020 in the case No. 1-371/2020 of the Bratsk City Court of the Irkutsk region, it follows that Bandenok A.E. committed theft, that is, secret theft of someone else's property, from a bank account, in addition, committed theft, that is, secret theft of someone else's property, with significant damage to a citizen, from a bank account, and in addition committed illegal use of information constituting a bank secret, without the consent of their owner by a person to whom she was entrusted and became known through work, out of self-interest. In this case, the court qualified the illegal use of information constituting a banking secret under Part 3 of Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Although, as in the previously considered crime, the illegal use of information constituting a banking secret was carried out in order to benefit from the collectively committed criminal act.

Thus, having considered judicial practice, we come to the conclusion that it is difficult for a law enforcement officer to qualify crimes committed in an ideal aggregate. This problem is rooted in the general illogicality of the legislator in his decision to single out "selfish interest" in the qualified composition of the article in question (Part 3 of Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), whereas the commission of an act provided for by the main composition (part 2 of Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) is not seen without the criminal's mercenary intent.

Article 200.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Abuses in the field of procurement of goods, works, services for state or municipal needs", in many respects, in its composition, is similar to the previously considered Article 170 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It also provides for a special subject, namely, that a crime can be committed by 5 categories of persons: an employee of the contract service, a contract manager, a member of the procurement commission, a person who accepts delivered goods, completed works or services rendered, or another authorized person representing the interests of the customer in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state or municipal needs. It is important to note that all of these persons do not belong to officials or to persons performing managerial functions, since in this case the article conflicts with Articles 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Also, the article in question provides for "vested interest" as a mandatory feature of the main composition.

The related corpus delicti provided for in Article 200.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for liability for bribery of a contract service employee, a contract manager, a member of the procurement commission, is devoid of such a feature as "vested interest", probably assuming that the described act is committed only out of self-interest. Whereas abuses in the field of procurement, according to the legislator, can be committed without the desire to extract material benefits. This example, in the author's opinion, also demonstrates the validity of the general concept of this article on the disputability of "vested interest" in the framework of articles of the Criminal Code establishing responsibility for crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity.

The main difference between the act constituting the plot of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation from other crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity, involving a "selfish motive" as a qualifying feature, is that in Part 3 it establishes responsibility for committing a crime against the exercise of legitimate entrepreneurial activity through exerting pressure on an entrepreneur. It follows from the disposition of the article in question that the sanction is established for bringing to criminal responsibility an obviously innocent person. The qualified composition of the crime provided for in this article is recognized as "The illegal initiation of a criminal case if this act was committed in order to impede entrepreneurial activity or out of selfish or other personal interest and resulted in the termination of entrepreneurial activity or causing major damage." Thus, according to Part 3 of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a deliberately illegal action of the preliminary investigation body is qualified, which may be directed against entrepreneurial activity and/or be committed out of self-interest. The composition of the crime in question is material, that is, socially dangerous consequences must occur, namely, the termination of entrepreneurial activity as a result of pressure exerted, or damage in the amount of more than 1.5 million rubles.

In the context of the issue under discussion, the position of G. R. Smolitsky is interesting: "when the law speaks of personal interest, one must bear in mind not only property or other personal benefits, or narrowly personal interests, but also cases when an official introduces alien elements into the work of the state apparatus, contrasting the interests of his institution or enterprise with national interests in as a whole" ^{[7, p.69]}.

The legislator classified the crime in question as serious, since the responsibility established by this article implies imprisonment for a term of five to ten years. Based on this, raising the level of damage required to qualify an act under this article to 1.5 million rubles looks quite proportionate. With the general logic of the legislator's decisions, it seems more correct to reduce liability under the article in question, along with reducing the amount of damage necessary to form the corpus delicti and bring the perpetrator to justice. For example, the average income of an individual entrepreneur in Russia is 75-100 thousand rubles per month, according to a sociological study by Beeline Business ^[8].

Based on this, there is a need to cover a wider range of encroachments, at the expense of the mass of the most vulnerable individual entrepreneurs. Indeed, in the case of unlawful initiation of a criminal case against an individual entrepreneur, which did not result in the termination of his entrepreneurial activity or did not cause damage in the amount of more than 1.5 million rubles, the corpus delicti under Part 3 of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will not be formed. This point of view is confirmed by the statistics of judicial practice under Part 3 of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, in 2023, not a single person was brought to justice for the specified composition. The same situation is observed in 2022, 2021, 2020.

Regarding the use of self-interest as an optional feature of the subjective side, this decision of the legislator looks the least controversial relative to other examples given in our study. Considering the disposition of the specified article of the Criminal Code, there is a reasonable doubt about the correctness of the legislator's definition of the purpose and motive of the crime. As a general rule and logic of things, the motive and the purpose of the crime should be linked. The purpose is to represent the subject about the criminal result that he seeks to achieve. The motive is the motivation of the subject, arising from the need to satisfy his needs. Thus, the purpose of a person committing an act provided for in Part 3 of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is to terminate an entrepreneur's professional activity, while the motive will be selfish or other personal interest. The result of the above assumption is the decision of the legislator to contrast the criminal's motive with his goal and the proposal to the law enforcement officer to choose what guided the subject in committing the crime. The described representation of the legislator contradicts the theory of criminal law, and that, in the author's opinion, leads to the need to correct the disposition of this criminal law norm.

"It is extremely problematic to prove the mandatory signs of the subjective side of the crime provided for in Part 3 of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (a special purpose to hinder the victim's entrepreneurial activity or a motive of selfish or other personal interest). Experts point out, not without reason, that "the construction of <...> the corpus delicti, which requires the mandatory establishment of the purpose of obstructing entrepreneurial activity or the presence of selfish or other personal interest, turns this composition into a so–called "dead" norm" ^{[9, P. 30]} - this is the position of A. A. Simonenko with regard to the application of this norm.

In the eyes of the legislator, "Selfish interest" is a sign that forms an increased public danger of an illegal act, but at the same time, the legislator did not include it in an exhaustive list of aggravating circumstances, probably believing that some of the crimes are committed with mercenary intent by default, and the other part of the acts acquires sufficient public danger to impose criminal punishment, only if there is such a sign.

At first glance, the solution to the problem raised seems to be the opening of a list of aggravating circumstances and attributing the right to use such an aggravating circumstance as "selfish motives" to the discretion of the courts. But this solution is criticized by M. G. Zhilkin: "It seems that the expansion of judicial discretion as a whole, and even more so in relation to the consideration of cases of entrepreneurial crimes, is not only impractical, but also unacceptable. The Russian criminal law doctrine has developed scientifically based approaches to the description of qualifying and especially qualifying features in the text of the criminal law. Indeed, the current state of Chapter 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in terms of the construction of qualified and highly qualified elements of crime can be characterized as inconsistent and unsystematic. But the admission of open lists of qualifying and especially qualifying features in Russian legislation would only lead to its further chaoticization. The legislator should be tasked with differentiating criminal liability for crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity by fixing in the relevant articles of the criminal law a single template of signs reflecting significant differences in the degree of public danger of the act" ^{[10, p. 83]}.

The lack of a systematic approach to the formation of dispositions of articles of the Criminal Code that establish responsibility for crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity leads to problems in the qualification of some criminal acts. Thus, A.V. Shesler notes that: "the current criminal legislation terminologically uses self-interest in two meanings, namely: as a motive for a crime (motives) and as a goal of a crime (for example, in note 1 to Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation we are talking about a selfish goal). However, the definition of these terms is not given in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, therefore, both in the science of criminal law and in the practice of applying criminal law, its understanding is not unambiguous. There is no unambiguous understanding of these terms in the explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the purpose of which is to stabilize judicial practice, to assist courts in the uniform interpretation and application of legal norms. As a result of the lack of a unified approach in defining the concepts of "selfish motive" and "selfish purpose" does not contribute to the quality of judicial decisions on crimes of a selfish orientation and requires the development of a unified terminological approach" ^{[11, p. 34]}.

Conclusion

Criminal law considers "Selfish interest" as a sign of the subjective side, which, being a mandatory sign of the main or qualified corpus delicti, forms the corpus delicti of increased public danger. In cases where "vested interest" is not a mandatory feature of the corpus delicti, the legislator puts it on the same level as the commission of a crime by a group of persons by prior agreement or an organized group.  The exclusion of self-interest from the list of aggravating circumstances seems to be an adequate response to the changing socio-economic formation, but at the same time the presence of such a sign in criminal law norms establishing responsibility for crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity contradicts the very nature of entrepreneurial activity.

The issue of determining the amount of the sanction imposed for the commission of the list of crimes under consideration also remains unclear. Thus, the presence of mercenary intent in the commission of certain crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity becomes the basis for the formation of a qualified staff. And in other crimes, the presence of mercenary intent, on the contrary, entails a sharp decrease in criminal liability relative to related compounds.

The above confirms the author's conclusion about the lack of a systematic approach when introducing criminal law norms by the legislator. This circumstance becomes both the cause of problems related to the correct qualification of crimes in the field of entrepreneurial activity, and the reason for the existence of articles, the application of which in practice is difficult. The material collected in the article leads to the logical conclusion that it is necessary to question the justification of the existence of such a rudimentary qualifying feature as "vested interest" within the relevant articles of the Criminal Code currently in force in Russia.