ВКР Чупеева (1232918), страница 20

Просмтор этого файла доступен только зарегистрированным пользователям. Но у нас супер быстрая регистрация: достаточно только электронной почты!

Текст из файла (страница 20)

Изучив материалы уголовного дела, суд пришел к выводу, что обвинение по ст. 159 ч.1 УК РФ с которым согласился подсудимый Иванов С.А. обоснованно, подтверждается собранными доказательствами, а потому может быть постановлен обвинительный приговор без проведения судебного разбирательства.

Действия Иванова С.А. квалифицируются ст. 159 ч.1 УК РФ - мошенничество, то есть хищение чужого имущества путем обмана.

При назначении наказания, в соответствии со ст. 60 УК РФ, суд учитывает характер и степень общественной опасности содеянного подсудимым, а также влияние назначенного наказания на его исправление.

В качестве обстоятельств, смягчающих ответственность Иванова С.А., судом учитывается, что он ранее не судим, свою вину признал в полном объеме, в содеянном раскаялся, на учетах у психиатра и нарколога не состоит, имеет на иждивении малолетнего ребенка, 2004 года рождения, удовлетворительно характеризуется по месту жительства, дал явку с повинной, кроме этого, суд учитывает, что тяжких последствий по делу не наступило. Отягчающих ответственность Иванова С.А. обстоятельств судом не установлено.

Учитывая изложенное, суд считает, что исправление подсудимого возможно с назначением наказания в виде исправительных работ, препятствий для назначения указанного вида наказания в отношении Иванова С.А. не имеется. Оснований для назначения иного вида наказания суд не усматривает.

При этом совокупность смягчающих обстоятельств дает суду основание для применения ст. 73 УК РФ и назначить Иванову С.А. испытательный срок, в течение которого он, выполняя возложенные на него судом обязанности, должен доказать свое исправление.

Поскольку уголовное дело рассмотрено в особом порядке, на основании ст. 316 ч. 10 УПК РФ, процессуальные издержки по вознаграждению адвоката Сторожевых Е.В., осуществляющего защиту Иванова С.А. в ходе дознания, взысканию с подсудимого не подлежат.

На основании изложенного, руководствуясь ст.ст. 296 299, 302 - 304, 307 - 309, 316, 317 УПК РФ, суд

Окончание ПРИЛОЖЕНИЯ 2

ПРИГОВОРИЛ:

ИВАНОВА СТАНИСЛАВА АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧА признать виновным в совершении преступления, предусмотренного ст. 159 ч. 1 УК РФ, и на основании санкции данного закона назначить наказание в виде исправительных работ сроком в 3 месяца с удержанием 10 % в доход государства.

В соответствии со ст. 73 УК РФ назначенное Иванову С.А. наказание считать условным, с испытательным сроком 6 месяцев.

Мера пресечения не избиралась.

Вещественные доказательства по уголовному делу - диск CD-R 52Х «SmartTrack» с видеозаписью видеонаблюдения от 13 сентября 2013 года, и документ «ТехноСити», содержащий информацию о похищенных планшетах формата А-4 - хранить при уголовном деле.

Приговоры и.о. мирового судьи 1-го судебного участка Советского судебного района г. Новосибирска - мирового судьи 6-го судебного участка Советского судебного района г. Новосибирска от 11 июня 2014 года и мирового судьи 5-го судебного участка Заельцовского судебного района г. Новосибирска от 23 июня 2014 года в отношении Иванова С.А. исполнять самостоятельно.

Приговор может быть обжалован в Железнодорожный районный суд г. Новосибирска в течение десяти суток по основаниям, указанным в ст. 389.15 ч. 2-4 УПК РФ, со дня его провозглашения. Осуждённый в случае подачи апелляционной жалобы вправе ходатайствовать об участии в рассмотрении уголовного дела судом апелляционной инстанции.

Мировой судья Рахманова М.М.

ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ 3

Introduction

Nowadays one can hardly imagine any kind of legal relations in the society that can be regulated without any paper and other records. Every day people deal with the handling of sales receipts at stores and petrol stations, as well as travel tickets in public transport. They use different kinds of banking services and put their signature on the documents. Due to the global technical development of the society the document circulation has become an integral part of our life. Therefore, it can result in the direct threat of the illegal usage of documents by their counterfeiting and forgery and, therefore, an urgent need for their protection from illegal impact arose.

Criminal investigation technique unites any changes of the original document that are made illegally, and these changes are called a “forgery”. First of all, the concept of a “forgery” refers to the criminalistics category where it takes a special place. According to the chapter “Criminal Investigation Technique”, a forgery is a key element in such spheres as a document study, graphology, and authorship examination.

Modern criminal legislation norms on a forgery present a problem of its practical application. Each crime with an element of a forgery has its own features. It is important to notice that definitions are enacted in various legislation acts. For example, the Federal Law “Concerning Obligatory Copy of Document” FL No. 77 of 29.12.1994, The Federal Law “Concerning Information, Informational Technologies and Protection of Information” FL No. 149 of 27.07.2006, “Concerning Digital Signature” FL No. 63 of 06.04.2011, the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation “Concerning Judicial Practice on Cases of Bribery and Other Corrupt Crimes” No. 24 of 09.07.2013 give quite different descriptions without any regular and general definition. It is necessary to note that the latter legislation act explains only the official document that is used while committing a crime by executive officers called “Official (Service) Forgery”, Article 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation [6].

Продолжение ПРИЛОЖЕНИЯ 3

A forgery covers the crimes the essence of which is the falsification and / or changing of permanent storage of information. According to the definitions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a forgery is defined as a separate crime, and this statement is reflected in the Article 292 “Official (service) Forgery”.

At first sight, according to the Article 292 “Official (service) Forgery”, a person who commits it is always authorized. However, a forgery is not only a singular crime, but also a manifold legal concept. This research paper is intended to observe and analyze the essence and appropriation of a forgery in the mechanism of committing crimes.

In general, a forgery is a common concept related to different kinds and methods of faking documents and other permanent forms. In particular, a forgery is always an element of the objective subject of the crime that contains a subject and the way of its committing (e.g. Articles No. 159, 160, 171, 174, 174.1, 176, 198, 199, 199.2, 285, 285.1-2, 287 of the Criminal Code). Additionally, a forgery can also be a separate crime as the aggregate of crimes (e.g. Articles No.142, 142.1, 170, 170.1 173.1-2, 185, 185.5-6, 186, 187, 193.1, 195, 217.2, 233, 238, 285.3, 287, 292, 292.1, 303, 305, 307, 322.2-3, 327, 327.1 of the Criminal Code).

The majority of forgeries as separate crimes and crimes with the signs of a forgery cause the problem for criminal legal analysis of committed crimes, correct choice of criminalistic tactics, and methodology of forgery crimes investigations.

The crimes that are committed while using a forged document have the characteristics of a high degree of a social danger, because a criminal distorts valid information, encroaches on the order of documental juridical facts’ averments using forged documents, blanks, seals and stamps impressions. It is necessary to mention that a production of a forgery is often a preparatory part for committing economical or corruption crimes [43].

All unlawful actions that are committed with documents refer to the crimes against economical freedom and state power, that are mentioned in the chapters No. 8

Продолжение ПРИЛОЖЕНИЯ 3

and 10 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In general, production and using of forgery documents relate to economical crimes, because these crimes result in illegal financial benefit. In the narrow sense, according to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, forgery crimes are ones that are regulated by Chapter No. 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Crimes in the sphere of economics”. This statement can be explained by the following ways: economical features of unlawful actions form the basis of legal and shadow economy, arms, drag and pornographic materials, and medical supplies trafficing. In spite of absence of these bodies of crimes in Chapter No. 22, the main purpose of their committing is always the maximization of profit.

According to the statistics, as of December 2014, across Russia there were registered 107,795 economical crimes per 100 thousands of people, including 896 crimes across the Khabarovsk krai with comparison of index from January to December of the previous year, 2013, there were registered 141,229 crimes and 937 in Khabarovsk krai. This information is represented by the legal statistics of General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation [50]. However, in spite of that Moscow remains the center of the commitment of crimes; it is worth mentioning the following facts:

1. constant growth of crimes that causes the deformation of economical structure and has negative effects on the system of international economical relations of the Russian Federation;

2. a lack of real protection for legal economical relations and a gap in legislation from consumer’s economical practice;

3. the law-enforcement authorities lose subsequently confidence of Russian citizens;

4. gaps in the law-enforcement authorities and a gap in organizational and managerial measures to criminogenic economical situation (lack of material and technical equipment, literate officers, a system of rapid reaction, “bureaucracy” that prevents to take tactical and punctual decisions on definite investigation stage);

Продолжение ПРИЛОЖЕНИЯ 3

1. confidence in impunity that causes new crimes by matured criminal who had committed it before and by new people who do it for the first time.

In general, the above mentioned factors have a progressive and negative effect on the stability of the Russian society in all spheres of life. In the conditions of the market economy the problem of forged document circulation gains special criminogenic sharpness and political-and-economical essence.

The research paper relevance consists in the observation of the crime’s qualification that contains the forgery as a corpus delicti and development of investigation’s strategy for crimes with the forgery element. Obviously, such crimes are committed without violence, weapon attack, and physical abuse for achieving the selected purpose. It always starts with the wish to save your own money (e.g. tax avoidance) and ends with criminal schemes (e.g. election campaign, marketing of falsified medical recipes, emission of forged sick lists, testimony falsification on investigation stage). The consequence from these crimes have a financial harm for the private independence of people, private companies, the society, and even the state.

The regulatory basis consists of codified federal laws (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), federal laws (The Federal Law “Concerning Obligatory Copy of Document” FL No. 77 of 29.12.1994, The Federal Law “Concerning Information, Informational technologies and Protection of information ” FL No. 149 of 27.07.2006), “Concerning Digital Signature” FL No. 63 of 06.04.2011, and other by-laws (the Decrees of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation: “Concerning Judicial Practice on Cases of Bribery and Other Corrupt Crimes” No. 24 of 09.07.2013, “Concernong Judicial Practice on Illegal Entrepreneurship and Money Laundering” No. 23 of 18.11.2004, “Concerening Judicial Practice of Case of Abuse of Authority and Its Exceeding” No. 19 of 16.10.2009, The order of the Department of Justice “Concerning Approval of Procedure for Actions when Revealing Particular Elements of Service Forgery and

Продолжение ПРИЛОЖЕНИЯ 3

Initiation of Criminal Proceeding by Article 292 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation” No. 120 of 18.04.2013).

The theory on a forgery was examined by the following researchers: U.V. Shchigolev, I.G. Grichanina, Ya.Ya. Shvedova, E.Ya. Shayahmetova, E.G. Kovalenko, L.G. Chashchina, M.M. Alieva, D.K. Krems, V.V. Omelyanovich, D.A. Mozgovaya.

The definition and matter of criminalist category of a “forgery” was developed in the manuals “Criminalistics” by the following scientists: R.S. Belkin, E.V. Burtseva, I.P. Rak, N.G. Shuruhnov, E.P., E.P. Ishchenko, M.V. Savelyeva, A.B. Smushkin.

Характеристики

Список файлов ВКР