Extortion and how to prevent it. Where to turn in case of extortion: how to prove? Methods of dealing with extortion

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

INTRODUCTION

The economic transformations that began in the country in the early 1990s, which gave rise to new forms of ownership, among which priority is given to private property, and the changes in the social sphere caused by these circumstances, made significant adjustments to the structure of crime, which resulted in a sharp increase in acquisitive crimes and crimes against personal property. The new economic conditions have become fertile ground for such a form of criminal enrichment as extortion.

The relevance of this work is manifested in the fact that extortion is a crime characterized by increased danger. This is due primarily to the fact that it encroaches on two objects: on the individual (her life and health) and on the relationship of property. Thus, this crime encroaches on the fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen, enshrined and guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

According to the statistics of the General Prosecutor's Office, for 10 months of 2014, 642 extortions were registered in the country, in 2013 - 875, in 2012 - 715, in 2011 - 644. If since 2011 there has been an increase in the growth of this type of crime , then the current year (though only for the last 10 months) shows its decrease compared to the same period. So, in 2013, 767 extortions were registered in 10 months. The outlined decrease in the registered number of extortions does not mean a decrease in the social danger of this crime.

The problem of combating crime is one of the most important in modern society. A characteristic trend of recent years is the growth and increase in the public danger of crime in the economic sphere. This is especially acute in property relations, which are increasingly becoming the object of criminal encroachments.

Under the current political and economic conditions, mercenary crime deserves special attention, among which the proportion of such mercenary and violent crime as extortion is significant. Being a crime of a property nature, extortion combines self-interest and violence, which predetermines its increased social danger. Encroaching on property relations not only of citizens, but also of economic entities, extortion threatens the economic interests of the state, since the inviolability of the institution of property is the foundation of any successful state.

On the other hand, a significant number of extortions are committed by a group of persons (including organized groups of persons), which also indicates an increased degree of public danger of this crime. In addition, the subject of extortion is often significant amounts of money (including currency values), valuable and highly significant items, expensive cars, recently even apartments; methods of perpetration are becoming tougher: instead of intimidation, violence is often actually used, torture, torture, and the taking of relatives and friends of the victim as hostages are widespread. Thus, the range of forms of influence dangerous to life and health in order to seize the values belonging to the victim is expanding, and the intensity of the impact is increasing.

Due to the fact that organized criminal groups have a frightening effect on the victim and witnesses, the level of latency of crimes of this type is quite high. In those cases when the victim still declares a criminal offense, the pressure exerted by extortionists on them and witnesses in criminal cases often leads to changes by the latter in their testimony and the “collapse” of criminal cases in court due to the fragile evidence base, because . the testimony of the victim and witnesses in the investigation of cases of extortion play, perhaps, the main and decisive role.

The purpose of the proposed work is to summarize the conclusions on the problem of extortion, which have been confirmed in judicial practice, as well as to consider certain provisions of these crimes in domestic legislation and analyze them.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

Consider the concept of crimes against property and extortion;

To analyze the legal composition of extortion and identify their role in the criminal law system;

To study the problem of criminal liability for extortion

The object of the research is public relations in the field of protection of property relations.

The subject of the study is the composition of extortion and related elements of crimes, the practical activities of the judicial and investigative bodies in the application of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, scientific papers on the problem under study.

Methodological and theoretical foundations of the study. The methodological basis was formed by general scientific methods (dialectical method, historical-analytical, system-structural) and particular scientific methods of cognition (comparative law, sociological and statistical). The theoretical basis of the study was the scientific works of domestic authors in the field of philosophy, theory of law, criminal law and criminology, as well as other branches of law.

The work uses the works and monographs of such authors as: I.I. Rogov, Rakhmetova, I.Sh. Borchashvili, A.N. Agybaeva, G.F. Polenova, M.Ch. Kogamov and many others.

The regulatory framework was made up of the norms of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the norms of the current criminal, civil, administrative, criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as the norms of the criminal legislation of a number of foreign states in terms of regulating criminal liability for extortion.

1. THE CONCEPT OF CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

1.1 Development of criminal legislation providing for liability for crimes against property

During the period of the Soviet criminal legislation in 1926, the Soviet authorities adopted inhumane, one might say, draconian laws in the area of responsibility for crimes against property, which served as a “legal basis” for carrying out bloody repressions against their own people, which resulted in numerous casualties and crippled the fate of millions of people . Thus, the Law of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of August 7, 1932 "On the protection of property of state enterprises, collective farms and the strengthening of public (socialist) property" considered persons who encroached on public property as enemies of the people, and allowed the use of the death penalty for theft. Along with this law, the corresponding articles of the Criminal Code were in force, punishing for various types of less serious cases of theft. The law of August 7, 1932 was in force until the adoption on June 4, 1947 by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of decrees "On criminal liability for theft of state and public property" and "On strengthening the protection of personal property of citizens." These decrees differed little in their cruelty from the law of August 7, 1932, since in certain cases they provided for punishment for theft for a term of 10 to 25 years in prison.

On June 4, 1947, the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR "On criminal liability for theft of state and public property" was adopted. It became the only act providing for liability for theft (the relevant articles of the Criminal Code of 1926 were not applied). The decree did not give an exhaustive list of forms of theft. However, in practice, the allocation of forms (including fraud) occurred in accordance with the articles of the Criminal Code (although they were not referred to during qualification). The period of its validity ended only in 1958 with the adoption of the Fundamentals of the Criminal Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics of December 25 and the Criminal Code of the Kazakh SSR of July 22, 1959, which entered into force on January 1, 1960.

Analysis and generalization of previous criminal legislation showed that crimes against property were previously called property crimes. So they were called in the headings of the corresponding chapters of the Criminal Codes of 1922 and 1926. Both concepts are identical, since most crimes against property have property as their subject. Property in crimes against property does not mean any objects and objects of the outside world, but such objects, things, tools, etc., which are created by human labor, capable of satisfying his needs, having a value.

In the system of social values, the right to property is regarded as the most important of the social benefits of the individual.

In accordance with the changes that have taken place in the political, economic, social spheres of public life in Kazakhstan, the legislative framework of the state has been thoroughly changed, brought into line with the requirements of objective reality. This was specifically expressed in the criminal legislation in the adoption on July 16, 1997 of the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and its entry into force on January 1, 1998. It is based on the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the social values enshrined in it that exist in democratic rule of law states. It contains a number of fundamental provisions that distinguish it from the old one and is focused primarily on protecting the individual, then society and the state. In general, the code corresponds to the criminal situation that has developed in Kazakhstan, new chapters and articles have been introduced into its structure, designed to ensure the activities of law enforcement agencies in combating new forms and types of crime, in particular, organized, in the economic sphere, etc.

1.2 The concept of crimes against property

In the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, in chapter 6 “Crimes against property”, the legal technique has been legislatively improved (for example, the term “kidnapping” has been replaced by “theft”), and at the same time, the compositions of this chapter have been unified. So, it is necessary to point out several of the most significant points that distinguish the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan from the previous one: the general concept of theft is legally enshrined in a note to Art. 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan; decriminalized such crimes as appropriation of someone else's property found or accidentally found in the possession of the guilty person; petty theft; new offenses have been introduced, brought into line with international legal norms, such as: theft of objects of special value (Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), violation of property rights to land (Article 186 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). Part 2 Art. 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “Robbery” was supplemented with paragraph “e” as follows: “with causing grievous bodily harm”, and paragraph “b” of Part 3 of Art. 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, after the words “serious bodily harm”, was supplemented with the words “negligently causing the death of the victim”. Certain signs of the main elements of extortion have been clarified (Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Amendments and Additions to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Issues of Intellectual Property Rights” dated November 22, 2005 changed the title of Art. 184 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. From now on, this crime is called: "Violation of copyright and related rights." In addition, a new article has been introduced into the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan - 184-1 “Violation of rights to inventions, utility models, industrial designs, selection achievements or topologies of integrated circuits”, as well as a note to Art. 184-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The content and list of qualifying signs of many offenses have been changed; the severity of most sanctions in crimes against property has been significantly mitigated overall.

In the science of criminal law, it was recognized that the disclosure of the concept of embezzlement and the characteristics of its main elements make it possible to identify and isolate the features inherent in all forms of theft, facilitate the analysis of specific forms of theft, and can distinguish them from other crimes against property, as well as from actions that are not punishable. in a criminal manner. Various interpretations in different years were given to this concept by the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the USSR. In the Decree “On Judicial Practice on the Application of the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of June 4, 1947 “On Criminal Liability for theft of State and Public Property”” of May 28, 1954, the concept of embezzlement is defined as “deliberate illegal conversion of state or public property, regardless of the forms and methods of its commission”, and in the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR “On judicial practice in cases of theft of state and public property” dated July 11, 1972, it is indicated that theft should be understood as illegal gratuitous treatment of mercenary with the aim of state or public property into their own property or the property of other persons.

Taking into account these interpretations and referring to the definitions given to the concept under consideration by legal scholars A.I. Santalov, E.S. Tenchov, P.S. Matyshevsky, I.S. Tishkevich, G.A. Krieger, I.Sh. Borchashvili. and K.Sh. Ukanov, . It is possible to single out a number of signs in relation to which different authors have expressed a unanimous opinion. Among these signs they called:

illegality of the seizure;

its gratuitousness;

· subjective signs -- intent and mercenary purpose.

At the same time, the views of scientists differ in the generalized description of the act, for which various collective terms are used - “conversion” (A.I. Santalov, P.S. Matyshevsky); "illegal taking" (G.A. Krieger); "acquisition" (B.A. Kurinov); "withdrawal". Such a variety of terms in the definition of theft could not but have a negative impact on the practice of applying the law. At present, there is no need to turn to a detailed analysis of these definitions, since the concept of theft has received its legislative consolidation in paragraph 1 of the notes to Art. 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and in paragraph 1 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 11, 2003 “On judicial practice in cases of embezzlement”: “Theft is understood as an unlawful gratuitous seizure and (or) conversion of another's property in favor of the guilty or other persons that caused damage to the owner or other owner of this property.

The sign "withdrawal" covers all possible methods of theft, with the exception of robbery. A feature of robbery is that the legislator recognizes it as completed from the moment of the attack, combined with violence that is dangerous to the life or health of the victim. The sign "seizure" most accurately reflects the external process of illegal influence on the subject of the crime and to a certain extent indicates the mechanism of causing harm to the object of criminal law protection, since the seizure is always associated with illegal movement, a change in the position of the stolen property in the structure of social relations of participants in property relations , which inevitably deforms the connection itself, disrupts its normal development.

The seizure of property as a sign of theft means the extraction of inventory items from the owner's possession, their removal from the total mass of someone else's property. To establish the fact of seizure, write the authors of the textbook "Criminal Law" edited by I. Ya. Kozachenko, a combination of several circumstances is necessary. Firstly, the property must be in the funds of the owner: be listed on the balance sheet of a legal entity or be with the owner - an individual. In the event that the property has not yet entered the funds of the enterprise of a legal entity, it is impossible to talk about seizure and, in general, about theft. Secondly, it is required that such property be withdrawn either from the funds of the owner (legal entity) or from individual citizens (individuals).

The next sign that characterizes theft is the illegality of the seizure. The sign of unlawfulness means that the perpetrator seizes someone else's property to which he has neither a real nor an alleged right. A valid right means a right based on law to receive this property, it does not matter whether it is formalized in the manner prescribed by law. The main emphasis is on the fact that such a right exists in essence. The right of ownership is inviolable, since, according to Art. 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, no one can be deprived of the right to own property otherwise than by a court decision.

This implies the conclusion that there will be no theft if a person, having legal grounds for receiving property, violates only the procedure established for the transfer of the latter. Such actions of the perpetrator, if they caused significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or to the legally protected interests of society or the state, will be qualified under Art. 327 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan as arbitrariness, that is, as unauthorized, contrary to the procedure established by law, the exercise of one's actual or alleged right.

The sign of gratuitous seizure means that the perpetrator seizes property against the will of its owner and does not compensate for the value of the seized property, that is, does not leave an equivalent. If in the process of seizure of property the owner is provided with appropriate compensation, then such actions of the perpetrator do not fall under the signs of theft, since they do not cause property damage.

The equivalent can be monetary, natural and labor. In case of a monetary equivalent, the owner or legal owner receives a sum of money in return for the seized property, fully or to a large extent compensating for the value of the stolen property. With a natural equivalent, another thing is transferred to the owner. If this thing is equal in value, there is no theft due to the absence of a sign of gratuitousness. If the thing is smaller in value, then the gratuitous withdrawal takes place.

The seizure of property by replacing it with a less valuable one does not affect the qualification and should be considered as theft in the amount of the value of the seized property. Seizure of property entrusted to the guilty person, by replacing it with a less valuable one, committed for the purpose of appropriation or circulation in favor of other persons, should be qualified as theft in the amount of the value of the seized property.

The next sign of theft is a mercenary purpose. The desire to seize and (or) turn someone else's property into one's own property or into the property of other persons, with the knowledge that this seizure and (or) circulation is illegal and free of charge, means self-interest as "the desire for profit, profit, benefit."

2. CRIMINAL LEGAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EXTORTIATION

2.1 Criminal-legal characteristics of crimes against property

Crimes against property can be divided into two groups: acquisitive and non-acquisitive crimes. In acquisitive crimes, an obligatory sign of the subjective side is a mercenary goal or mercenary motive. In turn, mercenary attacks on the objective side can be divided into crimes related to the seizure of property, called theft, and crimes not related to theft. Theft includes the following crimes: theft (Article 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); misappropriation or embezzlement of entrusted property of others (Article 176 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); fraud (Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); robbery (Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); robbery (Article 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and theft of items of special value (Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). Accomplishment crimes not related to theft include: extortion (Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); infliction of property damage by deceit or breach of trust (Article 182 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); acquisition or sale of property knowingly obtained by criminal means (Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); violation of copyright and related rights (Article 184 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), violation of rights to inventions, utility models, industrial designs, selection achievements or topologies of integrated circuits (Article 184-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); illegal possession of a car or other vehicle without the purpose of theft (Article 185 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); violation of real rights to land (Article 186 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). Deliberate (Article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and careless (Article 188 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) destruction or damage to someone else's property should be attributed to non-profit crimes against property.

The generic object of crimes against property are property relations, that is, social relations in the sphere of distribution of material goods intended for individual or collective consumption or for the implementation of production activities. Therefore, it should be noted that the generic object of crimes against property is property.

In accordance with Art. Art. 188-195 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the right of ownership is the right of a subject, recognized and protected by legislative acts, to own, use and dispose of his property at his own discretion. Thus, the owner has the right to own, use and dispose of his property.

The right of ownership is a legally secured opportunity to exercise the actual possession of property.

The right of use is a legally secured opportunity to extract useful natural properties from the property, as well as to benefit from it. The benefit can act in the form of income, increment of fruits, offspring and in other forms.

The right of disposal is a legally secured opportunity to determine the legal fate of property (part 2 of article 188 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). The owner has the right, at his own discretion, to take any actions in relation to the property belonging to him, including alienating this property into the ownership of other persons, transferring it to other persons, remaining the owner, retaining the authority to own, use and dispose of property, pledge property, dispose of it otherwise (part 3 of article 188 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).

In some crimes against property (robbery, robbery), the immediate object coincides with the generic one. It should be noted that in the legal literature there was not (and could not be) a unified approach to determining the direct object of theft. Thus, the opinion was expressed that a specific form of ownership should be considered as a direct object, determined by the ownership of the stolen property: state, cooperative, private.

On the objective side, crimes against property are committed through action (Articles 175-188 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), while they are formulated by the legislator mainly as material elements of crimes. It follows from this that their objective side consists of three obligatory signs: deeds, consequences, and a causal relationship between the deed and the consequences that have occurred. Moreover, criminal consequences are always material in nature and are expressed in causing property damage. Only robbery (Article 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and extortion (Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) by design are formal crimes, where, unlike material crimes, only a criminal act is a mandatory feature, since the consequences of these two crimes are beyond the scope of the crime.

For certain crimes against property, an obligatory element of the objective side is the method of committing the crime (violent or non-violent, secret or open).

Theft is considered completed when the perpetrator has a real opportunity to use or dispose of the stolen property at his own discretion or transfer it to third parties. To recognize the theft as completed, it is not required that the perpetrator actually use the thing, benefit from it. It is important that he got this opportunity. If the perpetrator has committed certain actions aimed at seizing someone else's property, but has not yet received the opportunity to dispose of this property, the deed qualifies as an attempted theft, provided for in Part 3 of Art. 24 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the corresponding crime under Art. Art. 175-180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Theft from protected areas should be considered completed from the moment the property is taken outside it, since it is from this moment that the perpetrator has the opportunity to dispose of the stolen. It does not matter how far the property is from the protected area. In practice, there were cases when throwing the stolen person over the fence of a protected area to an accomplice, who at that moment was detained, was regarded as an unfinished theft. A security guard who deliberately assisted the person committing theft in the removal of property stolen from the protected area, or who was otherwise capable of removing obstacles to theft, is liable for complicity in the theft of property. If the stolen property is not consumed and its use in the protected area is impossible, then the theft will not be considered completed until this property is taken out of the protected area. And when stealing consumable property (for example, alcoholic beverages, food), the moment the crime ends will depend on the intentions of the perpetrator regarding the stolen property. If the perpetrator managed to dispose of the stolen property in a protected area, then the theft is considered completed. If the perpetrator's intentions were to dispose of the stolen property outside the protected area, then the discovery of property in this territory should be regarded as an attempted theft (part 3 of article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and additionally under articles on crimes against property, depending on the form of theft) .

The subject of crimes against property is recognized as a natural sane person who has reached the age established by law. According to part 2 of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, from the age of 14, liability arises for such crimes as: theft (Article 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), robbery (Article 178), robbery (Article 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), extortion (Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), illegal possession of a car or other vehicle without the purpose of theft, under aggravating circumstances (parts 2, 3, 4 of article 185 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), intentional destruction or damage to property, under aggravating circumstances (parts 2 and 3 of article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) .

In such a crime as misappropriation or embezzlement of someone else's entrusted property (Article 176 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), the subject is a special one. In certain crimes, a special subject may act as a sign of a qualified composition, for example, a person authorized to perform state functions or a person equated to him (clause “d” part Zet. 176 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); using one’s official position (clause “c” part 2 article 176, clause “c” part 2 article 177, clause “c” part 2 article 182 and part 2 article 186 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) .

From the point of view of the onset of criminal liability based on age, all crimes in this chapter can be divided into two groups.

From the age of 16, liability arises for such crimes as: misappropriation or embezzlement of entrusted property of others (Article 176 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), fraud (Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), theft of items of special value (Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), infliction of property damage by deceit or breach of trust (Article 182 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), acquisition or sale of property knowingly obtained by criminal means (Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), infringement of copyright and related rights (Article 184 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), violation of rights to inventions , utility models, industrial designs, breeding achievements or topologies of integrated circuits (Article 184-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), illegal possession of a car or other vehicle without the purpose of theft (without aggravating circumstances (Part 1 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), violation of property rights to land (Article 186 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), intentional destruction or damage to another's property without aggravating circumstances (Part 1 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and negligent destruction or damage to another's property (Article 188 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).

On the subjective side, crimes against property are committed with direct intent. The guilty person is aware that he is illegally confiscating property, foresees that by his actions he causes damage to the owner, and desires this. Only one crime in Chapter 6 of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan is committed through negligence - this is the careless destruction or damage to someone else's property (Article 188 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).

An obligatory sign of theft is a mercenary purpose. Selfish purpose as a sign of theft is directly named in the legislative definition of theft. It involves the desire to extract material benefits both for one's own benefit and for the benefit of others.

Based on the foregoing, it should be noted that crimes against property are understood as both mercenary and non-mercenary encroachments on someone else's property with the aim of illegally converting the owner's property in one's own favor or in favor of other persons.

Crimes against property can be divided into the following types: 1) mercenary, 2) non-mercenary.

In acquisitive crimes, an obligatory sign of the subjective side is a mercenary goal or mercenary motive. In turn, these crimes on the objective side can be divided into: crimes related to the seizure of property, called theft, under Art. Art. 175--180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan; and crimes not related to theft, which include such offenses as Art. Art. 181-186 UKRK.

The legislator refers to disinterested crimes: intentional destruction or damage to another's property and careless destruction or damage to another's property, provided for in Art. Art. 187 and 188 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. crime property extortion composition

Thus, the main group of crimes against property is formed by mercenary infringements related to the seizure of property, i.e. theft. The criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan differentiates liability for theft depending on the method of their commission, highlighting and normatively fixing in the relevant articles of the Criminal Code the following forms of theft of another's property: theft, misappropriation or embezzlement, fraud, robbery and robbery.

From the subjective side, theft is always a mercenary crime. The mercenary purpose is carried out in case of theft by illegal and gratuitous seizure and (or) circulation of property in one's own favor or in favor of other persons. In the latter case, the desire for profit is carried out not by the one who transfers someone else's property, but by the one who receives it free of charge into his own property (for example, a financially responsible person systematically transfers (gives away) the property entrusted to him to persons who do not have any right to this property) . Acting as a means of satisfying the selfish aspirations of individuals, theft without a selfish goal is impossible.

2.2 Legal structure of extortion

The criminal law defines extortion as a demand to transfer someone else's property or the right to property or to commit other actions of a property nature under the threat of violence or destruction or damage to someone else's property, as well as under the threat of dissemination of information disgracing the victim or his relatives, or other information, the disclosure of which may cause significant harm to the interests of the victim or his relatives. The public danger of extortion is expressed in the violation of property rights.

The generic object of this crime is property. The direct object of the crime under consideration should be recognized not only as property, but also as the identity of the victim (his inviolability, freedom, honor and dignity).

In the legal literature among legal scholars, there is a different approach to determining the direct object of extortion. So, E.O. Alauov believes that "... the direct object of extortion, the commission of which is accompanied only by a threat, is the health of the victim" .

At the same time, E.O. Alauov and V.N. Kuts note that “an analysis of the value of health in various forms of property, as well as the harm caused by extortion, allows us to conclude that the direct object of extortion is human health - a more valuable good than property. As for private and state property and property relations, they should be attributed to an additional object.

One cannot agree with the position of the named authors, since, firstly, it complicates the structure of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which is based on a generic object. Secondly, in chapter 6 “Crimes against property” there are other offenses in which the use of violence or the threat of violence is a constructive sign of such an offense as robbery, therefore, the likelihood of harm to health in such cases is more real than with extortion. . Thirdly, it is hardly possible to find a corpus delicti that does not directly or indirectly affect the interests of the individual. Thus, this does not mean that all offenses should be recognized as crimes against the person.

Note that the structure of the object also includes property interests, which are secured not only by the right of ownership, but in some cases by the law of obligations: renunciation of one's share in the inheritance, gratuitous performance in favor of the extortionist of certain actions of a property nature.

Extortion is a property crime, infringing on social relations of property, it has as its subject not only property or the right to it, but also actions of a property nature. The right to property is enshrined in certain documents, often requiring compliance with a strictly defined form by law. Actions of a property nature are actions that bring a property benefit to the extortionist (destruction of an IOU, will, etc.).

According to clause 1 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On judicial practice in cases of extortion” dated June 23, 2006, “the subject of extortion is: someone else’s property (things, money, including foreign currency, securities, objectified results of creative intellectual activity , trade names, trademarks and other means of individualization of products); the right to property (testament, insurance policy, receipt, contract, power of attorney to receive certain valuables, various types of securities and other document giving him the right to receive property) or other actions of a property nature (services of non-equivalent content, for example, supposedly for "protection of the premises", for "assistance" in the sale of products, the destruction of an IOU, the refusal of debt in common property, the reduction of interest rates, the performance of any work, etc.).

Analysis of the objective side of the crime under Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, indicates that the act of criminal behavior in extortion is complex: it consists of interrelated independent actions - demands for the transfer of someone else's property or the right to property and threats, the content of which is determined by law. Namely:

Threat of violence;

The threat of destruction or damage to another's property;

The threat of dissemination of information disgracing the victim or his relatives, or other information, the disclosure of which may cause significant harm to the interests of the victim or his relatives.

When qualifying the actions of the perpetrator as extortion, it is necessary to establish a specific type of threat provided for in the disposition of the law, bearing in mind that the victim of the threat of an extortionist can be both the owner or the person in whose administration or under whose protection the property is located, as well as their relatives. The form of expression of the threat for the qualification of extortion does not matter (oral or written, expressed personally or through an intermediary, formulated frankly or in a veiled form), however, its content must be perceived by the victim unambiguously in accordance with its actual meaning.

To qualify the actions of the extortionist, it is not important who can implement this threat: by himself or his accomplices.

In paragraph 3 of the normative resolution “On judicial practice in cases of extortion” dated June 23, 2006, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan clarifies that extortion under the threat of violence should be understood as actions expressing the intention to exert a coercive psychological impact (threat to take life, cause severe, medium or slight harm to health, commit rape or other violent acts).

The threat must be real and valid, that is, perceived by the victim as quite feasible. Only such a threat is capable of exerting a certain mental impact on the victim in order to perform actions in favor of the perpetrator.

The peculiarity of the threat of violence lies in the fact that, as a rule, it is directed to the future, that is, the extortionist expresses his intention to actually use violence only after some time, if his demand to transfer property to the victims is not fulfilled. If the victim refuses to satisfy the property claim, there really is a danger of harm to the specified benefits of the person, and in some cases they are directly violated following the refusal of the victim to transfer or provide what is required. Therefore, harm under these circumstances, as noted by V.N. Kuts, is outside the scope of extortion and is a sign of another independent crime committed as revenge for refusing to satisfy the demands of the extortionist, for example, it is characterized by a sign of murder, etc. .

The actions of a guilty person who has committed extortion, involving the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm to the victim under aggravating circumstances, or with murder, must be qualified according to the totality of crimes provided for in ch. 2 or 3 tbsp. 103 and Art. 181 or Art. 96 ist. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The threat of using violence against a person during extortion is identical to mental violence during robbery. The difference lies in the fact that in extortion the perpetrator threatens to use violence, as a rule, in the future, that is, there is a gap in time between the threat and its implementation. During robbery, violence takes the form of only physical violence and the threat of using such violence. In addition, in extortion, the perpetrator threatens to use violence not only against the person in charge or under whose protection the property is located, but also against relatives. In case of robbery, taking possession of property, the guilty person uses violence immediately.

To qualify the actions of the perpetrator as extortion, it is necessary that the property claims made under threat to the victim be clearly illegal. Therefore, there will be no elements of extortion if a person, threatening, demands the execution of lawful property claims. Such actions, under certain circumstances, fall under the signs of arbitrariness (Article 327 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), since the perpetrator thinks that he is taking actions to exercise his actual or alleged right.

The threat of destruction or damage to someone else's property should be understood as a threat, in the implementation of which the property either ceases to exist at all, or is rendered completely unusable (destruction). In case of damage, the property is subject to repair, restoration. The threat of destruction or damage to property may be used by the extortionist to force the victim to transfer property or property rights. If the extortionist subsequently carried out the threat and destroyed the property, the deed must be considered as a combination of two crimes: extortion (Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and deliberate destruction or damage to someone else's property (Article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the normative resolution "On judicial practice in cases of extortion" dated June 23, 2006 in paragraph 4 clarifies that in the case of extortion committed with the threat of destruction or damage to property, for qualifying the actions of the perpetrator, it does not matter which the property in question (entrusted to the victim for protection or his own, movable or immovable) and how this threat will be realized. In these cases, it should be borne in mind that the threat must be real and capable of intimidating the victim. If, during the commission of extortion, the property of the victim was destroyed or damaged under the circumstances specified in the disposition of Art. 187 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, then the actions of the perpetrator form a set of these crimes.

The threat of dissemination of information disgracing the victim or his relatives is the threat of communicating such information to a person who does not know them. For the composition of completed extortion, a threat to disclose such information to at least one person is sufficient if such a message is undesirable for the victim (for example, a threat to provide details of an intimate nature, etc.).

Paragraph 5 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 23, 2006 explains that under the threat of dissemination of information disgracing the victim or his relatives, or other information, the disclosure of which may cause significant harm to the interests of the victim or his relatives, one should understand the requirement to transfer someone else's property or the right to property or other actions of a property nature, accompanied by the threat of disclosure of any information that could harm the honor and dignity of the victim. At the same time, it does not matter whether the information under the threat of disclosure of which extortion is committed is true. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the victim seeks to keep this information secret, and the threat of disclosure is used by the perpetrator to force him to fulfill the demands put forward.

In the event that information of a slanderous or offensive nature is announced about the victim, the deed, if there are grounds for this, should be qualified according to the totality of crimes provided for in Art. 181 of the Criminal Code and, accordingly, Art. Art. 129 or 130 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Significant harm can be caused by the dissemination of information disgracing the victim. When determining significant harm, both the victim's subjective assessment of the severity of the moral damage caused to him, and objective data indicating the degree of moral and physical suffering of the victim as a result of extortion committed under the threat of discrediting information are taken into account.

When determining the infliction of moral suffering, one should be guided by paragraph 3 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the application by courts of legislation on compensation for moral harm” dated June 21, 2001 No. 3.

Significant harm can also be caused by the disclosure of other information that, while not being disgraceful, can cause significant harm to the victim, for example, disclosure of trade secrets that cause losses to business, disclosure of adoption secrets or information related to family and private life, etc.

Since the threat of such disclosure should force this person to illegally transfer property or the right to property to the extortionist, the question of what information should be considered disgraceful to the victim and what is meant by other information, the disclosure of which could cause significant harm to the victim, should be resolved from the point of view of the person in charge of someone else's property or guarding it.

Due to the peculiarities of the structure of the offense under Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, extortion is considered completed at the time of presentation of property claims to the victim, coupled with the corresponding threats, regardless of whether the perpetrator has achieved the desired goal, received the required property, the right to property, or has achieved the commission of actions of a property nature by the victim. Thus, in Part 1 of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, we are talking about mental violence, which is used by an extortionist in order to obtain property, the right to property or to commit other actions of a property nature.

Of course, extortion can lead to actual property damage when the victim, fearing that the threat will be enforced, transfers the required property or assigns property rights or commits a property act in favor of the guilty action. Therefore, the criminal acquisition of someone else's property does not go beyond the scope of extortion and does not require independent qualification.

The subject of the crime is a physical sane person who has reached the age of 14, in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

From the subjective side, the act is characterized by direct intent and selfish purpose. The perpetrator is aware that he, having no rights to the property, demands its transfer, threatening to commit actions that could damage the interests of the victim. The goal is to obtain property or the right to it.

Qualifying signs of extortion, provided for in Part 2 of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan are similar to the signs of theft. These include:

a) with the use of violence;

b) by a group of persons by prior agreement (part 2 of article 31 of the UKRK);

c) repeatedly.

The use of violence in extortion (paragraph “a” of part 2 of article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) implies only physical violence, since mental violence is a mandatory feature of part 1 of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Physical violence is a means of forcing the victim to comply with the requirements.

Extortion with the use of violence should be understood as the commission of this crime associated with the restriction of freedom, causing physical pain, striking, beating, causing minor or moderate harm to the health of the victim (paragraph 6 of the regulatory decree of June 23, 2006).

So, for example, in the Almaty region, an organized criminal group of 5 people, headed by Ts., was exposed, which, through the use of threats and violence, extorted from the director of Tekhnorama LLP I. inventory items in the amount of 15 million tenge.

In another example, K. was found guilty of the fact that he, working as an operative of the OKP ROP at the Bostandyk District Department of Internal Affairs in Almaty and being an official, together with operatives M. and S, having exceeded power and official powers, detained the victim A. on the street and without procedurally formalizing their actions, significantly violating his rights and legitimate interests, humiliating his honor and dignity, they conducted a personal search, took off his clothes, struck blows on his face and body, and caused slight harm to his health. Then they took A. to the building of the ROP, where in K.'s office, threatening to prosecute A. for possession of drugs, by falsifying evidence, extorting with the use of violence, A. seized 8,000 tenge, which were with him.

As follows from the materials of the case, the bodies of preliminary investigation on the above episode, K. was charged with the crimes stipulated by paragraph "a" part Z. 178 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as open theft of someone else's property with the threat of violence, not dangerous to the life and health of the victim, and according to paragraph "a" part. 2 tbsp. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as extortion committed with the use of violence.

When qualifying the actions of the perpetrators on the basis of committing extortion by a “group of persons by prior agreement”, one should be guided by part 2 of article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On judicial practice in cases of embezzlement” dated July 11, 2003 G. .

Some peculiarity in the crime under Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (in addition to those described when considering the signs of theft), has the use of the sign of repetition. Repeated demands for the transfer of property or the right to it addressed to one or several persons cannot be considered as repeated extortion, if these demands are united by a single intent and are aimed at taking possession of one property.

When applying the qualifying sign of “repeatedness”, it is necessary to take into account the explanations contained in Part 2 of Art. P of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, paragraph 3 of the Note to Art. 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and in paragraph 12 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On judicial practice in cases of embezzlement" dated July 11, 2003

Particularly qualifying signs of extortion, provided for in Part 3 of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan are also similar to the signs of theft. The legislator includes:

a) an organized group;

b) causing serious harm to the health of the victim;

c) for the purpose of obtaining property on a large scale;

d) by a person previously convicted two or more times for embezzlement, or

extortion.

When qualifying the actions of persons guilty of extortion on the basis of an organized group, one should be guided by Part 3 of Art. 31 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and clause 11 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On judicial practice in cases of embezzlement" dated July 11, 2003

The next sign, provided for in paragraph "b" part 3 of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, means the commission of extortion with the infliction of grievous bodily harm to the victim. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan in paragraph 10 of the regulatory resolution "On judicial practice in cases of extortion" dated June 23, 2006 clarifies that when determining serious bodily harm, Art. 103 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Rules for the organization and production of a forensic medical examination, approved by order of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 20, 2004 No. 875/1.

In the event of extortion causing grievous bodily harm to the victim, no additional qualification is required under Art. 103 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, since the deed is fully covered by paragraph "b" of Part 3 of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The actions of the guilty person who committed extortion, associated with the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, negligently resulting in his death, must be qualified according to the totality of the crimes provided for in paragraph "b" of Part 3 of Art. 181 and part 3 of Art. 103 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The actions of the extortionist, who carried out his threat by deliberately causing death to the victim, form a combination of extortion and murder, since the extortion element is recognized as fulfilled at the time of presentation of the corresponding demand, combined with the threat, and the actions of the extortionist who carried out the threat that led to death go beyond the composition extortion and need additional qualifications.

When determining a large size, one should be guided by paragraph 2 of the note to Art. 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The courts should keep in mind that for the qualification of an act it does not matter whether the goal of obtaining property on a large scale is achieved or not (paragraph 11 of the regulatory decree of June 23, 2006).

When qualifying the actions of the perpetrator on the basis of committing extortion by a person previously convicted of extortion two or more times, paragraph 4 of the note to Art. 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and paragraph 17 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On judicial practice in cases of embezzlement”.

Specified in Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the qualifying signs of a crime should be taken into account, both when committing extortion against the victim and his relatives. Close relatives of the victim can be recognized not only as his close relatives, but also those who, due to the established relationship, are such (spouses who are not legally married, the bride and groom, guardians and trustees, and their wards, etc.).

...

INTRODUCTION OF THE DISSERT

on the topic "Criminal-legal and criminological problems of the fight against extortion"

Relevance of the research topic. The problem of combating crime is one of the most important in modern society. A characteristic trend of recent years is the growth and exceptional public danger of crime in the economic sphere. All this makes the fight against it an extremely important state task that requires effective countermeasures.

Under the current political and economic conditions, mercenary crime deserves special attention from law enforcement agencies, among which the specific weight of such mercenary and violent crimes as extortion is significant. Being a crime of a property nature, extortion combines self-interest and violence, which predetermines its increased social danger. Encroaching on property relations not only of citizens, but also of economic entities, extortion also threatens the economic interests of the state, as it prevents the market from being saturated with goods and services.

According to statistics from the Information Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, the dynamics of extortion in recent years is characterized by negative growth rates. At the same time, the official statistics of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Irkutsk Region indicate that this region is experiencing a constant positive increase in this type of crime. Thus, the number of registered extortions in the Irkutsk region compared with 1990, in 2000. increased by 4 times. Thus, if the increase in extortion (from 1990 to 2000) in Russia averaged 94.6%, then in the Irkutsk region - 110.4%.

The given data show a high prevalence of extortion in the Irkutsk region.

Meanwhile, despite the general upward trend in this type of crime, the courts consider a small number of cases qualified as extortion. According to official figures from the Office of the Judicial Department, between half and a third of the incoming criminal cases of extortion are being considered. Thus, in 1999, 42 courts of the Irkutsk Region and the Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous National District considered 62 such criminal cases out of 140 received. In 2000, these figures were respectively 32 out of 111 cases. The number of initiated cases of extortion is an order of magnitude higher: in 1999. - 208, in 2000 - 201.

All this indicates that the law enforcement agencies of the Irkutsk region today cannot effectively combat extortion, which causes a natural public outcry and requires the development of more modern measures to counter extortion, taking into account regional characteristics.

Thus, at present, the problem of improving the practice of sentencing by courts for extortion as an effective means in the fight against crimes of this type is quite relevant. In addition, the growing public danger of extortion and the importance of effective protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and business entities necessitate a more thorough study of this composition.

The significance of the problem under study is also determined by the fact that there are a number of unresolved and controversial problems in the issues of qualifying extortion and delimiting it from related offenses that require additional study and development of practical recommendations.

The degree of scientific development of the problem. It cannot be said that the criminal law problems of combating extortion in domestic legal science have not been given sufficient attention.

Thus, the criminal-legal aspects of this corpus delicti were once studied in pre-revolutionary literature by I. Bazhenov, S. Solovyov, I. Ya. Foinitsky and other scientists.

In the theory of modern criminal law, B.I. Akhmetov, G.N. Borzenkov,

V.A.Vladimirov, G.S.Gaverov, L.D.Gaukhman, A.I.Gurov, A.I.Dolgova, A.A.Zhizhilenko, I.I.Karpets, S.M.Kochoi, V. N. Kuts, Yu. I. Lyapunov,

S.V. Maksimov, V.S. Minskaya, V.V. Osin, S.V. Sklyarov, E.S. Tenchov and other authors. Recently, a lot of Ph.D. theses have been defended on the problem under consideration: V.N. Safonov (1997), O.V. 2000), etc.

However, these studies have not, of course, exhausted the multifaceted problem of combating extortion. A number of issues have not been reflected in these works, most of them have not been sufficiently developed, some continue to be controversial. It is important to pay attention to the fact that separate studies of this problem were carried out either before the adoption of the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), or concerned its individual aspects.

The study of scientific literature and dissertations showed the inadequacy of the study of both theoretical and practical aspects of the fight against extortion. It should be noted that in the works of these authors, the problems of punishment for extortion are not considered, although it is one of the necessary legal means in the fight against such crimes.

In addition, in the above works, little attention is paid to the victimological aspects of extortion and, in particular, its prevention, which is especially important, since in the situation of the “criminal-victim” relationship, the latter, although acting under mental or physical influence, is not in a state of emergency and transfers the required property or the right to property to the extortionist, and also performs actions of a property nature herself.

In view of the foregoing, it should be noted that the analyzed problem deserves further research and development.

The purpose of the dissertation work is to study and analyze a complex of criminal law and criminological issues related to the composition of extortion, develop recommendations of a theoretical and practical nature for improving criminal legislation and law enforcement, generalize the practice of preventing extortion by law enforcement agencies and develop, on this basis, specific recommendations aimed at combat this type of crime. In this regard, the main objectives of the study are: to conduct a legal analysis of the composition of extortion based on the history of its evolution in Russian criminal law; analysis of qualified and especially qualified extortion structures; consideration of debatable issues of delimitation of extortion from related elements of crimes; development of proposals for improving the legislation on liability for extortion and recommendations for its correct application in practice; conducting a criminological study of extortion in the context of the historical and modern criminological situation, studying its regional quantitative and qualitative parameters; consideration of the criminological characteristics of the identity of the extortionist, taking into account regional characteristics; determination of the characteristics of persons who have become victims of extortion and persons constituting a group of "potential" victims; highlighting regional features of the victimogenic situation; identification and analysis of the causes and conditions for the commission of this crime; development of measures for general and special prevention of extortion, taking into account regional factors; review and analysis of problems of punishment for extortion; development of recommendations for improving the practice of sentencing for the type of crime in question.

The scientific novelty of the work is as follows: for the first time in criminal law science, a comprehensive criminological description of extortion is given, taking into account the regional characteristics of the Irkutsk region, starting from 1997, that is, after the entry into force of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1996 and taking into account the current state of extortion in Russia . In the criminological analysis of extortion, the novelty also lies in the fact that, taking into account regional factors, victimological aspects and victimological prevention of this type of crime are considered. Also new is the approach to the causal complex of extortion, based on the "psychological" concept of causality.

On the basis of the conducted criminal law analysis, the author proposes his own definition of extortion. In addition, proposals are made to improve the criminal law in terms of the qualifying signs of extortion, primarily such as the repetition of extortion.

In accordance with the criminal law characteristics of extortion, which determines the legal nature of the latter, based on the study of the social phenomena that give rise to it (criminological characteristics), and also taking into account the analysis of punitive practice for this type of crime, the thesis formulates proposals and recommendations for improving practice sentencing for extortion, as well as to improve the effectiveness of its general and special prevention measures, which can significantly increase the level of combating the type of crime in question.

In this regard, for the first time on a comprehensive basis, the sanctions provided for by the criminal law, as well as the practice of their application, taking into account regional factors, are analyzed.

Theoretical and practical significance of the research. The scientific and practical significance of the work, according to the dissertation, lies in the fact that the theoretical positions and conclusions developed in the process of research, the definitions of a number of concepts and the recommendations made will be useful for further research related to the problem of combating extortion.

The conclusions and proposals formulated in the dissertation can be used in the practical activities of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prevent extortion, in the process of teaching criminal law and criminology courses, as well as the special course “Problems of qualification of crimes against property” in higher educational institutions. Recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the fight against extortion can be especially useful for law enforcement agencies.

Methodology and research methodology. The methodological basis of the study was both a general scientific dialectical method of cognizing legal reality, and a number of particular scientific methods: logical-theoretical, historical-legal, legal modeling, comparative legal and system-structural.

Methods such as comparative and statistical analysis of factual data obtained as a result of generalization of investigative and judicial practice, the study of legal acts and literary sources were also used; questionnaires, interviews and surveys.

The dissertation is based on theoretical achievements in the field of philosophy, jurisprudence, economics, sociology, history, reflected in the works of scientists.

The dissertation research is based on criminal, criminal procedure, civil legislation, decisions of the judiciary, departmental regulations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.

In addition, the dissertation student studied the criminal legislation of a number of foreign countries in terms of regulating criminal liability for extortion, pre-revolutionary Russian criminal legislation.

Approbation of the research results. The author published eight papers on the topic of the dissertation research. The main provisions of the dissertation research were covered by the author in his speeches at: International "Round table": "Citizens' access to legal information and protection of privacy" (Irkutsk, May 31 - June 2, 1999); International "Round Table": "Access of citizens to the legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Protection of the rights of citizens and inviolability of private life” (Irkutsk, September 24-26, 2001); All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference "Religious Organizations and the State: Prospects for Interaction" (Moscow, February 22-23, 1999); annual scientific and practical conferences of the faculty of the Irkutsk State Academy of Economics.

A number of conclusions and proposals of the dissertation are introduced into the law enforcement activities of the internal affairs bodies.

Approbation of the results of the study also took place in the course of training sessions with students of law faculties of the Irkutsk State Academy of Economics.

The empirical base of the study was the materials of investigative and judicial practice in cases of extortion committed in the city of Irkutsk, the Irkutsk region and in the Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous National District, for the period from 1995 to 2000. (125 cases were studied, as well as materials of criminal cases of this category, terminated both on rehabilitating and non-rehabilitating grounds). The author studied the rulings of the Judicial Collegium of the Irkutsk Regional Court on cases of extortion, robbery and robbery, arbitrariness and other crimes related to extortion for 1999-2000. In addition, the dissertation used analytical materials of the Information Center of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Irkutsk Region, the Office of the Judicial Department in the Irkutsk Region, the Office of the Judicial Department in the Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous National District, the East Siberian Regional Office for Combating Organized Crime.

As part of the study, 143 people were interviewed who are engaged in entrepreneurial activities and, therefore, are potential victims of extortion. The survey was conducted in Irkutsk, Angarsk, Shelekhov, Usolye-Sibirsky, Cheremkhovo.

Along with the above, 175 law enforcement officers were interviewed, during the interviewing of which a proportional representation of various structures was ensured (operational and investigative officers of rural and urban police departments, the police department of Irkutsk and the police department of the Irkutsk region, the Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug, the prosecutor's office of the Irkutsk region).

Simultaneously with the above, a survey of persons convicted of extortion and serving sentences of imprisonment in correctional institutions on the territory of the Irkutsk region was conducted (a total of 34 people).

The main conclusions and proposals submitted for defense:

1. The definition of extortion given in Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation needs to be improved. First of all, the latter concerns such an objective feature of the crime in question as a method of committing. The interests of the fight against extortion require the definition of the method of extortion not through “demand”, but through “coercion”. It is necessary to establish criminal liability for coercion to commit not only actions of a property nature, but also inaction. The dissertation proposes to amend the criminal law with regard to blackmail, defining it within the framework of extortion as a threat of dissemination of information, the disclosure of which may damage the honor and dignity of a person forced by an extortionist to certain behavior or his relatives, as well as other information that this person or his relatives consider it necessary to keep it a secret.

In order to increase the effectiveness of the fight against extortion, it is necessary to expand the list of threats to include the threat of other undesirable consequences.

2. The qualifying signs of extortion established by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation need to be supplemented and changed, in particular, this applies to extortion committed repeatedly; with the use of violence. It is quite obvious that with regard to these signs, recommendations of the relevant resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are necessary. This applies to situations where extortionists regularly make extortions, and to situations related to debt recovery. For the purpose of uniform application by the courts of criminal law on acts committed repeatedly, the dissertation substantiates the need to change the wording of part 3 of article 16 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as part 1 of article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In the opinion of the dissertation, there is objectively a need for an introduction in Part 2 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of such a qualifying feature as "extortion committed with the use of weapons or objects used as weapons." In addition, it is necessary to restore "causing grave consequences" as a qualifying sign of extortion.

3. The current criminological situation in the field of combating extortion, taking into account regional quantitative and qualitative parameters, is characterized by the fact that extortionists are intensively developing their activities, increasing their professionalism; extortion is becoming an increasingly complex crime due to the ability of organized forms to mimic, as a result of which only minor extortionists come to the attention of law enforcement agencies, which, of course, make up, first of all, an array of statistical data.

4. The totality of features that characterize the identity of the extortionist indicates a significant difference between these individuals and other mercenary violent criminals, which increases their social danger. First of all, this is manifested in the value system of extortionists, which allows them, with a sufficiently high educational level, a young age and good physical fitness, to choose extortion as a way to provide for life needs.

5. The causes of such a phenomenon as extortion are determined in the dissertation on the basis of the “psychological” concept of causality, a complex of immediate causes (deformation of economic, political consciousness, defects in moral and legal consciousness) and indirect - generating (forming) at the beginning of the deformation of certain sections (forms, types) of consciousness. Among the latter, the main place is occupied by contradictions of a socio-economic nature, since extortion is a property crime.

6. A comprehensive analysis of the criminological characteristics of extortion indicates the need to develop, taking into account modern theoretical and practical provisions and regional characteristics, such measures of general and special prevention of extortion that could actually be implemented in modern socio-economic and political conditions. Among the complex of such measures, one should not underestimate the punishment for this type of crime. *

7. An analysis of the punitive practice of the courts indicates a clear contradiction between the practice of sentencing by the courts for extortion and the fairness of punishment under criminal law. In this regard, changes are needed in legislative and law enforcement activities aimed at improving criminal liability for this type of crime.

DISSERT CONCLUSION

majoring in "Criminal law and criminology; penal law", Stupina, Svetlana Aleksandrovna, Irkutsk

CONCLUSION

The development of criminal legislation is due to the dynamism of the socio-political conditions for the functioning of society in the modern period. At the same time, the timely response of the legislator to the occurrence of certain socially dangerous acts through the criminal and criminological impact on them is essential.

Extortion, as a mercenary and violent crime, is a phenomenon that can be regulated only if the entire set of economic, organizational and legal measures is used. The application of criminal law on liability for extortion and related crimes should, first of all, have a general preventive effect. An important role in this will be played by the type of punishment, and not just its measure: the sanctions of Art. 163 must necessarily be associated with the restriction of the property rights of the perpetrator. The prospect of being without a livelihood in the event of a crime is a good way to influence the behavior of perpetrators of acquisitive offenses. Together with being in places of deprivation of liberty, this can become an effective means of combating extortion.

From the point of view of the ordinary worldview, a detailed regulation of responsibility for extortion, tougher sanctions is nothing more than an illusion. If we take as a basis the fact that operational-search measures are not carried out properly, the requirements of the criminal procedure law are not met, and not only during the preliminary investigation, but also at the stage of execution of the sentence, there is no effective program for the protection of victims and witnesses, then almost all the norms of substantive law will not be valid. But this does not mean that it is necessary to abandon the improvement of legislation on the fight against extortion, as well as the establishment of criminal liability for actions that are often disguised forms of extortion. It can hardly be argued that the perpetrators of extortion now go unpunished. But no matter how professional and highly skilled the investigation and trial may be, individuals will inevitably evade responsibility. Therefore, a system of preventive measures is needed, which should include both general social measures and special socio-economic, ideological, organizational, technical and legal ones.

Based on the study, we believe it is possible to draw the following conclusions.

Extortion refers to a group of acquisitive crimes against property that do not contain signs of theft.

The direct object of all types of extortion are property relations. In addition, the structure of the object of extortion includes property interests, which are provided not only by the right of ownership, but also by the law of obligations.

Understanding the signs of the main, qualified and especially qualified elements of extortion allow us to state that an additional direct object is social relations that ensure honor, dignity, physical freedom and safety of life and health of the individual, both the victim and his loved ones.

Having defined extortion as a requirement to transfer someone else's property, the right to property, or to commit other actions of a property nature, the legislator, voluntarily or involuntarily, focused on the form of a criminal act, thereby unreasonably narrowing the possibilities of bringing the perpetrators to criminal liability. We believe that it is necessary to define in Art. 163 of the Criminal Code extortion through coercion.

It seems that in case of a threat of murder or infliction of grievous bodily harm during extortion, the deed should be qualified in conjunction with Article 119 of the Criminal Code, which will fully comply with the principle of justice.

Establishing disgraceful or not, are the information, the dissemination of which is threatened by the extortionist, limits the possibility of bringing the perpetrator to criminal liability.

In addition, the studied practice shows that it is rational to expand the list of threats. other undesirable consequences.

An analysis of the subjective side of extortion gives the right to argue about the inappropriateness of introducing selfish and other goals into the disposition of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the study of the signs of the considered corpus delicti indicates that the version of extortion given in Art. 163 of the Criminal Code, the legislative definition needs to be changed, and, in our opinion, it should be as follows: “Extortion, that is, coercion to transfer someone else's property or right to property or to commit other actions (inaction) of a property nature through the threat of violence or destruction or damage to someone else's property, as well as under the threat of dissemination of information, the disclosure of which may damage the honor and dignity of the person forced by the extortionist to certain behavior, or his relatives, as well as other information that this person or his relatives consider necessary to keep secret or under threat of other undesirable consequences.

Under the qualifying sign “extortion committed repeatedly”, in addition to the explanations given in the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of May 4, 1990 “On judicial practice in cases of extortion”, one should also understand extortion associated with the “imposition of tribute”, when systematic requisitions, which predetermines the increased social danger of the deed. It should also include extortion committed under circumstances when the victim immediately perceives the threat as realizable, but extortionists, for one reason or another, are forced to present their demands under threat a second time, a third time, etc. The proposed should be interpreted in the relevant Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

It seems that if provided for in paragraph "b" part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a particularly qualifying feature in the following wording: "Extortion committed in order to obtain property benefits on a large scale, or entailed the infliction of grave consequences", then practice will be able to more fully take into account all the consequences indicated in the Resolution of May 4, 1990 which will allow in practice to more successfully and effectively carry out the fight against extortion.

The most justified and relevant in the conditions of our reality, when a significant part of extortion is committed with the help of weapons or various items used as weapons: stones, sticks, etc., the introduction of such a qualifying circumstance in Part 2 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code, as "extortion committed with the use of weapons or objects used as weapons."

In our opinion, in order to eliminate contradictions in the interpretation of Part 3 of Art. 16 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it would be correct to state it in the following wording: “In cases where the repetition of crimes is provided for by this code as a circumstance entailing a more severe punishment, each of the crimes committed by a person is qualified independently, but at the same time, starting from the second, the act should be qualified according to the relevant part of the article of this code, which provides for punishment for repeated crimes.

It is also advisable to supplement Part 1 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code and state it as follows: “In the case of a combination of crimes, punishment is imposed separately for each crime committed. According to the same rule, punishment is imposed when committing crimes more than once.

When delimiting extortion from violent robbery and robbery, the following signs should be taken into account in the aggregate: the moment of the end of the criminal assault, the purpose of the use of violence, the direction of the threat of violence. In addition to these basic criteria, one should also take into account the existence of alternative behavior of the victim, as well as the method of transfer of property. Although the latter signs lie outside the scope of extortion, nevertheless, in practice they contribute to a more correct resolution of controversial issues when distinguishing extortion from robbery and robbery.

For a uniform understanding of extortion associated with unlawful deprivation of liberty, appropriate guidance from the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is necessary.

Explanation of extortion of a bribe or commercial bribery, given in the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 6 of February 10, 2000 “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and commercial bribery”, which currently guides the courts, should be brought into line with the letter of the law. *

The social danger of extortion in the first place lies in the fact that it underlies the formation of organized crime.

Consideration of extortion in the light of criminological issues determines the need to identify the relationship between extortion and racketeering. The study of the opinions expressed in science on this subject, as well as the judgments of practitioners, allows the dissertator to state that extortion is a criminal law concept, and racketeering is a criminological one, while they are not identical in meaning. Racketeering can have a broad interpretation, but in relation to extortion, this is its qualified form. Racketeering is also a systematic, organized criminal activity. Recently, racketeering, as a rule, involves the provision of security services for the extorted "tribute", which in the modern sense is defined as "roof".

An analysis of the regional qualitative and quantitative parameters of extortion indicates an increase in the public danger of such crimes in the territory of the Irkutsk region with a simultaneous complication of the forms of its manifestation.

Extortions are committed by persons predominantly of young age with good physical fitness and a fairly high educational level. Moreover, in recent years, these individuals have resorted to more and more "civilized" methods of committing extortion.

Regional victimological aspects of extortion allow us to develop a number of recommendations for the prevention of such crimes. The latter includes both measures aimed at eliminating situations fraught with the possibility of causing harm, as well as measures to ensure the personal safety of a possible victim of extortion.

The main determinants of extortion, in addition to general socio-economic reasons, are the imperfection of the criminal procedure legislation, the impunity of offenders and the corruption of government officials.

Along with a set of general social and special measures to combat extortion, punishment is one of the most effective means.

To strengthen the fight against extortion, the dissertation considers it possible to refuse to apply Article 73 of the Criminal Code to those convicted for qualified and especially qualified extortion, the mandatory application of a fine under Part 1 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code, confiscation under parts 2, 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code. More detailed regulation of terms of imprisonment for committing extortion is also needed.

Taking into account the prevailing law enforcement practice, courts should be advised to assign terms of imprisonment for extortion that would be close to the maximum terms provided by the legislator for a particular type of extortion.

The forecast regarding extortion for the coming years is unfavorable: we should expect a further increase in the public danger, prevalence, influence, and negative consequences of these criminal phenomena.

Only the skillful conduct of criminal policy by the state can help reduce extortion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE THESIS

"Criminal-legal and criminological problems of the fight against extortion"

1. Regulations

3. The Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922 // SU, 1922. Art. 153.

4. Criminal Code of the RSFSR 1926. M.: Jurid. ed. type of. "Cr. proletarian", 1948. - 216 p.

5. Criminal Code of the RSFSR 1960. Moscow: Jurid. lit., 1961. - 175 p.

6. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Federal Law of June 13, 1996, No. 63-F3 // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 1996. - No. 113. - June 18; - No. 114. - June 19; -No. 115. - June 20; -No. 118. - 25 June.

7. Model Criminal Code for the CIS countries // Inform. bul. IPA of the CIS member states. 1996. -№10. Application. - P.85-216.

8. Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. -1960. - No. 40.-Art. 592.

9. Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation // Russian newspaper. 2001. - No. 249. - 22 December.

10. Civil Code of the Russian Federation // Russian newspaper. -1994. No. 238-239. - December 8; - 1996. - No. 23. - February 6; - No. 24. - February 7; - No. 25. - February 8; - No. 27. - February 10.2. Judicial decisions

11. On some issues arising when the courts consider cases on the protection of the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian

12. Federation of August 18, 1992 No. 11 // Collection of Resolutions of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (USSR, RSFR) on civil cases. M., 2000. - S.244-246.

13. Russian Federation (USSR, RSFSR) in criminal cases. M., 2000. S.182-187.

14. Legal and special literature (monographs, textbooks, comments, manuals, dictionaries)

15. Alekseev A.I. Criminology. Lecture course. M.: Shield-M, 1998. - 340 p.

16. Antonyan Yu.M. The study of the identity of the offender. M.: VNII MVD USSR, 1982.-79 p.

17. Antonyan Yu.M., Golubev V.P., Kudryakov Yu.N. Personality of a mercenary criminal Tomsk: Publishing House of Tomsk University, 1989. - 158 p.

18. Belogrits-Kotlyarovsky L.S. Textbook of Russian criminal law. General and Special parts. Kyiv: South-Russian. Prince F.A. Ioganson, 1903. -618 p.

19. Bluvshtein Yu.D., Zyrin M.I., Ratnikov V.V. Prevention of crimes. Minsk: Universitetskoe, 1986. - 286 p.,

20. Boskholov S.S. Fundamentals of criminal policy. M.: Educational and consulting center "YurInfoR", 1999. - 293 p.

21. Vasiliev V.L. Legal psychology. St. Petersburg: Peter Kom, 1998. -656 p.

22. Verin V.P. Crimes in the sphere of economy. Series "Russian Law: Theory and Practice". Educational and practical guide. M.: Delo, 1999. -200 p.

23. Vladimirov V.A. Qualification of theft of personal property. - M.: Yurid. lit., 1974. - 208 p.

24. Vladimirov V.A., Lyapunov Yu.I. Socialist property under the protection of the law. M.: Yurid. lit., 1979. - 199 p.

25. Volzhenkin B.V. economic crimes. - St. Petersburg:

26. Legal Center Press”, 1999. 312 p.

27. Gaverov G.S., Avdeev V.A., Tatarnikov V.G., Kruter M.S. Criminal law (General part) in questions and answers: Textbook. Irkutsk: Irkut. state those. un-t, 1999. - 198 p.

28. Gaverov G.S. Problems of punishment of juvenile offenders. Irkutsk: Irkut. un-ta, 1986. - 208 p.

29. Gaverov G.S. Non-custodial criminal law measures, their application to juvenile offenders. -Irkutsk, 1981.-256 p.

30. Gaukhman L.D. Criminal liability for extortion. M., 1996. - 38 p.

31. Gaukhman L.D., Maksimov C.V. Liability for crimes against property. M.: Educational and consulting center "YurInfoR", 1997. -320 p.

32. Gurov A.I. Organized crime is not a myth, but a reality. - M.: Knowledge, 1992.-79 p.

33. Gurov A.I. Professional crime: past and present. M: Legal. lit., 1990. - 301 p.

34. Gurov A.I., Zhigarev E.S., Yakovlev E.I. Criminological characteristics and prevention of crimes committed by organized groups. M., 1992. - 70 p.

35. Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. M.: Russian language, V.4: R-Ya, 1991. - 683 p.

36. Esipov V.V. Criminal law. The part is special. Crimes against person and property. M.: Jurisprudence, 1913.-216 p.

37. Zhizhilenko A. Crimes against property and exclusive rights. L.: Rabochy sud, 1928. - 208 p.

38. Zhizhilenko A.A. property crimes. L.: Science and school, 1925.-266 p.

39. Zak G.A. Blackmail and extortion in their relationship // Uchen. app. Moscow Imperial University. Legal department Issue. 45. M., 1915. - S.1-58.

40. Karpets I.I. Punishment: social, legal and criminological problems. M.: Yurid. lit., 1973. - 287p.

41. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation / Ed. V.I. Radchenko. -M.: Verdict, 1996. 647 p.

42. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation / Ed. ed. Yu.I. Skuratov and V.M. Lebedev. 815 p.

43. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation / Ed.

44. A.V. Naumova. M.: Jurist, 1996. - 824 p.

45. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation / Ed. N.F. Kuznetsova. M.: Zertsalo, 1998. - 878 p.

46. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the RSFSR / Otv. ed. G.Z.Anashkin, I.I.Karpets, B.S.Nikiforov. M.: Yurid, lit., 1971. - 560 p.

47. Commentary to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation / Ed. A.I. Boyko. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, Magpie, Zeus, 1996. - 736 p.

48. Kon I.S. Sociology of personality. M.: Politizdat, 1967. - 383 p.

49. Kochoi S.M. Liability for acquisitive crimes against property. Moscow: ANTEY 200 LLC; Vocational education, 2000. - 288 p.

50. Kochoi S.M. Crimes against property (commentary of Chapter 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). M.: "Prospect", 2001. - 104 p.

51. Krivolapov G.G. Plurality of crimes under Soviet criminal law. Tutorial. M .: Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR, 1974.- 32s.

52. Criminology / Ed. N.F. Kuznetsova and G.M. Minkovsky. M.: Mosk. state un-t. 1994. - 415 p.

53. Criminology. Special part: Textbook. Benefit / Under the total. ed.

54. V.Ya.Rybalskoy. Irkutsk: Irkut. state economy acad., 2001. - 307 p.

55. Criminology. Textbook / Ed. V.N. Kudryavtseva, V.E. Eminova. -M.: Jurist, 1997.-512 p.

56. Criminology: Textbook for universities / Ed. A.I. Dolgovoy. M.: INFRA-M-NORMA, 1997. - 784 p.

57. Kudryavtsev V.H. General theory of qualification of crimes. M.: Lawyer, 1999. - 304 p.

58. Kuznetsova N.F. Problems of criminological determination. M.: Mosk. state un-t, 1984. - 204 p.

59. The course of Soviet criminal law. M.: Nauka, 1970. T.Z. - 350 e.; T.4. -432 e.; T.5.-571 p.

60. Lastochkina S.G., Khokhlova H.H. Collection of resolutions of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (USSR, RSFSR) on criminal cases. Second edition, revised and enlarged. M.: PBOYuL Grizhenko E.M., 2000. - 608 p.

61. The identity of the offender / Ed. V.N. Kudryavtsev, G.M. Minkovsky, A.B. Sakharov. M.: Yurid. lit., 1975. - 270 p.

62. Luneev V.V. Motivation of criminal behavior. M.: Nauka, 1991. -382 p.

63. Luneev V.V. Crime of the 20th century. World criminological analysis. M.: NORMA, 1999. - 516 p.

64. Malakhov L.K. Responsibility for extortion: qualification and punishment under Soviet and foreign law. - Nizhny Novgorod: Nizhegorsk. state un-t, 1995. 126 p.

65. Martsev A.I., Maksimov C.V. General crime prevention and its effectiveness. Tomsk: Tom. state un-t, 1989. - 159 p.

66. Milyukov S.F. Accounting for the identity of the offender in the activities of the BHSS devices: a tutorial. Gorky: Gorkov. Higher School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR, 1985. - 32 p.

67. Minskaya V.C., Chechel G.I. Victimological factors and the mechanism of criminal behavior. Irkutsk: Irkut. state un-t, 1988. - 148 p.

68. Violent crime / Ed. V.N. Kudryavtseva, A.V. Naumova. M.: Spark, 1997. - 139 p.

69. Scientific and practical commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Volume One / Ed. P.N. Panchenko. Nizhny Novgorod: NOMOS, 1996. - 624 p.

70. Neklyudov A. Guide to the Special Part of Russian Criminal Law. Crimes and misdemeanors against property. St. Petersburg: type. V.P. Volensa, 1876. V.2. - 747 p.

71. Nemirovsky E.Ya. Soviet criminal law. Part General and Particular. Odessa: Odespoligraf, 1924. - 292 p.

72. Nikiforov B.S., Reshetnikov F.M. Contemporary American Criminal Law. M., 1990. - 256 p.

73. New commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation / Ed. A.S. Mikhlin and I.V. Shmarov. M.: Verdict, 1996. - 835 p.

74. Ozhegov S.I. Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. M.: Azbukovnik, 1997. - 944 p.

75. Organized crime / Ed. A.I.Dolgova, S.V.Dyakova. -M.: Jurid. lit., 1989. 352 p.

76. Organized crime is a threat to the culture and sovereignty of Russia. Collection. SPb.: Ed. House "Business Press": Publishing House of Mikhailov V.A., 1998.- 198 p.

77. Osin V.V., Konstantinov V.I. Investigation of cases of extortion. Tutorial. M.: Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, 1991. - 96 p.

78. Fundamentals of combating organized crime / Ed. V.S. Ovchinsky, V.E. Eminov, N.P. Yablokov. M.: INFRA-M, 1996. - 397 p.

79. Approaches to solving the problems of lawmaking and law enforcement: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Adjuncts, applicants, students. Omsk: Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 1998. - Issue. 3. - 240 p.

80. Poznyshev C.B. A special part of Russian criminal law. M.: type. V.M. Sablina, 1909. - 516 p.

81. Complete set of criminal laws. Code of punishments with the inclusion of articles of volumes of the code of laws. SPb., 1879. - 574 p.

82. Polubinsky V.I. Legal foundations of the doctrine of the victim of a crime. - Gorky: Gorky. Higher School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR, 1979. 84 p.

83. Workshop on criminal law. Textbook / Ed. JI.L. Krutikova. M.: BEK, 1997.-501 p.

84. Crime and culture / Ed. A.I. Dolgovoy. Moscow: Criminological Association, 1999. - 160 p.

85. Causes of offenses / VN Kudryavtsev; Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of State. and rights. M.: Nauka, 1976. - 286 p.

86. Pustoroslev P.P. Russian criminal law. Special part. Issue. 1. - Yuriev: type. K. Matissen, 1913. 414 p.

87. Ratinov A.R. Psychological study of the identity of the offender. M., 1981.-77 p.

88. Repetskaya A.A. Guilty behavior of the victim and the principle of justice in criminal policy. Irkutsk, 1994. - 152 p.

89. Repetskaya A.L., Rybalskaya V.Ya. Criminology. A common part. -Irkutsk: Irkut. state economy acad., 1999. 240 p.

90. Reshetnikov F.M. Bourgeois criminal law is an instrument for the protection of private property. M.: Yurid. lit., 1982. - 216 p.

91. Rivman D.V. Victimological factors and crime prevention. Tutorial. L., 1975. - 75 p.

92. Rybalskaya V.Ya. Problems of combating juvenile delinquency: Proc. allowance. Irkutsk: Irkut state. un-t, 1994-200s.

93. Safonov V.N. Organized extortion: criminal law and criminological analysis. St. Petersburg: SPbIVESEP; O-vo "Knowledge", 2000. -239 p.

94. Collection of current resolutions of the Plenums of the Supreme Courts of the USSR, the RSFSR and the Russian Federation on criminal cases with comments and explanations / Otv. Ed. V.I. Radchenko. M., 1999. - 696 p.

95. Sklyarov C.B. Motives of individual criminal behavior and their ^ criminal law significance. - M. : RPA MJ RF, 2000. - 288 p.

96. Skoblikov P.A., Property disputes: intervention and counteraction: A practical guide. M.: Publishing house "Nota Bene", 1998. - 120 p.

97. Modern dictionary of foreign words: about 20,000 words. M.: Russian language, 1992. - 740 p.

98. Tagantsev N.S. Lectures on Russian criminal law. The part is special. St. Petersburg: P.M. Sokurov, 1883. - 320 p.

99. Tatarnikov V.G. The significance of the nature and degree of social danger of crimes for the individualization of punishment. Tutorial. Irkutsk: Irkut. State. those. un-t, 1998. - 42 p.

100. Tenchov E.S., Koryagina O.V. Extortion: Text of lectures. Ivanovo: Ivan. state un-t, 1998. - 55 p.

101. Theoretical foundations of crime prevention M.: Jurid. lit., 1977.-255 p.

102. Topilskaya E.V. Organized crime. St. Petersburg: Legal Center Press, 1999. - 256 p.

103. Criminal legislation of foreign countries (England, USA, France, Germany, Japan). Collection of legislative materials / Ed. I.D. Kozochkina. M.: Publishing house: "Mirror", 1999. 352 p.

104. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: article-by-article comment / Ed. N.F. Kuznetsova and G.M. Minkovsky M.: Zertsalo, 1997. - 792 p.

105. The Criminal Code of the RSFSR: scientific and practical commentary / Ed. L.L. Kruglikova, E.S. Tenchova. Yaroslavl: Vlad, 1994. - 672 p.

106. Ustinov B.C. The concept and criminological characteristics of organized crime. N-Novgorod: Nizhegorsk. Higher School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, 1993. -84 p.

107. Foinitsky I.Ya. Criminal law course. Part Special. St. Petersburg, 1916. -439 p.

108. Frank L.V. Victims of crimes and problems of Soviet victimology. Dushanbe: Irfon, 1977. - 237 p.

109. Encyclopedic Dictionary: In 86 volumes / Published by Brockhaus F.A., Efron I.A. Reprint, reproduction ed. 1890 - St. Petersburg: TERRA. T.14. - 1991. -480 p.4. Articles

110. Abrosimov S. Problems of liability for extortion // Legitimacy. - 1999. - No. 5. - P.25-27.

111. Alekseev A.A. Implementation of punitive policy: opportunity and reality // Interuniversity collection of scientific papers: Approaches to solving the problems of lawmaking and law enforcement. - Issue 3. Omsk. - 1998.1. pp.50-59.

112. Alekseev V. The concept of an organized group // Socialist legality. - 1989. - No. 11. - P.25-26.

113. Antonyan Y. Actual problems* of violence in Russian society // Criminal law. - 2000. - No. 3. - P.63-66.

114. Antonyan Yu.M., Pakhomov V.D. Organized crime and the fight against it // Soviet state and law. - 1989. - No. 7. - P.65-73.

115. Aslanov R.M., Boytsov A.I. Legal nature of extortion and some controversial issues of its qualification // Legal practice. - 1996. -№6. -S.1-8.

116. Baranova S.I. The concept of repetition in the new criminal legislation // Interuniversity collection of scientific papers: Approaches to solving the problems of lawmaking and law enforcement. - Issue 3. Omsk.1998. -p.88-94.

117. Bogatishchev V.Ya. Extortion as a form of theft // Bulletin of Leningrad State University.

118. Ser. 6. - 1990. - Issue 4 (No. 27). - P.69-72.

119. Borzenkov G.N. Crimes against property in the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation // Legal World. - 1997. - No. 6-7. - P.39-50.

120. Borzenkov G.H. Increased liability for extortion. // Bulletin of Moscow State University. - Ser. Right. - 1990. - No. 2. - P.16-23.

121. Brazhkin F. Plurality of crimes is a reflection of their cumulative public danger // Criminal law. - 2000. - No. 3. - P.6-10.

122. Bykov V. The construction of a qualifying sign of the commission of a crime by a group // Criminal Law. - 2000. - No. 3. - S. 11-14.

123. Bulls V. Signs of an organized criminal group // Legality. - 1998, - No. 9. - P.4-8.

124. Bulls V. What is an organized criminal group? // Ros. justice. - 1995.-№10. - P.41-42.

125. Vandyshev A., Ovchinsky V. Prevention strategy // Soviet justice. - 1991. - No. 1. - P.4-6.

126. Vasilyevsky A. Age as a condition of criminal liability // ^ Legitimacy. - 2000. -№11. - P.23-25.

127. Verin V. Consideration of cases of extortion // Soviet justice. - 1993. -№1. -p.8-10.

128. Vladimirov V.A. Responsibility for extortion of state or public or personal property // Soviet justice. - 1964. - No. 8. - P.28-30.

129. Gavrilov B. On the reality of Russian criminal statistics // Legality. - 1999. - No. 6. - P.27-32.

130. Galperin I.M., Ratinov A.R. Social justice and punishment // Soviet state and law. - 1986. - No. 10. - P.71-79.

131. Gaukhman L.D., Maksimov S.V., Zhavoronkov A. Fairness of punishment: principle and reality // Legitimacy.- 1997.- No. 7.- P.2-6.

132. Golodnyuk MN, Kostareva TA Qualifying signs in the new ^ criminal legislation // Bulletin of Moscow State University. - Ser. Right. - 1995. No. 5. -one. pp.54-64.

133. Gusev O.B. Responsibility arising from the dissemination of information discrediting honor, dignity and business reputation // Lawyer. - 1999. - No. 8. - P.34-35.

134. Dvorkin A., Chernov K. Qualification of extortion and related crimes // Legitimacy. - 1994. - No. 12. - P.11-12.

135. Zhalinsky A.E. On the Correlation of Criminal and Civil Law in the Economy // State and Law. - 1999. - No. 12. - P.47-52.

136. Zabryansky G.I. Market relations and youth unemployment / Materials of the round table "Market and crime" // Bulletin of Moscow State University. - Ser. Right. - 1993. - No. 6. - S. 17-20.

137. Zatsepin M.N. Assessment of the level of crime and general characteristics of crimes that encroach on the security of business. // Russian legal journal. - 1996. -№1. - P.30-43.

138. Ivanov N.G. Criminal liability for extortion // Soviet justice. - 1989. - No. 10. - P.26-28.

139. From the practice of prosecutorial supervision in criminal cases // Legality. - 2000.--№12. - P.55.

140. Indeikin V., Tenchov E. Responsibility for extortion of state property // Soviet justice. - 1981. - No. 5. - P.28-29.

141. Kaipov M. Problems of qualification of extortion // Socialist legality - 1995. - No. 9. - P.37-39.

142. Kleimenov M.P., Dmitriev O.V. Racketeering in Siberia // Sociological research. - 1995. - No. 3. - S. 116-127.

143. Klepitsky I.A. Property and property in criminal law // State and law. - 1997. - No. 5. - P.74-83.

144. Klochkov V. Causes and conditions for the growth of crime and problems of increasing the effectiveness of their investigation-// Criminal law. - 1999. - No. 4. - P.83-85.

145. Kozachenko I., Kurchenko V. Determining the moment of the end of a crime in judicial practice // Soviet justice. - 1990. - No. 17. - P.24-25.

146. Kochoi S.M. Qualification of theft through the eyes of practitioners // Russian Justice. - 1999. - No. 4. - P.26.

147. Kremnev K., Minenok M. Qualification of continued and repeated theft // Soviet justice. - 1990. - No. 10. - P.9-10.

148. Kudryavtsev C.B. Crime control in a democratic society. Materials of the round table // State and Law. - 1993. - No. 10. -p.59-61.

149. Kuznetsov A.P., Izosimov C.V., Bokova I.N. Problems of appointment and execution of punishments for crimes committed in the sphere of economic activity // Lawyer. - 2000. - No. 2. - P.9-15.

150. Kuznetsova N.F. Qualification of complex elements of crimes // Criminal law, 2000. - No. 1. - P.25-32.

151. Larin A.M. Crime and detection of crimes // State and law. - 1999. - No. 4. - P.83-89.

152. Luneev V.V. Crime control in a democratic society. Materials of the round table // State and Law. - 1993. - No. 10. - P.55-59.

153. Luneev V.V. Criminological classification of crimes // State and Law. - 1986. - No. 1. - S. 124-129.

154. Lyapunov Yu. Responsibility for extortion // Legality. - 1997.4. -S.4-10.

155. Maksimov C.B. Organized crime in Russia: state and development forecast // Criminal law. - 1998. - No. 1. - P.91-97.

156. Medvedev A.M. Bribe extortion // State and law. - 1996.8. - P.98-100.

157. Milyukov C.B. Did the reform of criminal law take place? // Scales of Themis. -1996. -№1, -S.6-7.

158. Minsky V. Questions of qualification of extortion // State and law. - 1995. - No. 1. - P.99-106.

159. Minsky V. Responsibility for extortion // Russian justice. - 1994. -№7. -p.17-18.

160. Minskaya V., Kolodina R. Crimes against property: problems and prospects of legislative regulation // Russian justice. - 1996. - No. 3. - P.12-15.

161. Minsky B.C. Criminal liability for extortion. Some questions of qualification and proof // Law and Economics. - 1997. - No. 10. - P.49-53; No. 11-12. - P.63-66.

162. Mikhailova G., Timishev I. Separation of robbery from extortion // Soviet justice. - 1990. - No. 16. - P.20-21.

163. Overcurrent C.B. Victimological aspects of violent crimes // Legal Bulletin. - 1999. - No. 1. - P.94-95.

164. Ovchinsky V. Pyaggaya power // Our contemporary. - 1993. - No. 8. - P.163-173.

165. Orekhov V.V. V.M. Bekhterev about the causes and measures to combat crime // Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. - Ser. 6. - 1996. - Issue. 4 (#27). - P.99-101.

166. Osin V.V. Qualification of banditry // Legitimacy. - 1993. - No. 7. - P.38-39.

167. Petrashev V.N., Shcherbina V.V. "Qualified signs of extortion // Legal Bulletin. - 1999. - No. 1. - P. 95-97.V

168. Petrunev V. Separation of extortion from related crimes // Soviet justice. - 1973. - No. 14. - P.4-5.

169. Petrukhin I. Protection of persons assisting justice // Criminal law. - 1999. - No. 1. - S.70 74.

170. Pitetsky V. Qualification of crimes committed with the use of physical violence // Soviet justice. - 1993. - No. 1. - P.13-14.

171. Guide to the main areas of crime prevention // Soviet justice. - 1993. - No. 2. - S.28-31; No. 3.- P.24-27; No. 5. - S.25-27; No. 6. S.25-27.

172. Sergeev V.I. Evaluation of the actions of the victim in the qualification of extortion // Modern law. - 2000. - No. 1. - P.38-42.

173. Sergeev V.I. Judicial speech of a lawyer // Lawyer. 1999. - No. 8. - P.48-56.

174. Skoblikov P.A. Economics and racketeering: domestic features // Economy and law. - 1998. - No. 10. - P.42-45.

175. Taras A.E. Security of a businessman and business // Legal newspaper. - 1997. - No. 48. - C.5; No. 49. - p.6.

176. Tkachevsky Yu.M. Restoration of social justice, the purpose of criminal punishment and the penal code of the Russian Federation // Bulletin of Moscow State University. - Ser. Right. - 1998. -№8. - P.17-16.

177. Tkachenko V. General beginnings of sentencing // Russian justice. - 1997. - No. 1. - P.10-11.

178. Tkachenko V., Strelnikov A. Responsibility for crimes with aggravating circumstances // Legitimacy. - 1995. - No. 4.

179. Tkachenko V.I. Extortion // Business and Law. - 1996. - No. 6. - P.40-45.

180. Trakhov A. Collision of “repetition” and “relapse” in the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation // Russian Justice. - 1999. - No. 4. - P.47.

181. Ulezko S.I. Integrated object of crimes in the sphere of economy // Legal Bulletin. - 2000. - No. 1. - P.42-44.

182. Khusht R. What is the conflict between "repeated" and "relapse"? // Russian justice. - 1999. - No. 9. - P.47.

183. Chubarev V.L. Reusable criminal activity and criminal law // State and law. - 1992. - No. 12. - P.71-79.

184. Chuprova Yu.A., Murzkov SI. Qualification of crimes committed by an organized criminal group // Russian investigator. - 2000. - No. 6. -p.27-30.

185. Sharapov R. Classification of offenses into formal and material: myth or reality? // Criminal law. - 2000. - No. 3. - P.51-54.

186. Shestakov D.A. On the essence of criminal punishment // Bulletin of St. Petersburg. - Ser.6. - 1993. - Issue 1 (No. 6). - P.65-69.

187. Shirinsky S. Protection for a witness // Russian justice. - 1998. - No. 12. -p.40.

188. Shcherbina V.V. Correlation of extortion with related offenses // Legal Bulletin. - 1998. - No. 4. - P.101-110.5. Dissertations

189. Belotserkovsky S.D. Racket: criminological characteristics. General and special warning measures. Dis. . cand. legal Sciences. M., 1997. -190 p.

190. Yelets E.A. Criminal-legal and criminological aspects of extortion (based on materials from the North Caucasus region). Krasnodar, 2000. -198 p.

191. Eliseev S.A. Crimes against property under the criminal law of Russia. Dis. . doc. legal Sciences. Tomsk, 1999. - 337 p.

192. Koryagina O. V. Criminal law and criminological characteristics of extortion. Dis. .;. cand. legal Sciences. Ivanovo, 1998. -250 p.

193. Safin F.Yu. Extortion committed by a group of persons. SPb., 1997. -174 p.

194. Safonov V.N. Organized extortion: criminal law and criminological aspects. Dis. . cand. legal Sciences. SPb., 1997. - 314 p.

195. Tirskikh G.I. Extortion: a criminal law and criminological study. Dis, . cand. legal Sciences. SPb., 1996. -160 p.

196. Shpakovsky S.N. Violence as a way of committing extortion (based on materials from the Ural region). Dis. . cand. legal Sciences. Chelyabinsk, 1999.- 191 p.

197. Shcherbin V.V. Responsibility for extortion: (social and legal aspects). Dis. . doc. legal Sciences. Rostov n / D., 1999. - 203 p.6. Abstracts

198. Dmitriev O.V. Criminological and criminal law characteristics of extortion: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . hownd. legal Sciences. -Ekaterinburg: Uralsk, state. legal acad., 1994. 24 p.

199. Ivakhnenko A.M. Qualification of banditry, robbery, extortion (problems of composition ratio). Abstract dis. . cand. legal Sciences. M.: Yurid. in-t of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 1996. - 25 p.

200. Kochoi S.M. Responsibility for mercenary crimes against property under Russian law. Abstract dis. . doc. legal Sciences. M.: MGYuA, 1999. P.41. - 36 p.

201. Kuts V.N. Responsibility for extortion under Soviet criminal law. Abstract dis. . cand. legal Sciences. Kharkov: Kharkov jurid. in-t, 1986. - 15 p.

202. Skorilkina H.A. Group forms of extortion. Abstract dis. . cand. legal Sciences. M.: Mosk. legal in-t of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, 1995. - 25 p.

203. Materials of investigative and judicial practice

204. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the USSR. 1988. - No. 3. - S. 18-19.

205. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1967. - No. 9. - p.8.

206. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1984. - No. 1. - p.7.

207. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1991. - No. 4. - C.5.

208. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1991. - No. 6. - p.8.

209. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1991. - No. 8. - P.12.

210. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1991. - No. 9. - p.6.

211. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1991. - No. 11. - C.4.

212. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1993. - No. 4. -p.9-10.

213. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1994. - No. 4. -S.4-5.

214. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1995. - No. 5. S.11-12.

215. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1997. - No. 4. -C.7.

216. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1997. - No. 5. -p.17-18.

217. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1998. - No. 11. -p.8-9.

218. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1999. - No. 5. -S.11-12.21.

219. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1999. - No. 8. -C.2.

220. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1999. - No. 10. -p.8.

One of the most dangerous attacks on state or public property, as well as on the personal interests of citizens, is extortion (as the main source of income for organized crime), which relatively quickly spread throughout all regions of the country in various forms and manifestations.

Crimes of this category have a significant public danger and high latency. The fight against them is an independent multifaceted, including forensic, problem.

Generalized information about the object (subject) of a criminal offense is of great criminological importance. Extortion aimed at taking possession of the property of citizens, public and state organizations is characterized by a two-sided orientation: the victim's cash and property. Here, as in cases of murder, there is a gross encroachment on the highest human benefits - life and health - for the sake of criminally taking possession of other people's property or the right to it.

An analysis of investigative practice shows that the direct subject of criminal encroachment in extortion are: money and other securities; jewelry and ornaments; television, radio, video equipment; motor vehicles; branded clothing, shoes, etc. In addition, services or benefits are a specific subject.

In contrast to the criminal law concept of the subject of a crime, a person can be the subject of encroachment in the forensic aspect. As a rule, these are people with a high level of income. In many cases, the perpetrators had knowledge of the wrongfulness of such high incomes of their victims. Also of no small importance is the victimological aspect, which determines many crimes of this type.

First of all, persons engaged in commercial, cooperative and individual labor activities are exposed to extortion; In addition, victims can be: taxi drivers and private drivers; individual photographers, managers and organizers of cultural and entertainment establishments, communities of fraudsters who use gambling, prostitutes and some others, for example, persons selling various items in clothing markets, etc. These data vary depending on the region of the country, season, urban or rural areas, etc.

According to the qualifying features, all methods of extortion can be divided into three groups, where the means of influencing the victim are:

the threat of violence against the victim or persons close to him;
the threat of disclosure of disgraceful information about him or his relatives;
threat of property damage or destruction.

The first group of methods includes extortion committed with the use of violence, and primarily mental.

These include:

a threat with a word (the extortionist communicates face to face with the victim, while suppressing his will and forcing him to fulfill the requirements);
transmission of a threat by means of communication (by telephone, telegraph, radio, etc.);
transmission of a threat through writing and sound recording (this method is often used by extortionists when capturing and holding hostages for ransom).

To achieve the goal as soon as possible, the criminals force the hostage to write notes or slander on a magnetic tape an appeal to their loved ones with a plea for help. Then these cassettes and anonymous letters are sent to the recipients.

A significant place in this group of extortion is occupied by methods characterized by mental violence with the help of technical means. It:

demonstration of weapons of violence;
demonstration of the results of violence (for these methods, it is characteristic that in an allegorical form the victim is hinted at the grave consequences of refusing to fulfill the demands of extortionists).

The first group is completed by methods that are realized through the use of physical violence.

These include:

deprivation of the rights and freedoms of victims by restricting the activities of the victim; her abductions, imprisonment in deserted secret places, which only a narrow circle of people knows about;
direct use of physical violence.

The second group is formed by methods, the essence of which is the threat of disclosure of information about the victim or his relatives. Here criminals usually use threats and extortion to divulge trade secrets; technological processes; disclosure of information about illegally obtained income, services, etc., as well as the disclosure of disgraceful information about the victim or his relatives.

The third group includes methods that are implemented through the threat of destruction or damage to property belonging to or entrusted to the victim. The peculiarity of these methods is that the offender forces the victim to obey his demands, threatening damage, damage and destruction of property.

There are two types of ransomware:

persons who committed extortion without preparation, spontaneously. Such extortionists are classified as a typological group - "accidental criminals";
persons who committed extortion with preliminary preparation. Such extortionists are classified as a typological group - "malicious criminals".

The first category is characterized by an unexpressed differentiation between positive and negative needs. This is especially pronounced among minors - they believe that by such behavior they assert their authority. The press also played an important role in this, which created an aura of invincibility for extortionist racketeers. Therefore, extortion has also become fashionable. Most people in this category work or study, are characterized positively, go in for sports (many have high ranks, there are cases - masters of international class).

Such an outwardly respectable lifestyle creates a certain immunity from all sorts of suspicions from law enforcement agencies.

The second type includes extortionists with a predominantly criminal mindset. This is characterized not only by negative personality traits, but also by the fact that a person himself is looking for criminogenic situations that contribute to the commission of a crime, and if necessary creates them and uses all available means to achieve the set criminal goal.

A feature of this type is that a person is much more likely to commit several extortions, as well as other crimes, within a relatively short time. For such people, the methods of committing crimes are characterized by stability, greater preparedness, thoughtfulness, audacity, secrecy. More than half of the extortion they commit with the use of weapons or pre-prepared special equipment.

For persons belonging to the type of "malicious criminals" it is typical to join organized criminal groups in order to engage in organized extortion. These criminal associations deserve to be called racketeering groups. Since in form and content they constitute a community of the mafia type and serve as a powerful catalyst for the antisocial behavior of the members of society around them.

The fact of committing extortion by an organized criminal group has not only criminal law and forensic, but also socio-psychological significance. It consists in the fact that organized criminal groups are actively increasing their numbers. Attracting new accomplices is both at the initiative of the criminal group, when it needs certain persons to solve specific problems (who own the techniques of various types of hand-to-hand combat, specialists in radio engineering, electronics, etc.), and at the request of the "newbies" themselves, who are attracted opportunity for easy living.

There has been a trend of rejuvenation of accomplices in this category of crimes - these are persons aged, as a rule, from 16 to 35 years. It is especially alarming that young people go to crime consciously, even creating some ideological justification for the restoration of social justice, symbols, paraphernalia, etc.

Depending on the specific circumstances, criminal groups are formed on the basis of:

residence of their members in one microdistrict;
common place of their work or study;
common interests, activities, pastime;
past criminal ties or joint serving of sentences;
kinship, national ties or community.

A distinctive feature of such organized criminal groups is the development by their members of a certain protection system in the form of bribery of various officials, as well as intimidation of victims and witnesses, concealment of traces of committed crimes.

An organized criminal group of extortionists is a hierarchically constructed structure of criminal activity in the form of a trade, functioning under the auspices of corruption. Let us list the main structural elements of such groups.

Group organizer ("leader" or "elite"). Practice shows that the presence of a criminal record loses its importance for creating authority for the organizer of the group, as it was before. The first roles are played by people who have not previously been convicted, but with a strong-willed character, enterprising, who have adopted criminal experience as a result of close contacts with the convicted (there are groups where not a single member of the group has been judged).

It should be noted that among the extortionists there are a large number of people with a high intellectual and educational level (students, engineers, etc.). Many employees of state bodies, betraying the interests of the service, provided patronage and necessary consultations to extortionists. There are facts and direct participation in criminal actions.

Cover group. These are lawyers, corrupt representatives of the apparatus and law enforcement agencies.

Brigadiers. As a rule, former athletes who lead "militant" units. The number of such detachments or brigades exists depending on the socio-economic conditions of a particular region.

"Militants" (or guards). This is the lowest level of an organized group. They are direct performers. But, as you know, the criminal group of extortionists can also include persons who perform other criminal functions, for example, intelligence officers, liaison officers, gunners, tribute collectors, holders of the “common fund”, etc.

What should be done in this case? Most effective way out-appeal to law enforcement agencies. For extortion, Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is provided for.

How to prove?

Extortion is connected with the demand transfer any property (most often money) or rights to this property.

Sometimes you have to deal with extortion of a bribe.

Prove extortion sometimes enough difficult. For this reason, the collection of evidence on the fact of extortion is difficult.

In any case, it will not be superfluous to take a voice recorder to the upcoming meeting with extortionists (if it goes according to plan). If possible, use a hidden camera.

If it is possible to involve witnesses, then it is necessary to do so.

If the extortionists began to carry out their threats (for example, there was a beating), then a medical examination should be taken to record the infliction of bodily harm.

In some cases evidence can be payment documents, receipts, etc.

Extortion of money

Often, communication between the extortionist and the victim is limited to a conversation during which the offender expresses his demands.

Sometimes the line between extortion and vague "hints" is very blurry.

For example, if bribe extorted from the driver by a traffic police officer, then his invitation to go into the patrol car and even reasoning about the “hard life” cannot be regarded as extortion.

If there is extortion by employees of state and municipal institutions, then need pursuit retain all supporting documentation.

So, often the medical staff requires patients to pay for the medicine during the period of treatment in the hospital, citing the fact that the medical institution does not have this drug, they ask them to pay for the operation (which they must do free of charge), etc.

In such cases, you should save all checks, receipts and other payment documentation.

Where to apply?

When extorted need to contact the police at the place of its commission (to the department of the city or district where the extortionists demanded money). You should take care to receive a notification from the duty coupon that your application has been accepted for consideration.

According to the application received required to check and notify you in writing of the initiation of a criminal case on this fact or the refusal to initiate it. You can also apply to the prosecutor's office.

In a statement must state all circumstances. in as much detail as possible.

You should tell how the extortion was carried out, describe the appearance of the extortionist (if his identity is not established).

If witnesses were present, this must be indicated. Mandatory need demand a criminal case and bringing to justice those responsible for extortion.

Sample Application to the police or the prosecutor's office on the fact of extortion and threats see below:

Sample application form.

A special case is extortion by officials. Often, employees of power structures extort money for paperwork, quick (extraordinary) resolution of the issue, the issuance of any permit to the entrepreneur.

Unfortunately, about such facts enough rarely reported to law enforcement which creates a favorable environment for the unimpeded activities of such public servants.

In case of extortion of this kind, you should contact the department for combating economic crimes. As a rule, measures against such officials are taken immediately.

When extorting a bribe, also you can contact the prosecutor, to federal security agencies - to the Directorate of the FSB of Russia and to investigative agencies - the investigative department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the corresponding subject of the Federation.

If a traffic police officer extorts a bribe, then the owner of the car can call on so-called "helpline"(Available in all divisions of this service).

His number can be found at stationary posts and traffic police patrols). Extortion of this nature can be reported to the leadership of the traffic police department of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation or the department where this inspector works.

The motorist has the right to call a higher official to the place of conflict and file a complaint in writing. Also in this case, you can contact the prosecutor's office.

It is necessary to accurately record the time and place where the extortion of a bribe took place, write down the names of employees or the numbers of their badges. If possible, take photos or video.

As you know, criminal liability is also provided for giving a bribe.

If it so happened that the bribe has already been given, still need to contact law enforcement and actively contribute to the disclosure of this crime. In this case, you can avoid punishment.

How to get rid of ransomware?

It would seem that the most easy way get rid of ransomware give in to their demands and still give them the amount of money they ask for.

However, there are ambiguous nuances here.

First, there is the risk that after receiving the money, the extortionist will still not calm down.

On the contrary, he may demand more and more sums of money. Perhaps his demands will increase to such an extent that it will no longer be possible to satisfy them.

Frequent cases of fraud associated with borrowing money. So, if the borrowed funds and accrued interest are returned, it is not a fact that the creditor will not demand to repay the debt again.

If the extortion is connected with the repayment of the debt and some funds were nevertheless handed over to the extortionists, then this fact should be formalized in the form of a receipt. Although this may not always be the best way out of the situation.

Second option — apply for extortion to law enforcement agencies (police, prosecutors). This is a much more efficient way.

Of course here will need to apply some efforts and show patience. The latter will be needed to collect as much detailed information about the ransomware as possible.

This is necessary so that the submitted application is promptly considered and a fair decision is made on it.

You will have to deal with the extortionist calmly and with restraint.

Well, if you can fix his threats For example, record them on a dictaphone.

Depending on the circumstances - the type of extortion, the degree of threat, the amount demanded by the extortionist - scheme will be developed operational action.

Most often, it will be proposed to transfer marked banknotes to the extortionist. At the time of the transfer of the amount of money, the extortionist is detained.

You do not need to show the extortionist your fear of disclosing certain information. On the contrary, in some cases it is better to make this information public on your own in order to disarm the extortionist.

After all ransomware can "declassify" given information in a light that suits him.

How to fight?

If for each case of extortion by state and municipal structures notify the relevant authorities, then it will most likely be kept to a minimum.

In particular, extortion in medical institutions can be stopped by filing a complaint with the head physician against those medical workers who extort money for the performance of their immediate duties. Will give good results contacting an insurance company.

First of all, the indifference and determination of those from whom money is extorted is important.

Of course sometimes joining the fight with extortionists fraught with stress.

But extortionists will be punished, and potential extortionists working in these institutions, having weighed all the pros and cons, are likely to abandon their plans.

In addition, it is necessary to take measures aimed at protecting personal data and information of a personal nature so as not to create a wide field of activity for extortionists.

Do not dedicate to family secrets strangers, brag about material wealth, transfer your photos, documents, etc. to third parties.

Particular care should be taken when posting information on the Internet. Do not make dubious acquaintances.

Conclusion

Whatever type of extortion we may face, the outcome of the situation will depend on our decision.

If you try to resist extortionists on your own or fulfill their requirements, the chance to get rid of the extortionists' persecution is small.

The situation could escalate even more so.

Better do not rely on your own strength, but, having collected the most detailed information about extortionists, file a complaint with the police, prosecutor's office or other competent authorities.