№ 6 (105) июнь, 2023 г. ABSTRACT The article deals with the offense - the implementation of entrepreneurial activities without state registration as an individual entrepreneur or legal entity. Along with this, the administrative responsibility provided for the above offense under Part 1 of Art. 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation. The motive of this offense is described, the effectiveness of administrative responsibility under Part 1 of Art. 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it is proposed to increase administrative responsibility in order to effectively counteract the motive of the above offense, as well as in order to increase state support for entrepreneurial activity by financing it from the state budget, the main source of replenishment of which is the payment of taxes. АННОТАЦИЯ В статье рассматривается правонарушение – осуществление предпринимательской деятельности без государственной регистрации в качестве индивидуального предпринимателя или юридического лица. Описывается мотив данного правонарушения, анализируется эффективность административной ответственности по ч. 1 ст. 14.1 КоАП РФ, предлагается усиление административной ответственности с целью эффективного противодействия рассмотренному правонарушению, а также в целях повышения государственной поддержки предпринимательской деятельности путем ее финансирования из средств государственного бюджета, основным источником пополнения которого является уплата налогов. Keywords: entrepreneurship; administrative responsibility; offense; punishment; sanctions restrictions; governmental support; subject. Ключевые слова: предпринимательство; административная ответственность; административное правонару- шение; наказание; санкционные ограничения; государственная поддержка; субъект. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ Proceeding from the sense of Article 34 of the types of legal responsibility for this act. In particular, Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has the this responsibility is stipulated in article 14.1 of the CAO right to use their own abilities and means for RF and article 171 of the Criminal Code of the RF. Let's entrepreneurial or other economic activities, which are focus attention on administrative responsibility for not prohibited by Russian legislation [1]. illegal entrepreneurship. Dwelling on entrepreneurial activity, which is a According to part 1 of Article 14.1 of the CAO RF, special type of economic activity, it is important to note \"the conduct of business without state registration as an that in practice often meetings persons who carry out individual entrepreneur or without state registration as a these activities without state registration as an individual legal entity, except as provided in part 2 of Article entrepreneur or legal entity. This circumstance in the 14.17.1 of the CAO RF shall incur an administrative fine administrative legislation is qualified as an offence from five hundred to two thousand rubles. (article 14.1 of the CAO RF) [2]. It should be noted that the sanction for this offence The disposition of part 1 of article 14.1 of the CAO in the administrative legislation of Russia is much RF gives an idea only about the objective side - the milder than, for example, in the Republic of Azerbaijan. actions of a person recognized as unlawful and this is the Considering the administrative responsibility for this actual actions of a person in the form of entrepreneurial offence under the administrative legislation of the activity without proper state registration or permit (license). Republic of Azerbaijan, one can see that the penalty for The object is public relations in the field of entrepreneurial this offence is more severe. activity, which are regulated and protected by admi- nistrative legislation. The subject is an individual or legal Thus, article 398 of the Code of Administrative entity, which according to the norms of the CAO RF can Offences of the Republic of Azerbaijan provides for bear administrative responsibility (articles 2.3. and 2.10.). punishment in the form of a fine from twice to four times Generally, the subjective aspect of an administrative the amount of damage (profit gained) caused as a result offence manifests itself in the culpable conduct of a of an administrative offence[4]. The issue of punishment subject, expressed in intent and negligence, which is for this administrative offence is resolved differently reflected in article 2.2. of the CAO RF. In relation to the under the administrative legislation of the Republic of considered corpus delicti, guilt is expressed in intentional Kazakhstan. actions: it is impossible to carry out entrepreneurial activity without state registration or permit (license) by negligence. It provides for a more severe punishment than in the Russian Federation, but more loyal than in the Republic As correctly noted by E.A. Chernyshova and of Azerbaijan. Thus, in accordance with Article 153 of I.N. Zaitseva, often the motive of this offense is the the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of desire to avoid paying taxes in order to benefit Kazakhstan, this act - shall entail a fine of 30 to 50 percent property[3]. However, it is worth noting that in addition of the damage caused (profits received)[5] . to non-payment of taxes, these subjects avoid planned as well as unplanned inspections of regulatory authorities. From point of view the authors, if we take into This avoids the possibility of detecting violations and, account the current situation (international sanctions accordingly, any administrative penalties. Of course, the imposed on the Russian Federation), which has a legislative power of the Russian Federation in order to negative impact on the economic sector of the Russian prevent actions or omissions aimed at carrying out Federation, it would be appropriate to take measures that illegal business activities, enshrines in the legislation would simultaneously aim to develop entrepreneurial activity and simultaneously replenish the state budget 50
№ 6 (105) июнь, 2023 г. in order to further assign funds for the development of entrepreneurial activity, in the implementation of which of the economic sector in the country. there will be replenishment of the state budget (tax payments). This replenishment, in turn, will supplement It is important to note the very timely state support the funds for state financing of entrepreneurial activity, for entrepreneurial activity in July 2022 in the form of which will effectively affect the economy of the country. administrative incentives for such activity. Thus, on July 14, 2022 Federal Law No. - 290 \"On Amendments to the Code In addition, the sanction enshrined in part 1 of of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses article 14.1 of CAO RF, does not fulfill all the tasks of and Article 1 of the Federal Law \"On Amendments to this code, which are listed in article 1.2 of CAO RF. So, the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative for example, such a task as \"protection of legitimate Offenses\" was adopted, under which administrative economic interests of individuals and legal entities, responsibility for certain offenses is reduced[6]. society and the state from administrative offences\" is not performed. This is due to the fact that, firstly, carrying For example, if the subjects of entrepreneurial activity out illegal entrepreneurial activity, a person often sells voluntarily compensated the caused damage, they will products that do not comply with technical regulations. pay a minimum administrative fine. Also in the case of Secondly, carrying out illegal entrepreneurial activities, primary commission of an offence in the circumstances a person does not pay taxes, which are the main revenues enshrined in part 2, part 3 of article 3.4 and part 2 of to the state budget. article 4.1.1 of the CAO RF, the administrative penalty in the form of a fine shall be replaced with a warning. The measure of responsibility in the form of a fine Besides, the list of circumstances is expanded, when from 500 to 2,000 rubles for the offence of part 1 of within 20 days from the date of the decision on the article 14.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of violation, the fine can be paid in half size. These are the the Russian Federation \"doing business without state offences of unfair competition, illegal actions for receipt registration as an individual entrepreneur or without or provision of a credit report or information, etc. forming a legal entity\" is unlikely to be effective, since (enshrined in part 1.3-1 of article 23.2 of the CAO RF). it does not \"dampen the desire (motive) to evade taxation. Accordingly, the above tasks under article 1.2 of At the same time, for a number of administrative the CAO RF do not have full prospects for achievement. offences the period of execution of penalties under the relevant decrees has been increased from one month to It is also important to note that since 22.06.2007, no six months. In particular, these are offenses, for which changes have been made to part 1 of article 14.1 of the the execution of a decision on imposing an administrative CAO RF. In connection with the fact that the economic penalty in the form of administrative detention, situation in the country since 2007 has not cardinally deprivation of a special right, compulsory expulsion changed towards improvement, it would be advisable to from the Russian Federation of a foreign citizen or make certain amendments. In particular, to strengthen stateless person or in the form of an administrative fine sanctions for the offense provided for by part 1 article 14.1 is impossible within the prescribed period. of the CAO RF, namely to increase the measure of administrative punishment in the form of an administrative Undoubtedly, the state policy aimed at administrative fine, that is, to set it at twice the amount of damage stimulation of entrepreneurial activity has a productive (received profit) incurred as a result of administrative impact on the economy in the country. But from point of misconduct. view the authors, this stimulation can be improved. So, by making responsibility under part 1 of Article 14.1 of This change will achieve the objectives of the CAO RF, the CAO RF more severe, it is possible to more effectively as well as prevent offenses under part 1 of article 14.1 influence the mandatory procedure of state registration of the CAO RF. References: 1. Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993) (with amendments made by the Federal Constitutional Law \"On Amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation\" of December 30, 2008 № 6-FKZ, of December 30, 2008 № 7-FKZ, of February 5, 2014 № 2-FKZ, of July 21, 2014 № 11-FKZ, of March 14, 2020 №1-FKZ) // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. - 1993 - Dec. 25; Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 2020 - № 11 URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_28399/ (accessed 22.02.2023). 2. Code of the Russian Federation about administrative offences from 30.12.2001 N 195-FZ (rev. from 18.03.2023) [Electronic resource] URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_34661/ (date of treatment: 20.02.2023). 3. Chernyshova E.A. Implementation of entrepreneurial activity without state registration / E.A. Chernyshova, I.N. Zaytseva. - Text : direct // Young scientist. - 2020. - № 51 (341). - С.307-309. 4. Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Azerbaijan [Electronic resource] URL: https://continent- online.com/Document/?doc_id=36865427 (accessed 22.02.2023). 5. Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences [Electronic resource] URL: https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=31577399 (accessed 22.02.2023). 6. Federal law \"About modification of the Code of the Russian Federation about administrative offences and article 1 Federal law \"About modification of the Code of the Russian Federation about administrative offences\" from 14.07.2022 N 290-FZ [Electronic resource] URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_421890/ (date of treatment: 24.02.2023). 51
№ 6 (105) июнь, 2023 г. CRIMINAL PROCESS ISSUES OF QUALIFICATION OF THE ACT WITH THE NORMS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE PREJUDICE Farhod Kholikov Lecturer at the Department of Criminal Law, Criminology and fight against corruption of the Tashkent State University of Law, Republic Uzbekistan, Tashkent E-mail: [email protected] О ВОПРОСАХ ПРАВОМЕРНОСТИ ДЕЯНИЯ СОГЛАСНО НОРМАМ АДМИНИСТРАТИВНОЙ ПРЕЮДИЦИИ УГОЛОВНОГО КОДЕКСА Холиков Фарход преподаватель, Факультет уголовного права, криминологии и борьбы с коррупцией, Ташкентский Государственный Юридический Университет, Республика Узбекистан, г. Ташкент E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT In the article administrative preposition by the author the specificity of legal liability only for the type of criminal liability, the fact that administrative pre-criminal content, due to its nature and social danger, belongs not only to the category of crimes that are not at great social risk, but also not very serious, the specificity of administrative pre-criminal content to acts committed only intentionally, according to the sign of the subjective side, when qualifying an act with the norms of administrative pre-criminal law, attention should be paid to the fact that the necessary sign of the objective side of the content of this type of crime should be committed after the application of administrative punishment for such an act in relation to a person, the fact that in some norms of criminal law the reflection of administrative precedence does not fully meet the principles of humanism and justice, the fact that the repeated commission of an administrative offense within a year does not increase either the quality indicator of the crime or the level of social danger, it is justified that the consequences of liability should also be terminated after the person is brought to justice for the act committed. АННОТАЦИЯ В статье административная преюдиция автором рассматривается специфика юридической ответственности только для вида уголовной ответственности, тот факт, что административное предкриминальное содержание, в силу своего характера и общественной опасности, относится не только к категории преступлений, не представляющих большого социального риска, но и не очень тяжких, специфика административного досудебного содержания к деяниям, совершенным только умышленно, по признаку субъективной стороны, при квалификации деяния нормами административного доуголовного права следует обратить внимание на то, что необходимый признак объективной стороны содержания данного вида преступления должен быть совершен после применения административного наказания за такое деяние в отношении лица, тот факт, что в некоторые нормы уголовного права, отражающие административную приоритетность, не в полной мере отвечают принципам гуманизма и справедливости, тот факт, что повторное совершение административного правонарушения в течение года не увеличивает ни качественный показатель преступления, ни уровень общественной опасности, оправдывает то, что последствия ответственности также должны быть прекращены после привлечения лица к ответственности за совершенное деяние. Keywords: legal liability, criminal liability, administrative liability, administrative prejudice, degree of public danger, criminal classification, public danger. Ключевые слова: юридическая ответственность, уголовная ответственность, административная ответствен- ность, административная преюдиция, степень общественной опасности, уголовная классификация, общественной опасность. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ Библиографическое описание: Kholikov F.U. ISSUES OF QUALIFICATION OF THE ACT WITH THE NORMS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE PREJUDICE // Universum: экономика и юриспруденция : электрон. научн. журн. 2023. 6(105). URL: https://7universum.com/ru/economy/archive/item/15493
№ 6 (105) июнь, 2023 г. The qualification of crimes is to determine the Code, if a person who has been held administratively compatibility (similarity) between the signs of a clearly responsible for a certain act commits such an act again, socially dangerous act and the signs of the criminal law the act is considered a crime and the person is held norm [1] . According to the well-established rule of the criminally liable [7] . criminal-legal literature, the qualification of the crime is to determine and legally strengthen the compatibility Administrative prejudice is also provided for in the between the signs of the committed act and the signs of Criminal Code of the Uzbek SSR of 1959. In particular, the crime structure provided for in the criminal-legal the acts provided for in Article 113 (Insulting) of this norm [2] . The qualification of criminal acts is an criminal law - insulting someone by actions, words or important element of sentencing for any crime. When letters, i.e. deliberately knocking down a person's respect assessing the actions of a criminal, including a person and dignity, if it happens repeatedly after public or who encroached on the physical freedom of a person, the administrative measures have been taken. if it was done, investigator, prosecutor, and court are required to it caused criminal liability [8] . However, in the Criminal resolve the issue of which criminal legal norm should be Code of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Uzbekistan applied, that is, to correctly qualify the committed in 1926, administrative prejudice is not found [9] . socially dangerous act. Thus, the classification of crimes in accordance with the criminal law of the Republic of According to the current Criminal Code of the Uzbekistan is the legal basis for the occurrence of Republic of Uzbekistan, the act is considered a crime criminal responsibility and its implementation. only if it is committed after the administrative punishment has been applied to a person for committing In order to carry out justice, it is necessary to an act punishable by 66 crimes [10] . For example, in correctly qualify the relevant act in accordance with the Article 122 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of specific content of the criminal law and the actual Uzbekistan (evasion of material support of minors or circumstances of the crime. When solving the issue of a incapacitated persons), evasion of material support of a person's guilt in committing this or that crime, minor or incapacitated person in need of material investigative bodies, the prosecutor or the court are support, that is, to a court decision or court order to required to choose a criminal-legal norm that expresses provide them materially A person shall be held all the signs of the committed act, that is, to qualify the criminally liable if he commits a socially dangerous act, committed socially dangerous act from a criminal-legal which is expressed in failure to pay the amount due for point of view. recovery for a total period of more than two months, after the administrative punishment for the same act has In the theory of criminal law, the concept of been applied. qualification of crimes is defined differently by scientists. According to L.D. Gauxman, A.A. Hertsenzon Declaring a person's act a crime requires that the act and I.V. Andreev, the classification of crimes is the contains the elements of a crime. The composition of the conformity of a certain act with the characteristics of one crime consists of four elements, which are as follows: or another crime structure provided for in the criminal the object of the crime, the objective side of the crime, law [3] , M.I. Korzhansky and A.G. Levitskys explain the subject of the crime, the subjective side of the crime. that the classification of crimes is a criminal-legal evaluation of the committed act, the selection of the In the theory of criminal law, the objective side of criminal-legal norm that most fully describes its signs the crime is defined as follows: the signs characterizing and its application [4] . the external circumstances of the socially dangerous action or inaction against the object protected by the criminal In some cases, it is necessary to apply administrative law are said to be the objective side of the crime [11] . prejudice in the implementation of criminal responsibility, in particular, in the qualification of the act. Administrative It should be noted that, according to the theory of prejudice is defined as the fact that in order to declare an national criminal law, the requirement that the act be act a crime, an administrative punishment has been committed after the application of the administrative applied to the person who committed it for the same act penalty is a necessary sign of the objective aspect of this before, and this condition is defined in the relevant crime. article of the Special Part of the Criminal Law. In this case, it should be noted that in accordance with Article For example, when a person commits the acts 37 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility of the provided for in Article 109 of the Criminal Code Republic of Uzbekistan, a person sentenced to an (intentionally inflicting slight bodily injury), i.e., when administrative penalty shall be if he has not committed an intentional slight bodily injury that did not cause a a new administrative offense within a year, this person short-term deterioration of health or loss of working is not subject to administrative punishment [5] . It is capacity for a short period of time, the same acts are necessary to take this rule into account during the considered a crime in order to assess the act as a crime application of the rule of administrative prejudice [6] . the person who committed it is required to have committed it after the administrative penalty was It is known that criminal law is related to applied for those actions. There are also managerial administrative law to some extent. According to explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the M.Usmonaliev, administrative law regulates relations Republic of Uzbekistan on the qualification of the act with arising from administrative violations, while criminal the components of the administrative prejudicial crime. law regulates relations arising from criminal violations. In several articles of the Special part of the Criminal Administrative responsibility is established for intentionally inflicting a slight injury on the body that does not cause a short-term deterioration of health or a short-term loss of work ability. Criminal responsibility 53
№ 6 (105) июнь, 2023 г. for intentionally inflicting such injury on the body arises Article 186 1 of the Criminal Law of the Republic only if it is repeatedly committed within one year from of Uzbekistan ( illegal production or circulation of a large the date of execution of the decision to impose an amount of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic and tobacco products); administrative penalty on a person for such an act (the first part of Article 109 of the Civil Code of the Republic 186, part 3 of Article 1 of the Criminal Law of of Uzbekistan)[12] . the Republic of Uzbekistan (production, preparation, acquisition, storage, transportation or transfer of In fact, criminal liability is one of the central issues substandard or counterfeit drugs or medical products, as studied in the theory of criminal law, and the articles of well as sale of drugs or medical products outside of the Special Part of the Criminal Code form its basis. In pharmacies and their branches); recent years, this issue has become more relevant due to the liberalization of the criminal law. Most of the authors Part five of Article 1863 of the Criminal Law of define the criminal responsibility that arises during the the Republic of Uzbekistan (violation of the order of commission of a crime as a type of legal responsibility retail sale of drugs containing powerful active as the obligation of a person to answer for the crime substances by prescription, after the application of an committed [13] . When viewed from this point of view, administrative penalty for such an action or in large it should be taken into account that administrative quantities); prejudice is only a type of criminal liability. 192 Acts provided for in Article 4 of the Criminal Сrimes in the criminal law, depending on their Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan (compulsory nature and level of social danger: involvement of business entities in sponsoring and other activities related to allocation of funds and other social risk is not high; material values by the persecutor, law enforcement not very heavy; officer and official or employee of another state body heavy; and state organization ).. is classified as a serious crime [14]. The legislator explains the classification of this type It can be concluded from this that not all the acts for of crime as follows. In this case, crimes committed which a person has been previously brought to intentionally and punishable by imprisonment for a term administrative responsibility as a necessary sign of the of not more than three years, as well as crimes objective aspect of the criminal offense may be not only committed as a result of carelessness and punishable by crimes with a low social risk, but also less serious crimes. imprisonment for a period of not more than five years, belong to the category of crimes with a low social risk. When qualifying the act according to the Also, crimes committed intentionally and components of the analyzed crimes, it is necessary to punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than pay special attention to one aspect, subjectively, this three years, but not exceeding five years, as well as type of act is committed only intentionally. That is, the crimes committed due to carelessness and punishable by lawmaker did not provide for administrative prejudice in imprisonment for a term of more than five years - minor the criminal elements of negligence. However, some crimes belonging to the category. scholars believe that the reflection of administrative Crimes committed intentionally and punishable by prejudice in some norms of the criminal law does not imprisonment for a term of more than five years, but not fully meet the principles of humanity and justice, the more than ten years, are classified as serious crimes. repeated commission of an administrative offense Serious crimes include crimes committed within a year does not increase the quality indicator of intentionally and punishable by imprisonment for more the crime and the level of social danger, and the than ten years or life imprisonment. consequences of responsibility are terminated after the As defined in Article 15 of the Criminal Law of the person is held responsible for the act he committed Republic of Uzbekistan, crimes with a low social risk emphasizes the necessity [15] . and not very serious can be committed both intentionally and recklessly. At this point, when talking about the In a number of articles of the Special part of the issues of qualification of the act with administrative Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the prejudicial crime law, it should be noted that according difference between the administrative liability and the to the classification of all types of administrative similar criminal liability is the degree of social danger, prejudicial crimes, they are considered to be types of especially if such similarities affect the administrative crimes with a low social risk. order, public order, public safety , the environment is However, the following administrative prejudicial clearly manifested in violations against the natural crimes in the national criminal law are included in the environment and natural resources. Disciplinary liability category of less serious crimes: and criminal liability are very similar, especially in the evading customs control provided for in Article case of offenses related to duty or military service, and 182 of the Criminal Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan their difference is determined by the level of social (violation of customs legislation) or hiding from danger [16] . customs control or fraudulently using documents made to look like customs documents or tools, or without a Kh.Karimov also spoke about this and based on the declaration or using a declaration written in a different requirements of Article 37 of the Code of Administrative name, goods or other valuables in large quantities in the Responsibility of the Republic of Uzbekistan, \"if a person Republic of Uzbekistan transfer through the customs subject to a conditional administrative penalty has not border); committed a new administrative offense within one year from the date of the end of the term of serving this penalty, this person is considered not to have been subject to an administrative penalty. ” [17] . Here, the 54
№ 6 (105) июнь, 2023 г. author tries to explain on the example of the Decision of a master crime. A.G. Bezverkhov states that the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of administrative prejudice not only defines the act as a Uzbekistan dated June 27, 2007 \"On judicial practice in crime [21] , but also leads to partial decriminalization of cases related to intentional bodily injury\", the concept of crimes. Professor N.A. Lopashenko states that the \"from the date of entry into force of the decision to identity of the person should not be the basis for defining impose an administrative penalty\" contained in the the act as a crime as a basis for removing administrative decision of the Plenum is part of Article 37 of the Code prejudice from the criminal law [18] . of Administrative Responsibility of the Republic of Uzbekistan. - points out that the concepts of \"the person Analyzing the views of these scholars, author has subjected to administrative punishment from the day of the concluded that the reflection of administrative prejudice end of the term of serving this punishment\" are different in some norms of the criminal law does not fully meet from each other. According to him, \"in the explanations the principles of humanity and justice, that repeated regarding the emergence of criminal responsibility for administrative offenses within one year do not increase the elements of the crime with administrative prejudice, the quality indicator of the crime and the level of social based on the requirements of Article 37 of the Code of danger, after the person is held accountable for the act Administrative Responsibility of the Republic of author support that the consequences of liability should Uzbekistan, the provision is based on the fact that the also be terminated [15] . person subjected to administrative punishment is committed repeatedly within one year from the end of The following can be concluded from the above: the term of serving this punishment.\" It is appropriate to administrative prejudice is specific to the type of give an explanation. In this case, the fact that it is legal liability only criminal liability; committed after one year is the basis for qualifying the according to their nature and social danger, the act not as a crime, but as an administrative offense [17]. composition of administrative prejudicial crimes belongs to the category of crimes not only with a low It should be said that the institution of social risk, but also not very serious; administrative prejudice is not found in the criminal law the content of administrative prejudicial crime is of most foreign countries. In particular, the newly specific to acts committed only intentionally according adopted Criminal Code of the neighboring Kyrgyz to the sign of the subjective party; Republic and the criminal legislation of the Republic of when qualifying the act with the norms of the law Kazakhstan do not provide for administrative prejudice. of administrative prejudicial crime, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the objective aspect of the Admitting that there are different views on the composition of this type of crime must have been removal of administrative prejudice from criminal law, committed after the administrative punishment was Professor N.A. Lopashenko supports the removal of applied to the person for such an act; administrative prejudice from criminal law [18] , while in some norms of the criminal law, the reflection Professor V.P. Malkov is in favor of leaving this of administrative prejudice does not fully meet the institution [19] . V.V. Volzhenkin and M.I. Kovalev state principles of humanity and justice, the repeated that the presence of administrative prejudice in criminal commission of an administrative offense within a year law contradicts the principle of non bis in idem [20] . does not increase either the quality indicator of the crime or the level of social danger, the consequences of the According to the above-mentioned scholars, a responsibility should be terminated after the person is person is held responsible for his act, so there is no held responsible for the act he committed. reason to hold him responsible for the next similar act as References: 1. Rasulev A.A. The importance of criminal law in the classification of crimes. // A collection of scientific and practical conference materials on the problems of improving criminal legislation. - Tashkent: TDYuI, 2010. - B. 126. 2. Kudryavtsev V.N. Obshchaya theory qualification prespleniy. - M., 1998 . - S. 8. 3. Gauxman L.D. Prespleni qualification: law, theory, practice. - M., 2005. - S. 3.; Herzenson A.A. Qualification prespleniy. - M., 2007.; Andreev I.V. Teoretiko-pravovye osnovy qualificatsii prestuplenii: Autoref. diss... cand. walk science - Omsk, 2000. - S. 21. 4. Korzhansky M.I. Qualification prespleniy. - Kyiv, 2000 . - S. 10-11.; Levitsky A.G. Qualification prespleniy. - M., 200 1. - S. 140.; 5. Code of Administrative Responsibility of the Republic of Uzbekistan. National database of legislative information, No. 03/22/810/1095. URL: https://lex.uz/docs/97664#4775713 6. Rustambaev M.Kh., Abdurasulova Q.R., Akhrarov B.J.. Problems of developing the concept and doctrine of criminal law of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Published on the basis of the state grant number BV-F7-007-016.–T.: TDYuI publishing house, 2011. -166 pages. -B.92. 7. Usmonaliev M. Criminal law. General part. Textbook for higher educational institutions.—T., \"Generation of the New Century\", -B.16. 8. Criminal Code of the Uzbek SSR. (as amended and supplemented up to January 1, 1971). - T., Uzbekistan. 1971. - B. 93. 55
№ 6 (105) июнь, 2023 г. 9. The Criminal Code of the Uzbek SSR of 1926. With changes until September 1, 1946. - T., 1947. Directorate of Affairs of the Council of Ministers of the Uzbek SSR. A copy stored in the resource department of the National Library of Uzbekistan named after A. Navoi. 10. Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. National Legislative Database, No. 3/22/794/0939. URL: https://lex.uz/docs/111453 11. Criminal law. General part: Textbook. / A.S. Yakubov, R. Kabulov et al. - Tashkent. Academy of Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2009. – B 374. 12. Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan \"On judicial practice in cases related to intentional bodily injury\". URL: https://lex.uz/acts/1592419#1593065 13. Santalov A.I. Teoreticheskie voprosy ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti. - L.: Izd-vo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1982. - P. 12-13. 14. Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. National database of legislative information, 19.10.2022, No. 03/22/794/0939. URL: https://lex.uz/acts/111453 15. Makhkamov O.M. Criminal-legal and criminological aspects of tax evasion or other compulsory payments: Doctor of Law. diss to get abstract. -T:, 2015. -B.15. 16. Usmonaliev M. Criminal law. General part. Textbook for higher educational institutions. - T., \"Generation of the New Century\", -B.111. 17. Karimov H. (2020). Nekotorye problemy qualificatsii suschestvuyushchikh transpleniy institute administrativnoy otvetstvennosti. Obzor zakonodatelstva Uzbekistana, (3), 67–71. izvlecheno ot URL: https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/uzbek_law_review/article/view/1838 18. Lopashenko N.A., Administrativnoy preyuditsii v ugolovnom prave – net! / N.A. Lopashenko // Vestnik Academy of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation. – 2011 – No. 3 (23) – S. 64–71. 19. Malkov V.P., Administrativnaya prejudice: za i protiv / V.P. Malkov // Vestnik Akademii Generalnoy prokuratury Rossiyskoy Federatsii. – 2011 – No. 3 (23) – S. 58–64. 20. Volzhenkin B.V., Principle of justice and problemy mnojestvennosti prestupleniy po UK RF / B.V. Volzhenkin // Zakonnost. - M., - 1998 - No. 12 - S. 2-7; Kovalev M.I., Prestuplenie i prostupok / M.I.Kovalev // Problemy sovershenstvovaniya zakonodatelstva po ekrepleniyu pravoporyadka i usilenie borby s pravonarushenyami: mejvuz. sb. Nauch. tr. Sverdlovsk: Izd-vo Sverdl. walk in-ta, – 1982 – S. 3–14. 21. Bezverkhov A.G., Administrativnaya prejuditsialnost v ugolovnom zakonodatelstve Rossii: istoki, realii, perspektivy / A.G. Bezverkhov // Vestnik Samarskoy humanitarian academy. Series: Pravo – 2011 – No. 2. – S. 40–41. 22. Uktamovich K.F. TYPES AND CRIMINAL LEGAL ASPECTS OF THEFT OF PROPERTY USING BANK PLASTIC CARDS //European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies. – 2022. – Т. 2. – №. 08. – С. 7-10. 56
ДЛЯ ЗАМЕТОК
ДЛЯ ЗАМЕТОК
ДЛЯ ЗАМЕТОК
Научный журнал UNIVERSUM: ЭКОНОМИКА И ЮРИСПРУДЕНЦИЯ № 6(105) Июнь 2023 Свидетельство о регистрации СМИ: ЭЛ № ФС 77 – 54432 от 17.06.2013 Издательство «МЦНО» 123098, г. Москва, улица Маршала Василевского, дом 5, корпус 1, к. 74 E-mail: [email protected] www.7universum.com Отпечатано в полном соответствии с качеством предоставленного оригинал- макета в типографии «Allprint» 630004, г. Новосибирск, Вокзальная магистраль, 3 16+
Search
