The system of military crimes as acts encroaching on the military security of Russia in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was focused exclusively on peacetime conditions. In the context of a special military operation on the territory of Ukraine, an urgent adjustment of criminal legislation was required. For this purpose, the legislative experience of not only the Soviet, but also the pre-Soviet period was used. At the same time, the importance of Peter the Great’s military criminal legislation is clearly underestimated, including ideas about the complicity of civilians in military crimes, about the active repentance of a deserter, about the composition of the surrender of fortresses, surrender and communication with the enemy, the surrender of a warship to the enemy, looting as a crime encroaching, first of all, on the interests of the civilian population. The reform of Russian military criminal legislation and legislation on crimes that infringe on Russia’s national security should not be considered complete.

The General and Special Parts are paired structural components of the criminal law. It is more logical to consider the interaction of the General and Special parts in the context of such a scientific and philosophical category as correlation. This article examines the relationship between the General and Special parts of the criminal law in the philosophical, socio-legal and legal-technical senses. In a philosophical sense, the General and the Special, these parts are organically connected with each other according to the dialectic of the relationship between the “general and the particular”. From a socio-legal point of view, the unity of the General and Special parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is manifested in the fact that both parts serve common tasks; the normative prescriptions of both parts are based on the same principles; properties of specific crimes and punishments for them are provided in both parts. From the legal and technical side, the unity of the General and Special parts of the criminal code lies in its systemic structure. The work identifies both similar and distinctive features between the two paired components of modern Russian criminal law. Prospects for further research into the relationship between the General and Special parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are seen in the development and approval of the Concept for the construction of Russian criminal law.

The formal source of criminal law should be recognized as those legal acts that can be directly applied by courts in resolving criminal cases and to which the court must directly refer in a court decision to justify its decision. The criminal law doctrine has convincingly proven the multi-source nature of the branch of criminal law. At the same time, the modern doctrine of sources sorely lacks a differentiated approach to their analysis and presentation. The implementation of a systematic approach in the context of a general theoretical doctrine of the forms of expression of law allows us to identify several substantively divergent groups among the sources of criminal law: a) sources of regulation of criminal legal relations that do not contain criminal legal regulations; b) sources establishing criminal legal regulations, including the criminal code as the only source establishing crime and punishability of socially dangerous acts; c) sources of normative specification of criminal legal regulations; d) sources of interpretation of criminal law regulations. Keywords: source of criminal law, systematic approach, source of establishing an order, source of specifying an order, source of interpretation of an order.

The article draws attention to the importance of understanding the signs of related and competing norms for the qualification of crimes. The definition of the ratio of compounds as adjacent or competing is not unambiguous in the study of this issue by various specialists. One of the reasons for the difficulty in identifying the ratio of compositions is the failure to maintain a balance between the casuistic and abstract methods of legislative technique in the construction of criminal law norms. The concept of competition of criminal law norms is given and attention is drawn to two of its most common types: competition of general and special norms and competition of a part and a whole. The definition of related norms is formulated. It is emphasized that related norms can have both neutral and mutually exclusive features. It is concluded that related norms cannot be competitive. The difference in the rules of competition of adjacent and competing norms is that adjacent norms containing neutral features can form an ideal set of crimes, while those containing mutually exclusive features do not, while in the case of competition of norms, a set of crimes is not formed, only one norm is subject to application.

Based on the study of the nature of reliable knowledge as a special construct included in many crimes, the peculiarities of the interpretation of the criminal law containing a reference to knowledge and the problems of qualifying crimes involving the dissemination of knowingly false information are identified. In the context of digitalization of the communication space and the emergence of countless sources of information, a person can spread false information under the influence of delusion. Options are proposed for changing some criminal law norms in order to reduce the possibility of objective imputation when qualifying acts committed in emergency situations, in which it is difficult or impossible to verify the accuracy of information.

The article notes that the criminal legal assessment of complicity in a crime from the point of view of the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation presupposes the solution of two interrelated tasks: 1) assessment of the social danger of the act itself, which was the result of the joint efforts of co-participants, i.e. actions (act of inaction) of the performer (co-executors); 2) assessment of the public danger of the participation of a particular person in the commission of this act. Thus, the projection of Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for an act committed in complicity, multiplies (at least doubles) the subject of criminal legal assessment.
Complicity is traditionally considered a circumstance that increases the degree of public danger of an act. However, the fact of committing a criminal act in complicity does not in itself prevent the application of the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Firstly, the influence of this circumstance on the degree of social danger of the act is not so clear, since in some cases complicity can even reduce the social danger of the act (an example would be criminal acts committed under the influence of mental coercion or as a result of the involvement of a minor into illegal activities). And secondly, even in a typical situation when complicity increases the social danger of an act, this influence can be completely offset by circumstances that reduce the social danger of the act to an insignificant level. Specifics of application of the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to an act committed by the joint efforts of several persons is that the issue of insignificance should be considered in relation to each such person individually, taking into account his role in the unlawful act committed, his personal criminal “contribution”, the amount of guilt, personal motives and goals.

The article analyzes the possibility of complicity in a crime after the moment of its legal termination in relation to ongoing crimes, crimes with a truncated composition, crimes with several mandatory actions and crimes with alternative actions. The significance of preliminary conspiracy and awareness of the fact of joining a legally completed, but actually ongoing criminal attack for establishing complicity in a crime is explored. The rules for qualifying complicity are analyzed in detail when an accomplice joins the excesses of the perpetrator of robbery, the retention of a kidnapped victim that was not promised in advance, and legally completed rape. It is concluded that complicity in a crime can take place not only before the moment of its legal completion, but also after it — up to the moment of the actual end of the criminal attack, while the commission of actions after this moment and in connection with the completed criminal attack is an implication for crime.

The Russian legislator does not have a systematic approach to criminalizing the creation of groups of a certain orientation, their leadership and participation in such groups. At first glance, a variety of norms containing a ban on the commission of such acts are the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, enshrined in the Part. 1-3 tbsp. 239 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. These norms prohibit the creation of associations or organizations, their management and participation in them. This prohibition is due to the nature of the activities of the relevant association or organization. The problem is that we are talking about associations or organizations that have legal status in the Russian Federation, and the activities of the leaders or participants of such organizations, which are prohibited by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, go beyond the scope determined by their legal status. Thus, a participant or head of a legally existing organization can carry out illegal activities under the guise of such an organization without complicity with anyone, and, consequently, the norms of Art. 239 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation cannot be classified as special norms of the Special Part on criminal associations, since the presence of a criminal association when committing these crimes is an optional circumstance.

The discretion of the judge is an inevitable phenomenon, which cannot be ignored while individualizing the punishment. One of the tools that is given to law enforcer by the legislator — is evaluative concepts.
For the purpose of uniformity of judicial practice in application of criminal legal rules that contain evaluative concepts, the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation outlines approximate limits of discretion in its resolutions.
However, not all of them are explained by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Therefore, there are attempts made in this article that allow to outline the boundaries of discretion in the application of paragraphs “a” and “d” of part 1 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, based on the analysis of scientific studies and judicial practice.
The analysis of these mitigating circumstances allows to conclude that accidental coincidence of circumstances can be described as situation when the accused “turned out to be at the wrong time, in the wrong place,” as a result of which he or she inadvertently, suddenly and forcibly commits a crime.
The latter characteristic usually inapplicable if there are qualifying signs of a crime or aggravating circumstances in the case.
The opportunity itself that was presented for the commission of a crime cannot be considered as an accidental coincidence, rather it could be characterized as sudden intent, i.e. an unintentional and sudden crime.
Difficult life circumstances should be understood as the circumstances such as personal-family difficulties or a work-personal difficulties, that forced an accused to commit a crime.

The scientific article examines the criminal legal aspects of combating the legalization (laundering) of money and (or) other property obtained by criminal means in the Republic of Kazakhstan. As you know, criminal proceeds create the material basis for committing new crimes, contribute to the growth of the shadow economy, the withdrawal of capital, an increase in the level of corruption, and, promoting a criminal lifestyle and therefore suppressing the possibility of money laundering is a necessary condition for combating crime. This circumstance, in turn, is the most important factor in the economic, political, and social stability of the state. According to the authors of the article, in the regulatory framework and in the law enforcement activities of the country’s government bodies in the field of combating money laundering, there are some problems in legal regulation and in the practical activities of law enforcement agencies. The authors of the article identified existing problems in legal regulation and law enforcement activities in the field of combating money laundering, mainly in the criminal legal sphere, and ways to solve them are proposed.

The article, based on an analysis of the work carried out by the investigative body to investigate criminal cases under a number of articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, affecting the interests of the public, including children, analyzes the problem of limiting the procedural capabilities of investigators by the rules on jurisdiction, manifested in cases of violation of public order in public spaces and facts of traffic — transport accidents. Taking into account the study, it is concluded that it is advisable to supplement the list of crimes that the Investigative Committee can investigate with Articles 213 and 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the alternative jurisdiction of which will allow, when responding to incidents, to immediately give a criminal legal assessment of the activities of officials of the prevention agencies or check the compliance of the services provided by the carrier life safety and health requirements for consumers.
In addition, taking into account the expansion of the coverage of situations that become the subject of inspection by the Investigative Committee, increasing confidence in it from citizens, the author concludes that it is necessary to normatively assign to the investigative body the powers to take coordinating measures and issue organizational decisions that are binding on all law enforcement and government agencies on issues of combating crime.

The article is devoted to the study of such a little-studied phenomenon in the domestic theory of criminal law as prank. In the context of digitalization, the need to understand its legal consequences has increased significantly. The author comes to the conclusion that the Russian science of criminal law is at the stage of early understanding of pranking. To date, no single solution has been developed both in terms of improving criminal legislation and regarding the rules for qualifying pranking. Under these conditions, judicial investigative practice selectively and very contradictorily reacts to pranking by applying traditional criminal law norms on liability for theft, extortion, theft, hooliganism, etc. Taking into account the social essence of the phenomenon, the article concludes that a simple decision to criminalize pranking does not exist. Based on an analysis of existing points of view in the science of criminal law and materials from law enforcement practice, approaches to the criminal legal assessment of pranking are highlighted.

One of the most important directions of the criminal policy of a modern state should be the protection of public consciousness from manipulative influences.  Dangerous manifestations of such manipulations are attempts to change the idea of the basic values of society in the minds of young people. The article provides an analysis of the norms aimed at combating this phenomenon. 

Modern realities show that there is a need to establish responsibility for the involvement of underage children in the activities of destructive groups that do not have a terrorist or extremist orientation, but pose a real danger to the physical and mental health of underage children, their moral and spiritual development. At the same time, the question arises in the use of legislative structures in consolidating such responsibility. Namely, what the concept of involvement covers and whether it will be enough to prescribe responsibility for the fact of involvement in the law. In addition, the question of the concept and signs of a “destructive group” is debatable. The article concludes that the most dangerous are antisocial and antisocial groups, whose activities are aimed at the desocialization, development and consolidation of deviant behavior of children. Many of these destructive movements base their activities on the dissemination and promotion of destructive ideology, including by posting malicious information on the Internet. However, encroachment on the information security of children by producing destructive propaganda content does not always fall under the scope of criminal law, which indicates the need to amend the current legislation.

The article deals with the topic of assessing the activities of dualuse biolaboratories and improving the criminal-legal counteraction to their negative impact. The author justifies the relevance of this topic by the growing scale of illegal activities of the United States in the field of dual-use biological research and their active expansion in the territory of the states bordering the Russian Federation.
The author analyzes the general concept and characteristic features of dualuse bio-laboratories. The article emphasizes the importance of developing an effective legal framework to regulate the activities of such bio-laboratories, as well as norms establishing liability for violations committed during their establishment or organization of their activities. The article substantiates the necessity of adopting criminal-legal norms aimed at ensuring biological safety of the population and preventing the possibility of committing illegal actions when conducting biological research.
In addition, the expediency of reforming the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation and making the necessary additions to the current version of Article 355 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the effective protection of biological safety is substantiated.

The article examines the object and subject of the crime under Art. 2342 of the Russian Criminal Code. The article contains a comparative analysis of the target and subject matter of the crimes under Art. 234, 2342, 238 of the Russian Criminal Code. During the analysis the characteristic features inherent in the target and subject matter of the crimes under Art. 2342 of the Russian Criminal Code. There was made a conclusion that crime under Art. 2342 of the Russian Criminal Code encroaching on two additional targets. The author came to the conclusion that the subject matter of the crime can only be methanol and methanol-containing liquids that are in illegal circulation. Problematic issues of defining methanol-containing liquid as a subject of illicit trafficking in methyl alcohol have been identified.

Until recently, liability for cruelty to animals was provided for in Art. 245 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Administrative and legal measures for it were established in a number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The establishment of federal regulations governing the responsible treatment of animals has necessitated the establishment of these measures at the federal level. The problem was partly resolved in 2023 as a result of the addition of administrative legislation with rules establishing liability, including for the above acts. This article is devoted to the assessment of these norms, in connection with criminal law norms, with an emphasis on some problematic provisions that can cause difficulties at the level of law enforcement practice. They relate, in particular, to the subject of offenses, the content of the act, their subject, and the subjective side.

The article discusses the problems of classifying cryptocurrencies as property subject to confiscation in accordance with Chapter 15.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Despite the controversial nature of the possibility of foreclosure on cryptocurrencies, the amendments made to Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code by Federal Law No. 214-FZ of June 13th, 2023, expand the cases of confiscation in cases of crimes in the field of computer information (Chapter 28 of the Criminal Code), which, as a rule, involve the use of cryptocurrencies. The highest court in the new version of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 14, 2018 No. 17 “On some issues related to the use of confiscation of property in criminal proceedings” dated 12.12.2023 provides a number of provisions that allow us to judge the expansion of the possibility of using the confiscation of cryptocurrencies. The emerging heterogeneous judicial practice allows for various options for the confiscation of cryptocurrencies, depending on the specifics of the electronic medium and various features of storing cryptocurrencies. The lack of both regulatory and technical support for the execution of the confiscation of cryptocurrencies makes it difficult to effectively confiscate cryptocurrencies and achieve the goals of criminal proceedings, which requires amendments to the current legislation of the criminal cycle.

The disposition of Art. 187 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a substantive analysis of its provisions was carried out from the point of view of certainty, the regulations provided for in it, as well as the consistency of the provisions formulated in the criminal law norm with the doctrine of criminal law protection of the legal circulation of means of payment. The work reflects the results of forensic investigative practice, indicating that the high degree of blanketness inherent in Art. 187 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, can be considered as one of the circumstances influencing the insufficient certainty of the disposition of the article. The author confirms his position on the importance and relevance of precise and complete legal regulation of the field of information security for the information economy of the Russian state using the example of the provisions of the most important strategic documents. At the same time, the scope of application of Art. remains controversial to this day. 187 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the possibility of qualifying it in combination with other compounds, as well as the legal certainty of the disposition of the norm.

The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the concept of criminal law risk, which has become relevant in modern legal discourse. Various methodological approaches to understanding criminal law risk are being investigated. The paper also examines the theoretical concepts of criminal law risk, which have been highlighted in criminal law science in recent years, and also provides some classifications of such risks. Based on the analysis of theoretical material, the author concludes that it is necessary to bring the criminal law understanding of risk closer to other concepts of risks that prevail in other socio-humanities. Special attention is paid to the sociological theory of risk developed by Niklas Luhmann, who considers risk through the prism of systemic theory, emphasizing the social aspects of risky behavior and their impact on social development. The results of the work can be used for further theoretical understanding of criminal law risks, as well as for the development of practical recommendations for their management and minimization in various fields of activity, including innovative ones.

The specifics of criminal liability for acts involving causing harm as a result of lawful hazardous activities are not regulated in Russian criminal law. There is no uniform solution to these issues in legal theory and jurisprudence. Mens rea under such circumstances is not a satisfactory criterion for distinguishing lawful activity from a crime. The rule on necessity (duress of circumstances) does not solve the problem. The rule on justified risk provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not reflect legal reality. In the law of foreign countries, this problem is solved through a detailed definition of elements of a crime associated with dangerous activities, doctrinal justification of objective imputability, and introducing an ethical assessment when establishing a causal relationship. In Russian law, this problem is significant for legal practice; it has not been resolved and requires a solution.

The article examines criminal legal methods of countering new criminal threats arising as a result of the growing scale of international migration. The author analyzes the content of the Concept of State Migration Policy of the Russian Federation in the context of identifying sources of danger to society and the state as objects of criminal legal protection. The work identifies modern criminogenic risks in the form of lobbying activities in the migration sphere, the provision of illegal influence by national diasporas on public authorities. Approaches to defining the concept of lobbying, its models and types are covered. The need to include in the Criminal Code a rule on liability for unlawful lobbying is noted. The article makes a distinction between diasporas and ethnic criminal groups. It is recommended to supplement Art. 63 of the Criminal Code by such aggravating circumstances as the commission of a crime by a foreign citizen who previously violated the rules of entry or stay in the Russian Federation, his arrival on the territory of the Russian Federation for the purpose of committing a crime.

The subject of this study is the activities of the UN Investigative Group established to investigate and uncover the crimes of the international terrorist organization “Islamic State”2.
The paper shows the history of the creation of the Investigative Group, the main achievements of its activities are considered. In particular, the Investigation Team has collected indisputable evidence of the commission of numerous crimes by IS members, including the most serious of them: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. At the same time, these activities have not led to the actual indictment of anyone in the national courts of Iraq for the commission of these crimes. This circumstance makes it almost hopeless for the UN Security Council to extend the mandate of the Investigative Group, which makes the prospect of ensuring the inevitability of criminal responsibility and punishment of IS members guilty of the gravest crimes even more uncertain.

In the article, the author examines the issues of practical implementation of the institution of returning a criminal case by the court to the prosecutor. The relativity of the content of the truth and the degree of its achievement at various stages of the criminal process is substantiated. In accordance with this, the issues of ensuring the sufficiency of evidence and ensuring the possibility of considering the case in court in conjunction with the assessment of the quality of pre-trial proceedings are raised. The classification of the shortcomings of the preliminary investigation, entailing the appearance of grounds for returning the case to the prosecutor in accordance with Article 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, is given. The position of the prosecutor’s office on the return of cases from the court from the point of view of the purpose of this institution is presented. A brief comparative analysis of the stage of preparation of the case for a hearing in Russia and the countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal system is carried out, the positive experience of granting the court broad powers to verify the evidence base of the prosecution at the stage of trial is analyzed. Based on the generalization of the established law enforcement practice and using the comparative legal method, proposals are formulated to overcome existing problems in domestic criminal proceedings.

The article attempts to summarize some aspects of the experience of legal regulation of capital construction of military infrastructure facilities, which was accumulated during the Great Patriotic War, especially during its most difficult, first period, when the initiative was in the hands of the aggressor, and the Soviet state faced the vital issue of rapid economic transition, including military-the construction complex — on the rails of functioning in conditions of a real military threat. The idea of the continuing relevance of this experience in the current situation of a real threat to the sovereignty of Russia is consistently carried out, proposals are formulated on the need, taking into account the specifics of the construction of the above-mentioned facilities, to codify the norms governing the capital construction of military defense infrastructure facilities in the Military Construction Code of the Russian Federation with the unity of command of the federal body in the field of defense — the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation at all stages capital construction of these facilities.

The article considers the place of the principle of stare decisis and the effect of its key parameters in the context of modern criminal law. The author proceeds from the fact that the precedent character of criminal law positions of the highest court directly follows from the constitutional requirements of equality of all before the law and the court, describes the basis of this principle in Russian realities. The author shows the groundlessness of the explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the chaotic formation of its quarterly reviews. The author proposes not to consider the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation as precedent, leaving among them only the decisions of the Supreme Court regardless of their inclusion in the review of practice. Based on the research of the own telegram channel “Ugolovnaya practica VS RF” and more than 800 judicial acts for the last 3 years, it has been proved that there is a trend of precedent justice, as the courts of first instance actively motivate their decisions by elaborated positions and references to the decisions of the criminal board in specific cases.