Legislative regulation
Article 328 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus consists of 5 parts. Responsibility depends on the following points:
- purpose of acquisition (storage, shipment, etc.) of drugs and psychotropics (for personal consumption or for further sale);
- quantity of drugs;
- the presence or absence of an outstanding conviction for similar crimes;
- actions regarding illegal drug trafficking by a group of persons;
- the same actions if they caused the death of any person.
The age of criminal responsibility under Article 328 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus is 16 years.
I note that liability under Art. 328 does not depend on the type of drug , although the effects on the body of amphetamine and heroin are very different. In the case where the conversation is about drugs not on a large scale, the amount of liability under the article will not depend on whether 0.005 grams was seized from someone. psychotropics or 5-10 gr. In judicial practice, there are cases where sentences were passed against persons who were found to have drugs in quantities that were insufficient even for one-time use.
Important! A person who voluntarily surrendered narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their precursors or analogues and actively contributed to the detection or suppression of a crime related to the illicit trafficking of these drugs, substances, the exposure of those who committed them, the discovery of property obtained by criminal means, is exempt from criminal liability for this crime. In judicial practice, there are cases where there was a relaxation or even release from liability due to interaction with the investigation. The above actions are considered mitigating circumstances.
Article 326. Forgery or destruction of vehicle identification number
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 29, 2019 N 78-APU19-8SP - under Art. 326 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - committed by an organized group during the period from October 18, 2015 to December 4, 2015, destruction of the identification number, body number, engine of a HYUNDAI Accent vehicle with an identification number ... for the purpose of operating the vehicle, using knowingly forged state registration plate "..." for the purpose of committing a crime and concealing it.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated January 26, 2017 N 30-O
1. In his complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, citizen S.A. Bardyshev challenges the constitutionality of part one of Article 326 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes criminal liability for the forgery or destruction of an identification number, body number, chassis, engine, as well as forgery of the state registration plate of a vehicle for the purpose of operating or selling a vehicle, the use of a knowingly counterfeit or counterfeit state registration plate for the purpose of committing a crime or facilitating its commission or concealment, as well as the sale of a vehicle with a knowingly counterfeit identification number, body, chassis, engine number or with a knowingly counterfeit state registration plate, or the sale of a body, chassis, engine with a knowingly counterfeit number.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 30, 2019 No. 307-ES19-16461 in case No. A21-1516/2018
By the resolution of the Krasnoznamensky District Court of the Kaliningrad Region dated December 25, 2017 in case No. 1-30/2017, the criminal case and criminal prosecution of Biskup A.V. on the charge brought against him under Part 1 of Article 326 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (falsification or destruction of a vehicle identification number), terminated due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution.
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 22, 2020 N 17P20
Bykovtsev V.G. acquitted of charges of committing crimes under Part 2 of Art. 326 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 2 of Art. 325 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law of December 8, 2003 N 162-FZ) - in the destruction of identification numbers of a car that belonged to Z. and the seizure of his important personal documents, on the basis of clause 3 of part 1 of art. 302, paragraph 2 of Art. 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation due to the lack of corpus delicti in his actions.
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 22, 2020 N 28P20
Prachev S.D. acquitted of charges of committing crimes under Part 2 of Art. 326 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 2 of Art. 325 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law of December 8, 2003 N 162-FZ) - in the destruction of identification numbers of a car that belonged to Z. and the seizure of his important personal documents, on the basis of clause 3 of part 1 of art. 302, paragraph 2 of Art. 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation for the absence of corpus delicti in his actions.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 22, 2017 N 66-APU17-8sp
- 06/09/2008 under Part 1 of Art. 166, paragraph “a”, part 2, art. 166, part 2 art. 326, part 3, 5 art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 4 years 6 months of imprisonment, released on July 29, 2011 on parole for 9 months 19 days,
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 10, 2018 N 5-APU17-123sp
Contrary to the arguments of the appeals, the jurors were informed of the termination of the criminal case against all those convicted under Art. 326 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as on the exclusion of the Sardanovsky crime against the victim R from the charge. From the record of the court session it is clear that during the debates, the convicts and lawyers raised issues of admissibility of evidence, the procedure for obtaining it, information about the identity of the defendants.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 16, 2018 N 4-APU18-6SP
Lipovenko Igor Aleksandrovich, ... convicted by the Balashikha City Court of the Moscow Region on July 7, 2008 under Part 1 of Art. 326, paragraph “c”, part 2, art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 2 years in prison, released on April 16, 2010 after serving the sentence,
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06.06.2018 N 44-UD18-15
Convicted by the Bereznikovsky City Court of the Perm Territory on March 16, 2007 for committing three crimes under paragraph “c” of Part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to 3 years 6 months of imprisonment for each; according to Part 1 of Art. 326 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 1 year of imprisonment; according to clause “b”, part 2, art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 6 years in prison; for committing three crimes provided for in paragraph “g” of Part 3 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to 10 years in prison for each; for committing two crimes under Part 2 of Art. 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to 5 years in prison for each.
Cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 6, 2019 N 92-KA19-4
On November 20, 2021, the detective of the criminal investigation department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the city of Kyzyl issued a decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case on the basis of paragraph 1 of part 1 of article 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation due to the absence of a crime under article 326 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the descriptive part of which there is a reference to the decision of the Rudnichny District Court of Prokopyevsk, Kemerovo Region dated November 22, 2011 in case No. 2-2453/2011 on entrusting the registration and examination department of the State Road Safety Inspectorate of the intermunicipal department of the department of internal affairs with “ Prokopyevskoe" obligation to register the car "TOYOTA CELICA", manufactured in 1990, which had a registration plate ..., body N ..., engine N ... for L.N. Bashkirova.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 24, 2019 N 13-APU19-4sp
Krylov A.V. acquitted under Art. 326 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation due to non-involvement in this crime. The sentence specifies the obligations and restrictions established by the convicted person while serving a sentence in the form of restriction of freedom. Having heard the report of judge A.S. Kolyshnitsyn, the explanations of the convicted A.V. Krylov, A.G. Tsapurin, lawyers Yu.M. Loginov, S.V. Popova, who supported the arguments of the appeals, the objections of prosecutor N.V. Savinov, who believed sentence left unchanged, Judicial Collegium
Problems of qualification for causing grievous bodily harm in the Republic of Belarus
In practice, quite often problems arise related to the need to properly distinguish between the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm and related crimes. It is necessary to distinguish between murder and the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, which negligently resulted in the death of the victim.
In case of murder, the intent of the perpetrator is aimed at depriving the victim of life, and when committing a crime under Art. 147 part 3 – intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm resulting in death through negligence – the attitude of the perpetrator towards the death of the victim is expressed in negligence.
The line between the two crimes is very thin and not always obvious. We should not forget that intent to kill can also be indirect, when the accused did not want, but allowed death to occur or was indifferent.
When establishing intent, the courts proceed from the totality of all the circumstances of the crime and take into account the method and weapon of committing the crime, the number, nature and location of injuries, the reasons for the cessation of criminal actions and other circumstances, as well as the previous behavior of the perpetrator and the victim, their relationship, the nature of the actions of the perpetrator after the commission of the crime (for example, did he call an ambulance or try to hide traces of the crime).
It is also quite difficult to distinguish in practice the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, resulting in the death of the victim, from causing death by negligence. In such situations, it must be taken into account that causing death by negligence presupposes the absence of intent on the part of the perpetrator to cause bodily injury, as well as to cause death, whereas in the case of intentional infliction of serious bodily injury resulting in death, the intent of the person is aimed at causing such damage to the victim.
The conclusions of a forensic expert are of key importance for establishing the truth in a case. The objectivity and validity of such conclusions largely depends on the questions posed to the expert. A lawyer will help you figure this out.
The Constitutional Court clarified the article of the Criminal Code on the illegal sale of state awards
Resolution No. 10-P dated 02/27/2020 was published on the website of the Constitutional Court in the case of verification of compliance with the Basic Law of Art. 324 CC. The reason for its adoption was a complaint from a resident of Yekaterinburg, Natalya Demenshina.
Applicant's history
Experiencing financial difficulties, a woman from Ekaterinburg tried for 500 rubles. sell the Veteran of Labor medal that was awarded to her late father. The announcement of the sale came to the attention of the police, and the woman was detained. In March 2021, a magistrate found her guilty of illegal sale of state awards and fined her 10,000 rubles.
Results 2019: main decisions of the Constitutional Court
The case was reviewed more than once. The appeal changed the verdict and released Demenshina from the imposed punishment. The court referred to the expired statute of limitations for criminal prosecution, rejecting the state prosecution's arguments about the insignificance of the act and the defense's arguments about the absence of corpus delicti.
The woman filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. She considered that Art. 324 of the Criminal Code contradicts the Basic Law because:
- allows for criminal prosecution for actions that did not cause harm to the management procedure in the field of awarding state awards and did not lead to violations of human rights;
- regards actions in relation to state awards of the USSR as violating the legal regime of state awards of Russia, that is, it provides for the application of criminal law by analogy.
Position of the Constitutional Court
In its resolution, the Constitutional Court pointed out the similarity of the legal regimes of state awards in Russia and the USSR: “The latter are subject to the rules provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Regulations on state awards.” This ensures the unity of legal regulation in this area, which reflects the status of Russia as the legal successor and successor of the USSR, the Constitutional Court emphasized.
The Constitutional Court distanced itself from the opinion on the legal succession of the USSR
At the same time, the judges recalled the inadmissibility of excessive government coercion, which does not correspond to the harm that was caused as a result of the offense.
The Constitutional Court recognized Art. 324 of the Criminal Code is constitutional, but indicated that the courts should establish the real degree of public danger of an act that formally falls under this norm. To do this, it is necessary to assess the factual circumstances of the case, including those indicating the grounds for releasing a person from liability or punishment, in order to recognize the act as insignificant, the Constitutional Court explained.
Demenshina's case is subject to review.
- Kira Klimacheva
- constitutional Court
