ST 181 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. Unauthorized production, sale or use, as well as counterfeiting of a state hallmark, committed out of mercenary or other personal interest, is punishable by a fine in the amount of up to two hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to eighteen months, or by correctional labor for a term of up to two years, or forced labor for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for a term of up to three years.
2. The same acts committed by an organized group are punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of eighteen months to three years, or by forced labor for a term of up to five years, or imprisonment for the same period.
Commentary to Art. 181 Criminal Code
1. The subject of a crime, depending on the form of the criminal act, can be either a real or a fake state hallmark. The item of manufacture is a false hallmark, the fake is a real assay hallmark, which is modified, the item of sale and use is both types of assay hallmarks.
State hallmarks for mechanical marking of products are manufactured by the Goznak Mint of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, electrode hallmarks for electric spark marking are produced by the Central State Inspectorate on orders from the Chamber. Brands must strictly comply with approved uniform samples and technical specifications.
2. Making a hallmark - the complete independent illegal creation of an assay hallmark or the unauthorized restoration of an assay hallmark that has become unusable. Sale - any form of unauthorized alienation of a genuine or counterfeit hallmark to another person. The use of an hallmark should be illegal, and it does not matter whether or not the hallmark corresponds to the actual value of the metal from which the product is made. Forgery of a state hallmark is the falsification of a genuine hallmark by partially changing its details.
3. Illegal production, sale or use, as well as counterfeiting of the state hallmark with subsequent deception of the victim and theft of someone else’s property should be qualified under the totality of Art. 181 and 159 of the Criminal Code.
4. According to the totality of crimes, Art. 171 and 181 of the Criminal Code qualify the actions of a person whose illegal business activity was associated with the illegal production, use, sale or counterfeit of a state hallmark.
Article 181 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Limitation periods for invalid transactions (current version)
1. In accordance with paragraph 1 of the commented article, the limitation period for claims to apply the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction and to recognize such a transaction as invalid (see commentary to paragraph 3 of Article 166) is three years.
The beginning of the limitation period for these requirements has certain features established in paragraph 1 of the commented article; it begins from the day when the execution of a void transaction began, and in the event of a claim being brought by a person who is not a party to the transaction, from the day when this person learned or should have learned about the beginning of its execution.
In the Determination of the Constitutional Court of Russia dated April 8, 2010 N 456-О-О, the following is noted. “As an exception to the general rule in relation to claims related to the invalidity of void transactions, the legislator in paragraph 1 of Article 181 provides a special rule, according to which the duration of the specified period for these claims is determined not by a subjective factor - the awareness of the interested person about the violation of his rights , - and objective circumstances characterizing the beginning of the transaction; such legal regulation is due to the nature of the relevant transactions as void, which are invalid from the moment they are committed, regardless of whether they are recognized as such by the court (Clause 1 of Article 166 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), and therefore have no legal force, do not create any rights and obligations for both parties to the transaction and for third parties; therefore, since the right to bring a claim in this case is associated with the onset of consequences of the execution of a void transaction and is aimed at eliminating them, it is the moment of the beginning of the execution of such a transaction, when one or another illegal result derived from it arises, that in the current civil legislation is chosen as the determining one to calculate the statute of limitations; finding out in each specific case from what moment the void transaction began to be executed falls within the powers of the relevant courts.”
In this case, the limitation period for a person who is not a party to the transaction, in any case, cannot exceed ten years from the date of commencement of execution of the transaction.
2. Paragraph 2 of the commented article establishes a shortened limitation period for claims to recognize a voidable transaction as invalid and to apply the consequences of its invalidity. This period is equal to one year.
The beginning of the limitation period in such cases is determined in a special way. The above-mentioned one-year statute of limitations should be calculated from the date of cessation of the violence or threat under the influence of which such a transaction was made (see commentary to paragraph 1 of Article 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), or from the day when the plaintiff learned or should have learned about other circumstances, being the basis for declaring the transaction invalid. It must be taken into account that in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 10 of the Federal Law “On the entry into force of part one of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”, to a claim to recognize a voidable transaction as invalid and to apply the consequences of its invalidity, the right to bring which arose before January 1, 1995, is applied not to the one-year limitation period, but to the limitation period established for relevant claims by previously applicable legislation.
Comment source:
“CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. PART ONE. ARTICLE-BY-ARTICLE COMMENT"
S.P. Grishaev, T.V. Bogacheva, Yu.P. Sweet, 2019
Second commentary to Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. Item: state hallmarks. Their concept is given in the Federal Law of March 26, 1998 No. 41-FZ “On Precious Metals and Precious Stones” (hereinafter referred to as the Law of 1998), in Art. 1: state hallmark - a sign of an established form, which is placed by a government agency authorized in accordance with this Federal Law on jewelry and other products made of precious metals and certifies their hallmark.
State hallmarks, their elements, as well as technical characteristics of the elements of state hallmarks are approved by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. Elements of state hallmarks are the forms and signs of state hallmarks, as well as codes of state assay inspection inspections (clause 9 of the Rules for testing, analysis and hallmarking of jewelry and other products made of precious metals, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated May 6, 2016 No. 394 “On testing, analysis and marking of jewelry and other products made of precious metals"; hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
The merit of the alloy from which precious metal products are made is determined by the fineness (Article 1 of the 1998 law: fineness is the number of mass fractions of a chemically pure precious metal per 1 thousand mass fractions of the precious metal alloy). The following standards have been established in the Russian Federation: platinum - 950, 900, 850, 585; gold - 999th, 958th, 916th, 875th, 750th, 585th, 583rd, 500th, 375th; silver - 999th, 960th, 925th, 875th, 830th, 800th; palladium - 850th and 500th (see List of samples of precious metals, approved by the above-mentioned resolution of 05/06/2016).
2. The objective side includes:
1) unauthorized production of a state hallmark;
2) its unauthorized sale;
3) its unauthorized use;
4) counterfeiting the state hallmark.
3. The crime is completed at the moment the act is committed.
4. The subjective side is characterized by direct intent and selfish or other personal interest.
5. The subject may be a person who has reached the age of 16 years. A person specially authorized to store or work with the hallmark (assay maker) may also sell, use or falsify a state hallmark.
6. Criminal liability is toughened if the act was committed by an organized group (Part 2 of Article 181 of the Criminal Code).
Article 181. Violation of the rules for the production and use of state hallmarks
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated June 30, 2020 N 1424-O The special rule enshrined in part one.1 of Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, according to which detention as a preventive measure in the absence of the circumstances specified in paragraphs 1 - 4 of part one of the same article, cannot be applied against a suspect or accused of committing crimes provided for in parts one through four of Article 159, Articles 159.1 - 159.3, 159.5, 159.6, 160, 165 and 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if these crimes were committed by an individual entrepreneur in connection with his entrepreneurial activity and (or) management of property belonging to him, used for the purposes of entrepreneurial activity, or if these crimes are committed by a member of the management body of a commercial organization in connection with the exercise of his powers to manage the organization or in connection with the commercial organization’s implementation of entrepreneurial or other economic activities, and also parts five - seven of article 159, articles 171, 171.1, 171.3 - 172.3, 173.1 - 174.1, 176 - 178, 180, 181, 183, 185 - 185.4 and 190 - 199.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is an additional guarantee of the constitutional right to freedom and personal integrity (rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated February 24, 2011 N 250-О-О, dated November 20, 2014 N 2637-О, etc.).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 23, 2020 N 1863-O
According to part one.1 of article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, detention as a preventive measure in the absence of the circumstances specified in paragraphs 1 - 4 of part one of the same article cannot be applied to a suspect or accused of committing crimes provided for in parts one - fourth article 159, articles 159.1 - 159.3, 159.5, 159.6, 160, 165 and 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if these crimes were committed by an individual entrepreneur in connection with his business activities and (or) management of property belonging to him, used for business purposes, or if these crimes were committed by a member of the management body of a commercial organization in connection with the exercise of powers by him to manage the organization or in connection with the implementation by a commercial organization of entrepreneurial or other economic activities, as well as parts five - seven of Article 159, Articles 171, 171.1, 171.3 - 172.3, 173.1 - 174.1, 176 - 178, 180, 181, 183, 185 - 185.4 and 190 - 199.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This special norm of the criminal procedural law is an additional guarantee of the constitutional right to freedom and personal integrity (rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2011 N 250-О-О, of November 20, 2014 N 2637-О, etc.).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated February 26, 2021 N 328-O
The special rule enshrined in part one.1 of Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, according to which detention as a preventive measure in the absence of the circumstances specified in paragraphs 1 - 4 of part one of the same article, cannot be applied to a suspect or accused of committing crimes provided for in parts one to four of Article 159, Articles 159.1 - 159.3, 159.5, 159.6, 160, 165 and 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if these crimes were committed by an individual entrepreneur in connection with his business activities and (or) management of property owned by him and used for the purposes of entrepreneurial activity, or if these crimes were committed by a member of the management body of a commercial organization in connection with the exercise of powers by him to manage the organization or in connection with the implementation by a commercial organization of entrepreneurial or other economic activities, as well as parts five to seven of Article 159, Articles 171, 171.1 171.3 - 172.3, 173.1 - 174.1, 176 - 178, 180, 181, 183, 185 - 185.4 and 190 - 199.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is an additional guarantee of the constitutional right to freedom and personal integrity (determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2011, 2011 year N 250-О-О, dated November 20, 2014 N 2637-О, etc.).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 25, 2021 N 383-O
According to part one.1 of article 108 of this Code, detention as a preventive measure in the absence of the circumstances specified in paragraphs 1 - 4 of part one of the same article cannot be applied to a suspect or accused of committing crimes provided for in parts one - fourth article 159, articles 159.1 - 159.3, 159.5, 159.6, 160, 165 and 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if these crimes were committed by an individual entrepreneur in connection with his business activities and (or) management of property belonging to him, used for business purposes, or if these crimes were committed by a member of the management body of a commercial organization in connection with the exercise of powers by him to manage the organization or in connection with the implementation by a commercial organization of entrepreneurial or other economic activities, as well as parts five - seven of Article 159, Articles 171, 171.1, 171.3 - 172.3, 173.1 - 174.1, 176 - 178, 180, 181, 183, 185 - 185.4 and 190 - 199.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This special norm of the criminal procedural law is an additional guarantee of the constitutional right to freedom and personal integrity (rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2011 N 250-О-О, of November 20, 2014 N 2637-О, etc.).
Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 11, 2020 N 7
This norm establishes a ban on the use of a preventive measure in the form of detention in the absence of the circumstances specified in paragraphs 1 - 4 of part 1 of Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in relation to a suspect or accused of committing crimes provided for in parts 5 - 7 of Article 159, Articles 171 , 171.1, 171.3 - 172.3, 173.1 - 174.1, 176 - 178, 180, 181, 183, 185 - 185.4, 190 - 199.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, without any other conditions, and in relation to a suspect or accused of committing crimes provided for in parts 1 - 4 of Article 159, Articles 159.1 - 159.3, 159.5, 159.6, 160, 165 and 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, - provided that these crimes were committed by an individual entrepreneur in connection with his business activities and (or) management of property owned by him, used for the purposes of entrepreneurial activity, or if these crimes were committed by a member of the management body of a commercial organization in connection with the exercise of his powers to manage the organization or in connection with the implementation of entrepreneurial or other economic activities by a commercial organization.
