Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the latest edition:
Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Voluntary renunciation of crime
1. Voluntary renunciation of a crime is the cessation by a person of preparation for a crime or the cessation of actions (inaction) directly aimed at committing a crime, if the person was aware of the possibility of bringing the crime to completion.
2. A person is not subject to criminal liability for a crime if he voluntarily and finally refused to complete this crime.
3. A person who voluntarily refuses to complete a crime is subject to criminal liability if the act actually committed by him contains a different corpus delicti.
4. The organizer of a crime and the instigator of a crime are not subject to criminal liability if these persons prevented the perpetrator from completing the crime by timely reporting to the authorities or other measures taken. An accomplice to a crime is not subject to criminal liability if he has taken all measures within his power to prevent the commission of the crime.
5. If the actions of the organizer or instigator, provided for in part four of this article, did not lead to the prevention of the commission of a crime by the perpetrator, then the measures taken by them may be recognized by the court as mitigating circumstances when imposing punishment.
Return to the table of contents of the document: Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the latest edition
Comments on Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Voluntary renunciation of a crime is a person’s cessation of preparation for a crime or cessation of actions (inaction) directly aimed at committing a crime (i.e., attempted crime). Voluntary renunciation is possible only before the end of the crime, since it is impossible to renounce what has already been committed, therefore any actions aimed at eliminating criminal consequences indicate the person’s repentance, but do not eliminate responsibility.
The reasons for voluntary refusal, as a general rule, do not have criminal legal significance.
Judicial practice under Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 24, 2018 N 201-APU18-27
The defender of the convicted Muminov, lawyer Jafarov, in the appeal and additions to it, expresses his disagreement with the verdict. Argues that the court's conclusions set out therein do not correspond to the factual circumstances of the case. The court did not take into account that Muminov was under psychological influence from the organizer of the terrorist act. Muminov rendered the improvised explosive device inoperative. Thus, he voluntarily refused to complete the crime and it is necessary to apply Part 2 of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the provisions of the note to Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Muminov’s conviction under Art. is also erroneous. 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since evidence of his training for the purpose of carrying out terrorist activities was not obtained in the case. Muminov’s participation in the activities of a terrorist organization has also not been established. When assigning punishment, the court did not take into account as mitigating circumstances the presence of Muminov’s young children, elderly parents, or the commission of crimes due to a combination of difficult life circumstances. Muminov repented of what he had done and realized the error of his views. The lawyer asks to change the sentence, to release Muminov from criminal liability under Part 3 of Art. , clause “a”, part 2, art. 205, art. 205.3 and part 2 of Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 26, 2019 N 45-APU19-4
The court did not pay attention to Ibragimov D.’s explanations that he had repeatedly refused Ch.’s offer to participate in the attack on M., and therefore his actions must be qualified as a voluntary refusal to commit a crime, and therefore, by virtue of Part 2 of Art. Under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Ibragimov is not subject to criminal liability.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 23, 2017 N 2779-O
1. In his complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, citizen K.V. Sonin, who is serving a criminal sentence in the form of imprisonment, asks to be declared inconsistent with the preamble of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and its articles 1, 2, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 45, 46, 48, 49 , 50, 52, 54, 68, 120, 123 and 126 Federal Law of July 3, 2021 N 324-FZ “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation”, Article 14 of the Federal Law of August 20 2004 N 119-FZ “On state protection of victims, witnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings”, Federal Law of June 1, 2005 N 53-FZ “On the state language of the Russian Federation”, Articles 10 and 16.1 of the Federal Law of April 3, 1995 N 40-FZ “On the Federal Security Service”, articles 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 15 of the Federal Law of August 12, 1995 N 144-FZ “On operational investigative activities”, articles , , , , , , , , , 290, 291, 303 and 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, chapters 9, 11, 13, 19, 20, 39, 45.1, 47.1 and articles 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 , 21, 29, 40, 47, 56, 60, 61, 62, 73, 74, 75, 83, 87, 88, 89, 140, 144, 145, 159, 165, 171, 182, 183, 220, 252 , 259, 260, 283, 299, 302, 307, 313, 389.34, 397 and 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 14, 2019 N 33-APU18-18
Based on the fact of the seizure of narcotic drugs from the stash in his presence, there are all grounds for applying the provisions of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since the employees of the Federal Drug Control Service were not aware of the location of the stashes, he had the opportunity to dispose of these drugs at his own discretion, but decided to admit the facts of the stashes and voluntarily indicated their location.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 15, 2017 N 44-APU17-9SP
All questions for jurors, including questions No. 1, 5, are formulated by the presiding officer in accordance with the requirements of Art. 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, while the prosecution and defense were provided with equal rights and opportunities to participate in posing questions to the jurors. None of the questions posed in the question paper go beyond the scope of the charge, and the answers received are clear and understandable and correspond to the wording of the questions posed. Question No. 11 about Kalinin’s refusal to participate in a robbery included, among other things, the circumstances necessary for the correct application of the provisions of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The verdict of the jury established that he, in a group with other convicts, took part in preparing the attack and provided his car for this, but, refusing to participate in the attack, did not inform the authorities about the impending crime and did not take measures to prevent it (question No. 11) . Therefore, the court reasonably did not find any grounds for applying the provisions of Art. to Kalinin. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation states that a person is not subject to criminal liability for a crime if he voluntarily and finally refused to carry out this crime to the end and promptly informed the authorities or took all other measures depending on him to prevent the commission of the crime.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 17, 2018 N 18-UD17-98
In addition to the complaint of lawyer M.G. Prosvetova. convicted Tryakin A.Yu. indicates that the investigator did not involve a cadastral engineer in the investigative actions to clarify special terms and land law, a number of land plots were removed from cadastral registration and there is no corpus delicti for them, the boundaries of individual land plots were not established and they are not objects of land relations, crimes against them are unfinished. He believes that in relation to 7 of the nine land plots incriminated against him there is no crime, the court made an incorrect application of the criminal law, which is the non-application of Art. Art. , , of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, resulting in an unfair verdict and the imposition of an excessively harsh punishment. He considers all subsequent court decisions unfair. He asks that the verdict and subsequent court decisions be cancelled, that the case be returned to the prosecutor due to the incorrect classification of the crime, and that a preventive measure be chosen against Tryakin in the form of a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior. The complaint is accompanied by information materials in the amount of 15 pieces, which he requests to be included in the case materials.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 26, 2018 N 78-APU18-7
By virtue of Part 4 of Art. Under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, an instigator of a crime is not subject to criminal liability if he, by timely reporting to the authorities or other measures taken, prevented the perpetrator from completing the crime. An accomplice to a crime is not subject to criminal liability if he has taken all measures within his power to prevent the commission of the crime.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 28, 2019 N 3-APU19-12
In the appeal filed in defense of the convicted Alfutov, lawyer Emelyanov S.A. asks for a court verdict regarding the conviction of Alfutov under Part 3 of Art. , part 5 art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is amended by reducing the amount of the main punishment and abolishing the additional punishment in the form of a fine, and in terms of Alfutov’s conviction under Part 5 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the verdict is canceled and the proceedings in the case are terminated on the basis of clause 2 of part 1 of Art. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, due to the lack of corpus delicti in Alfutov’s actions. Draws attention to the fact that only as a result of the active actions of Alfutov, who voluntarily reported and indicated to law enforcement agencies the location of two stashes of narcotic drugs on the territory of the Republic ... their detection and seizure became possible, and therefore, based on the provisions of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in connection with the voluntary refusal of the convicted person to commit a crime, Alfutov is not subject to criminal liability. In conclusion, the complaint points to information about the personality of Alfutov, who is unemployed and has two dependent young children, and therefore believes that the main and additional punishments imposed for a crime committed in the territory of the ... region are excessively harsh and violate the balance of interests not only the state, but also the family of the convicted person.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 14, 2019 N 82-APU19-7
By virtue of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the cessation by a person of preparation for a crime or the cessation of actions (inaction) directly aimed at committing a crime, if the person was aware of the possibility of completing the crime, is recognized as a voluntary renunciation of the crime (Part 1); a person is not subject to criminal liability for a crime if he voluntarily and finally refused to complete this crime (Part 2).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 17, 2018 N 1988-O
According to the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, voluntary renunciation of a crime is recognized as the cessation by a person of preparation for a crime or the cessation of actions (inaction) directly aimed at committing a crime, if the person was aware of the possibility of completing the crime (part one); a person is not subject to criminal liability for a crime if he voluntarily and finally refused to complete this crime (part two); a person who voluntarily refuses to complete a crime is subject to criminal liability if the act actually committed by him contains a different corpus delicti (part three).
Cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 30, 2021 N 3-UD21-9-A2
The communication by the convicted Lysenko to the investigative authorities of information previously unknown to them about two bookmarks after his arrest does not constitute a voluntary renunciation of the crime and does not entail his release from criminal liability on the basis of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The punishment imposed on Lysenko under Part 3 of Art. , part 5 art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation corresponds to the provisions of Art. and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is appointed taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime he committed, data about his personality, the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and on the living conditions of his family, the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Signs of voluntary renunciation of crime
Voluntary refusal is characterized by three main features :
- voluntariness;
- finality;
- awareness by the person of the possibility of completing the crime.
Voluntariness means that the person who has begun the implementation of a criminal intention does not, of his own free will, complete it. In this case, a person can stop criminal activity both on his own initiative and on the initiative of other persons.
There will be no voluntary refusal in cases where the subject is faced with circumstances and obstacles that he was unable to overcome, and therefore stopped further committing the crime. A refusal that is caused by the inability to continue criminal actions due to reasons arising beyond the will of the perpetrator cannot be recognized as voluntary.
The cessation of a crime is forced, and not voluntary, if there is a real threat of exposure if it continues, or if it is impossible to complete the crime without significant harm to the life or health of the offender.
At the same time, the motive for termination (pity for the victim, reluctance to be held accountable, moral principles, faith, etc.) is not important for establishing voluntary refusal, since it does not exclude freedom of expression.
The finality of the refusal means the irrevocability of the decision, and not a temporary suspension of criminal behavior in order to continue it in the future (for example, a temporary stop in the commission of an act in order to wait for more favorable conditions for its continuation).
In addition, the person must have the opportunity to complete the crime and be aware of this possibility .
If all the above signs of voluntary refusal are present, the person is not subject to criminal liability. A person who voluntarily refuses to complete a crime is subject to criminal liability only if the act actually committed by him contains a different corpus delicti. Thus, a person who began physical pressure in order to take the life of the victim, but refused to complete it, is not subject to liability for attempted murder, but must be held accountable for the actually completed infliction of bodily harm. Or, for example, when preparing to kill, a person steals a pistol. After stealing the weapon, he abandons his intention to kill. In this case, the subject is not liable for preparation for murder, but is subject to criminal liability for theft of a firearm.
Commentary to Art. 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The process of committing a crime, as shown above, in many cases consists of several stages and may not be brought to completion of the crime due to various circumstances. If this process is interrupted for reasons beyond the will of the perpetrator, then, depending on the degree of fulfillment of the objective side of the crime, it forms the stage of preparation for a crime or attempted crime. Such cessation of criminal activity constitutes an unfinished crime entailing criminal liability. However, cessation of criminal activity before its completion is also possible at the will of a person if there is a real opportunity to complete the crime. From the point of view of the law, such situations are regarded as a voluntary renunciation of a crime.
In Part 1 of Art. 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, voluntary renunciation of a crime is understood as the cessation by a person of preparation for a crime or the cessation of actions (inaction) directly aimed at committing a crime, if the person was aware of the possibility of completing the crime.
Thus, the presence of a voluntary renunciation of a crime is not possible at any time during the implementation of criminal activity, but only at its unfinished stage - preparation or attempt. The reasons why criminal activity is interrupted should not be objective circumstances that make it impossible to continue the crime, but reasons of a subjective psychological nature.
The legal consequence of voluntary refusal under the specified conditions is the exclusion of criminal liability for actually committed actions aimed at committing a crime. However, if the preparatory actions form another independent element of a crime, a person who is not liable for the crime for which he was preparing and voluntarily refused to complete it, is subject to criminal liability for the crime, the signs of which are contained in the preparatory actions. For example, when preparing to kill, a person steals a gun. After stealing the weapon, he abandons his intention to kill. In this case, the subject is not liable for preparation for murder, but is subject to criminal liability for theft of a firearm.
Refusal to complete a crime means the cessation of criminal actions. In this regard, it is quite reasonable that such a behavioral act can only take place at a stage when the crime has not yet been completed and the criminal actions have not been completed in full. These conditions are present at the preparation stage and partially at the attempt stage. It is quite clear that voluntary renunciation of a crime is possible at the preparation stage without any restrictions. This is due to the fact that preparation means creating conditions for the fulfillment of the objective side of the crime, and the objective side itself has not yet begun to be fulfilled. Termination of criminal actions at the attempted stage is possible only when the perpetrator has not yet completed all the actions that form the objective side of the crime. It is this failure to perform all actions that makes it possible to refuse to continue the crime and stop committing it. If all actions are completed to the proper extent, then their continuation is impossible, and therefore, voluntary refusal is also impossible. In other words, at the stage of the attempt, voluntary renunciation of the crime is possible only if the attempt is not completed. Thus, voluntary refusal is impossible if a person, intending to kill a person, shoots at him, but misses. In this situation, all actions aimed at causing the death of another person have been completed; their continuation is impossible, but only repetition is possible. Therefore, refusal to repeat, rather than continue, criminal actions cannot be regarded as a voluntary renunciation of a crime.
Voluntary refusal as a legal basis for excluding criminal liability for an unfinished crime is characterized by two main features: voluntariness and finality.
Voluntariness means that if there is an objective opportunity to complete the crime, a person stops the crime of his own free will. The motive for refusal does not matter. It can be positive or negative, it can arise under the influence of other persons, but the refusal itself must be the result of a person’s free will. If the subject refuses to continue criminal activity involuntarily, under the influence of external circumstances that significantly complicate or make it impossible to complete the crime, then there are all the signs of preparation or attempt as legally significant stages. In such situations, when the crime is not completed, the smallest details and shades of the event can be decisive for conclusions about guilt or innocence. For example, unforeseen circumstances or events may not objectively create obstacles to completing a crime, but, as it were, knock the subject psychologically “out of the criminal rut.” A. Piontkovsky specifically pointed this out at one time, focusing on the fact that voluntary refusal in an attempt is conceivable in all those cases when the subject still retains control over the commission of further actions. It is obvious that the unforeseen circumstances under consideration may be inadequately assessed by the subject and perceived by him as an obstacle to completing the crime. In this case, with a subjectively forced refusal, an attempt will occur, which entails criminal liability. In similar situations, the same circumstances may be adequately assessed by a person as insignificant for the continuation of criminal activity, but affect the emergence or formation of a motive for stopping criminal activity, i.e. refusal to commit a crime.
———————————
Course of Soviet criminal law. M., 1970. P. 435.
So, the presence of voluntariness presupposes a refusal to continue committing a crime with the awareness of the possibility of completing the crime. Awareness of the reality of such a possibility is an important sign of voluntary refusal. In this case, the person, refusing to continue the crime, believes that there are no obstacles to such continuation or they are so insignificant that they can be overcome. A person’s misconception regarding these circumstances does not affect the recognition of the refusal as voluntary. Thus, if a person believes that, having entered an apartment, he can continue committing the theft without hindrance, but refuses to continue it, his actions fall under the signs of voluntary refusal, despite the fact that there cannot be an objectively successful continuation of the theft, since the alarm has gone off and the place crime, a police squad has already arrived. Thus, it is the subjective factor of awareness of the possibility of completing a crime and freedom of expression in relation to the cessation of criminal actions that are the basis of voluntary refusal. At the same time, if the decision to stop committing a crime is made under the influence of circumstances that objectively prevent the continuation of the crime, the voluntariness of the refusal is excluded. For example, the presence of neighbors prevents the culprit from opening the door to the apartment, and he refuses to continue the theft, or the culprit was unable to turn off the alarm, etc. Circumstances of this kind objectively prevent or make it very difficult to continue the crime, and refusal to continue the crime in such cases is not voluntary, but forced.
Renunciation of a crime will be voluntary only if it is valid, i.e. really existing, and not feigned. The latter circumstance is closely related to the second sign of voluntary refusal - its finality.
The finality of the refusal means that the person did not temporarily suspend the crime, postponing the moment of implementation of the plan to another, more favorable period, but completely and irrevocably (forever). In this regard, cases where a person has only interrupted criminal activity in anticipation of a more successful opportunity or the elimination of obstacles that have arisen will not be recognized as voluntary refusal. Thus, there will be no voluntary refusal if a person postponed a robbery after learning that at the moment there was only a small amount of money in the store’s cash register, or postponed the moment of committing the theft, deciding to wait until the owners of the apartment will go on vacation, etc. As noted above, refusal to repeat criminal acts if the first attempt is unsuccessful does not constitute a voluntary refusal.
As a general rule, voluntary renunciation of a crime is possible only at the stages of an unfinished crime. In this regard, a distinction is made between voluntary refusal and active repentance, which, being the basis for exemption from criminal liability, provides, along with formal signs, for a person to take active positive actions after committing a crime, i.e. at the stage of the completed crime.
The essence of voluntary refusal lies in the fact that, firstly, the implementation of the objective side of the crime ceases, and secondly, the mental activity of the person in relation to the further commission of the crime (subjective side) ceases. These factors indicate that the social danger of the act has ceased, which is the basis for exemption from criminal liability. But the problem of the grounds for exemption from criminal liability in case of voluntary refusal is debatable, and in the theory of criminal law other positions are expressed on this problem.
From the content of the law it follows that voluntary refusal is possible at the stage of preparation for a crime and at the stage of attempted crime. At the same time, at the stage of preparation or in case of an unfinished attempt, the possibilities of voluntary refusal are unlimited, and its form has no legal significance. Most often it is expressed in inaction, i.e. in not committing criminal acts.
For example, as noted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in paragraph 6 of Resolution No. 11 of June 15, 2004 “On judicial practice in cases of crimes under Articles 131 and 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,” attempted rape or committing violent actions of a sexual nature should be distinguished from voluntary refusal to commit these actions, which excludes the criminal liability of the person (Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, if a person was aware of the possibility of completing criminal actions, but voluntarily and finally refused to commit rape or sexual assault (but not due to reasons that arose against his will), what he did, regardless of the motives for refusal, is qualified according to the actual actions committed provided that they contain elements of another crime.
———————————
Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 2004. N 8.
But voluntary refusal is also possible in the form of active actions. For example, having put poison in a glass of drink, a person renounces the crime and pours out the drink.
However, it should also be noted that many criminologists express the point of view according to which voluntary refusal is possible even at the stage of a completed attempt, but subject to a number of conditions. These conditions include the following: an active form of voluntary refusal, the presence of the possibility of terminating further development of the objective side, the actual cessation of its development through active actions. Moreover, the nature of the actions depends on the type of crime on its objective side. In relation to material compositions, supporters of the stated point of view see voluntary refusal in the prevention of socially dangerous consequences. For example, wanting to kill a person, the culprit stabs him with a knife, and then, refusing to continue committing the crime, bandages the wounds and calls an ambulance. In this and similar cases, the attempt will be completed when the perpetrator believes that the objective side has been completed in full and he has completed all the actions necessary for death to occur. In such a situation, the further development of events, as a rule, no longer depends on the will of the perpetrator and, therefore, his actions do not constitute a voluntary refusal, but can be regarded as active repentance. But in cases where the prevention of consequences directly depends on the actions of the perpetrator and these actions lead to a positive result, we should probably speak of the presence of a voluntary refusal, since the crime is not brought to completion at the will of the perpetrator. In such situations, he is liable for the actual harm caused. In all other cases, if a person believes that not all actions have been completed, there will be an unfinished attempt, in which voluntary refusal is fully possible, and responsibility will arise for an act that constitutes another crime. Thus, the position on the possibility of voluntary refusal at the stage of a completed attempt in crimes with a material component deserves attention.
———————————
See, for example: Criminal law of Russia. General part: Textbook. / Rep. ed. B.V. Zdravomyslov. M.: Yurist, 1996. P. 247.
The outlined approach to resolving the issue of voluntary refusal at the stage of a completed attempt is also applicable to crimes with a formal element. But since the specificity of crimes with a formal composition is that their objective side lies only in the act (action or inaction), voluntary refusal at the stage of a completed attempt will take place only if there is a possibility of preventing the completion of the objective side. In crimes with a formal composition, the presence of such a possibility is quite rare and mainly refers to those crimes, the complete completion of the objective side of which depends not only on the subject of the crime. For example, the objective side of giving a bribe or commercial bribery is to transfer the subject of the bribe to an official or person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization. Transfer is all the actions that the briber or person committing the bribery must perform. But the full objective aspect of giving a bribe will be completed only when the person concerned has accepted the bribe. According to paragraph 11 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 10, 2000 No. 6 “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and commercial bribery,” giving a bribe or illegal reward in commercial bribery, as well as their receipt by an official or person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization are considered completed from the moment the recipient accepts at least part of the transferred values.
———————————
Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 2000. N 4.
In cases where an official or person carrying out managerial functions in a commercial or other organization refused to accept a bribe or the subject of commercial bribery, the bribe giver or the person transferring the subject of the bribe or bribery is liable for an attempted crime under Art. 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation or the corresponding part of Art. 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Thus, in the cases under consideration, on the one hand, the objective side of the crimes is carried out in full, and on the other hand, the crime has not yet been completed. Under these conditions, the offender may refuse to complete the crime by preventing the relevant person from receiving the subject of the bribe or bribery, for example, returning to the office and picking up the subject of the bribe or bribery. But such actions are possible only until the moment the subject of the bribe or bribery has not yet been accepted.
Voluntary refusal can also be carried out by performing the required actions until the end of the crime. For example, if the taxpayer has not submitted a tax return or other documents, the submission of which is mandatory in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees (Article 23 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), or has included knowingly false information in the tax return or in these documents, including including in cases of submitting an application to the tax authority to supplement and amend the tax return after the expiration of the deadline for filing it, but then before the expiration of the deadline for paying the tax and (or) fee, the amount of the obligatory contribution was paid (clause 4 of Article 81 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), voluntarily and finally having refused to complete the crime (Part 2 of Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), then his actions constitute a crime under Art. 198 or art. 199 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, absent.
———————————
See: paragraph 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 28, 2006 N 64 “On the practice of application by courts of criminal legislation on liability for tax crimes” // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 2007. N 3.
In addition, in a number of cases, the legislator establishes special grounds for exemption from criminal liability, which, in essence, represent a voluntary refusal to commit a crime in the presence of a completed crime. These are mainly so-called continuing crimes. For example, a note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (kidnapping) contains a provision that a person who voluntarily frees the kidnapped person is exempt from criminal liability unless his actions contain another crime. There are similar notes in relation to some other articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The legal consequence of voluntary renunciation of a crime is the release of the perpetrator from criminal liability. But this exemption applies only to the crime that the person voluntarily refused to complete. If the actually committed actions contain elements of another crime, the person is subject to liability for its commission. Thus, in the process of kidnapping the victim suffers moderate harm to his health. If the victim is voluntarily released, the perpetrator is released from liability for kidnapping, but is subject to it for causing harm to health of moderate severity.
The current criminal legislation regulates the conditions for the voluntary refusal of accomplices. The perpetrator must stop committing the crime upon realizing the possibility of completing it. The requirements for the voluntary refusal of organizers and instigators are that their actions must lead to the elimination of the opportunity they created for the perpetrator to commit a crime, if the perpetrator has not yet completed the crime. That is, they are required to take active actions (inaction) aimed at preventing a crime. If, despite their actions, the crime was not prevented, both the organizer and the instigator are not exempt from criminal liability. The presence of voluntary refusal for an accomplice is also associated with active actions. In this case, an accomplice to a crime is not subject to criminal liability if he has taken all measures within his power to prevent the commission of a crime. Thus, the legislator provides for various conditions for voluntary refusal depending on their role in the commission of a crime. For persons representing a high degree of public danger, who organized the commission of a crime or directed it, or who formed the intention of the perpetrator to commit a crime, a mandatory condition for preventing the crime has been established. Prevention of crime can be achieved by timely reporting to authorities or other measures. Timeliness means that the message about a crime being prepared or committed, firstly, was made before the end of the crime, and secondly, during a period when the authorities still have the opportunity to influence the development of events and prevent the crime from being completed. In this regard, the concept of timeliness is largely evaluative in nature and must be determined in each specific case, based on all the circumstances of the case. Authorities should be understood primarily as law enforcement agencies, as well as other state authorities. Other measures may include any other actions of the organizer or instigator that led to the prevention of the crime being completed. For example, the instigator dissuades the perpetrator from committing a crime, threatens to report the crime to law enforcement agencies, the organizer cancels the order to commit the crime, dissolves the group he organized, deprives the perpetrator of the opportunity to move, etc. The actions of an accomplice pose less of a social danger, and therefore the presence of a voluntary refusal by this person is associated with the commission of actions dependent on him, aimed at preventing the crime, but not with the mandatory actual prevention of it. For example, an accomplice takes away from the perpetrator the provided tools and means of committing a crime, refuses to provide a car for transporting the stolen property, and other actions. The question of whether the accomplice has taken all measures within his power is a question of fact and must be assessed based on the specific situation.
In turn, the voluntary refusal of the perpetrator to complete the crime affects the limits of liability of other accomplices. Thus, if the perpetrator voluntarily renounces the crime, he does not bear criminal liability, while the remaining accomplices are subject to liability for the preparation or attempt to commit a crime, which the perpetrator renounced, depending on the stage at which the perpetrator interrupted the crime. In this case, the will of the performer is an external circumstance for the remaining accomplices, independent of their will.
Voluntary refusal in case of an unfinished attempt
Termination of criminal actions at the attempted stage is possible only when the perpetrator has not yet completed all the actions that form the objective side of the crime. It is this failure to perform all actions that makes it possible to refuse to continue the crime and stop committing it. If all actions are completed to the proper extent, then their continuation is impossible, and therefore, voluntary refusal is also impossible. In other words, at the stage of the attempt, voluntary renunciation of the crime is possible only if the attempt is not completed . Thus, voluntary refusal is impossible if a person, intending to kill a person, shoots at him, but misses. In this situation, all actions aimed at causing the death of another person have been completed; their continuation is impossible, but only repetition is possible. Therefore, refusal to repeat, rather than continue, criminal actions cannot be regarded as a voluntary renunciation of a crime.
Conditions for voluntary refusal of accomplices
Voluntary renunciation of the crime by the perpetrator
The perpetrator must stop committing the crime upon realizing the possibility of completing it.
If the perpetrator voluntarily renounces the crime, he does not bear criminal liability, while the remaining accomplices are subject to liability for the preparation or attempt to commit a crime, which the perpetrator renounced, depending on the stage at which the perpetrator interrupted the crime.
Voluntary renunciation of the crime of the organizer and instigator
The requirements for the voluntary refusal of organizers and instigators are that their actions must lead to the elimination of the opportunity they created for the perpetrator to commit a crime, if the perpetrator has not yet completed the crime. That is, they are required to take active actions or inaction aimed at preventing a crime. Prevention of crime can be achieved by timely reporting to authorities or other measures. If the measures taken by the organizer and instigator did not lead to the prevention of the crime, then they are subject to liability, and the measures they took can be taken into account as mitigating circumstances when assigning punishment.
Voluntary renunciation of the crime of an accomplice
The accomplice must eliminate the assistance, the contribution that he makes to the crime, for example, confiscate those material resources that were provided to him to commit the crime.
Voluntary renunciation and active repentance
Voluntary refusal must be distinguished from active repentance (i.e., making amends for moral or physical harm caused by the crime, providing immediate assistance to the victim). If voluntary refusal is possible at the stages of preparation or attempt, then active repentance is possible after the end of the crime.
Active repentance is a circumstance mitigating punishment (clause “and” part 1 of article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In a number of cases and in the presence of signs provided for in Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, active repentance serves as the basis for releasing a person who has committed a crime for the first time from criminal liability not only for a crime of minor or moderate gravity, but also for more serious crimes, if this is indicated in the note. to the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Commentary to Art. 31 Criminal Code
1. Voluntary refusal is characterized by three main features: a) voluntariness; b) finality; c) the person’s awareness of the possibility of completing the crime.
Voluntariness means that the person who has begun the implementation of a criminal intention does not, of his own free will, complete it. In this case, a person can stop criminal activity both on his own initiative and on the initiative of other persons. There will be no voluntary refusal in cases where the subject is faced with circumstances and obstacles that he was unable to overcome, and therefore stopped further committing the crime. A refusal that is caused by the inability to continue criminal actions due to reasons arising beyond the will of the perpetrator cannot be recognized as voluntary.
The finality of the refusal means the irrevocability of the decision made, and not a temporary cessation of criminal activity.
In addition, the person must have the opportunity to complete the crime and be aware of this possibility.
2. Voluntary refusal is possible at the stage of preparation, as well as at the stage of attempt, up to the moment when the perpetrator retains the opportunity to prevent the onset of socially dangerous consequences or not to complete his criminal actions (if the onset of consequences is not required to recognize the crime as completed).
3. Active repentance should be distinguished from voluntary refusal, i.e. making amends for moral or physical harm caused by the crime, providing immediate assistance to the victim. Active repentance can be considered as a circumstance mitigating responsibility (Article 61 of the Criminal Code), and in some cases exempting from criminal liability (Article 75 of the Criminal Code).
