TOPIC: CRIMES AGAINST JUSTICE
1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
2. CRIMES AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
3. CRIMES INFRINGING ON THE LEGAL PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING DOCUMENTS REGARDING A CASE
1.
Acts provided for in Articles 294 – 316 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Generic object – normal functioning of state power
Species object – normal functioning of the justice system
Justice is a meaningful concept. Two meanings: narrow and wide.
1. The activities of the court, carried out with the participation of the parties and participants in the process, to consider and resolve civil, criminal cases, cases of administrative offenses in the form of regulation.
2. One of the forms of state activity, which has as its content the application of law, also lawful or jurisdictional activity.
In criminal law, the concept of “justice” is given a broader meaning. It means not only the activities of the court discussed above, but also the activities of the bodies that assist it in this (the prosecutor's office, the preliminary investigation, bodies and institutions that use sentences or decisions that have entered into legal force).
Based on the direct object of crime, crimes are divided into five groups:
1. Relations regarding the implementation of the constitutional principles of justice – Articles 299 – 301, 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
2. Normal activities of justice bodies – Articles 294 – 298, 311 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
3. The procedural procedure for obtaining documents in the case is Articles 302 – 304, 306 – 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
4. Activities of justice authorities in the timely suppression and detection of crimes - Articles 310.316 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
5. Relations regarding the implementation of a judicial act – Articles 312 – 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The objective side is that all compositions are formal. Exceptions: Articles 295,304 - truncated, Article 312 - formal - material.
Almost all crimes are committed in the form of action and only some can be committed by inaction - Articles 308, 314,315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
S – a sane individual, from 16 years old, from 25 years old – Article 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Crimes against justice are classified according to S into three groups:
1. crimes committed by officials and law enforcement officers – Article 305,311,299 – 303 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
2. crimes committed by private individuals and officials involved in the administration of justice or related to the administration of justice - Articles 294 - 298, 304,306,308,310,312,315,316 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
3. crimes committed by persons in respect of whom justice was administered - Articles 313,314 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The subjective side is direct intent in all crimes. In some compositions, optional features are mandatory - Articles 294 - 296 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
2.
1. Bringing a knowingly innocent person to criminal liability (Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
The immediate object is the normal activities of the bodies of inquiry, investigation, and the prosecutor’s office.
An additional object is the interests of the victim (freedom, honor, dignity, health, property relations).
The objective side is the formal composition. Mandatory sign: action.
The crime is completed from the moment the decision is made to bring S as an accused. A decision can be made if there are two grounds:
1. Criminal law - committing an act containing elements of a crime - Article 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
2. Criminal procedural – proof of this – part 1 of article 171 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
In the absence of these grounds, bringing a person as an accused is illegal. For the existence of corpus delicti, it does not matter whether the prosecutor approved the indictment in the case and whether it was sent to court or whether a guilty verdict was reached.
Even if the case is dismissed or an acquittal is rendered, then in these cases liability under Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not excluded.
The objective side takes place not only if a person has not committed a crime at all, but also when he has committed another crime: not the one for which he is held criminally liable.
Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation speaks of bringing the innocent, that is, a narrower circle of persons than the circle of persons not subject to criminal liability. prescription, mental illness of a person, amnesty, etc. or in case of erroneous classification of the offense). The commission of any other illegal actions aimed at bringing to criminal liability (for example, coercion to testify, falsification of evidence, violation of the inviolability of the home, etc.) must be qualified in conjunction with the relevant Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
S – special – an official who illegally granted the right to bring to criminal liability (inquirers, investigators, prosecutors).
The subjective side is direct intent. Motives don't matter.
When a person is accused of committing grave and especially grave crimes - Part 2 of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
2. Illegal exemption from criminal liability (Article 300 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
The immediate object is the normal activities of the bodies of inquiry, investigation, and the prosecutor’s office.
The objective side is the formal composition. The crime is over from the moment the suspect or accused is unlawfully released from criminal liability, that is, when a decision is made to refuse to initiate a criminal case or to terminate it.
The concept of a suspect is disclosed in Article 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, accused in Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
The grounds for termination of criminal prosecution are provided for in Articles 27 and 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the grounds for termination of a criminal case are provided for in Articles 24 - 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Release made in gross violation of criminal procedural law is illegal.
S – special: interrogators, investigators, prosecutors.
The subjective side is direct intent. Motives don't matter.
3. Illegal detention, detention or detention (Article 301 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
The immediate object is the normal activities of the bodies of inquiry, investigation, and the prosecutor’s office.
An additional object is the personal freedom of the victim.
The objective side is the formal composition. In Part 1 of Article 301 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - the crime is completed from the moment of illegal detention. The grounds for detention are specified in Article 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Detention is illegal in the absence of the grounds specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as in case of gross violation of the rules and procedure for choosing instructions, measures of procedural coercion (lack of a detention protocol, failure to inform the prosecutor within 12 hours from the moment of detention (Article 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation)).
Lawyers acquitted of interference with justice case
March 26, 2021 3:32 pm
BFM.ru: Yakov Sheinin and Sergei Golovanyuk were able to prove that they did not try to influence the victim
The trial in the Central District Court of Khabarovsk in a criminal case against the lawyers of the Primorsky Krai Administration Yakov Sheinin and Sergei Golovanyuk ended in defeat for the prosecution. They defended the former mayor of Vladivostok Igor Pushkarev, who was sentenced to 15 years in a maximum security colony for corruption. The investigation alleged that the lawyers allegedly tried to put pressure on the management of the Vladivostok Roads municipal unitary enterprise during the trial of their client. However, the court found that this was not the case. The Federal Chamber of Lawyers of the Russian Federation welcomed the acquittal. “It is very important because it does not allow the formation of a vicious practice when cases are initiated under Article 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“obstruction of justice”) only because the conclusions of the court do not coincide with the arguments of the defense,” the vice-president of the FPA of the Russian Federation told Business FM, Chairman of the Commission of the Council of the FPA RF for the protection of the rights of lawyers Henry Reznik.
The case is against the head of the law office “Vysotsky, Sheinin and Partners” Yakov Sheinin and the lawyer of the same office Sergei Golovanyuk under Part 1 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should have initially been heard in the Leninsky District Court of Vladivostok. However, the prosecutor's office achieved a change in jurisdiction, citing the fact that local judges may be dependent. The fact is that Sheinin has been a member of the Qualification Commission of the Administrative District of Primorsky Krai for a long time, which also includes judges. As a result, the case was transferred to Khabarovsk.
According to investigators, after the hearing of the criminal case against the former mayor began in the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow in February 2021, his defenders met with Alexei Voroshilov, the new director of the Municipal Unitary Enterprise “Roads of Vladivostok”. This municipal enterprise was recognized as a victim in the case. Earlier in the trial, it argued that there was no damage. This position of his in the debate should have been confirmed by Moscow lawyer Vladimir Andrusenko, but the new management of the municipal unitary enterprise recalled him and asked the court to continue to consider the case without the participation of a representative of the enterprise. Yakov Sheinin and Sergei Golovanyuk, according to employees of the Investigative Committee, convinced the director of the municipal unitary enterprise to return this lawyer to the process. However, the company did not do this. And the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow did not agree with the position that there was no damage to the municipal enterprise and sentenced the ex-mayor, including in the episode with the municipal unitary enterprise.
Lawyers Sheinin and Golovanyuk are guilty under Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was denied. The prosecution considered it proven. The prosecutor proposed a fine of 100 thousand rubles for Golovanyuk, and 120 thousand rubles for Sheinin. At the same time, the state prosecutor asked to release the defendants from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
However, the court accepted the defense's arguments and acquitted the defendants. Yakov Sheinin himself told reporters that he was happy with this verdict. “The line of defense was built on the fact that, even if we assume that something written in the indictment was true, it still does not form the crime that we were charged with,” he said.
His position is fully shared by the vice-president of the FPA RF, Henry Reznik. This matter was under his control. In total, according to him, the Commission of the Council of the FPA of the Russian Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Lawyers is currently monitoring the development of nine similar cases.
Master of the Russian Bar, Fr. However, the “vague” wording of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“interference in any form in the activities of the court”) makes it possible to increasingly initiate cases against defense lawyers. “This is a way to remove lawyers from the case in order to actually eliminate any activity of the defense to challenge the charges,” believes the vice-president of the FPA RF.
Henry Reznik emphasized that no procedural actions of the participants in the proceedings “by nature can be considered interference in the functioning of justice.” He noted that there are a number of other articles of the Criminal Code, such as “falsification of evidence” (Article 303 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), “bribery or coercion to testify or evade testimony” (Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), “forgery of documents” (Article 327 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). But, having no grounds to bring charges against lawyers, law enforcement officers prefer to take a simpler path - to initiate cases under the article on obstruction of justice only on the basis of a guilty verdict.
Advisor to the Federal Chamber of Lawyers of the Russian Federation Gleb Shumilov called the acquittal of lawyers Yakov Sheinin and Sergei Golovanyuk “another victory for the legal profession in the fight for independence.”
Yakov Sheinin himself did not comment on the background to the initiation of a case against him and his colleague. “It often happens in our lives that the accusation that is presented is just the tip of the iceberg,” he noted. According to the defense lawyer, he was upset when the case was transferred to another region, where he had to spend a lot of time traveling. “But now, when the court acquitted us, everyone saw that the court did not show us any loyalty. The judge didn’t know us, we had never seen this judge before,” the defense lawyer said.
It is not yet clear whether prosecutors will appeal the verdict.
Source – BFM.ru.
SharePrint Direct link to the material:
Share
The direct object of the crime is public relations in the sphere of justice.
Objective side
consists of interfering in any form with the activities of the court.
Interference
should be understood as various ways of influencing judges, jurors or people's assessors in order to achieve an unjust verdict, decision or determination, to prevent the court from objectively, fully and comprehensively considering the case. Impact can also be exerted through third parties - relatives, acquaintances, colleagues, etc.
Intervention
can be carried out through threats, requests, persuasion, advice, promises to provide services, etc. and can be expressed orally or in writing.
Written appeals or petitions from citizens or officials, defenders of suspects, accused, defendants for the termination of the case or the imposition of a punishment not related to imprisonment, etc., cannot be considered as interference in the activities of the court, since the appeals provided for by law petitions, complaints, appeals are legitimate ways of behavior of participants in the process.
Interference with the administration of justice will be criminal only if it concerns a specific court case or a number of cases, including a certain category. Critical comments regarding the general line of criminal policy, advice and wishes of a general nature (including those expressed in the press) cannot be considered obstruction of justice.
By design, the crime has a formal composition and is considered completed from the moment the intervention is carried out, regardless of whether the perpetrator achieves the desired result.
Mandatory signs of the subjective side
there must be direct intent and a purpose to obstruct the administration of justice.
Subject of the crime
- general.
Part 2 Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes liability for interference in any form in the activities of the prosecutor, investigator or person conducting the inquiry. According to Art. 5 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation:
– investigator - an official of the inquiry body, authorized or authorized by the head of the inquiry body to carry out a preliminary investigation in the form of an inquiry, as well as other powers provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation;
– prosecutor – the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and subordinate prosecutors, their deputies and other officials of the prosecutor’s office participating in criminal proceedings and vested with the corresponding powers by the Federal Law on the Prosecutor’s Office;
– investigator – an official authorized to carry out a preliminary investigation in a criminal case, as well as other powers provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Subjective side
characterized by direct intent and the purpose of obstructing a comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of the case.
Subject of the crime
- general.
A qualifying sign of a crime
is interference in the activities of a court, prosecutor, investigator or person conducting an inquiry, committed by a person using his official position.
Table of contents
Responsibility for obstructing the legal activities of a lawyer: qualification problems
The draft amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation presented for public discussion provide for the addition of Art. 294.1 “Obstruction of the legal activities of a lawyer”, part 1 of which establishes liability for “interference in any form with the legal activities of a lawyer in order to impede the exercise of his professional powers provided for by the legislation on advocacy and the legal profession, if this act entailed causing significant harm harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or legally protected interests of society or the state.”
Are we talking about the criminalization of the act described in the proposed norm? To some extent, yes, since not all actions containing the projected composition are currently subject to criminal liability. True, among the types of opposition to a lawyer, it is not easy to find those for which there is no liability now.
If, for example, the investigator destroys what was presented by the defense attorney in the manner provided for in clause 2, part 1, art. 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, important materials, without attaching them to the case as evidence, the crime is qualified under Part 2 or 3 of Art. 303 of the Criminal Code as falsification of evidence in a criminal case.
Despite the fact that, according to popular belief, the term “falsification” covers only “actions expressed in forgery, distortion, substitution of genuine information or its carrier with information that is false, imaginary, originating from an improper source or obtained in violation of the established procedure,” practitioners understand falsification wider.
According to the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, “in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 303 of the Criminal Code, falsification of evidence means the artificial creation or destruction
evidence, regardless of whether it is evidence of the prosecution
or defense
, and also regardless of the occurrence of any consequences, regardless of whether the purpose of falsifying evidence was the conviction of a person or, conversely, his acquittal or another goal, as established by the court in the case in accordance with the provisions of Art. 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is the subject of proof” (emphasis added – P.Ya.).
However, if the same actions are performed not by the investigator, but by the head. office of the investigative department, then, due to his non-recognition of falsification of evidence as a subject and the impossibility of classifying the purely technical functions he performs in relation to materials received by the department as organizational, administrative or administrative, according to the current Criminal Code, he cannot be held responsible for a crime against justice (Article 303) or for an official crime. With the adoption of the amendments, this person will bear criminal liability under Art. 294.1 CC.
At the same time, the addition of this norm to the Code in cases similar to the first of these will raise the question of competition between the novel and Art. 303 CC. So, if the materials were destroyed by the investigator, in the absence of those provided for in Part 3 of Art. 303 of the Criminal Code of the qualifying circumstances, the act will be qualified under Part 2 of Art. 303, since the elements of falsification of evidence do not include socially dangerous consequences, while the elements of the crime established by Art. 294.1 of the Criminal Code, on the contrary, provides for them.
If the destruction of materials entails the grave consequences specified in Part 3 of Art. 303 of the Criminal Code (which implies a punishment of up to 7 years in prison), which in other cases the law qualifies as the most dangerous type of harm to society caused by a crime to rights, legitimate interests, etc., will the novel not “overshadow” (Part 2 of Art. 294.1 of the Criminal Code, according to which for interference committed by a person using his official position, the maximum penalty is two years in prison) from the law enforcement officer the elements of falsification?
In order not to weaken the opposition to encroachments on the rights of lawyers, scientists commenting on the novel should explain to the law enforcement officer that for such cases the elements of falsification, qualified as a sign of grave consequences, are special and subject to imputation by virtue of Part 3 of Art. 17 of the Criminal Code.
The content of the concept of “obstruction” is broader than that of “interference”. But responsibility under Art. It is proposed to introduce Article 294.1 of the Criminal Code specifically for interference, even if committed for the purpose of obstruction, etc. And since the corpus delicti is imputed to the perpetrator (the perpetrator) based on the description, first of all, of the signs of the objective side of the act, set out in the article of the Special Part of the Code, and not in the title of the introduced article (the title is more of a motto nature), it is necessary to answer the question of whether it covers Is the novel not only an action, but also an inaction - for example, a refusal to provide a lawyer with the information he requested?
The professional powers of a lawyer enshrined in legislation, the obstruction of which the perpetrator sees as his goal, direct us to other, “procedural” normative legal acts. So, according to paragraph 3 of Art. 6 of the Law on the Bar, these powers include, in particular, the right to collect information necessary to provide legal assistance, including requesting certificates, characteristics and other documents from state authorities and local governments, public associations and other organizations in the manner prescribed by Art. 6.1 of this Law, while the specified bodies and organizations in the prescribed manner are obliged to provide the lawyer with the documents requested by him or their copies.
In addition, the norm of paragraph 4 of Art. 6.1 of the Law on the Bar defines the boundaries of the information array from which a lawyer can draw information of interest to him. Will a person who refuses to fulfill the obligation to provide a lawyer with the requested information be subject to criminal liability if it does not contain information classified by law as information with limited access?
It would seem that the term “interference” implies only the active actions of the perpetrator, excluding the possibility of imputing inaction to him, consisting in evading the obligation to provide information. However, the interpretation of the courts is again broader: the Supreme Court, for example, agreed with the conviction under Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the judge, who not only “withdrew from the court” the civil case (which was recognized as active actions), but also retained it, wanting to avoid review by a higher authority of the decisions made.
It is interesting that Art. 5.39 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for liability, strictly speaking, not for evasion of providing information (that is, not for failure to provide it), but for unlawful refusal to provide it, as well as untimely provision or provision of knowingly false data. But, let’s say, an official whose duties include providing information refuses to provide this to a lawyer. In this case, the official will not be held liable under Art. 5.39 Code of Administrative Offences, and under Art. 294.1 of the Criminal Code only when the refusal entails the socially dangerous consequences mentioned in Part 1 of the proposed norm.
However, if these consequences were not indicated in the bill - that is, liability under Art. 294.1 provided for inaction in the form of failure to fulfill the obligation to provide the requested information - the official would not have been held liable due to the rule established by the Supreme Court, according to which “in cases where an administrative offense committed by a person... also contains signs of a criminal offense, the specified person can only be prosecuted to administrative responsibility."
Commentary to Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The main object of the crime under Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is the normal activity of the court and law enforcement agencies, and first of all the independence of judges. An additional object may be the property, labor, housing and other rights and interests of the persons listed in parts 1 and 2 of the article in question.
The social danger of the crime lies in the fact that it infringes on the independence of judges, which is one of the most important guarantees of the administration of justice in strict accordance with the law. Interference in the activities of the court in the administration of justice is a gross violation of the principle of the independence of judges and their subordination only to the law and can lead to the adoption of an unfair judicial decision in the case.
The objective side of the crime is to interfere in any form with the activities of the court (Part 1), prosecutor, investigator or person conducting the inquiry (Part 2), in order to obstruct the administration of justice in order to achieve an illegal verdict, court decision or other act or prevent a comprehensive, complete and objective consideration of the case. A crime is committed by an action. The nature of the actions can be very different: making requests, giving orders, promising a promotion, etc. Practice also knows cases of interference committed by forcing a witness to slander the investigator in unlawful actions in order to remove him from the investigation, although, in our opinion, responsibility for these acts is provided for by independent elements of the crimes of Art. Art. 302, 306 or 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, depending on the circumstances.
It should be noted here that any appeal to a judge, prosecutor, investigator, person conducting an inquiry, for example, with a request for one or another influence on the course of the case, formally forms a crime under Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. However, in such cases, the intensity and nature of the impact and the person making the request should be assessed to determine whether the impact could actually influence the behavior of the judge or others. If it is established that the request could have been “painlessly” ignored, the act, from our point of view, should be regarded as insignificant.
The concepts of persons specified in the dispositions of Parts 1 and 2 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as victims, were analyzed by us when considering Art. 295 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Under the activities specified in the disposition of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers to the actions of these persons (bodies) provided for by law at any stage of the constitutional, civil, arbitration, criminal or administrative process.
Intervention is any unlawful influence on such persons, not associated with an encroachment on life, threat or violence (otherwise it would fall under the characteristics of Article 295 or Article 296 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), with the aim of changing the course of justice, preliminary investigation or inquiry. Influence in the form of bribery requires qualification according to the totality of crimes provided for in Art. 291 and Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The crime in question has a formal composition and is considered completed from the moment of interference in the activities of the persons specified in Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, regardless of whether the perpetrator managed to achieve his goal aimed at impeding the normal activities of judicial or investigative bodies.
The decision made as a result of the intervention is outside the scope of this crime and must be assessed independently. It may constitute a crime against justice or against the interests of public service. For example, the issuance of a deliberately unjust sentence, decision or other judicial act should be qualified under Art. 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Forgery of documents that are not evidence, as a result of interference in the activities of the court or the prosecutor, investigator or person conducting the inquiry, must be qualified under Art. 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Analysis of Part 4 of Art. 37, part 7, 8 art. 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation allows us to conclude that Part 2 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal legal protection of all activities of the above persons to assist in the administration of justice, i.e. interference may take place at the stage of inquiry, preliminary investigation or consideration of the case in court.
The subjective side of the crime is characterized by direct intent and the presence of a special purpose. The person is aware that he is interfering in the activities of the court (Part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) or in the activities of the prosecutor, investigator or person conducting the inquiry (Part 2 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and wishes this.
The absence of such a purpose when interfering in an investigation or judicial resolution of a case means the absence of this crime.
The motives for a crime can be different (self-interest, revenge, the desire to prevent the disclosure of circumstances related to the perpetrator, the desire to assist a relative or acquaintance who finds himself in the field of legal proceedings, etc.) and do not affect the qualification of the crime, but can be taken into account when assigning punishments.
The subject of crimes under Parts 1 and 2 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a sane person who has reached sixteen years of age (general subject).
In Part 3 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation names the commission of a crime by a person using his official position as a qualifying feature. This sign refers to interference in the activities of the court and interference in the activities of the prosecutor, investigator and person conducting the inquiry. We are talking about the commission of a crime by a special subject using his official position, understood in the broad sense of the word. Firstly, as a special type of abuse of power. In this case, the subject is an official, whose definition is contained in the note to Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Secondly, as a special type of abuse of power. In this case, the subject is a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, the concept of which is given in the note to Art. 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The subject of a qualified type of crime may also be another person using the powers associated with his service. In such cases, additional qualification under Art. Art. 201 and 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not required.
Since the law specifies the use of powers, when qualifying an act it is necessary to determine exactly what powers were used.
