Methods to combat extortion. Extortion and ways to prevent it. Causes and conditions conducive to extortion. Measures of its general and special warning

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

INTRODUCTION

The economic transformations that began in the country in the early 90s, which gave rise to new forms of ownership, among which priority is given to private property, and the changes in the social sphere caused in connection with these circumstances, made significant adjustments in the structure of crime, which was expressed in a sharp increase in acquisitive crimes and crimes against personal property. New business conditions have become fertile ground for such a form of criminal enrichment as extortion.

The relevance of this work is manifested in the fact that extortion is a crime characterized by increased danger. This is primarily due to the fact that it encroaches on two objects: the person (her life and health) and the property relationship. Thus, this crime infringes on the fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen, enshrined and guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

According to statistics from the General Prosecutor's Office, for 10 months of 2014, 642 extortions were registered in the country, in 2013 - 875, in 2012 - 715, in 2011 - 644. If since 2011 there has been an increase in the growth of this type of crime , then the current year (though only for the last 10 months) shows its decline compared to the same period. Thus, in 2013, 767 extortion cases were registered over 10 months. The emerging decrease in the registered number of extortions does not mean a decrease in the social danger of this crime.

The problem of fighting crime is one of the most important in modern society. A characteristic trend in recent years is the growth and increase in the public danger of crime in the economic sphere. This is especially acute in property relations, which are increasingly becoming the object of criminal attacks.

Under the current political and economic conditions, mercenary crime deserves special attention, among which the proportion of such mercenary-violent crime as extortion is significant. Being a crime of a property nature, extortion combines self-interest and violence, which determines its increased social danger. By encroaching on the property relations of not only citizens, but also business entities, extortion threatens the economic interests of the state, since the inviolability of the institution of property is the foundation of any successful state.

On the other hand, a significant number of extortions are committed by a group of persons (including organized groups of persons), which also indicates an increased degree of public danger of this crime. In addition, the subject of extortion is often significant amounts of money (including currency values), valuable and highly significant items, expensive cars, and recently even apartments; methods of committing are becoming more severe: instead of intimidation, violence is often actually used; torture, torment, and the taking of relatives and friends of the victim as hostages are widespread. Thus, the range of forms of influence that are dangerous to life and health in order to seize valuables belonging to the victim is expanding, and the intensity of the influence is increasing.

Due to the fact that organized criminal groups have a terrifying effect on victims and witnesses, the latency level of crimes of this type is quite high. In those cases when the victim nevertheless declares a criminal attack, the pressure exerted by extortionists on them and witnesses in criminal cases often leads to the latter changing their testimony and the “collapse” of criminal cases in court due to the fragile evidence base, because . The testimony of the victim and witnesses in the investigation of extortion cases plays, perhaps, the main and decisive role.

The purpose of the proposed work is to summarize the conclusions on the problem of extortion, which have been confirmed in judicial practice, as well as to consider individual provisions of these crimes in domestic legislation and their analysis.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

Consider the concept of crimes against property and extortion;

Provide an analysis of the legal composition of extortion and outline their role in the criminal legal system;

Study the problem of criminal liability for extortion

The object of the study is public relations in the field of protection of property relations.

The subject of the study is the composition of extortion and related crimes, the practical activities of judicial investigative bodies in the application of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, scientific works on the problem under study.

Methodological and theoretical basis of the study. The methodological basis was made up of general scientific methods (dialectical method, historical-analytical, system-structural) and particular scientific methods of cognition (comparative jurisprudence, sociological and statistical). The theoretical basis of the study was the scientific works of domestic authors in the field of philosophy, legal theory, criminal law and criminology, as well as other branches of law.

The work uses the works and monographs of such authors as: I.I. Rogova, Rakhmetova, I.Sh. Borchashvili, A.N. Agybaeva, G.F. Polenova, M.Ch. Kogamov and many others.

The regulatory framework was made up of the norms of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the norms of the current criminal, civil, administrative, criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as the norms of the criminal legislation of a number of foreign countries regarding the regulation of criminal liability for extortion.

1. THE CONCEPT OF CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

1.1 Development of criminal legislation providing for liability for crimes against property

During the period of Soviet criminal legislation in 1926, the Soviet authorities adopted inhumane, one might say, draconian laws in the area of responsibility for crimes against property, which served as the “legal basis” for carrying out bloody repressions against their own people, resulting in numerous casualties and crippling the fate of millions of people . Thus, the Law of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of August 7, 1932 “On the protection of the property of state enterprises, collective farms and the strengthening of public (socialist) property” considered persons who encroached on public property as enemies of the people, and allowed the use of the death penalty for theft. Along with this law, the corresponding articles of the Criminal Code were in force, punishing various types of less serious cases of theft. The law of August 7, 1932 was in force until the adoption on June 4, 1947 by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of the decrees “On criminal liability for theft of state and public property” and “On strengthening the protection of personal property of citizens.” These decrees differed little in their cruelty from the law of August 7, 1932, since they provided for in certain cases punishment for theft of 10 to 25 years in prison.

On June 4, 1947, the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR “On criminal liability for theft of state and public property” was adopted. It became the only act providing for liability for theft (the corresponding articles of the 1926 Criminal Code were not applied). The decree did not provide an exhaustive list of forms of theft. However, in practice, the identification of forms (including fraud) took place in accordance with the articles of the Criminal Code (although they were not referred to during qualification). The period of its validity ended only in 1958 with the adoption of the “Fundamentals of the Criminal Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics” on December 25 and the Criminal Code of the Kazakh SSR on July 22, 1959, which came into force on January 1, 1960.

Analysis and synthesis of previous criminal legislation showed that crimes against property were previously called property crimes. This is how they were called in the headings of the corresponding chapters of the Criminal Codes of 1922 and 1926. Both concepts are identical, since most crimes against property involve property. In crimes against property, property does not mean any items and objects of the external world, but such objects, things, tools, etc., which are created by human labor, capable of satisfying his needs and having value.

In the system of social values, the right of ownership is regarded as the most important social benefit of the individual.

In accordance with the changes that occurred in the political, economic, social spheres of public life in Kazakhstan, the legislative framework of the state was thoroughly changed and brought into line with the requirements of objective reality. In criminal legislation, this was specifically expressed in the adoption of the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on July 16, 1997 and its entry into force on January 1, 1998. It is based on the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the social values enshrined in it that exist in democratic rule-of-law states. It contains a number of fundamental provisions that distinguish it from the old one and is focused primarily on protecting the individual, then society and the state. In general, the code corresponds to the current criminal situation in Kazakhstan; new chapters and articles have been introduced into its structure, designed to ensure the activities of law enforcement agencies to combat new forms and types of crime, in particular, organized crime, in the economic sphere, etc.

1.2 Concept of crimes against property

In the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, in Chapter 6 “Crimes against property”, the legal technique has been legislatively improved (for example, the term “kidnapping” has been replaced with “theft”) and at the same time the composition of the said chapter has been unified. Thus, it is necessary to point out several of the most significant points that distinguish the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan from the previously valid one: the general concept of theft is legislatively enshrined in the note to Art. 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan; Crimes such as appropriation of someone else's property found or accidentally found in the possession of the guilty person have been decriminalized; petty theft; New offenses have been introduced, brought into line with international legal norms, such as: theft of items of special value (Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), violation of property rights to land (Article 186 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). Part 2 Art. 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “Robbery” was supplemented with paragraph “d” with the following content: “inflicting grievous harm to health”, and paragraph “b” of Part 3 of Art. 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan after the words “severe bodily harm” is supplemented with the words “causing the death of the victim through negligence.” Certain signs of the main elements of extortion have been clarified (Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Amendments and Additions to Some Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Intellectual Property Rights” dated November 22, 2005 changed the name of Art. 184 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. From now on, this crime is called: “Violation of copyright and related rights.” In addition, a new article has been introduced into the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan - 184-1 “Infringement of rights to inventions, utility models, industrial designs, selection achievements or topologies of integrated circuits”, and also provides a note to Art. 184-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The content and list of qualifying features of many crimes have been changed; The overall severity of most sanctions in crimes against property has been significantly softened.

In the science of criminal law, it was recognized that the disclosure of the concept of theft and the characteristics of its main elements make it possible to identify and isolate the signs inherent in all forms of theft, facilitate the analysis of specific forms of theft, and can distinguish them from other crimes against property, as well as from actions that are not punishable criminally. The Plenums of the Supreme Court of the USSR gave this concept different interpretations over the years. In the Resolution “On judicial practice on the application of the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of June 4, 1947 “On criminal liability for the theft of state and public property”” dated May 28, 1954, the concept of theft is defined as “the deliberate illegal conversion of state or public property, regardless of the forms and methods of its commission,” and the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR “On judicial practice in cases of theft of state and public property” dated July 11, 1972 states that theft should be understood as illegal gratuitous treatment of mercenary for the purpose of state or public property into one's own property or the property of others.

Taking into account these interpretations and turning to the definitions given to the concept in question by legal scholars A.I. Santalov, E.S. Tenchov, P.S. Matyshevsky, I.S. Tishkevich, G.A. Krieger, I.Sh. Borchashvili. and K.Sh. Ukanov, . It is possible to identify a number of features regarding which different authors have expressed a common opinion. Among these signs they named:

illegality of seizure;

· its gratuitousness;

· subjective signs - intent and selfish purpose.

At the same time, the views of scientists differ in the generalized description of the act, for which various collective terms are used - “conversion” (A.I. Santalov, P.S. Matyshevsky); “illegal possession” (G.A. Krieger); “acquisition” (B.A. Kurinov); "seizure" Such a variety of terms in the definition of theft could not but have a negative impact on the practice of applying the law. At present, there is no need to turn to a detailed analysis of these definitions, since the concept of theft has received its legislative recognition in paragraph 1 of the notes to Art. 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and in paragraph 1 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 11, 2003 “On judicial practice in cases of theft”: “Theft is understood as an unlawful gratuitous seizure and (or) circulation of someone else’s property in favor of the guilty person committed for mercenary purposes or other persons who caused damage to the owner or other holder of this property.”

The sign “seizure” covers all possible methods of theft, with the exception of robbery. A feature of robbery is that the legislator recognizes it as over from the moment of an attack combined with violence dangerous to the life or health of the victim. The sign “seizure” most accurately reflects the external process of unlawful influence on the subject of a crime and, to a certain extent, indicates the mechanism of causing harm to the object of criminal legal protection, since seizure is always associated with illegal movement, a change in the position of the stolen property in the structure of social connections of participants in property relations , which inevitably deforms the connection itself and disrupts its normal development.

Seizure of property as a sign of theft means the removal of inventory items from the owner’s possession, removing them from the total mass of someone else’s property. To establish the fact of seizure, write the authors of the textbook “Criminal Law” edited by I. Ya. Kozachenko, a combination of several circumstances is necessary. Firstly, the property must be in the owner’s funds: listed on the balance sheet of a legal entity or owned by the owner - an individual. In the event that the property has not yet entered the funds of the enterprise of a legal entity, it is impossible to talk about seizure or theft in general. Secondly, it is required that such property be seized either from the funds of the owner (legal entity) or from individual citizens (individuals).

The next sign characterizing theft is the illegality of the seizure. The sign of illegality means that the offender takes someone else's property to which he has neither actual nor alleged right. A valid right means a right based on law to receive this property, and it does not matter whether it is formalized in the manner prescribed by law. The main emphasis is on the fact that such a right exists in essence. The right of ownership is inviolable, since according to Art. 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, no one can be deprived of the right to property except by a court decision.

It follows from this that there will be no theft if a person, having legal grounds for receiving property, violates only the procedure established for the transfer of the latter. Such actions of the perpetrator, if they caused significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or legally protected interests of society or the state, will be qualified under Art. 327 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan as arbitrariness, that is, as the unauthorized, contrary to the procedure established by law, exercise of one’s actual or perceived right.

The sign of gratuitous seizure means that the culprit seizes property against the will of its owner and does not compensate for the cost of the seized property, that is, does not leave an equivalent. If, in the process of seizure of property, the owner is provided with appropriate compensation, then such actions of the perpetrator do not fall under the signs of theft, since they do not cause property damage.

The equivalent can be monetary, in kind and labor. With a monetary equivalent, the owner or legal owner, in return for the seized property, receives a sum of money that fully or substantially compensates for the cost of the stolen property. In case of natural equivalent, another thing is transferred to the owner. If the item is equal in value, there is no theft due to the absence of the sign of gratuitousness. If the thing is of lesser value, then gratuitous confiscation takes place.

Confiscation of property by replacing it with something less valuable does not affect qualifications and should be considered as theft in the amount of the value of the seized property. The seizure of property entrusted to the perpetrator by replacing it with something less valuable, committed for the purpose of appropriation or conversion for the benefit of other persons, must be qualified as theft in the amount of the value of the seized property.

The next sign of theft is a selfish purpose. The desire to seize and (or) convert someone else's property into your own property or into the property of other persons, with the knowledge that this seizure and (or) conversion is illegal and gratuitous, means the implementation of self-interest as “the desire for profit, benefit, benefit.”

2. CRIMINAL LEGAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EXTORTION

2.1 Criminal legal characteristics of crimes against property

Crimes against property can be divided into two groups: selfish and non-mercenary crimes. In selfish crimes, a mandatory sign of the subjective side is a selfish goal or a selfish motive. In turn, selfish attacks on the objective side can be divided into crimes related to the seizure of property, called theft, and crimes not related to theft. Theft includes the following crimes: theft (Article 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); misappropriation or embezzlement of entrusted property of others (Article 176 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); fraud (Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); robbery (Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); robbery (Article 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and theft of items of special value (Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). Acquisitive crimes not related to theft include: extortion (Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); causing property damage by deception or abuse of trust (Article 182 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); acquisition or sale of property known to have been obtained by criminal means (Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); violation of copyright and related rights (Article 184 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), violation of rights to inventions, utility models, industrial designs, selection achievements or topologies of integrated circuits (Article 184-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); unlawful taking of a car or other vehicle without the purpose of theft (Article 185 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); violation of property rights to land (Article 186 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). Unselfish crimes against property include intentional (Article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and careless (Article 188 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) destruction or damage to someone else’s property.

The generic object of crimes against property is property relations, that is, social relations in the sphere of distribution of material goods intended for individual or collective consumption or for production activities. Therefore, it should be noted that the generic object of property crimes is property.

In accordance with Art. Art. 188-195 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the right of ownership is the right of a subject, recognized and protected by legislative acts, to own, use and dispose of the property belonging to him at his own discretion. Thus, the owner has the right to own, use and dispose of his property.

The right of possession is a legally enforceable opportunity to exercise actual possession of property.

The right of use is a legally enforceable opportunity to extract from the property its beneficial natural properties, as well as to receive benefits from it. The benefit can be in the form of income, increase in fruits, offspring and other forms.

The right of disposal is a legally secured opportunity to determine the legal fate of property (Part 2 of Article 188 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). The owner has the right, at his own discretion, to take any actions in relation to the property belonging to him, including alienating this property into the ownership of other persons, transferring it to them, while remaining the owner, retaining the powers to own, use and dispose of the property, pledge the property, dispose of it otherwise (Part 3 of Article 188 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).

In some crimes against property (robbery, robbery), the immediate object coincides with the generic one. It should be noted that in the legal literature there was (and could not be) a unified approach to determining the direct object of theft. Thus, the opinion was expressed that the direct object should be considered a specific form of ownership, determined by the ownership of the stolen property: state, cooperative, private.

From the objective side, crimes against property are committed by action (Articles 175-188 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), while they are formulated by the legislator mainly as material elements of crimes. It follows from this that their objective side consists of three mandatory features: the act, the consequence and the cause-and-effect relationship between the act and the resulting consequences. Moreover, criminal consequences are always of a material nature and are expressed in causing property damage. Only robbery (Article 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and extortion (Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) are by design formal crimes, where, in contrast to material crimes, only a criminal act is a mandatory feature, since the consequences of these two crimes are beyond the scope of the crime.

For certain crimes against property, a mandatory element of the objective side is the method of committing the crime (violent or non-violent, secret or open).

Thefts are considered completed when the perpetrator has a real opportunity to use or dispose of the stolen property at his own discretion or transfer it to third parties. To recognize the theft as completed, it is not necessary that the perpetrator actually used the thing or benefited from it. It is important that he received this opportunity. If the culprit has committed certain actions aimed at confiscating someone else’s property, but has not yet received the opportunity to dispose of this property, the act is qualified as attempted theft, provided for in Part 3 of Art. 24 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the corresponding crime provided for in Art. Art. 175-180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Theft from protected areas should be considered completed from the moment the property is removed from its boundaries, since it is from this moment that the perpetrator has the opportunity to dispose of the stolen property. It does not matter how far the property is located from the protected area. In practice, there have been cases when throwing something stolen over the fence of a protected area to an accomplice who was detained at that moment was regarded as an unfinished theft. A security officer who intentionally assisted the person committing the theft in removing property stolen from the protected area, or otherwise removed obstacles to the theft, is liable for complicity in the theft of property. If the stolen property is not consumed and its use in the protected area is impossible, then the theft will not be considered completed until the property is taken outside the protected area. And when consumable property is stolen (for example, alcoholic beverages, food), the moment the crime ends will depend on the intentions of the perpetrator regarding the stolen property. If the culprit managed to dispose of the stolen property in a protected area, then the theft is considered completed. If the intention of the culprit was to dispose of the stolen property outside the protected area, then the discovery of property in this territory should be regarded as attempted theft (Part 3 of Article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and additionally under articles on crimes against property, depending on the form of theft) .

The subject of crimes against property is a sane individual who has reached the legal age. According to Part 2 of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, from the age of 14, responsibility arises for crimes such as: theft (Article 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), robbery (Article 178), robbery (Article 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), extortion (Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), unlawful taking of a car or other vehicle without the purpose of theft, under aggravating circumstances (parts 2, 3, 4 of article 185 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), intentional destruction or damage to property, under aggravating circumstances (parts 2 and 3 of article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) .

In a crime such as misappropriation or embezzlement of entrusted property of others (Article 176 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), the subject is a special one. In certain crimes, a special subject can act as a sign of a qualified personnel, for example, a person authorized to perform government functions or a person equivalent to him (clause “d” of Part 176 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan); using official position (clause “c” of part 2 of article 176, clause “c” of part 2 of article 177, clause “c” of part 2 of article 182 and part 2 of article 186 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) .

From the point of view of criminal liability based on age, all crimes in this chapter can be divided into two groups.

From the age of 16, responsibility begins for crimes such as: misappropriation or embezzlement of entrusted property of others (Article 176 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), fraud (Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), theft of items of special value (Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), causing property damage by deception or abuse of trust (Article 182 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), acquisition or sale of property knowingly obtained by criminal means (Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), violation of copyright and related rights (Article 184 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), violation of rights to inventions , utility models, industrial designs, selection achievements or topologies of integrated circuits (Article 184-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), unlawful taking of a car or other vehicle without the purpose of theft (without aggravating circumstances (Part 1 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), violation of property rights rights to land (Article 186 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), intentional destruction or damage to someone else’s property without aggravating circumstances (Part 1 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and careless destruction or damage to someone else’s property (Article 188 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).

From the subjective side, crimes against property are committed with direct intent. The culprit is aware that he is illegally confiscating property, foreseeing that his actions will cause damage to the owner, and desires this. Only one crime in Chapter 6 of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan is committed through negligence - this is careless destruction or damage to someone else's property (Article 188 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).

A mandatory sign of theft is a selfish goal. Selfish purpose as a sign of theft is directly named in the legislative definition of theft. It involves the desire to extract material benefits both for one’s own benefit and for the benefit of others.

Based on the foregoing, it should be noted that crimes against property are understood as both selfish and non-mercenary attacks on someone else’s property for the purpose of illegally converting the owner’s property for one’s own benefit or for the benefit of other persons.

Crimes against property can be divided into the following types: 1) selfish, 2) unselfish.

In selfish crimes, a mandatory sign of the subjective side is a selfish goal or a selfish motive. In turn, these crimes on the objective side can be divided into: crimes related to the seizure of property, called theft, provided for in Art. Art. 175--180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan; and crimes not related to theft, which include offenses such as Art. Art. 181-186 UKRK.

The legislator considers non-mercenary crimes: intentional destruction or damage to someone else’s property and careless destruction or damage to someone else’s property, provided for in Art. Art. 187 and 188 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. crime property extortion composition

The main group of crimes against property is thus formed by mercenary attacks associated with the seizure of property, i.e. theft. The criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan differentiates responsibility for theft depending on the method of its commission, highlighting and normatively enshrining in the relevant articles of the Criminal Code the following forms of theft of other people's property: theft, misappropriation or embezzlement, fraud, robbery and robbery.

From the subjective side, theft is always a selfish crime. The selfish goal of theft is achieved through unlawful and gratuitous seizure and (or) conversion of property for one’s own benefit or for the benefit of other persons. In the latter case, the desire for profit is carried out not by the one who transfers someone else’s property, but by the one who receives it free of charge into his own property (for example, a financially responsible person systematically transfers (gives) the property entrusted to him to persons who do not have any right to this property) . Acting as a means of satisfying the selfish aspirations of individuals, theft without a selfish goal is impossible.

2.2 Legal structure of extortion

The criminal law defines extortion as a demand for the transfer of someone else's property or the right to property or the commission of other actions of a property nature under the threat of violence or destruction or damage to someone else's property, as well as under the threat of disseminating information disgracing the victim or his relatives, or other information, the disclosure of which may cause significant harm to the interests of the victim or his relatives. The social danger of extortion is expressed in the violation of property rights.

The generic object of this crime is property. The direct object of the crime in question should be recognized not only as property, but also as the personality of the victim (his inviolability, freedom, honor and dignity).

In the legal literature, legal scholars observe different approaches to determining the direct object of extortion. So, E.O. Alauov believes that “... the direct object of extortion, the commission of which is accompanied only by a threat, is the health of the victim.”

At the same time, E.O. Alauov and V.N. Kuts note that “an analysis of the value of health in various forms of property, as well as the harm caused by extortion, allows us to conclude that the direct object of extortion is human health - a more valuable good than property. As for private and state property and property relations, they should be classified as an additional object."

We cannot agree with the position of the named authors, since, firstly, it complicates the structure of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which is based on a generic object. Secondly, in Chapter 6 “Crimes against property” there are other offenses in which the use of violence or the threat of violence is a constructive feature of such offenses as robbery, therefore, the likelihood of causing harm to health in such cases is more real than in extortion . Thirdly, it is hardly possible to find a crime that would not directly or indirectly affect the interests of the individual. Thus, this does not mean that all offenses should be recognized as crimes against the person.

Note that the structure of the object also includes property interests, secured not only by the right of ownership, but in some cases also by the right of obligation: renunciation of one’s share in the inheritance, gratuitous performance in favor of the extortionist of certain actions of a property nature.

Extortion is a property crime, encroaching on social property relations; its subject is not only property or the right to it, but also actions of a property nature. The right to property is enshrined in certain documents, which often require adherence to a form strictly defined by law. Actions of a property nature are actions that bring property benefits to the extortionist (destruction of a promissory note, will, etc.).

According to paragraph 1 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On judicial practice in cases of extortion” dated June 23, 2006, “the subject of extortion is: other people’s property (things, money, including foreign currency, securities, objectified results of creative intellectual activity , brand names, trademarks and other means of individualizing products); the right to property (a will, an insurance policy, a receipt, an agreement, a power of attorney to receive certain valuables, various types of securities and other documents giving him the right to receive property) or the commission of other actions of a property nature (services of unequal content, for example, allegedly for “protection of the premises”, for “assistance” in the sale of products, destruction of a promissory note, waiver of debt in common property, reduction of interest rates, performance of any work, etc.).”

Analysis of the objective side of the crime provided for in Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, indicates that the act of criminal behavior during extortion is complex: it is composed of interrelated independent actions - demands for the transfer of someone else's property or rights to property and threats, the content of which is determined by law. Namely:

Threat of violence;

Threat of destruction or damage to another's property;

Threat to disseminate information disgracing the victim or his relatives, or other information, the disclosure of which could cause significant harm to the interests of the victim or his relatives.

When qualifying the actions of a guilty person as extortion, it is necessary to establish the specific type of threat provided for in the disposition of the law, bearing in mind that the victim of the threat of an extortionist can be either the owner or the person in whose administration or protection the property is located, as well as their relatives. The form of expression of the threat does not matter for the qualification of extortion (oral or written, expressed personally or through an intermediary, formulated openly or in a veiled form), however, its content must be perceived by the victim unambiguously in accordance with its actual meaning.

To qualify the actions of an extortionist, it is not important who may carry out this threat: himself or his accomplices.

In paragraph 3 of the normative resolution “On judicial practice in cases of extortion” dated June 23, 2006, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan explains that extortion under the threat of violence should be understood as actions expressing the intention to exert a forced psychological influence (threat to take life, cause serious, moderate or light harm to health, commit rape or other violent acts).

The threat must be real and valid, that is, perceived by the victim as completely feasible. Only such a threat is capable of exerting a certain mental influence on the victim in order to perform actions in favor of the perpetrator.

The peculiarity of the threat of violence is that it is usually directed to the future, that is, the extortionist expresses his intention to actually use violence only after some time, if his demand for the transfer of property to the victims is not fulfilled. If the victim refuses to satisfy a property claim, there is indeed a danger of causing harm to the specified personal benefits, and in some cases they are directly violated following the refusal of the victim to transfer or provide what is required. Therefore, harm under these circumstances, as V.N. Kuts notes, is outside the scope of extortion and is a sign of another independent crime committed as revenge for refusal to satisfy the demands of the extortionist, for example, it is characterized by a sign of murder, etc. .

The actions of the guilty person who committed extortion, involving the intentional infliction of grievous harm to the health of the victim under aggravating circumstances or murder, must be qualified according to the totality of crimes provided for by Part. 2 or 3 tbsp. 103 and art. 181 or Art. 96 ist. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The threat of using violence against a person during extortion is identical to mental violence during robbery. The difference is that in extortion, the perpetrator threatens to use violence, usually in the future, that is, there is a time lag between the threat and its implementation. In robbery, violence takes the form only of physical violence and the threat of such violence. In addition, during extortion, the perpetrator threatens to use violence not only against the person in whose charge or custody the property is, but also against relatives. In case of robbery, having taken possession of property, the culprit immediately uses violence.

To qualify the actions of the perpetrator as extortion, it is necessary that the property demands made under threat to the victim be clearly illegal. Therefore, there will be no corpus delicti of extortion if a person, by threatening, demands the fulfillment of legitimate property claims. Such actions, under certain circumstances, fall under the signs of arbitrariness (Article 327 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), since the perpetrator thinks that he is taking actions to exercise his actual or perceived right.

The threat of destruction or damage to someone else's property should be understood as a threat, when realized, the property either ceases to exist altogether or is rendered completely unusable (destruction). If damaged, the property is subject to repair and restoration. The threat of destruction or damage to property can be used by an extortionist to force the victim to hand over property or property rights. If the extortionist subsequently carried out the threat and destroyed property, the act must be considered as a combination of two crimes: extortion (Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and deliberate destruction or damage to someone else’s property (Article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the normative resolution “On judicial practice in cases of extortion” dated June 23, 2006, in paragraph 4, clarifies that in case of extortion committed with the threat of destruction or damage to property, for the qualification of the actions of the perpetrator, it does not matter what the property in question (entrusted to the victim for protection or his own, movable or immovable) and how this threat will be implemented. In these cases, it should be borne in mind that the threat must be real and capable of having a terrifying effect on the victim. If, during the commission of extortion, the property of the victim was destroyed or damaged under the circumstances specified in the disposition of Art. 187 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, then the actions of the perpetrator form a set of these crimes.

The threat of disseminating information disgracing the victim or his relatives is the threat of communicating such information to a person who does not know it. To constitute complete extortion, a threat to communicate such information to at least one person is sufficient, if such a message is undesirable for the victim (for example, a threat to provide details of an intimate nature, etc.).

Paragraph 5 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 23, 2006 explains that under the threat of disseminating information disgracing the victim or his relatives, or other information, the disclosure of which could cause significant harm to the interests of the victim or his relatives, one should understand the requirement to transfer someone else’s property or the right to property or committing other actions of a property nature, accompanied by the threat of disclosing any information that could harm the honor and dignity of the victim. In this case, it does not matter whether the information, under the threat of disclosure of which the extortion is committed, is true. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the victim seeks to keep this information secret, and the threat of its disclosure is used by the perpetrator to force him to fulfill the demands put forward.

If information of a slanderous or offensive nature is disclosed about the victim, the act, if there are grounds for it, should be classified according to the totality of crimes provided for in Art. 181 of the Criminal Code and, accordingly, Art. Art. 129 or 130 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Significant harm can be caused by the dissemination of information that disgraces the victim. When determining significant harm, both the victim’s subjective assessment of the severity of the moral damage caused to him and objective data indicating the degree of moral and physical suffering of the victim as a result of extortion committed under the threat of dissemination of defamatory information are taken into account.

When determining the infliction of moral suffering, one should be guided by clause 3 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the application by courts of legislation on compensation for moral harm” dated June 21, 2001 No. 3.

Significant harm can also be caused by the disclosure of other information that, while not disgraceful, can cause significant harm to the victim, for example, disclosure of a trade secret that entails damage to the business, disclosure of the secret of adoption or information related to family and private life, etc.

Since the threat of such disclosure should force this person to illegally transfer property or the right to property to the extortionist, the question of what information should be considered disgraceful to the victim and what is meant by other information, the disclosure of which could cause significant harm to the victim, must be resolved from the point of view of the person in charge of someone else's property or protecting it.

Due to the design features of the crime under Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, extortion is considered completed at the moment of presentation of property demands to the victim, coupled with appropriate threats, regardless of whether the perpetrator has achieved the desired goal, received the required property, rights to property, or has achieved the victim’s performance of actions of a property nature. Thus, in Part 1 of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan we are talking about mental violence, which is used by an extortionist in order to obtain property, the right to property or commit other actions of a property nature.

Of course, extortion can lead to real property damage when the victim, fearing the threat will be carried out, transfers the required property or cedes property rights or commits a property action in favor of the guilty party. Therefore, the criminal acquisition of someone else’s property does not go beyond the scope of extortion and does not require independent qualification.

The subject of the crime is a sane individual who has reached the age of 14, in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

From the subjective side, the act is characterized by direct intent and selfish purpose. The culprit is aware that he, having no rights to the property, demands its transfer, threatening to commit actions that could harm the interests of the victim. The goal is to obtain property or the right to it.

Qualifying signs of extortion provided for in Part 2 of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan are similar to the signs of theft. These include:

a) using violence;

b) by a group of persons by prior conspiracy (Part 2 of Article 31 of the UKRK);

c) repeatedly.

The use of violence during extortion (clause “a” of Part 2 of Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) implies only physical violence, since mental violence is a mandatory feature of Part 1 of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Physical violence is a means of forcing the victim to comply with the demands.

Extortion with the use of violence should be understood as the commission of this crime associated with restriction of freedom, infliction of physical pain, blows, beatings, infliction of mild or moderate harm to the health of the victim (clause 6 of the regulatory resolution of June 23, 2006).

For example, in the Almaty region, an organized criminal group of 5 people, headed by Ts., was exposed, which, through the use of threats and violence, extorted inventory items worth 15 million tenge from the director of Tekhnorama LLP I.

In another example, K. was found guilty of the fact that he, working as an investigator of the OKP ROP at the Bostandyk district department of internal affairs of Almaty and being an official, together with detectives M. and S., exceeding power and official authority, detained the victim A. on the street and without procedurally formalizing their actions, significantly violating his rights and legitimate interests, humiliating his honor and dignity, they carried out a personal search, took off his clothes, struck him in the face and body, and caused slight harm to his health. Then they took A. to the ROP building, where in K.’s office, threatening to prosecute A. for drug possession, by falsifying evidence, extortion with the use of violence, A. took possession of 8,000 tenge that was with him.

As follows from the case materials by the preliminary investigation authorities regarding the above episode, K. was charged with crimes under paragraph “a” of Part 3. 178 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as open theft of someone else’s property with the threat of violence not dangerous to the life and health of the victim and under paragraph “a” part. 2 tbsp. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as extortion committed with the use of violence.

When qualifying the actions of the perpetrators on the basis of committing extortion by a “group of persons by prior conspiracy,” one should be guided by Part 2 of Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On judicial practice in cases of theft” dated July 11, 2003 G. .

Some peculiarity in the crime provided for in Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (in addition to those described when considering the signs of theft), has the use of the sign of repetition. Repeated demands for the transfer of property or the right to it addressed to one or more persons cannot be considered repeated extortion if these demands are united by a single intent and are aimed at taking possession of one property.

When applying the qualifying feature of “repeated occurrence”, it is necessary to take into account the explanations contained in Part 2 of Art. P of the UKRK, paragraph 3 of the note to Art. 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and in paragraph 12 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On judicial practice in cases of theft” dated July 11, 2003.

Particularly qualifying signs of extortion provided for in Part 3 of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, are also similar to the signs of theft. The legislator includes:

a) an organized group;

b) causing serious harm to the health of the victim;

c) for the purpose of obtaining property on a large scale;

d) a person who has been previously convicted two or more times for theft or

extortion.

When qualifying the actions of persons guilty of committing extortion on the basis of an organized group, one should be guided by Part 3 of Art. 31 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and paragraph 11 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On judicial practice in cases of theft” dated July 11, 2003.

The next sign provided for in paragraph “b” of Part 3 of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, means the commission of extortion with the infliction of grievous harm to the health of the victim. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan in paragraph 10 of the regulatory resolution “On judicial practice in cases of extortion” dated June 23, 2006, clarifies that when determining grievous bodily harm, one should be guided by Art. 103 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Rules for the organization and conduct of forensic medical examinations, approved by order of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 20, 2004 No. 875/1.

If grievous harm to the victim’s health is caused during extortion, no additional qualifications are required under Art. 103 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, since the deed is fully covered by paragraph “b” of Part 3 of Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The actions of the guilty person who committed extortion, associated with the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, resulting in his death through negligence, must be qualified according to the totality of crimes provided for in paragraph “b” of Part 3 of Art. 181 and part 3 of Art. 103 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The actions of the extortionist, who carried out his threat by deliberately causing the death of the victim, form a combination of extortion and murder, since the elements of extortion are recognized as fulfilled at the time of presentation of the corresponding demand, coupled with the threat, and the actions of the extortionist, who carried out the threat, leading to death, go beyond the scope of the elements extortion and require additional qualifications.

When determining a large size, one should be guided by clause 2 of the note to Art. 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Courts should keep in mind that to qualify the act, it does not matter whether the goal of obtaining property on a large scale is achieved or not (clause 11 of the regulatory resolution of June 23, 2006).

When qualifying the actions of a perpetrator on the basis of extortion by a person who has previously been convicted of extortion two or more times, one should be guided by clause 4 of the note to Art. 175 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and paragraph 17 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On judicial practice in cases of theft.”

Specified in Art. 181 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the qualifying features of the crime should be taken into account both when committing extortion against the victim and his relatives. Not only his close relatives can be recognized as close relatives of the victim, but also those who, due to existing relationships, are such (spouses who are not legally married, the bride and groom, guardians and trustees, and their wards, etc.).

...

Recommended list of dissertations

Extortion under Russian criminal law 2003, candidate of legal sciences Abdulgaziev, Rustam Zaurbekovich
Extortion involving minors as an object of criminological research 2002, candidate of legal sciences Filchenko, Andrey Petrovich
Criminal legal and criminological aspects of combating extortion: based on materials from the Krasnodar Territory 2011, candidate of legal sciences Chkhvimiani, Eduard Zhulyenovich
Criminal legal and criminological problems of combating extortion 2002, candidate of legal sciences Stupina, Svetlana Aleksandrovna
Extortion and related crimes: Criminological aspect of the study 2001, candidate of legal sciences Shegabudinov, Ravil Shaykhlislanovich

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Extortion and measures to prevent it”

At the present stage of socio-economic development of society, crime and its individual varieties are transformed both quantitatively and qualitatively, acquiring specific features that allow us to talk about a new criminological phenomenon. Evidence of this is the appeal of a number of authors to the study of modern types and groups of crimes (thefts, fraud, robberies and robberies, banditry, domestic crime, female crime, recidivism, etc.).

Modern extortion also has specific features. This type of crime is often accompanied by the taking of hostages and ill-treatment of them: torture, torture, destruction of property, explosions of cars, apartments, dachas, etc. Also noteworthy is the growing threat posed by terrorist groups to global business, an underappreciated form of which carries far-reaching consequences for business, especially for multinational companies.

Terrorist groups are increasingly using extortion tactics to obtain money through threats or actual violence against the corporation itself and other corporate targets. In recent years, this practice has become widespread in a number of republics of the North Caucasus, and especially in Ingushetia and the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic.

Extortion, as a type of crime against property, has transformed in recent years both in quantitative and qualitative terms. Despite the relatively optimistic trends in extortion in the modern period (in 1997, 14,503 extortions were registered, in 2009 - 8,492 (-58.5%)), this type of crime still poses an increased degree of public danger. The decrease in registrations of extortion in recent years is, among other things, due to the transition of this type of encroachment to the category of crimes that are unpromising for investigation. The signs of extortion established by the legislator, as well as the recommendations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 4, 1990 No. 3, do not correspond to criminological realities, do not contribute to the reliable protection of public relations, and predetermine the emergence of new forms and methods of criminal activity.

The criminal activity of ransomware and the level of their criminal activity remains high. This is confirmed by both the real (over the period from 1989 to 2009, the number of registered extortions almost doubled - from 4,620 per year to 8,492 crimes) and the actual growth of extortion, taking into account the high latency coefficient. In extortion, group and organized forms of criminal activity began to clearly manifest themselves, and the forms and nature of the actions of criminals changed. As V.V. notes Luneev, there is a process of “relative displacement from the sphere of mercenary crime of the primitive criminal type by an intellectual and enterprising criminal with new, more sophisticated methods and forms of criminal activity that reject any morality. The criminal nature of commercial activity continues to intensify.”1

The listed qualitative changes have determined the significant difference between modern extortion and “traditional” extortion. These circumstances force a new assessment of this type of crime in today's Russia, necessitating the need to study its essence, current state and symptoms, identify the determinants of its appearance and development, and justify new ways and means of prevention.

1 See: Luneev V.V. Crime of the 20th century: global, regional and Russian trends. M., 2005. P. 464.

At the same time, law enforcement agencies do not pay due attention to this problem and do not effectively prevent such crimes. Extortion has acquired, on the one hand, the character of a crime with no prospects from a practical point of view, and on the other hand, it has become a “legalized” form of criminal business, the amount of income of which is comparable to income from illegal migration and prostitution combined. In this business, in addition to traditional extortion criminals, representatives of organized criminal groups and communities, officials of state and municipal authorities, law enforcement officers and persons hiding behind their paraphernalia, journalists, etc. are increasingly appearing. There are changes in the areas of criminal activity of extortionists. Business activity, traditionally “protected” by organized criminal groups of extortionists and racketeers, is gradually moving into the sphere of “control” by law enforcement agencies, which further aggravates the situation of its subjects. An example of total and long-term “protection protection” of business structures is the activities of recently exposed members of criminal communities in Art. Kushchevskaya and Gus Khrustalny, who for several years committed serious and especially serious crimes, blackmailed and extorted money from business representatives and entrepreneurs. Such a scale of criminal activity became possible as a result of the formed stable corrupt connections of criminals with law enforcement officers and representatives of local authorities and administration.

The appearance of the modern extortionist has also changed, who has not only mastered criminal skills, increased his specialization, but also comprehended more advanced forms and methods of criminal activity, which is significantly reflected in the problems of countering the investigation and prosecution. 5

The relevance of the study is also due to the fact that the criminological aspects of the phenomenon under consideration have clearly not been sufficiently studied; a comparative analysis of “traditional” and modern extortion, as well as the search for signs that distinguish them, have not yet been carried out.

Of particular importance is the identification of measures and methods to combat modern extortion, which, unfortunately, are still ineffective.

The degree of scientific development of the research topic.

The problems of combating extortion in modern domestic criminology and criminal law received close attention in the 90s of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century - periods of fundamental socio-economic and political transformations.

Theoretical and methodological problems of criminal liability for extortion have been studied by many legal scholars: Borzenkov G.N., Vladimirov V.A., Gaukhman L.D., Krieger G.L., Kuts V.N., Minskaya V.S., Kochoi S. M. , Lyapunov Yu.I., Koryagina O.V., Skorilkina N.A. and others.

The results of the research of the above specialists served as the starting point for studying applied issues of criminal law and criminological prevention of extortion within the framework of dissertation research, the authors of which were: R.Z. Abdulgaziev S.D. Belotserkovsky, A.A. Bogomolov, N.S. Vinokurova, O.V. Dmitriev, P.A. Zharikov, V.V. Irincheev, Safin V.N. Safonov, M.I. Tretyak, A.P. Filchenko, V.V. Shcherbina and others.

Despite the significant array and scientific value of the works of the above-mentioned authors, it should be noted that in the modern period the problem of preventing extortion has not only not been solved, it has become even more acute. An artificially created statistical decrease in registered extortion and other crimes of a general nature, which are characterized by organized criminal activity, the reorganization and abolition of units to combat organized crime, the costs of legislation and other factors have led to qualitatively new characteristics and patterns of the type of crime under consideration. Accordingly, not only a deep and comprehensive analysis of the trends and patterns of modern extortion is needed, but also new approaches to its prevention.

Issues related to the essence and nature of extortion, assessment of the degree of prevalence and specific manifestations of extortion are still debatable; without a deep analysis, problems of the personality of the extortionist and his typology, etc. remain. The specified range of problems predetermine the need for further theoretical development of issues of extortion prevention.

The purpose of the dissertation research is a comprehensive criminal legal and criminological study and scientific analysis of extortion in the system of crimes against property; assessing the practice of combating it, as well as developing proposals to improve the effectiveness of the fight against extortion.

Accordingly, the objectives of the study are: a comparative legal analysis of the composition of extortion under the current criminal law, an assessment of certain debatable issues on this issue existing in the theory of criminal law and the substantiation of the author’s point of view on them;

Studying the state and trends of modern extortion, determining the place of this type of encroachment in the structure of crime and crimes against property;

Studying the criminological properties of the extortionist’s personality, as well as his interaction with the personality of the victim;

Defining the typology of modern ransomware;

Identifying the main determinants of modern extortion; 7

Development of proposals for improving legislation and practice in combating this type of crime.

The object of the study is social relations arising in connection with the commission and prevention of extortion, as well as the reasons and conditions that determine the unlawful behavior of persons committing this type of crime.

The subject of the dissertation research is: legal norms and institutions of domestic and foreign legislation regulating various aspects of the fight against extortion; judicial and investigative practice in cases of extortion; statistical data from the GIAC of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Information Center of the Main Internal Affairs Directorate for the Rostov region, characterizing the state, structure and dynamics of extortion; legal literature concerning the problems of combating crimes against property, including extortion; results of own criminological research (surveys, interviews).

Methodological and methodological basis of the study. The methodological basis of the dissertation research was the fundamental laws of the theory of knowledge, the general scientific dialectical method of studying social phenomena, which determines the relationship between theory and practice.

The methodology of this research includes the following general scientific methods: historical, analysis and synthesis, comparative, logical, system-structural, as well as private scientific (special) methods: questioning, expert assessments, comparative legal analysis of documents, legal acts and literary sources covering the problem under consideration, statistical research methods.

The regulatory framework for the dissertation research included the Constitution of the Russian Federation, domestic and foreign criminal legislation, federal laws and departmental regulations. 8

The validity and reliability of the scientific positions put forward in the dissertation are ensured by the use of proven methods and techniques of scientific research, compliance with the requirements of the theory and methodology of domestic criminology, the use of achievements of other sciences, careful selection of empirical material, critical analysis of literary sources, comparative analysis of the results obtained by the author during research, with similar materials from other researchers and a generalization of the best domestic and foreign experience of law enforcement agencies in crime prevention.

The empirical basis of the dissertation research was the practice of law enforcement agencies. When writing the dissertation, archival and current materials of judicial practice, the activities of departments of internal affairs bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, and the Main Internal Affairs Directorate for the Rostov Region were used; 126 criminal cases against those convicted of extortion were studied; 150 employees of internal affairs bodies were surveyed, including employees of the criminal investigation department and units for combating economic crimes of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate in the Rostov region.

The scientific novelty of the dissertation research lies in the fact that the author carries out a criminological analysis of extortion through the prism of modern ordinary crime.

Based on the generalization and analysis of the results of our own criminological research, new trends and patterns of extortion are presented, as well as the main forms of manifestation of this criminal phenomenon. The dissertation provides a comparative legal analysis of the composition of extortion, provides an assessment of certain debatable issues on this issue existing in the theory of criminal law, and substantiates the author’s point of view on them. A deep and comprehensive analysis of the personal characteristics of a modern extortionist was carried out, and an original typology of the personality of extortionist criminals was proposed. The author, based on a study of the causal complex of modern extortion and victimological factors, suggests ways to increase the effectiveness of the fight against this type of crime.

Provisions for defense:

1. Modern extortion is acquiring new forms and widespread, permeating literally all spheres of society, taking on more and more dangerous forms, acquiring the character of a sustainable criminal enterprise, organization and a high level of professionalism. The nature and degree of public danger of extortion increases due to the use by criminals of cruel and sophisticated methods of coercion (threats of violence to victims, kidnapping, torture, destruction and damage to property, demonstrative murders of intractable victims), as well as disguised and often “legalized” methods of criminal activity, using the opportunities of the sphere of information resources and the sphere of high technologies.

2. There has been a significant change in the qualitative characteristics of extortion: an increase in the proportion of crimes committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy and by an organized group; increased incidence of physical violence; the focus of extortion on the seizure of property on a large and especially large scale, etc. The results of the study show that in every 3rd case (33%) the criminals committed crimes as a group of persons with a prior conspiracy, in another 19% of cases as part of an organized group, and in 2% as a gang. Criminals increasingly began to use violence against victims: in approximately half of the cases (46%) the criminals made death threats against the victims, in 40%

In 10 cases, victims were beaten, hit, tied up and deprived of the ability to move. In 8.5% of cases, extortion was accompanied by the abduction of the victims, in 4.5% they were seriously harmed, and in 1% the victims were killed.

3. Modern extortion differs qualitatively from its “traditional” forms by its increased social danger and high level of latency. If traditional extortion, in terms of the nature of its criminal actions, occupied a place between theft and non-violent robbery, then modern extortion is no longer “secret” in nature and occurs, as a rule, under conditions that are quite obvious to the victim himself. Extortionists do not avoid direct contact with the victim, do not fear responsibility, their threats, as a rule, are real and are carried out through daring, often armed actions, which brings extortion closer in objective and subjective terms, as well as in criminological characteristics, to robbery and even banditry . To turn other people's property into their own favor, extortionists use a variety of methods from banal blackmail to vulgar “assaults”, protection of commercial enterprises, the creation of a legal system of patronage of economic entities and other criminal technologies, which often acquire a legalized character. The goal of modern extortionists, unlike traditional ones, is not only to present occasional demands on citizens, but also to create an atmosphere of fear and a proven coercion mechanism that ensures the constant extraction of large profits from criminal activities.

4. Analysis of the personality characteristics of extortionists made it possible to obtain some features of their criminological portrait: the absolute predominance of men among criminals with a simultaneous increase in the proportion of women, which is evidence of ongoing; negative processes, feminization? crime;

The criminals are predominantly young, and in some cases differ in their physical characteristics; and special abilities: (skills; martial arts; possession of weapons, etc.);;

The relatively low level of education of criminals (77% of criminals! had incomplete secondary and secondary education), which confirms the pattern according to which? relatively low educational level? level predetermines more: high; crime level™;. , :

Almost 83% of convicts who committed crimes; at the time of the commission of the crime were not married;

There is a relatively high proportion among criminals of persons who have no desire to engage in the performance of any labor or socially useful functions (48%), as well as students (24%), control over whose behavior. remained unsatisfactory for a long time; the persistent illegal behavior of almost a third of persons committing extortion is associated with their criminal experience (the number of previously convicted persons was 29.3%). Of the total number of previously convicted persons, 7% had previously served sentences for extortion.

5; An analysis of the criminological personality traits of modern extortionists made it possible to identify the following types: 1) “school-student” type; 2) “pseudo-enforcer extortionist”; 3) “primitively vulgar extortionist”; 4) “criminally organized extortionist”; 5) “blackmailer”; 6) “power-criminal” (official) type;

6. Criminological analysis^ of the causal complex of modern extortion has shown that* specific manifestations^ of extortion, especially organized) are associated with claims; and< интересамикриминальной среды- на различные сегменты экономики, где продолжают

12 persist” opportunities not only for; illegal enrichment, but also the legalization of criminally acquired property: The most significant determinants of modern extortion are: the criminogenic influence of the media, the shortcomings of the legal regulation of the fight against crime, the costs of law enforcement practices (including the reorganization of services: and? departments of internal affairs bodies, liquidation", Organized Crime Control Department), corruption of some employees; law enforcement agencies, which not only act themselves; subjects of [extortion; but also create; security system for extortionists - members of the OPT, etc.

7. The main1 directions and ways of improvement are proposed; efficiency, activities of internal bodies; cases to prevent extortion; V. including those related to improving legislation:

It is advisable to part V-ich. 2" of Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation after the words "violence" should be supplemented with the words "not dangerous to life and health" and "dangerous to life and health" respectively. This kind of decision will help to specify the signs of simple and qualified extortion ;

A new wording of paragraph “c” of Part 3 of Article is proposed: 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - “resulting in the infliction of serious harm to the health of the victim or other grave consequences”; .

It is necessary to supplement Part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with a new qualified = sign “with the use of weapons and objects used as weapons”;

Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation “On judicial practice in cases of extortion", including a meaningful analysis of all qualifying signs of extortion, as well as: questions

13 distinguishing extortion from related crimes, including fraud, arbitrariness, raiding (in case of criminalization), crimes in the field of computer information, etc.

The theoretical and practical significance of the dissertation research lies in a comprehensive study of the essence and features of modern extortion. The study contains conclusions, proposals and recommendations aimed at improving criminal legislation, anti-extortion practices, including concept modeling, and crime prevention.

Modern criminological characteristics of extortion are important for the development of criminal law doctrine of classification of crimes, law enforcement practice and law enforcement activities.

Approbation of research results. The main provisions and conclusions of the study are presented by the author in 7 scientific publications.

Some results are used in the educational process when conducting classes in the course “Criminology”, “Prevention of Crimes and Administrative Offenses of the Department of Internal Affairs” with cadets, etc. by students of the Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "RUI of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia".

Structure of the dissertation. The dissertation has been completed to the extent that it meets the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission. The structure of the work is determined by the nature of the problems studied in it. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, six paragraphs, a conclusion and a list of references.

Similar dissertations majoring in Criminal Law and Criminology; criminal-executive law", 12.00.08 code VAK

Extortion in the system of crimes against property: criminological analysis and prevention 2005, Candidate of Legal Sciences Bogomolov, Andrey Anatolyevich
Criminal legal and criminological characteristics of extortion 1998, Candidate of Legal Sciences Koryagina, Olga Valentinovna
Determinants of extortion and features of its prevention in a super-large city 2004, candidate of legal sciences Zharikov, Rustem Aleksandrovich
Criminal liability for extortion: comparative legal analysis of Russian and foreign criminal legislation 2004, candidate of legal sciences Lechiev, Ruslan Samovdinovich
The identity of the criminal and the victim in the mechanism of extortion and the prevention of these crimes 2003, Candidate of Legal Sciences Vinokurova, Natalia Sergeevna

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Criminal law and criminology; criminal-executive law", Buranova, Anna Galievna

158 Arzhanaya K.V. Criminological characteristics of modern recidivism and its prevention. Author's abstract. Ph.D. legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2008. P. 15. table, some difference in the data is explained by the fact that, firstly, the number of those convicted according to the census data apparently turned out to be the most dangerous "criminals; secondly, remaining essentially a group crime , : extortion more often began to be committed as part of an organized group -: and a criminal community: And this despite the fact that; employees! of bodies; internal affairs; are still experiencing difficulties; in. appropriate qualification of the act. So, to the question “What is “ "racketeering"", the police officers we surveyed gave very varied answers. Thus, 49% of respondents noted that this is organized extortion, blackmail; another 26% called any extortion racketeering; 9% of respondents indicated that this is any organized and I am criminal activity, and 16% listed the signs of the objective side of extortion, indicated in Part 1 of Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: ;

CONCLUSION

Analysis of statistical data, study of materials* of specific criminal cases and investigative and judicial practice, sociological surveys of law enforcement officers indicate that in the modern period the nature and scale of the prevalence of extortion differ significantly from the official statistical data of their registration, which generally affects effectiveness of combating them. In this regard, it is necessary to update the problem of preventing modern extortion on the basis of an integrated approach and using the possibilities of criminal law and criminological influence.

The study showed that extortion has a number of features and patterns that are clearly visible when analyzing quantitative and qualitative indicators.

The statistical “decline” in the registration of extortion has nothing to do with the real picture of the commission of this type of crime. Extortion, as a type of crime against property, has transformed in recent years both in quantitative and qualitative terms. Only for the period from 1988 to 2009. the number of registered extortions increased almost 5.5 times (from 1535 in the year to 8492 crimes).

Despite the relatively optimistic figures for the number of registered extortions in the modern period (1997-2009), this type of crime still poses an increased degree of public danger.

Firstly, extortion is characterized by a high level of latency (the extortion latency coefficient, according to expert calculations, is 7.2).

Secondly, extortion is becoming one of the auxiliary methods of criminal activity of organized criminal groups and communities. The results of our study of criminal case materials show that in every 3rd case (33%) the criminals committed crimes by a group of persons with a preliminary conspiracy, in another 19% of cases as part of an organized group, and in 2% by a gang.

Thirdly, the actions of extortionists have become more daring and cynical. Thus, criminals increasingly began to use violence against victims: in approximately half of the cases (46%) the criminals made death threats against the victims, in 40% of cases the victims were beaten, hit, tied up and deprived of the opportunity to move. In 8.5% of cases, extortion was accompanied by the abduction of the victims, in 4.5% they were seriously harmed, and in 1% the victims were killed.

Fourthly, to turn other people's property into their favor, extortionists use a variety of methods from banal blackmail to vulgar “assaults”, protection of commercial enterprises, creation of a legal system of patronage of economic entities and other criminal technologies, which often acquire a legalized character.

The study showed that terrorism has become a fairly effective method of criminal activity by extortionists. Extortion of terrorist groups, such as payments for the needs of the revolution and funds for protection (so-called “protection”), is a pressing issue for multinational companies.

Extortion, being one of the links in the merging of violent and economic crime, is noticeably transformed, acquiring legitimate contours. Over the short period of formation of market relations, extortion “changed” its appearance. In the early 90s, the criminal activities of extortionists were based on daring and completely open actions to intimidate victims through threats, physical pressure, damage or destruction of property. By the mid-90s, the next step was taken in the development of extortion - “brigades for

185 collection of debts for a certain percentage of the debt amount, with the authorities of the underworld assigning the role of extrajudicial bodies for resolving property and financial disputes between entrepreneurs. In the modern period, a more advanced form of extortion^ has become the organization of permanent illegal or legally operating “roofs” for the legal and physical protection of business structures using the resources of criminal structures and law enforcement agencies^

There are negative trends in extortion, through which criminals influence large enterprises (corporations) through blackmail, threats, terrorist attacks and sabotage. Criminals have increasingly begun to use technical means and electronic resources for their own purposes.

Extortion in the pre-reform period was practically devoid of a violent nature; the extortionist avoided direct contact with the victim, using letters or telephone communications, obviously fearing liability. His threats, as a rule, were not real and were not carried out. Now, extortion actions have acquired an obvious, daring, often armed character, approaching in terms of the objective and subjective side, as well as in criminological characteristics, robbery and even banditry.

Considering mental violence during extortion, we point out that according to the results of the studied criminal cases of the category under study, the nature and content of mental influence are such that the threat of physical violence prevails in the total number of types of threats presented by extortionists - 74%. The share of other types of threats was distributed as follows:

Threat of destruction (damage) to the victim’s property - 25.5%;

Threat of harm to the health of the victim - 62.3%;

Threat to kill the victim - 11.7%

Threat of dissemination, information, disgracing the victim - "0.5%; \ , " ■ " .

Analysis of the personality characteristics of extortionists" made it possible to highlight some features of their criminological portrait:

The absolute "predominance1 among male criminals, with a simultaneous increase in the proportion of women committing this type of crime, is evidence of ongoing/negative processes of feminization of crime;

Mainly youth; the age of the criminals, who differ in some cases in their physical and special abilities; (martial arts skills, weapon proficiency, etc.);

Relatively low; the level of education? criminals (77% of criminals had incomplete secondary and secondary education), that; confirms the pattern according to which; relatively low educational level predetermines; higher level of criminogenic gi; ~

Insufficient influence on the criminal activity of criminals; family; component (almost 83% of convicts who committed crimes were not married at the time of the crime);

There is a relatively high proportion among criminals of persons who have no desire to engage in any work or socially useful functions (48%), as well as students (24%), control over whose behavior has remained unsatisfactory for a long time; The persistent illegal behavior of almost a third of persons committing extortion is associated with their criminal experience (the number of previously convicted persons was 29.3%). Of the total number of previously convicted persons, 7% had previously served sentences for extortion.

In more than half of the cases (54%), the actions of ransomware were carried out. group character. At the same time, the degree of consolidation of criminals in

187 organized groups (19%) and communities (2%) - looks like this; more striking compared to previous years.

Detail;; criminological characteristics of persons who commit extortion allows us to identify types of extortion criminals: taking into account the methods of their criminal activities and spheres of influence: 1) ; school-student type;, 2) “pseudo-siloviki”; 3) “primitively vulgar extortionist”; 4). “criminally organized extortionist”; 5) blackmailer; 6) power-criminal (official) type: . ; . Results; carried out; by the author: research indicates that unfavorable trends in extortion, changes in quality characteristics, increase; the degree of public danger has appeared; a consequence of a high level of latency, insufficiently clear regulation of the legal norm (Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), low efficiency of the practice of its application, lack of methodological recommendations for prevention? and.investigation of extortion, criminal influence; mass media; information, shortcomings of legal regulation of the struggle; with crime, in general, the costs of law enforcement practice: (including the reorganization and liquidation of Organized Crime Control, which led to the loss of operational positions in the criminal world, allowed criminals to intensify illegal activities in the economic sphere), victimized behavior of victims, etc. Noted circumstances quite obviously determine the actualization of the problem of preventing extortion on the basis of an integrated approach using measures to prevent this type of crime on a general social and special criminological basis; levels. The conducted research allows us to conclude that an effective fight against extortion requires concentrated efforts to identify and eliminate the causes and conditions conducive to the commission of these crimes. In this regard, c. In the course of work on the dissertation, the author developed proposals and recommendations aimed at improving legislation:

It is advisable to part 1 and part 2 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, after the word “violence”, add the words “not dangerous to life and health” and “dangerous to life and health”, respectively. This kind of decision will help to specify the signs of simple and qualified extortion;

A new wording of paragraph “c” of Part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - “resulting in the infliction of grave harm to the health of the victim or other grave consequences”; it is necessary to supplement Part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with a new qualified attribute “with the use of weapons and objects used as weapons”;

To recommend that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation prepare a new Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On judicial practice in cases of extortion”, including issues of a uniform understanding by the courts of the qualifying signs of extortion, delimitation of extortion from related crimes, including fraud and arbitrariness, etc.

List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Legal Sciences Buranova, Anna Galievna, 2011

1. Regulatory documents

2. Constitution of the Russian Federation. M., 1993.

4. Law of the Russian Federation “On Education” dated July 10, 1992 No. 3266-1 (clause 3 as amended by Federal Law dated July 21, 2007 N 194-FZ).

5. New Criminal Code of France / Ed. N.F. Kuznetsova, E.F. I ran around. M., 1993.

6. Criminal Code of the Republic of Bulgaria /Trans. from Bulgarian St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Legal Center Press", 2001.

7. Federal Law of December 8, 2003 N 162-FZ.

8. Federal Law of July 27, 2006 No. 153-F3.

9. Federal Law of December 27, 2009 No. 377-F3. //NW RF. 2009. No. 52 (1 hour). Art. 6453.

10. The project “Main directions of anti-corruption policy of Russia”, developed by the National Anti-Corruption Committee headed by K. Kabanov, g zgs = "s1eag.§1

11. Draft federal law "Fundamentals of anti-corruption policy". Introduced to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on June 5, 2001.

12. Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces of May 4, 1990 “On judicial practice in cases of extortion.”

13. Monographs, textbooks, articles

14. Abeltsev S.N. The personality of the criminal and the problems of criminal violence. M.: UNITY-DANA. Law and Law, 2000.

15. Abyzov K.P., Grib V.G., Ilyin I.S. Criminology: a course of lectures / Ed. V.G. Mushroom. M.: Market DS, 2008.

16. Avanesov G.A. Criminology. Prognostics. Control. Gorky, 1975.

17. Alexandrova I.A. Fashion and crime. Tutorial. N. Novgorod: Nizhny Novgorod Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, 1999.

18. Alekseev A.I., Ovchinsky V.S., Pobegailo E.F. Russian criminal policy: overcoming the crisis. M.: Norma, 2006.

19. Alizar A. Psychiatrists help catch hackers // Computer and Life. 2004. No. 13.

20. Andreeva N.N., Arapova N.S. and others. Dictionary of foreign words: current vocabulary, interpretation, etymology. M., 1997.

21. Antonov-Romanovsky G.V., Gorbatovskaya E.G., Matveeva N.S. Prevention of violent crimes related to business activities. M., 2008.i.

22. Antonyan Yu.M. Lecture on the topic: “The criminal person and the personality of the criminal” // Russian criminological view. 2008. No. 3.

23. Antonyan Yu.M. On the concept of the causes of crime. // Criminological Journal, No. 1 (6), 2004.

24. Antonyan Yu.M., Bluvshtein Yu.D. Modeling methods in the study of criminals and criminal behavior M., 1974.

25. Antonyan Yu.M., Enikeev M.I., Eminov V.E. Psychology of the criminal and crime investigation. M.: Yurist, 1996.

26. Antonyan Yu.M., Kudryavtsev V.N., Eminov V.E. The identity of the criminal. St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Legal Center Press", 2004.

27. Arzamasov Yu.G. Problems of combating economic crime // Law and state: theory and practice. 2007. No. 8 (32). 27. Arzamastsev M. Problems of determining the execution of punishment? in the form of: restrictions on freedom.//Criminal law. No. 4. 2010.

28. Akhmetshin: Kh.M., Akhmetshin N.Kh., Petukhov A.A. Modern criminal: legislationLSHR1 -Mi:ID¡"Ant", 2000;

29. Babaev M.,. Iudovochkin Yu. Concept? repression as a principle? criminal: politicians. //Criminal law. No. 4., 2010:

30. Babaev M: M. "Criminological characteristics of the consequences, socio-demographic processes // Issues in the fight against crime. Issue 27, 1977.

31. Babaev M.M. Criminological forecast of the social consequences of the transition to the market. On Sat. / Criminology and organization of crime prevention. Proceedings of the Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 1992.

32. Babaev M.M., Kvashis V.E. The price of crime: problems of theory and practice. //Russian criminological view. No. 2. 2009.

33. Babich S.A. Responsibility for; industrial espionage according to modern criminal law of Russia. //Business Security/ No. 1. 2008;

34. Belotserkovsky S. D. Racket in Russia;. M.: Criminological? Association, 1999.

35. Bogdanov V. Close the police door. //Russian newspaper dated September 21, 2010 No. 212 (5291).

36. Boykov A.D. The Third Power in Russia. Book two. Continuation of reforms. M., 2002.

37. Bokov A.B. Organization of the fight against crime: Monograph. - M:: UNITY-DA11A. Law and Law, 2003.38; Borzenkov H.F. Strengthening liability for extortion // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 11. Law, 1990: No. 2.

38. Borisova S.E. Psychological characteristics of the personality of a criminal // Legal psychology. No. 5; 2007.

39. Brusnitsyn JI.B. Post-crime impact threat to justice

40. XXI century. //State and law. -2001. No. 11.192

41. Vasiliev N.I. Study of latent crime (methodological developments). Rostov-on-Don, 1999.

42. Vedernikova O.N. British experience in studying latent crime. //Russian criminological view. No. 1. 2009.

43. Vetrov N.I. Criminological characteristics of youth offenders. M, 1981.

44. Vinokurova N.S. Current problems of the criminal legal characteristics of extortion. // Russian investigator. No. 4. 2005.

45. Vinokurova N.S. Features of violent and mercenary crime in Russia. / Organizational and legal problems of combating crime in the regions of Russia: Collection of scientific papers. In 2 parts. Part 1. - M: All-Russian Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2005.

46. Vinokurova N.S. Modern problems of extortion typology. // Russian investigator. No. 7. 2004.

47. Vitsin S.E. Modeling in criminology. Moscow, 1973.

48. Volynskaya L.B. Unsolved psychological problems of childhood in determining the value-semantic structure of personality in the future // World of Psychology. Scientific and methodological journal. 2004. No. 1.

49. Extortionists under the guise of the FSB captured a businessman in the Tekhnosila store. See: http://www.ntvsport.ru/crime/05apr2004/tekli.html

50. Extortion of money by terrorists from transnational companies. //The fight against crime abroad (based on materials from the foreign press). Monthly newsletter. No. 12. M.: VINITI, 2009.

51. Galiakbarov P.P. Committing crimes by a group of persons. Omsk, 1980.

52. Galiakbarov P.P., Soboloev V.V. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: amendments with gaps // Criminal Law. 2004. No. 2.

53. Garland D. Culture of control (abstract) // Domestic notes. No. 2. 2003.

54. Gaukhman L.D. Maksimov S.V. Liability for crimes against property. M.: Academic consultant. center "YurInfoN". 1997.193

55. Gilinsky Ya.I. Deviantology. M., 2004.

56. Gilinsky Ya.I. Criminology: Course of lectures. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002.

57. Gilinsky Ya.I., Golbert V.V. Institutional effects of deviance and social control. //Russian* criminological view. 2009. No. 1.

58. Godunov I.V. Combating organized crime: Textbook. village /I.V. Godunov. M.: Higher. School, 2003.

59. Gorshenin L.G. Analysis of human behavior and methods for modeling the expected situation. M.: A.P.O., 1982.

60. Gorkova I.A. Legal psychology: Lecture notes. M.: ACT; St. Petersburg: Sova, 2005.

61. Grekov M.L. Post-penitentiary relapse and its origins. Problems of reorganization of correctional colonies into prisons. Book.second. Rostov-on-Don: Southern Federal University Publishing House, 2008.

62. Grishanin P.F. The socio-psychological essence of crime recidivism. In the book: Higher School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR. Proceedings. Vol. 28. M., 1971.

63. Gurov A.I. Organized crime is not a myth, but a reality. M., 1992.

64. Gurov A.I. Professional crime: past and present. M., 1990.

65. Dzhebaev U.S. On the socio-psychological aspects of criminal behavior. Alma-Ata, 1971.

66. Dikaev S.U. Terror, terrorism and crimes of a terrorist nature (criminological and criminal legal research). St. Petersburg: Publishing house of R. Aslanov “Legal Center Press”, 2006.

67. Dobrenkov V.I. Russia is on the edge of the abyss.//They are killing us: Documents, articles, letters. M., 2004.

68. Dovnar O.V. Causes of juvenile delinquency in modern Russian society. // Crime and society: Sat. scientific tr.-M.: All-Russian Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2005.

69. Dolgova A.I. Criminology. Short training course. M.: Publishing house NORMA, 200k

70. Dolgova A.I., Ermakov V.D., Belyaeva N.V., Problems of the typology of juvenile offenders // Issues in the fight against crime. 1976. Vol. 24.

71. Dyakov S.B. State crimes (against the foundations of the constitutional order and state security) and state! crime. M.: NORM, 1999.

72. Enikeev M.I1 Legal psychology: Short training course. M.: Norma, 2004.

73. Zhalinsky A.E. Criminal law and the genesis of crime. //Russian criminological view. 2009. No. 1.

74. Zavidov B.D., Gusev O.B., Korotkov A.P. Criminal legal analysis of robbery, robbery and extortion // Advocate. No. 7. 2002.

75. Perov I.F. Criminal legal and criminological issues of combating extortion. M., 2001.

76. Rastegaev A.A. Analysis of common criminal mercenary crime // Methodology of crime analysis. M., 2004.

77. Zadorozhny V.I. Victimological crime prevention: organizational, managerial and legal aspects: Monograph. M., 2005.195

78. Patterns of crime, combat strategy and law. M., 2001.

79. Zaostrovtsev A.P. Extortion of rent in a rent-oriented society // Stockholm University. St. Petersburg State University. Scientific reports on problems of state and municipal management. 2000. No. 11.

80. Zelinsky A.F. Recidivism of crimes and the personality of the recidivist: A textbook. Volgograd: Higher Investigative School of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, 1980.

82. Zyuzyaev A. What to do if you are forced to pay off someone else’s loan // Komsomolskaya Pravda. October 21, 2009

83. Ivakhnenko A.M. Physical violence during extortion // Problems of combating crime in the North Caucasus. Sat. scientific works. Stavropol, 1997.

84. Ignatov A.N. Some aspects of reforming criminal legislation // Journal of Russian Law. 2003. No. 9.

85. Igoshev ~K.E.~ Typology of the personality of a criminal and motivation for criminal behavior. Gorky: Higher School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR, 1974.

86. Illarionov V.P. Socio-political consequences of non-compensation for damage caused to citizens by manifestations of crime // Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2004. No. 1.

87. Ionenko O.S. Regional features of organized crime (using the example of the Republic of Tatarstan), http://sartraccc.sgap.ru.

88. Iontsev M.G. Corporate takeovers: mergers, acquisitions, greenmail. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 2006.

89. Irshenko T. Reasons for deviant human behavior in the light of Orthodox teaching about the meaning and purpose of life: monograph / Tikhon Irshenko. Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional Vladivostok: Far Eastern University Publishing House, 2009.

90. Isaeva L. Psychological methods (in the investigation of crimes). //Legality. No. 9. 2007.

91. Kabanov? K.V. Effective anti-corruption policy: what is it? http://www.liberal.ru/articles/cat/4616

92. Karpets I.I. Criminology: Modern period and tasks // Soviet state and law. 1989. No. 6.

93. Kirillov-S.I. Common criminal mercenary-violent crime: problems of theory and methodology. Kolomna, 1999.

94. Kleymenov I.M. Liberal* criminal policy and its criminological consequences. //Russian criminological view. No. 2: 2009.

95. Kovalev M.I. Study of educational level // Soviet state and law: 1968. No. 2.

96. Kovalenko V.I. Modern robberies and robberies, and their prevention. Monograph. Rostov-on-Don: Rostizdat LLC, 2008.

97. Kolesnikova T.A. Isn't it time to change government approaches to identifying and investigating extortion? // Law and politics. - 2006. -№7.

98. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation / Under general. ed. V.M. Lebedeva. M.: INFRA-M-NORM. 2008.

99. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian* Federation. 2nd ed., revised. and additional /Ans. ed. IN AND. Radchenko. M., 2008.

100. ConI.S. Psychology of adolescence. M., 1979.197

101. Kon I.S. In search of oneself: Personality and its self-awareness. M.: Politizdat, 1984. Kutueva A. School racketeering in Kyrgyzstan every third person is in danger. http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1250757540

102. Kon I.S. Psychology of early adolescence. M.: Education, 1989.

103. Kondratov N.H. Quantitative methods in criminology. Moscow, 1974.

104. Konysheva L.P. Personality and situation as determinants of aggressive and violent crimes // Violence, aggression, cruelty. Criminal psychological research. M., 1990.

105. Koretsky D.A., Posobina T.A. Modern banditry: Criminological characteristics and preventive measures. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Legal Center Press", 2004.

106. Kosmynina P.V. Main determinants of crime in emergency situations. // Crime and society: Sat. scientific tr. M.: All-Russian Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2005.

107. Kochubey M.A. Problems of qualification of extortion // Current problems of legal science and practice. Rostov-on-Don, 1994.

108. Brief analysis of the state of crime in the Russian Federation for January-June 2010.

109. Criminological commentary on crime statistics. M., 1994.

110. Criminology / Ed. A. I. Dolgovoy, M., 1997.

111. Criminology / Ed. V.N. Kudryavtseva, V.E. Eminova. M, 1995.

112. Criminology. / Under general ed. A.I. Debt. M., 2001.

113. Criminology. Textbook / Under general. ed. Yu.F. Kvashi. Rostov-on-Don, 2002

114. Criminology: Textbook for universities / Under general. ed. D. Yu. Sc., prof.

115. A.I. Debt. 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Publishing house NORMA, 2005.1981:19. Criminology: Textbook for universities / ed. prof. V.D. Malkova - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: JSC "Yustitsinform", 2006.

116. Criminology: Textbook. / Edited by V.N. Kudryavtsev, V.E. Eminova. 2nd edition, revised. and"add. M.: Yurist, 2002.

117. Christie N. Warning. Crime and the fight against it. Latest legal research: Sat. scientific tr. /RAN. INION. Center for Social Scientific Information. research Dept. jurisprudence; Rep. ed. E.V. Alferova. M., 2008.

118. Kudryavtsev V.N. The struggle of motives in criminal behavior. /V.N. Kudryavtsev. -M.: Norma, 2007.

119. Kudryavtsev V.N., Luneev V.V. On the criminological classification of crimes. //State and law. No. 6. 2005.

120. Kuznetsova N.F. About improvement! criminal law. //Russian justice. 2009. No. 5.

121. Kuznetsova N.F. Problems of criminological determination. M., 1984.

122. Course of Soviet criminology. T. 1. M., 1985.

123. Kutueva A. School racketeering in Kyrgyzstan every third person is in danger. http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1250757540

124. Lavrinenko A.A. Crime with a female face: sad statistics or patterns of development? //Society and law. No. 3. 2008.

125. Latent crime in the Russian Federation: 2001-2006: scientific. edition / ed. CM. Inshakova. M.: UNITY-DANA: Law and Law, 2007.

126. Laushkin A.S. Crime factors of non-working and non-studying minors. // Crime and society: Sat. scientific tr. M.: All-Russian Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2005.

127. Lebedev S.Ya. Traditions, customs and crime. Moscow, 1995.

128. Lebedev S.Ya. What to do about crime: fight or control? // Criminological Journal. 2001. No. 1.

129. Lebedev S.Ya., Ivantsov S.B. On ensuring consistency in the criminological assessment of organized crime. //Russian criminological view. No. 1. 2009.

130. Leikina N.S. The identity of the criminal and criminal liability. L., Leningrad State University, 1968.

131. Lechiev P.S. Extortion: a comparative legal study of Russian and foreign criminal legislation. Monograph. Rostov-on-Don, 2004.

132. Lechiev P.S. Criminological characteristics of extortion. Lecture. Rostov-on-Don, 2004.

133. Lee D.A. Crime in Russia: system analysis. M.: Gelva, 1997.

134. Litvinov A.N., Gavrish T.S. Crime prevention. From theory to practice. Scientific and practical manual. - M.: IKF "EKMOS", 2003.

135. Lobachevsky I.L. Criminal liability for extortion abroad. //Law and law. No. 6. 2004.

136. Lobachevsky I.L. Qualification of extortion and differentiation from related offenses: Methodological recommendations. Moscow, 2004.200

137. Lyapunov Yu. Responsibility for extortion. //Legality. 1997. No. 4.

138. Lyapunov Yuzh; Selfish crimes will not be tolerated. M., 1989:1491 Myers D. Social psychology. St. Petersburg: Peter, 1997.

139. Meleshko N.P. Criminal law of foreign countries: textbook. Rostov-on-Don: IUBiP, 2002.

140. Mikautadze S.R. Structure; and development dynamics? professional crime in; modern Russia // Russian^ investigator. M.: Lawyer, 2006, No. 8.

141. Milyukov S.F. Classification of hidden crimes by degree: their latency. //Latent crime: knowledge, practice, strategy. Sat. intercollegiate seminar. M., 1993.

142. Minakov P.A. Public power and corruption. // Law and politics. - M.: Nota Vepe, 2007, No. 3.

143. Minkina N. Characteristics of the personality of the bribe-taker //Russian justice; No. 8. 2002.

144. Minkovsky G.M.; On the issue of typology of juvenile offenders. Problems of forensic psychology: abstracts of reports. and message M, 1971.

145. Mikhailenko V. Organized crime. Phenomenological essay: M.: Publishing house. house "RIG-IZDAT", 2001.

146. Mikhlin A.S. General characteristics of convicts (based on materials from the 1989 special census). M.: All-Russian Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR, 1991.

147. Mishin G. The fight against bribery: some directions for improving criminal policy. //Criminal law. No. 3. 20001

148. Molotnikov A-. Mergers and acquisitions. Russian experience. M., 2006.

149. Myshlyaev N.P., Danilov I.P., Minakhina T.V., Savenkov V.I.

150. Prevention of mercenary and violent crimes by local police inspectors. M.: VNII-MVD of Russia, 1994.

151. Volgograd City Hall forced entrepreneurs to do “charity.” See: http://www.stopcorruption.ru? 12/08/2010/

152. Violent! crime / Ed. V.N. Kudryavtseva and A.B. Naumova. M., 1997.

153. Nikonova N.G., Dobrynin K.E., Krutilnikov K.V. Raiding: civil and criminal aspects of counteraction. Training and metodology complex. St. Petersburg: Publishing house of R. Aslanov “Legal Center Press”, 2009.

154. Novikov S.B. Elements of subculture in youth criminal groups. Kazan, 2003. http://region.ulsu.ru.

155. Novozhenova I.S. Criminal forces: a truly international problem. // Russia and the modern world. No. 2. 2003.

156. Novoselova E. Bribe in the charter. // Russian newspaper. No. 118. 2005.

157. Nyrikov S.A. Extortion as one of the manifestations of terrorism / S.A. Nyrikov, A.JI. Kuznetsov, A.B. Fomin // Bulletin of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 1998. -No. 4.

158. On priority measures to implement the state crime prevention system and ensure5 public safety in the Russian Federation. // Report by V.V. Putin at the State Council of the Russian Federation in Rostov-on-Don. 2007.

159. Ovcharov A.B. Extortion as one of the main forms of organized crime. http://policytraccc.gmu.edu/resources/mcdocs/ovchar02.doc202

160. Osipov A.A. Peculiarities of personality transformation in a high-security correctional facility. St. Petersburg, 2005.

161. Panchenko P.N. Criminal business security as a university academic discipline (draft for the project). //Russian criminological view. 2008. No. 3.

162. Panko K.K. Methodology and theory of legislative technology of criminal law in Russia. Voronezh, 2004.

163. Podolny" H.A. Investigation of crimes constituting youth organized crime. M.: Criminologist Library. 2007.

164. Ponomarev P.G. Forecast of trends in the development of the criminal situation in Russia for 1996 // Crime and legislation. M., 1997.

165. Message from the President of Russia V.V. Putin to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation 2002 - http: //www.kremlin.ru.

166. Crime in the Russian Federation at the beginning of the 21st century: state and prospects / Under the general editorship of S. I. Girko. - M.: All-Russian Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2004.

167. Forced labor in modern Russia. Unregulated migration and human trafficking. ILO, Moscow, 2004.

168. Prokhorova M.I. On the issue of classification of the causes and conditions of selfish-violent crime. Organizational and legal problems of combating crime in the regions of Russia: Collection of scientific papers. In 2 parts. Part 1. -M: VNII MBD of Russia, 2005.

169. Putin demanded to eradicate extortion of money from students. June 30, 2010/ BFM.ru/

170. Radchenko V. The fight against crime as part of criminal policy. //Legality. No. 10. 2008.

171. Razogreeyva A., Minkov M. Conditional sentencing and restriction of freedom: control and (or) resocialization. //Criminal law. No. 4. 2010.

172. Revin V.P. Crime in Russia in the context of socio-economic reforms. // Russian investigator. M.: Lawyer, 2007. No. 11.

173. Rimsky B.JI. Society and reforms. Bureaucracy, clientelism and corruption in Russia. //Social sciences and modernity. No. 6. 2004.

174. Rogachevsky L.~A. Emotions and crimes. - L.: Knowledge, 1984.

175. Romanov V.V. Legal psychology: Textbook. M.: Yurist, 1998.

176. Ruban L.S. Deviation as a security problem // Sociological Research. 1999. No. 5.

177. Rudneva M. School racket, http://www.baby.com.ua/st/? 183

178. Ryasov D.A. Crime of internal affairs officers. M.: “Ilexa”, 2009.

179. Savyuk L.K. Legal statistics. M., 2002.

180. Safonov V.N. Organized extortion. SPb: SPbIVESEL. About-in "Knowledge". 2000.

181. Sakharov A.B. The personality of the criminal and the typology of criminals. // Socialist legality. 1973.

182. Sakharov A.B. On the personality of the criminal and the causes of crime in the USSR. M., 1961.

183. Sakharov A.B. On the personality of the criminal and the causes of crime in the USSR. //Russian criminological view. 2009. No. 1.

184. Semenov V.M. Criminological characteristics of persons committing thefts. //Russian investigator. No. 11. 2005.

185. Serdyuk L.V. Violence: criminological and criminal legal research. Monograph. - M., “Yurlitinform”, 2002.

186. Serdyuk L.V. Criminal legal assessment of racketeering and its difference from related offenses // Criminal Law. Quarterly scientific and practical journal. 2003. No. 3.

187. Sibiryakov S.L: Current problems of criminology and victimology (part two). Collection of scientific research results (2004-2008). Volgograd, 2008.

188. Skoblikov P.A. Debt collection and crime. M., 1999.

189. Skoblikov P.A. Economics and racketeering: domestic features // Household. and law, 1998. No. 10.

190. Skoblikov P.S. Property disputes and crime in modern Russia. M.: Delo, 2001.

191. Reducing armed violence: opportunities for development. //The fight against crime abroad (based on materials from the foreign press). Monthly newsletter. No. 11. M.: VINITI, 2009.

192. Solodovnikov S.A. Crimes in the sphere of property relations of citizens. M., 2003.

193. Solopanov Yu.V. The problem of predicting individual criminal behavior // Questions of Soviet criminology. Part 1. M., 1976.

194. The state of law and order in the Russian Federation and the main results of the activities of internal affairs bodies and internal troops in 2009. Analytical materials. M.: Organizational and Inspectorate Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2010.

195. Stepashin S.B. Terrorism in Russia is as cynical and cruel as in other countries // Protection and Security. No. 4. 1998.

196. Starkov O.V. Crime prevention. M.: Yurist, 2005.

197. Sukharenko A.N. Russian organized crime in the USA / Ed. prof. V.A. Nomokonova. M., Russian Criminological Association, 2002.

198. Taibakov A.A. Acquisitive crime in the European north of Russia: criminological characteristics. Petrozavodsk, 2000.211". Tenchov E.S., Koryagina O.V." Extortion. Text of lectures. Ivanovo: Ivan. state univ. 1998.

199. Typology and classification in sociological research. M., 1982.

200. Typology of the personality of a criminal and individual prevention / ed. MM. Babaeva. M., 1979.

201. Topilskaya E.V. Organized crime. St. Petersburg, 1999.215." -Human trafficking in the Russian Federation. Review* and analysis of current information on the problem. M., 2006.

202. Torshin A. Sabotage at the station can only be a diversionary maneuver. //Russian newspaper No. 5241 (162) dated July 23, 2010.

203. Criminal policy of Russia - past, present and future: Collection of information materials of the Public Center for Promoting Criminal Justice Reform (Moscow). 1997. Vol. I.

204. Criminal law. A common part. Textbook for universities. Rep. ed. AND I. Kozachenko and Z.A. Neznamova. M.: Publishing group INFRA-M-NORMA. 2007.

205. Ustinov B.S. Concept and criminological characteristics of organized crime. N.-Novgorod, 1993.

206. Scientific notes of the Imperial Moscow University. Legal department. M., 1916. - Issue. 45.

207. Fedorov A.Yu. Raiding and corporate blackmail (organizational and legal countermeasures): monograph / A.Yu. Fedorov. M.: Wolters Kluwer, 2010.

208. Filimonov V.D. Social danger of an individual. Tomsk, 1973.

209. Khalikov A.N. “Voluntary donations”, or a new type of corruption.//Russian justice. No. 8. 2005.

210. Khanipov P.A. Delinquency: modern adolescent communities and violent practices. //Sociological research. No. 12. 2007.

211. Khveshchenko K.A. Crime in the Central Federal District: status and features. // Bulletin of the Academy of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" No. 1 (15), 2010.

212. Khetagurova V.V. The concept of extortion in pre-revolutionary criminal law. //Psychopedagogy in law enforcement agencies. 2008, No. 4(35).

213. Khristoforov I. Price list for murder // Police. 1994. No. 11.

214. Chashin A.N. Corruption in Russia: strategy, tactics and methods of struggle. M.: Business and Service, 2009.

215. Honor and duty of an employee of internal affairs bodies. Tutorial. / Under general ed. d. ped. Sciences, Doctor of Law, Professor V.Ya. Kikotya. M.: TsOKR Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2009.

216. Chechel G.I. Criminal groups // Criminal violence and cruelty. Moscow, 1995.

217. Chirikova A., Shishkin S. Sociological research. Informal payments in medicine: new; look at an old problem. //Society and economics. No. 10. 2002. . *

218. Shestakov D.A. Selfish orientation and its formation in a criminogenic family // Bulletin of Leningrad University. 1983. Vol. 1. No. 5.

219. Shishkin; HELL; Comparative legal" analysis of the regulation of liability for extortion in foreign criminal legislation. //International, criminal law and international justice. No. 4.2008. : "240: Schneider G.Y. Criminology. M., 1994.

220. Eminov V., Enikeev. M. Criminological problems of legal psychology // Criminal law. No. 2. 2002.208

221. Effective crime prevention. // Translations of materials about the practice of law enforcement agencies of foreign countries. Issue No. 19. M., 2002.

223. Arzhanaya K.V. Criminological characteristics of modern recidivism. Author's abstract. Ph.D. legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2008.

224. Binkovsky A.P. Criminal legal and criminological aspects of arbitrariness. Diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2003.

225. Bogomolov A.A. Extortion in the system of crimes against property: criminological analysis and prevention. Diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. Moscow, 2005.

226. Vinokurova N.S. The identity of the criminal and the victim in the mechanism of extortion and the prevention of these crimes: Dis. . Ph.D. legal Sci. M., 2003.

227. Gribanov E.V. Criminological aspects of the study of culture and its influence on juvenile delinquency. PhD abstract legal Sci. M., 2010.

228. Dmitriev O.V. Criminological and criminal legal characteristics of extortion. Candidate of dissertation legal Sci. Omsk, 1994.

229. Zharikov P.A. Determinants of extortion and features of its prevention in a super-large city. dis. Ph.D. legal Sci. M., 2004.

230. Irincheev V.V. Criminal legal and criminological characteristics of extortion and its prevention by internal affairs bodies. dis. . Ph.D. legal Sci. M., 1997.

231. Kivich Yu.V. Criminological characteristics and prevention of street crime in the city. Diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. M., 1999.

232. Kovalenko V.I. Criminological characteristics of modern robberies and robberies. Author's abstract. Ph.D. legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2003.

233. Kolesnikova T.V. Forensic characteristics of criminal groups committing extortion. dis. . Ph.D. legal Sci. Saratov. Saratov Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. 2000.

234. Koryagina O.V. Criminal legal and criminological characteristics of extortion. Diss. .cand. legal Sci. Moscow: Mosk. YIMVDRF, 1998.

235. Lechiev P.S. Criminal liability for extortion: comparative legal analysis of Russian and foreign criminal legislation. dis. . Ph.D. legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2004.

236. Meitin A.A. Criminological characteristics of crimes committed by football fans and their prevention. PhD abstract legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2004.

237. Mordachev V.V. Extortion: forensic analysis and forecasting. Author's abstract. Ph.D. legal Sci. M., Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. 1998.

238. Myasnikova K. A. Criminological characteristics of modern domestic crime. Author's abstract. Ph.D. legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2004.

239. Okruzhko V.Yu. Modern fraud: criminological characteristics and prevention. Author's abstract. Ph.D. legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2009.

240. Posobina T.A. Criminological characteristics of modern banditry and measures to combat it. Diss. .cand. legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2002.

241. Stories.MiK). Criminal liability" for extortion. Author's abstract. Ph.D. legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2002.

242. Rudg V.G. Contemporary violent juvenile delinquency. Author's abstract. Ph.D. legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2005.

243. Safonov V.N. Organized* extortion: criminal legal and criminological analysis. Diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. St. Petersburg, 1997.

244. Skorilkina N.A. Group forms of extortion. Author's abstract. diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. M., 2005.

245. Stupina S.A. Criminal legal and criminological problems of combating extortion. dis. Ph.D. legal Sci. Irkutsk, 2002.

246. Tarubarov, V.V: Crimes committed in public places: criminological, characteristics and features^ of warning by internal affairs bodies. Diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2009.

247. At the halyards A.G. Cultivation Challenges! criminal legal regulation of liability for* extortion and blackmail. dis. Ph.D. legal Sci. Saratov, 2003.

248. Fedchenko V.V. Criminological characteristics of serious violent crime* against the individual and features of its prevention. dis. Ph.D. legal Sci. Krasnodar, 2006.

249. Filchenko A.P. Extortion with the participation of minors as an object of criminological research: Dis. . Ph.D. legal Sci. Ryazan, 2002.

250. Chakhov G.N. The personality of a modern violent criminal as an object of criminological study. dis. Ph.D. legal Sci. Krasnodar, 2004.

251. Shevtsov Yu.I. Criminal law fight against extortion of property // Diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. Minsk, 1992.

252. Shegabudinov R.Sh. Extortion and related crimes. Author's abstract. diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. M., 2001.

253. Shiryaev A.S. Criminological characteristics of modern thefts and their prevention: Dis. Ph.D. legal Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2006.1. Arbitrage practice

254. Archive of the Voroshilovsky District Court of Rostov-on-Don. 2004. D. No. 4605600

255. Archive of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Rostov-on-Don. 2003. D. No. 3497245

256. Archive of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Rostov-on-Don. 2004. D. No. 4498580

257. Archive of the Pervomaisky District Court of Rostov-on-Don. 2005. D. No. 5507411

258. Archive of the Pervomaisky District Court of Rostov-on-Don. 2006 D. No. 6508029

259. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1991. No. 4.

260. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the USSR. 1986. No. 6.

261. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the USSR. 1990. No. 6.

262. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 of May 4, 1990 No. 3 (as amended by Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08.18.92 No. 10, dated 12.21.93 No. 11, dated 10.25.96 No. 10).

263. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus dated December 21, 2001 No. 15 “On the application by courts of criminal legislation in cases of theft of property.”

264. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 23, 2006 No. 6.

265. Collection of decisions of the Plenums of the Supreme Courts of the USSR and the RSFSR (RF) on criminal cases. 2007.

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes only and were obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). Therefore, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

Introduction

Chapter 1. The essence of extortion

1.1. Extortion concept

1.2. Criminological characteristics of extortion and the identity of the extortionist

1.3. Reasons and conditions for improving extortion

Chapter 2. Prevention and detection of extortion

2.1. Activities of the Department of Internal Affairs to prevent extortion

2.2. Problems of improving the activities of the Department of Internal Affairs in combating extortion

Conclusion

Bibliography

Application

Introduction

Property is “a historically determined social form of appropriation of material goods, primarily the means of production.” The desire to appropriate and possess has always been inherent in man by nature. Therefore, it would be quite logical to say that since ancient times, crimes against property have made up a significant part of all criminal acts committed by people. In our time, when the role of material values in human life has increased, the situation has changed little. Moreover, the problem of crimes against property is becoming more and more relevant, as their (crimes) number is steadily growing. The share of crimes against property is prohibitively high compared to others. In particular, in economically developed countries this share currently ranges from 75 to 80%. Among the 2 million 625 thousand crimes registered in the Russian Federation, more than 1 million 500 thousand were criminal attacks on property.

For operational services, information about cases of failure to report on the part of representatives of enterprises that have been subjected to extortion and have paid or regularly pay the required amounts of money is of great importance. This is often due to the fact that the victims' income was obtained through criminal means. Information about this may serve as the basis for checking the financial and economic activities of an enterprise or organization.

As a result of a survey conducted by E.I. Petrov, R.N. Marchenko, L.V. Barinova, representatives of non-state enterprises to the question: “What will you do if you are subjected to extortion by racketeers?” answered: “Give in to the demands of the racketeers” - 45%; “You will try to protect yourself on your own” – 29%; “Seek help from the police and other law enforcement agencies” – 20%.

Crimes against property have always occupied and continue to occupy a significant place in the structure of crime in Russia, essentially determining its state and trends, and, consequently, the entire criminal situation in the country.

Relevance of the research topic The point is that with the advent of various forms of ownership, the development of entrepreneurship, and the expansion of the so-called private sector, the number of wealthy people increased, which, of course, began to attract the attention of representatives of the criminal world. As a result, the criminological situation in the country is further aggravated due to unfavorable trends in selfish and violent crimes, of which extortion accounts for a certain part. At the same time, the social danger of such attacks increases significantly. At the same time, the prevalence of this type of crime has a negative impact on the stabilization of market relations in Russia, in the form of a deterioration in the competitive environment, a decrease in the possibilities of organizing and developing certain areas of small and medium-sized businesses. Together with many other reasons, these factors negatively affect the state’s economic foundation.

As practice shows, group extortion involving murder, kidnapping, hostage-taking, and robbery is especially dangerous. Persons who commit such extortion are characterized by criminal professionalism and a stable criminal orientation, systematicity in the commission of crimes. Criminal professionalization and a pronounced criminal-selfish passion determine the desire of these individuals for violence and deepen their orientation towards extortion. All this destabilizes the socio-economic and political situation in the country, causing acute social contradictions that develop into various conflicts.

In recent years, the interest of scientists in various aspects of extortion continues to remain high. These are mainly scientific works devoted to the criminal legal analysis of extortion. So, degree of knowledge of the problem presented in the works of such authors as in the dissertation of Doctor of Law Irincheev V.V. “Criminal-legal and criminological characteristics of extortion and its prevention by internal affairs bodies”, presented on 182 pages, where the criminal-legal and criminological characteristics of extortion are disclosed in detail, general social aspects of the prevention of extortion and promising areas of activity of internal affairs bodies to prevent extortion are indicated. In addition, it should be noted the dissertation of the candidate of legal sciences Bashkov A.V. on the topic “Criminal Legal Aspects of Extortion,” 2001, presented on 166 pages; Stupina S.A. “Criminal-legal and criminological problems of combating extortion”, 2002 on 288 pages. Dissertation by Ledashchev S.V. for the degree of Doctor of Legal Sciences is directly devoted to the tactics of investigating extortion: “Investigation of extortion”, 2004, this topic is also touched upon in the work of Candidate of Legal Sciences Serova E.B. “Current theoretical and practical problems of investigating and maintaining state prosecution in cases of extortion,” 1998. Issues of criminal law and criminological characteristics of extortion, characteristics of the groups committing it, are presented in the works of such authors as O.V. Koryagina. “Criminal legal and criminological characteristics of extortion”, 1998, 253 pages, Kolesnikova T.V. “Forensic characteristics of criminal groups committing extortion”, 2000, 244 pages, Vinokurova N.S. “The identity of the criminal and the victim in the mechanism of extortion and the prevention of these crimes,” 2003, 176 pages. Problems of improving the criminal legal regulation of liability for extortion are presented in the dissertation of Ufalov A.G. “Problems of improving the criminal legal regulation of liability for extortion and blackmail,” 2003, 170 pages.

Object of study the social relations that arise during the commission of extortion, as well as the relations that develop during their prevention, appeared.

As direct subject The study focused on extortion itself, the persons committing it, as well as the activities of internal affairs bodies to prevent the corresponding attacks.

The purpose of the study is in obtaining a system of new criminological knowledge about extortion, clarifying the necessary conceptual and categorical apparatus, formulating theoretical conclusions and developing on this basis measures to prevent these crimes by internal affairs bodies, as well as forms and methods of protecting citizens from these attacks.

The purpose of the study is achieved by solving the following problems:

1. reveal the concept of extortion;

2. give a criminological description of extortion using an example of the state of crime in the city and region;

3. characterize the identity of the extortionist;

4. indicate the reasons and conditions for improving extortion;

5. analyze the activities of the internal affairs department to prevent extortion;

6. find out the existing problems of improving the activities of the internal affairs department to combat extortion.

Methodological basis research compiled the laws and categories of dialectics. I used theoretical developments in the field of general theory of law, criminology, and criminal law. The corresponding methodological recommendations of sociologists and criminologists, documents containing questions of the connection between science and practice, have also found application. The literature was used, which systematized, presented legal documents addressing issues of law and legality, and provided appropriate comments.

1. The concept of extortion and its criminological characteristics

1.1 Extortion concept

Extortion as a crime against property and a social and legal phenomenon. One of the most important tasks of any state is to protect the existing national institution of property from illegal attacks of various kinds. The solution to this problem is achieved not only by introducing into the current legislation guarantees of the inviolability of any form of property, but also by classifying acts aimed at illegally taking someone else’s property as a group of crimes.

Crimes against property, as practice shows, are the most common type of crime in modern states. These encroachments are acts associated with a violation of the right of ownership or other means of causing property damage to the owner or creating a threat of causing such damage. In this case, we can talk about both the generic object of such crimes (a group of social relations that ensure the normal functioning of the economy) and the specific object (property relations in general, including the rights of any owner to own, use and dispose of their property). The direct object of this group of crimes is a specific form of ownership, determined by the ownership of the property, that is, private, state, municipal, property of public associations or other. The subject of such acts is any property that, in accordance with civil law, can be the object of ownership.

As you know, property is the most important economic material relationship, which is of exceptional importance in the life of citizens, society, and the state. As a social phenomenon and economic category, property is a set of social relations of ownership, use and disposal of goods legally owned by the owner.

Today, property brings down national currencies, elevates economic geniuses to the top of the world and throws them into the abyss of financial adventures. The most terrible and insane crimes in the world have occurred and are occurring because of property, the right to own, use and dispose of property, material values, and money.

It is in this regard that the Russian criminologist M.N. Gernet wrote about the world of thieves: “It is the richest in the varieties that fill it. Who's not here? Timid newcomers who were on the verge of starvation before committing a crime, and seasoned professional thieves who cannot live without theft, like a fish without water; street children, people of prime age and old people; mothers of families and prostitutes, cohabitants of bandits looking for some kind of work, and degraded drug addicts looking only for cocaine, morphine, alcohol; thieves who have nothing, and thieves who have, but want to have even more, but all equally generated by the institution of private property.”

In the fair opinion of S.A. Solodovnikov, crimes against property, like many other acts, are an eternal phenomenon. These crimes will exist as long as the property itself exists. However, it is possible and necessary to prevent the growth of crimes against property above the limit, crossing which leads to social tension.

Indeed, over the many centuries of its existence, humanity has never been able to get rid of the threat of encroachment on the basis of its material life.

Today, Chapter 21 “Crimes against property” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation includes 11 crimes, among which the most prominent are: theft, fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement, robbery, robbery and extortion. These attacks actually dominate and determine the main trends and problems of crime in general.

One of the most serious threats to people, the state and society is widespread extortion. Extortion involving murder, kidnapping, hostage-taking, and robbery poses a particular danger. Persons who commit such extortion are characterized by criminal professionalism and a stable criminal orientation, systematicity in the commission of crimes. Criminal professionalization and a pronounced criminal-selfish passion determine the desire of these individuals for violence and deepen their orientation towards extortion.

Extortion in its ordinary meaning is understood as a type of criminal activity associated with the illegal acquisition or loss of property. This definition quite succinctly expresses the content and structure of extortion activity, since it considers it in its entirety, both the unity of the process of extortion activity and its result.

As a type of mercenary and violent encroachment, extortion has been known for a long time. Studies of early written legal documents reveal the first legislative provisions on extortion in Roman law. However, in different historical periods, the prevalence, and, consequently, the criminal punishability of extortion was different, as was the scientific interest in it.

An analysis of Russian legislation suggests that extortion in the initial stages of its history existed in several forms. Extortion was first mentioned in the Code of Laws of 1497.

The criminal law norms of the Sudebnik did not contain a description of the criminal acts of extortion; their signs are seen only through the interpretation of specific terms. According to many researchers, extortion meant “sneaking,” which, according to Art. Art. 8 and 39 of the Code of Law, along with other crimes (“dashing deeds”): theft (“theft”), robbery, murder (“murder”) - was punishable by the death penalty, property recovery in favor of the plaintiff and a fine (“sale”).

For example, commentators on the Code of Law in the publication “Russian Legislation of the 10th and 20th Centuries” interpret snitching as a false denunciation, malicious slander, aimed at accusing an innocent person.

S.I. Stamm, classifying snitching as a crime against a person, is of a similar opinion, but adds that the false accusation of an innocent person is committed in order “to take advantage of his property.”

The authors of the annotated edition of the Code of Laws confirm the extortionate nature of snitching with data obtained from the works of Maxim the Greek and I.S. Peresvetova. According to their testimony, the tellers threw a corpse into a rich courtyard with signs of violent death (“... and they would stab that dead man with a horn, or cut him with a saber and smear him with blood...”). The benefit could be achieved both by obtaining through the court the property of an illegally convicted person (“... yes, the plaintiff will be given a snitch on him, and having convicted him by an unjust court, his farmstead and wealth will be plundered by the court”), and directly from extortion (“the avengers of the murdered man will... torture him killing him and collecting a lot of silver for himself from the greed of the unrighteous and godless”).

Apparently, the concept of sneaking combined extortion under the threat of starting or continuing litigation based on a false claim and the actual false denunciation aimed at obtaining the victim’s property as a result of a conviction. In our opinion, it is in this form, and not as simply malicious slander, that snitching could be equated in the Code of Laws to theft, robbery and murder.

The norms on snitching were adopted and developed by later Codes of Law of 1550 and 1589, however, in them extortion was considered not as an independent crime, but as a crime against the interests of the public service. Moreover, the regulations did not contain the very concept of “extortion”.

In the Council Code of 1694, there were three types of extortion: extortion with a “slanderous claim” (Articles 186–188), the same as sneaking, extortion of a bribe (Articles 15–17) and coercion to a transaction (Articles 251–253) . Extortion is further discussed in the “Military Article” of 1715.

The Code on Criminal and Correctional Punishments of 1845 generally retained the scheme of three types of extortion. The term “extortion”, which first appeared here, referred to a crime in office; it was identified with extortion and bribery. Extortion meant:

1. any profit or other benefit acquired in connection with service through oppression or threats;

2. any demand for gifts; or an unspecified payment or loan; or any services, profits or other benefits relating to the service or position of the offender with a particular person in a case or action, under any guise or pretext;

3. any extortions not established by law or excessive against a certain amount in money, things or anything else;

4. all sorts of illegal outfits for ordinary people to do their own or someone else’s work.

Extortion (Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) is defined in law as a demand for the transfer of someone else’s property or the right to property or the commission of other actions of a property nature under the threat of violence or destruction of someone else’s property, as well as under the threat of disseminating information disgracing the victim or his relatives, or others information that may cause significant harm to the rights or legitimate interests of the victim or his relatives.

In the disposition of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation specifies three types of threats, differing in content: threat of violence, threat of destruction or damage to someone else’s property, threat of dissemination of defamatory or other information. The latter is most often referred to in legal literature by the special term “blackmail.”

By the way, it should be noted that there is a certain gap in the legal structure of extortion in terms of the definition of the term “blackmail.” Thus, revealing the essence of this concept as a threat to disseminate information disgracing the victim or his relatives, or other information that may cause significant harm to the rights or legitimate interests of the victim or his relatives, the term “blackmail” itself is not used in Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This seems illogical to us due to the fact that in some other articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation the concept of “blackmail” is actively used as a constructive element of a number of crimes. Moreover, in some cases it acts as a mandatory sign of the objective side of crimes. Such, for example, as coercion to perform actions of a sexual nature (Article 133 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), coercion to give evidence (Article 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In addition, “blackmail” sometimes acts as a qualifying (aggravating criminal liability) feature. An example of this would be bribery or coercion to give testimony or evasion of giving testimony or incorrect translation (Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

The absence of a clear definition of the term “blackmail” in the Criminal Code is not logical and must be corrected. The most logical way to do this would be to add Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with a note of the corresponding content.

It should also be noted that extortion, as formulated in the disposition of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a crime that can only be committed through an active action. In fact, this is not accurate. For example, Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (part 4, paragraph “c”) names “extortion of a bribe” as an aggravating circumstance. It is characteristic that, as practice shows, a common method of such extortion is the deliberate failure by an official to exercise his discretionary powers to realize the rights or interests of citizens, i.e. Inaction may also occur here. Art. is formulated similarly. 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (commercial bribery).

In this regard, it is obvious that the concept of extortion given in Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is formulated inaccurately, because there is a contradiction here with the signs of the term “extortion” used in the construction of Art. Art. 204, 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, it is advisable to expand the basic concept of extortion given in Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, indicating the possibility of its commission: under the threat of using the extortionist’s discretionary powers to the detriment of the victim. One of the most important and fundamental issues of the criminal legal characteristics of extortion is its correct classification, i.e. assignment of this crime to a specific type (group). It seems to us that it is most logical and reasonable to classify extortion as a type of theft. At the same time, it should be noted that the Russian legislator currently adheres to a different position: he does not classify extortion as a method of theft. This can be easily verified by analyzing Art. Art. 221, 226, 229 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, where theft and extortion are separated by the conjunction “or”. It is noteworthy in this regard that the modern legislation of some CIS member states, in contrast to Russian legislation, classifies extortion as precisely theft.

For example, the Criminal Code of Belarus directly indicates that extortion is one of the methods of theft (Article 208). At the same time, theft here is understood as “intentional unlawful gratuitous taking of another’s property or the right to property for mercenary purposes through theft, robbery, robbery, extortion, fraud, abuse of official powers, misappropriation, embezzlement or use of computer equipment”

A position similar to the Russian legislator is taken by many modern legal experts, who also believe that extortion cannot be classified as a method of theft. So, for example, S.M. Kochoi classifies extortion as a selfish crime against property that does not contain any signs of theft. Moreover, this author even draws the legislator’s attention to the unfortunate location of the article on extortion within Chapter XXI of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The main argument of this approach is that extortion in the theory of criminal law refers to crimes with a formal composition, i.e. “the seizure of someone else’s property and its conversion to the benefit of the perpetrator or other persons is outside the scope of this crime.”

At the same time, the same authors classify robbery as theft (Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), which, according to current legislation, is also a formal crime. The immediate difference between the concepts of “robbery” and “extortion” lies in the time interval between the presentation of the demand and the moment of taking possession of any material assets: with robbery, this can happen almost immediately after the criminal’s attack on the victim, and with extortion, a time interval of several hours takes place up to several days, weeks, etc. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that in the case of the same robbery, the criminal may not take possession of the property if, for example, he receives a worthy rebuff from the victim of the attack. The same thing can happen with extortion.

Thus, extortion, as formulated in Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, can only be interpreted as an active action. At the same time, the concept of “extortion” is used as a constructive feature of the objective side of the crimes provided for in Art. Art. 204 (commercial bribery) and 290 (taking a bribe) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which can also be committed through inaction. This is also typical for the situation of extortion of a bribe, when an official (a person performing managerial functions) uses as a hidden threat (to force the applicant to give a bribe) failure to perform, within his discretionary powers, certain actions to the detriment of the victim. This circumstance gives grounds to raise the question of clarifying the concept of “extortion” formulated in Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

1.2 Criminological characteristics of extortion using the example of a city and region

The study of crime showed that in its structure the most clearly represented types of crimes were theft, fraud, extortion, robbery and robberies. It was in these areas of criminal activity that over a hundred criminal specialties were identified, and it was these criminals who were distinguished by the highest criminal qualifications.

A study of official statistics showed that the most common and characteristic crimes of professional criminals are: theft, fraud, robbery, robbery, extortion and the production or sale of counterfeit money or securities.

Despite the fact that, according to statistical data, in recent years there has been some stabilization in the number of registered extortions, studies show that a considerable part of the extortion attacks currently committed are committed by professional criminals and organized criminal groups. It is worth noting that the number of extortions for 2006 and 2007 increased compared to 2005 by 34.2% and amounted to 14,692 cases in Russia; moreover, according to the GIAC of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, the number of extortions committed as part of organized criminal groups in 2006 year amounted to 833 cases, which is 9.5% higher than the same figure for the previous year.

In the process of criminological characterization of extortion, it is necessary to establish:

n crime rate – the absolute number of registered crimes and identified criminals;

n crime intensity, expressed in coefficients.

Rates are calculated by comparing crime data with population data. If data on the number of registered crimes is compared, the coefficient is designated as Kf (coefficient by facts), if the figures on the number of identified criminals are Kl (coefficient by persons), if the figures on the number of convicted persons are Ko.

Number of crimes x 100,000

Population

The crime rate can be calculated either for the entire population or for the population at the age of criminal responsibility.

In the process of studying certain types of crime or individual crimes, their share or share in total crime is calculated. The proportion of the number of individual crimes can also be calculated from the total number of crimes of the corresponding type.

For example, let’s create an indicator of the level of detected and registered extortion in the city and region over the past 5 years:

As can be seen from the graph, the number of registered extortions increased markedly in 2005 and 2006 compared to 2004.

The structure of crime is judged by the ratio of the share of different types of crime, for example, let’s compile the structure of crime (in%) during the period January – November 2007 in the city and region, where we will reflect, accordingly, the share of extortion in relation to other types of crimes:

In structural terms, extortion, as can be seen from the graph, is only about 8% compared to other types of crimes. The leading place is occupied by thefts, of which the majority are recorded compared to extortion and other crimes.

The study of crime in dynamics is that they differ:

n current analysis - comparison of crime data for the year with data for previous years;

n systematic analysis, in which crime is analyzed sequentially by year, highlighting certain periods (five years, ten years) or corresponding to certain stages of social development - perestroika, reforms, etc.;

n analysis of seasonal crime fluctuations, if necessary.

When studying crime over time, growth rates are calculated. This is a general term used in cases of crime reduction (a - sign is placed):

As a result of drawing up the graph, you can see that the number of extortion cases increased in 2006. The lowest figure was recorded in 2004.

The overall prevalence of crime is determined by the total number of crimes reported in a year or the total number of criminals identified. (see Appendix No. 1).

The motivational characteristics of crime are established by identifying different motives and identifying the number of registered crimes committed for these reasons and the persons who committed them.

Thus, the study of the external characteristics of crime begins with an analysis of its prevalence. At the same time, the following is determined: the crime level (absolute data on registered crimes and identified criminals); crime intensity (coefficients calculated for a certain population size).

1.3 Criminological characteristics of the extortionist’s personality

Research shows that extortion belongs to a category of crimes in which there is a significant proportion (about 44%) of persons who have committed this type of crime repeatedly. Those with previous convictions make up 28% of all extortionists. And the proportion and rate of increase in recidivism are similar to the rates of recidivism among robbers and robbers. According to T.V. Kolesnikova, criminal groups that commit only extortion, that is, specializing in this type of criminal activity, make up 12% of the groups studied by the author.

The most common area of criminal activity of organized groups of professional extortionists currently is encroachment on the interests of business entities. Research has shown that 45% of victims of extortion were entrepreneurs.

Today, extortion attacks on car owners, in connection with the so-called “automobile scams,” as well as extortion in the housing market, have a huge public resonance. Criminal groups specializing in kidnapping for the purpose of extortion pose an increased danger to society.

The characteristics of the persons who committed extortion are given in the form of a table. (see Appendix No. 2)

Classification of extortionists is made according to the characteristics, degree and nature of public danger, and according to the duration and sustainability of criminal behavior. Based on characteristics: socio-demographic, moral-psychological, criminal-legal. Based on incentives and motives, three largest typological groups of extortionists can be distinguished: selfish, violent, selfish-violent.

Based on the duration and stability of criminal behavior among extortionists, the following types are distinguished: especially malicious criminals for whom committing a crime is a “profession” or who unite in organized criminal groups; malicious criminals who have committed several crimes and are in stable opposition to society, but this has not become a “profession” and a way of life for them; persons who have repeatedly committed crimes due to their inability to resist adverse circumstances; persons who committed crimes for the first time.

As research results show, along with genetic diversity, which gives rise to each person’s unique, exclusive, unique biological feature, people are genetically endowed with the ability to comprehensively absorb the social program. Thanks to this property, a person becomes an open social system, which is a vivid conscious reflection of the impact of the objective reality surrounding him. When committing mercenary-violent crimes, the biological characteristics of the body are considered as a factor pushing people to commit a crime. People are not born criminals, they become criminals after experiencing the negative impact of the environment. Negative influence does not immediately make you a criminal. First, it shapes a person’s inner world, psychology, determines his existence, and the influence of the social environment is reflected. In other words, the role of individual biological factors should not be denied, but on the contrary, it is necessary to convincingly assign them the role of an additional criminogenic determinant.

In this regard, taking into account the medical and biological characteristics of the criminal, it is possible to study the mechanism of criminal behavior much more fully, which will facilitate the answer to the question of why he developed this particular behavior, and will make it possible to more accurately determine the specific measure applied to a person who has broken the law.

Socio-demographic studies of persons who committed extortion show that such crimes are mostly committed by men.

The classification of defendants according to their social status and profession shows that 20.3% are employees, 7.4% are employees of small enterprises and partnerships, 2.9% are students of educational institutions, 50.3% do not study or work anywhere.

Judging by studies conducted in 2006, 40% of convicted adult men had families while serving their sentences. According to published data, 80.2% of men are married. Thus, the proportion of criminals who have families and have committed mercenary-violent crimes is much less than the total proportion of married men. Basically, these crimes are committed by unmarried people, they make up 79%, divorced people - 35.9%, widowers - only 2.1%.

Persons who are not engaged in socially useful work, or who do not study anywhere, are a category that quickly joins the criminal world. 21% of them were dependent on parents, 10% on relatives, 2% on friends or acquaintances, 1% on cohabitants.

45.2% of convicts who had a job before committing a crime constantly drank alcohol, 1.1% used drugs, and 5.1% were addicted to gambling. 50% of repeat offenders.

Taking into account the degree of public danger of persons who have committed a criminal act for selfish reasons, the degree of depth and stability of antisocial views rooted in them, we can classify them into three groups:

1. Malicious type, i.e. persons who have chosen an antisocial, selfish attitude, whose tendency to commit a crime is obvious, they are characterized by complete disregard for others, they do not recognize social order and norms (antisocial type). They not only create a criminal group, but also use circumstances favorable for committing a crime or create such a situation themselves. They use the most dangerous and reliable methods of committing a crime from their point of view, they will not stop even before murder, they are self-confident, they look for ways to avoid responsibility, and if they happen to be exposed, they put pressure on other members of the group (previously convicted, unemployed, etc. .).

2. Antisocial type, the level of their self-interested orientation in comparison with the first group is at a lower level (antisocial type), i.e. these properties are not so deeply established in them. They are characterized by complete disregard for other people, when committing a crime, they use old methods, and since they fall under the influence of malicious criminals, they play the role of perpetrators of the crime and assistants, commit crimes under a convenient set of circumstances (unemployed, alcoholics, previously convicted, etc.) .

3. Type associated with the situation. This is an antisocial type with not very well-established self-interested guidelines. They may commit a crime without enduring the difficulties of life. When they pursue personal gain, they do not take into account the interests of others. The people around them play a decisive role in shaping their views. (These are people who, before committing a crime, were not observed to have any antisocial actions, i.e., those who have not previously been convicted, who are engaged in socially useful work, and who are positively characterized both at work and at home).

In addition, it should be noted that the average age of criminals who commit extortion is 25–40 years, of which:

Thus, such a typology shows the most important features inherent in the personality of a criminal, reveals his inner being, essence, and makes it possible to determine patterns in the concepts of a criminal.

1.4 Reasons and conditions for improving extortion

It is rightly believed that one of the components of the overall crime complex is the causes and conditions of individual criminal behavior. Studying the relationship between them is an important criminological task.

However, if the causes of crime as a whole are determined by the contradictions of the social environment, then the causes and conditions of crime are subject to a greater extent to the influence of a person’s immediate environment and the microenvironment in which its formation occurs. Here we need to see direct and feedback connections, that is, the whole complex of causal dependencies - from individual criminal behavior and its immediate determinants to the general causes of crime, since, ultimately, crimes are committed by specific representatives of society, who are bearers of its foundations and the conditions of its life in everything their diversity and real manifestations. The microenvironment itself, which has a direct impact on the formation of a particular individual, is derived from the broader social environment and, in a certain sense, is its creation.

Recognizing the individuality of each crime and its causes, it is necessary to highlight those mechanisms that are common to all crimes. In general, the reasons are criminogenic motivation. It develops in the face gradually under the influence of two groups of conditions. The first includes those that form needs, interests, and value orientations. Distortions and deformations in them form the basis of criminogenic motivation and its internal substantive side.

The conditions of the second group directly relate to the process of committing a crime and create a criminogenic situation.

At the level of unfavorable conditions for the moral formation of an individual, prerequisites are created that are considered as the possibility of a specific person committing a crime. At the level of a specific situation, the criminogenic motivation that has developed in a person is realized in reality. This position has not only theoretical, but also practical significance.

Further study of the structure of criminal behavior requires a separate analysis of each of the lines of the causal chain leading to a volitional act. It is preceded by goal setting and anticipation of the results of one’s actions.

From the point of view of causation, a crime should be considered as the result of the interaction of an individual and an external specific situation. In addition, it should be added that personality develops on the basis of the interaction of the individual’s psychophysical data, as well as hereditary inclinations in interaction with the external environment. It follows from this that in an adult, all socially significant influences of the external environment pass through his consciousness and personal characteristics, that is, there are complex cause-and-effect dependencies between a person and the environment. All these connections and dependencies leave a special imprint on the actions of the criminal’s personality. When studying an individual’s criminal behavior and its causes, it is necessary to consider this phenomenon from a systemic perspective, identifying the mechanism of its development. When criminological analysis of criminal behavior and its causes, it is important to take into account the role of the mechanism of transitive behavior. This means the consistency and thoughtfulness of options for criminal behavior, from which the most preferable is selected.

The causal complex of extortion is significantly related to the peculiarities of the development of the city as a socio-territorial community, which determines the introduction into the conceptual apparatus of regulations, planning documents and criminological studies of relevant definitions that reflect the essence of extortion, its qualitative characteristics, and the content of the main elements.

The action of specific causes and conditions that determine illegal attacks in the field of extortion are associated, first of all, with the social, economic, psychological and moral life of Russian society. The ongoing crisis in these areas is aggravating the criminal situation.

The classification of the causes and conditions for the commission of extortion can be made on the basis of the mechanism of action:

· insufficient effectiveness of preventive work,

· shortcomings in the economic mechanism,

· shortcomings in ideological work,

· social instability,

· shortcomings in ensuring the standard of living and living conditions,

· the criminogenic role of the contradictions between the growth of needs and the capabilities of society to satisfy them,

· criminogenic aspects of the sphere of distribution and exchange.

The reasons and conditions for the improvement of extortion are that organized criminal groups often tend to increase their numbers. The attraction of new accomplices to the group occurs both on the initiative of the criminal group, when it needs certain individuals to solve specific problems: those who are proficient in various types of hand-to-hand combat techniques, specialists in radio engineering, electronics, and at the request of the “newcomers” themselves, who are attracted by the possibility of easy profit. A distinctive feature of such organized criminal groups is the development by their members of a certain system of protection in the form of bribery of various officials, as well as intimidation of victims and witnesses, the desire not to leave traces of the crimes committed.

An organized criminal group of extortionists is a hierarchically constructed structure of criminal activity in the form of a trade, operating under the auspices of corruption. The main structural elements of such groups can be: – the organizer of the group (“leader” or “elite”). Practice shows that having a criminal record loses its importance for creating authority for the organizer of a group, as it was before. The first roles are taken by persons who have not previously been convicted, but have a strong-willed character, enterprising, who have adopted criminal experience as a result of close contacts with convicted persons (there are groups in which not a single member of the group has been convicted). It should be noted that among the extortionists there are a large number of people with a high level of intellectual development (students, engineers, etc.). Many government officials, betraying the interests of the service, provided the extortionists with patronage and the necessary consultations. There are facts of direct participation in criminal acts. They constitute the following element of the structure:

– cover group (lawyers, corrupt representatives of the apparatus and law enforcement agencies);

– foremen (as a rule, former athletes leading “militant” detachments). The number of such detachments or brigades exists depending on the socio-economic conditions of a particular region;

– “militants” (or guards). This is the lowest level of an organized group; they are the direct executors. But, as is known, a criminal group of extortionists may include persons performing other criminal functions, for example, intelligence officers, liaison officers, spotters, tribute collectors, holders of the common fund, etc.

Thus, the improvement of extortion occurs as a result of the interaction of persons in government structures with criminals, using means that do not leave traces of a crime, which significantly impedes the proof of the fact of extortion in a criminal case.

2. Prevention and detection of extortion

2.1 Activities of the Department of Internal Affairs to prevent extortion

If you look at the problem of crime prevention in Russia (and in any state), the lion's share of work in this area falls from all law enforcement agencies to internal affairs agencies and the prosecutor's office.

First of all, prevention consists of three levels: social prevention (preventive impact on the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of crime in general); actual criminological prevention (prevention of types and forms of criminal behavior, for example, military crimes, etc., prevention of crimes by certain social groups of people, for example, military personnel of the Federal Border Guard Service of the Russian Federation - officers, military personnel on conscription or contract, etc.); individual criminological prevention (crime prevention by individuals).

The crime prevention scheme can be put into the following scheme: prevention = criminological characteristics + development and implementation of preventive measures. In turn, a criminological characteristic is a combination of three groups of characteristics:

1. Subjective (criminologically significant signs of a crime) - personality traits of the criminal, motive and purpose of the crime and personality traits of the victim.

2. Objective (data revealing the criminological situation) crime statistics; information about social conditions / situation / crime / socio-political, socio-economic; time, geography; social environment, etc./.

3. Complex (signs that determine the specifics of crime prevention activities) - causes of crimes, consequences of crimes, mechanism of crime and circumstances contributing to crimes.

As a result of the analysis of the above listed features, the subject of prevention (depending on the tasks facing him), with the help of special knowledge obtained from studying a number of social and legal disciplines (including criminology), develops and implements preventive measures.

The stage of developing preventive measures, after analyzing qualitative and quantitative characteristics, is necessarily preceded by criminological forecasting, which is the process of obtaining, processing and analyzing the information necessary for the forecast.

A criminological forecast of crime is a probabilistic judgment about the future state (level, structure) of crime, its determinants and possibilities for prevention over a certain period of time, including qualitative and quantitative assessments of proposed changes and an indication of their approximate timing. You need to know that criminological forecasting is: a type of social foresight; branch of legal forecasting and an independent type of forecasting. The process of criminological forecasting must be continuous in its essence, requiring constant systematic clarification as new data accumulates, i.e. the desire for complete forecasts that do not need clarification can lead to unreliable results or even false conclusions.

It is also necessary to know that the existing “problem of uncertainty” allows the forecast to be only approximate and not absolutely accurate. The very word “forecast” already implies the impossibility of accurate “forecasting”. But it is important to remember in this case that “even a bad forecast is better than good uncertainty.”

The sources of the forecast are not only data noted as qualitative and quantitative characteristics of crime, but also the so-called “advanced information”. For example, tracking future changes in criminal legislation will certainly make adjustments to the crime forecast and, accordingly, to the crime prevention system.

The goals of criminological forecasting are formulated as follows: the general goal is to establish the most general indicators characterizing the development (change) of crime in the future, identifying on this basis undesirable trends and patterns and finding ways to change these trends and patterns in the desired direction.

The general goal predetermines the main goals of the next level: ensuring all circumstances that are essential for the development of long-term plans; making ongoing management decisions; development of a general concept of combating crime; choosing the optimal way to improve the activities of agencies fighting crime; – establishing possible changes in the state, level, structure and dynamics of crime in the future; identifying the possibilities of the emergence of new types of crimes and the “withering away” of existing ones, as well as the causes and conditions that can influence this; establishing the possible emergence of new categories of criminals.

The listed goals of criminological forecasts are the main ones. Other goals correspond to those named, follow from them and relate to them as the particular with the general. All of them (goals) must be constantly clarified, specified, and updated due to the continuity of the forecasting process itself. Depending on the goals of forecasting, the object of study and the timing of forecasting, forecasting tasks are determined.

The main objectives are: obtaining information about the future being studied; processing this information appropriately; generalization of all indicators of “future” crime; and the most important task is to, based on the identified indicators, determine the most important and effective ways (means and measures) to combat crime in the forecast period.

Criminological forecasting is broadly classified into two types: forecasting the science of criminology (forecasting criminological research, determining development prospects, specific areas of science) and forecasting crime (primary and recidivism).

An independent type of forecasting is forecasting individual antisocial (criminal) behavior (individual forecasting). Combining information from all (or part of) the listed forecasts constitutes a cumulative criminological forecast. Any forecasting is carried out with the aim of making a forecast for a particular period, i.e. By time, forecasts are divided into: short-term (from one to 2 years) - they serve the current tasks of fighting crime. As a rule, these forecasts are quite reliable; medium-term (from 3 to 5 years) - allow us to take into account the possible impact on crime and its changes of macro-social level phenomena; use the anti-criminal potential of these phenomena and processes; timely develop adequate measures to neutralize or mitigate possible criminal consequences, prepare appropriate human, material and other resources, etc. and long-term (up to 10-15 years) with existing methods can only give some general assessments of possible crime trends.

The practice of the Department of Internal Affairs also shows the need for ultra-short-term criminological forecasts - for a day, a week, a month, a quarter.

In criminological forecasting, general scientific, special scientific and special methods of cognition are used.

The latter are of greatest interest, i.e. special methods of criminological forecasting, which can be grouped into three main groups:

1. extrapolation methods;

2. modeling methods

3. methods of expert assessments.

Extrapolation methods are the basis of any forecast. The essence of this method is to study the predicted object and transfer the patterns of its development in the past and present to the future. Based on the initial data, statistical series are formed that are extended to the future. The degree of accuracy of forecasts depends on the lead time and the stability of the criminological situation. The next method - modeling, is the development of mathematical models (based on programming) - of course, it is not applicable in the practice of a border outpost. Can be used at the district and federal border level, but with the involvement of specialists. Your task when using it is to compile reliable information. The last one is the method of expert assessment - finding out the opinion of scientific and practical workers selected according to a number of criteria (work experience, qualifications, area of scientific interests, etc.). It seems that the extrapolation method is most convenient for the activities of internal affairs bodies.

We should dwell in more detail on individual prediction of criminal behavior. Its principles should be:

Systematicity (the subject is part of the system);

· continuity;

· probability;

· relativity;

· significance.

ATS occupy a special place in the crime prevention system. Of all the agencies involved in the fight against crime, the Department of Internal Affairs most often has to deal with the direct implementation of measures to combat crime. This is due, first of all, to the fact that initial information about crimes, as a rule, goes to the police, which carry out the bulk of the work to prevent crimes by specific individuals. The structural unit of the Department of Internal Affairs itself, which includes a network of various services, serves, first of all, the cause of crime prevention. In solving and investigating crimes, taking measures to ensure the safety of property, and working to correct and re-educate convicts, the internal affairs bodies rely in their activities on the assistance of other government bodies and the public.

The following main stages can be distinguished in the preventive work of ATS:

1. development and implementation of general directions for crime prevention based on an analysis of the state, structure and dynamics of crime;

2. specification of general directions to the level of solving individual problems in more crime-vulnerable territories and objects of the national economy, including teams of enterprises, institutions and organizations;

3. carrying out individual educational work with persons who are on preventive registration in the internal affairs department or who violate the norms of public life;

4. prevention of crimes by persons whose criminal intentions became known to the Department of Internal Affairs;

5. disclosure of committed crimes in order to suppress the continuation of criminal activity and prevent new crimes;

6. work with specific persons prone to committing crimes, previously convicted in order to prevent them from committing new crimes.

Timely identification of signs of extortion is a primary task for law enforcement agencies during the detection and investigation of crimes of this type. As already noted, extortion is carried out in various ways, on which the implementation of the intent depends. The legislator forms the corpus delicti of this crime as a requirement to transfer property or the right to it. This crime is considered completed from the moment the illegal demand is presented, that is, according to the law, the crime was already committed at the time of the threat. The threat expressed during extortion is aimed not only at suppressing the will of the victim and forcing him to give up resistance, but also at forcing him to fulfill the demand made of him.

To timely identify signs of extortion, it is necessary to know the sources that contribute to obtaining information about completed or impending extortion. This group of signs consists of the peculiarities of methods of committing extortion that arise as a result of mental and physical violence against the victim or persons close to him, which is manifested in a verbal threat - when the perpetrator directly or through other persons conveys to the victim a demand for the transfer of certain property or rights; as already noted, a large number of extortions are committed using communications; A significant number of extortion methods are carried out through letters or tapes that extortion criminals plant on the victim. Characteristic of these methods is that the threat is expressed not by the objects themselves, but by the content of information that is recorded on them, which cannot be said about the next two methods of extortion, when the threats used consist of demonstrating the instruments of committing a crime, as well as demonstrating the results of violence. The threat with these methods is conveyed by the form and nature of the damage. Characteristic signs arise as a result of such methods of extortion as deprivation of the rights and freedoms of the victim or his relatives, for example, kidnapping, imprisonment, restriction of activities, as well as the use of electric heating devices, deprivation of food and water, etc.

The next group of signs of extortion consists of those methods that are implemented through the threat of disclosing disgraceful information about the victim or his relatives. The leading position among them is occupied by those that are implemented through the disclosure of information about illegally obtained income, services, etc. These crimes are characterized by their latency, because the victims, knowing about the illegality of their income, prefer to pay “tribute” to the extortionists rather than report extortion to law enforcement agencies. Extortionists implement the methods of this group through uttering threats about the disclosure of secrets of commercial activities and technological processes, as well as about the disclosure of disgraceful personal information. A special group of signs of criminal activity by extortionists consists of traces of damage, damage and destruction of the property of the victim in order to persuade him to perform the actions that are required of him.

Depending on the specific investigative situation, sources of awareness of the facts of extortion may be: administrators and other service personnel of hotels, cafes, bars, nightclubs, campsites, motels, etc., where criminals spend their free time, organize gambling and theft meetings; taxi drivers; gamblers and women of immoral behavior, especially the so-called “central prostitutes” in the criminal community, owners of gambling dens, morally corrupt athletes, moving among antisocial elements. In addition to carriers of ideal images, sources of information about extortion are “mute” witnesses, physical evidence, and most often the subject of extortion itself can be attributed to them. These sources of information about extortion are usually not known and established in advance for the operative. To achieve this goal, a number of activities are being carried out to ensure the involvement of these sources in the scope of activities of entities to identify, solve and investigate crimes. For example, the criminals have not yet taken possession of the subject of extortion, this creates an investigative situation in which the victim or his relatives inform the law enforcement agency about the extortion and the intention of the criminals. Depending on the threats expressed, the ability and desire of the victim or his relatives to cooperate with the investigative agency, a system of operational search activities is carried out to ensure the receipt of primary information about the crime and the criminal. When there is a real threat to life and health, at the first stage it is not possible to fully utilize the entire arsenal of available forces and means. In particular, in this situation it is not always advisable to demonstrate the police response to the current situation: openly inspect the scene of the incident, conduct extensive interviews with people who may have witnessed extortion, door-to-door visits, calls to the internal affairs agency for relatives of the victims (especially hostages), and visits to their apartments or houses. Therefore, if it is necessary to insure the life and health of the victim, all initial operational-search measures for his release, and sometimes to guarantee the protection of the life and health of victims who are at large, are carried out encrypted.

Thus, preventive work becomes effective only if all structural units of the internal affairs department purposefully carry out the tasks assigned to them for the prevention of crimes.

2.2 Problems of improving the activities of the internal affairs department to combat extortion

Crime prevention is the most effective way to combat crime, primarily because it ensures the identification and elimination (neutralization, blocking) of its roots and sources. To a large extent, this is preemption of the very possibility of committing crimes. In the process of prevention, criminogenic factors can be subjected to directed and undirected influence when they have not yet gained strength, are in an embryonic state and therefore are easier to eliminate (neutralize, block). Along with this, the arsenal of crime prevention tools makes it possible to interrupt planned or already begun criminal activities and prevent the onset of harmful consequences of attacks on public relations. Crime prevention makes it possible to solve the problem of combating it in the most humane ways, with the least cost to society, in particular, without turning on the full force of the complex mechanism of criminal justice and without using such a form of state coercion as criminal punishment. Special crime prevention, in contrast to general crime prevention, is aimed at preventing crimes. Special purpose for identifying and eliminating (blocking, neutralizing) the causes, conditions, and other determinants of crime is its profiling, constitutive feature, the main feature. Along with this, special criminological prevention includes the prevention of planned and prepared crimes, and the suppression of initiated crimes. A special warning organically complements and specifies the general one, but special warning measures are taken in the context of its individual components and have time limits. They are strictly targeted, specialized and one way or another localized in time and space in relation to certain periods of implementation, to various sectors of the economy, etc. Depending on the moment of application (beginning of implementation), early and direct prevention of primary and prevention of recurrent crimes differs. In the first case, we are talking about identifying and eliminating possible and existing unfavorable conditions for the formation of personality, improving the microenvironment, correcting behavior, as well as the needs, interests, and views of persons who may take the criminal path. In the second, a preventive effect is exerted on persons who have already committed crimes and have been subject to criminal punishment (measures replacing it), in order to prevent them from returning to the criminal path. Special warning, minus the prevention of planned, prepared and suppression of crimes, is a criminological prevention, the object of which is the causes, conditions and other determinants of crime. Of great practical importance is the division of criminological prevention into general and individual. It is carried out in some regulations, for example, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, and serves as the basis for resolving such important issues as the delimitation of the competence of structural units - subjects of special criminological prevention, specialization of employees, analysis of results and assessment of the effectiveness of preventive measures, etc. And what is significant is that this division is based on some generally accepted provisions concerning the nature of crime and the features of its determination. It is worth noting that in order to prevent any crimes against property, it is of great importance to conduct raids by the police and the public, special preventive operations to identify vagrants and other persons without permanent residence, alcohol abusers, drug addicts, as well as places where stolen goods are sold, and the appearance of criminals -guest performers. Taking into account the high rate of recidivism of thefts, all persons previously convicted of these crimes should be under the supervision of operational police services. Means and methods of victimological prevention should be widely used. By publishing and distributing brochures, memos, booklets, the population is informed about possible attacks on homes, dachas, garden houses, motor vehicles, about tricks and tricks used by thieves, swindlers and other criminals, about technical and other methods of protecting property. Conversations between district inspectors and other police officers with citizens are held on the same issues, cashiers, watchmen, employees of hotels, rest homes, boarding houses, construction organizations, trade and other enterprises are instructed. Recently, regular “round tables” held by interested ATS services with representatives of private security structures, organized for the purpose of coordinating and streamlining joint actions, have become widespread (preferably if this had a sustainable continuation).

It is clear that the study of this crime, specific crimes, and the development of measures to prevent general acquisitive crime against property is the most important matter for criminology. In the law enforcement system, the greatest preventive function is assigned to the public security police, which are at the forefront of crime prevention. Identification and disclosure of committed crimes is, of course, an effective crime prevention measure, but it should also be noted that the effectiveness of the activities of internal affairs bodies as one of the subjects of the crime prevention system is often reduced as a result of such negative factors as:

· insufficient staff of police departments;

· low professional level of employees;

· weak material and technical base of the police department;

· a large volume of responsibilities and the need to fill out a significant number of documents that do not affect preventive practice;

· low wages, which does not contribute to increasing the professional attractiveness of the profession;

· the need to resolve issues not related to the activities of the Department of Internal Affairs;

· lack of real assistance from public organizations and various government bodies, etc.

Thus, the above indicates that the prevention of street crime, as well as general crime in general, should be carried out comprehensively, with an impact not only on directly criminogenic factors that contribute to the existence of crime in its various forms, but also by improving the structure of law enforcement agencies in order to increase the effectiveness of its work.

Conclusion

Extortion, as formulated in Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, can only be interpreted as an active action. At the same time, the concept of “extortion” is used as a constructive feature of the objective side of the crimes provided for in Art. Art. 204 (commercial bribery) and 290 (taking a bribe) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which can also be committed through inaction. This is also typical for the situation of extortion of a bribe, when an official (a person performing managerial functions) uses as a hidden threat (to force the applicant to give a bribe) failure to perform, within his discretionary powers, certain actions to the detriment of the victim.

This work covers the topic of extortion as one of the types of crimes against property. As already mentioned in the introduction, the problem of extortion has always been relevant, from the moment people acquired property. This circumstance is due to human nature, human essence, which means that as long as humanity exists, and as long as property exists, this problem will remain relevant, and therefore the study of issues related to it is not pointless.

When completing my thesis, I fully disclosed the tasks posed in the introduction, the concept of extortion was given in detail and the history of legislation regulating criminal behavior that falls under the sign of extortion was given. A criminological characteristic of extortion is given with statistical data for the region. The personality of the extortionist is characterized and the reasons for the improvement of extortion and the conditions for its commission are indicated. The activities of the Department of Internal Affairs to prevent extortion and the problems faced by employees of the Department of Internal Affairs in the fight against this type of criminal theft are disclosed in detail.

Thus, confronting crime and implementing measures aimed at preventing extortion is a task not only of the state, but also of the entire society. On the one hand, the state, implementing general social and special sets of measures to prevent crime, is obliged to provide normal conditions for the life of citizens, reduce socio-economic contradictions in society, and ensure their full protection from criminal attacks; on the other hand, citizens themselves are obliged to treat their own property more responsibly. Russian citizens sometimes imprudently, and sometimes unreasonably, shift the care of their property to other people. Sometimes it seems to them that only the police should be concerned with the protection and protection of their property.

In addition, it is necessary to legislate the concept of “blackmail” in criminal law.

The presented work fully discloses the topic of the issue and the purpose of the study.

Bibliography

1. Constitution of the Russian Federation. M.: Legal Literature. 1993 2. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation M.: Legal Literature. 2007 3. Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus. St. Petersburg 2000. 4. Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 78–098–55. 5. Abdulgaziev R.Z. Extortion under Russian criminal law. Diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. Stavropol. 2003. 6. Booth N.D. Criminological characteristics of selfish motivation for crimes in the context of the transition to market relations. Author's abstract. dis... cand. legal Sci. M. 2000. 7. Vinokurova N.S. Current problems of criminal law characteristics of extortion. M. 2004. 8. Galaktionov E.A. Criminal legal means of combating organized crime. dis. Ph.D. legal Sci. M. 2003. 9. Gaukhman L.D. Legal basis for crime prevention. M. 2000. 10. Golodnyuk M.N., Zubkova V.I. Crime prevention. M. 2000. 11. Gurov A.I. Crime situation in Russia at the turn of the 21st century. M. 2000. 12. Determinants of crime // Modern society and law enforcement agencies: problems of theory and practice: Coll. works of doctoral students, adjuncts and applicants. Vol. 18. Part 2 / Under general. ed. V.P. Salnikova. St. Petersburg 2003. 13. Dolgova A.I. Criminology. M. 2001. 14. Zelinsky A.F. Criminal motivation for theft and other selfish criminal activities. Kyiv. 2000. 15. Ismailov I.A. Problems of crime prevention. Baku. 2000. 16. Source study of the history of the USSR / Under. ed. Kovalchenko I.D.M. 1981. 17. Kolesnikova T.V. Forensic characteristics of criminal groups committing extortion. Diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. Saratov. 2000. 18. Kochoi S.M. Responsibility for mercenary crimes. M. 2000. 19. Kochoi S.M. Crimes against property. M. 2001. 20. Criminological characteristics of crime // Society and law: Coll. works of doctoral students, adjuncts and applicants. Vol. 17. Part 2 / Under general. ed. V.P. Salnikova St. Petersburg. 2003. 21. Criminology. Textbook / Under general. ed. Yu.F. Kvashi. Rostov-on-Don. 2002. 22. Criminology: Textbook / Ed. acad. V.N. Kudryavtseva, prof. E.F. Eminova. M. 2003. 23. Kudryavtsev V.N. Genesis of the crime. M. 2002. 24. Litvinov V.I. Selfish attacks on personal property and their prevention. Minsk. 2000 25. Lozovitskaya G.P. General comparative legal commentary and comparative tables of criminal codes of member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Part 2.2006. 26. Martsev A.I., Maksimov S.V. General crime prevention and its effectiveness. Tomsk 2001. 27. Perov I.F. Criminal legal and criminological issues of combating extortion. M. 2001. 28. Petrov E.I., Marchenko R.N., Barinova L.V. Criminological characteristics and prevention of economic crimes: Textbook. – M.: Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2005. 29. Pinaev A.A. Criminal law fight against theft. Kharkiv. 2005. 30. Crime prevention // State-legal policy in Russia: problems and development prospects: Coll. works of doctoral students, adjuncts and applicants. Vol. 20 / Under general ed. V.P. Salnikova. St. Petersburg 2004. 31. Rastegaev A.A. Analysis of common criminal mercenary crime // Methodology of crime analysis. M. 2004 32. Samoilov V.G. The essence of the legal foundations of ATS. M. 2001. 33. Sergievsky V.A., Orynbaev R. Problems of crime prevention. Alma-Ata. 2001 34. Skorilkina N.A. Group forms of extortion. Author's abstract. diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. M., 2005. 35. Solodovnikov S.A. Crimes in the sphere of property relations of citizens. M. 2003. 36. The state of crime in Russia for 2006. – M.: Main information center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. 2007. 37. Stupina S.A. Criminal legal and criminological problems of combating extortion. Diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. Irkutsk 2002. 38. Law books of the XV–XVI centuries / Under. total ed. Grekova B.D.M. 1992. 39. Taibakov A.A. Personality of the criminal and the victim of mercenary attacks (experience of criminological and sociological research) / Ed. V.P. Salnikova. Petrozavodsk. 2000. 40. Taibakov A.A. Socio-criminological study of mercenary crime in the European North of Russia and its prevention by internal affairs bodies. Diss...doc. legal Sci. St. Petersburg 2002. 41. Ufalov A.G. Problems of improving the criminal legal regulation of liability for extortion and blackmail. Diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. Saratov. 2003. 42. Chetverikov V.S., Chetverikov V.V., Criminology, textbook, M. 2000. 43. Strain S.I. Code of laws of 1497. M. 1995. 44. Shumov R.N. Criminological characteristics and prevention of crimes committed in the housing market. Diss. Ph.D. legal Sci. M. 2003

Application

Table 1. Number of registered extortions in 2006 and 2007

Table 2. Number of uncovered extortions in 2006 and 2007

Preventing extortion is one of the areas in the fight against crime.

Timely implementation of activities to prevent crime, including extortion, will ensure the solution of other problems (economic, political, ideological, social, moral, organizational, etc.).

The essence of this crime, which is expressed in Part 1 of Art. 208 of the Criminal Code, is a requirement to transfer property or the right to property or to commit any actions of a property nature under the threat of violence against the victim or his relatives, destruction or damage to their property, dissemination of slanderous or disclosure of other information that they wish to keep secret ( extortion).

The principle of democracy means that the prevention of extortion is carried out under the control of representative authorities, public associations and taking into account public opinion.

The forms of measures to prevent crimes, including extortion, depend decisively on the stage of pre-criminal, criminal and post-criminal activity (in the prevention of ongoing criminal activity and criminal recidivism) they are carried out, namely at the stages of the emergence of the causes and conditions of the crime: their formation, “maturation”; external manifestations, direct action (causing, conditioning); formation of intentions and plans to commit crimes; intent detection; preparations for a crime; unfinished assassination attempt; completed assassination attempt.

Prevention of crimes, including extortion, can be of three types (forms):

social (general) prevention (preventive impact on the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of extortion in general);

actual criminological prevention (prevention of types and forms of criminal behavior, prevention of extortion by certain social groups of persons); (9, p. 400)

individual criminological prevention (prevention of extortion by individuals).

General prevention includes the activities of the state, society, and their institutions, aimed at resolving contradictions in the field of economics, social life, in the moral and spiritual sphere, etc. It is carried out by various government and administrative bodies, public formations for which the function of crime prevention is not the main or professional one. The preventive effect is achieved due to the successful implementation of socio-economic policy as a whole. In this sense, we can say: what this policy is, so is the general social prevention of extortion in society.

Criminological prevention of extortion is an activity specifically aimed at preventing the commission of extortion. It includes criminal legal and special criminological prevention.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Recommended list of dissertations

Extortion under Russian criminal law 2003, candidate of legal sciences Abdulgaziev, Rustam Zaurbekovich

Extortion involving minors as an object of criminological research 2002, candidate of legal sciences Filchenko, Andrey Petrovich

Criminal legal and criminological aspects of combating extortion: based on materials from the Krasnodar Territory 2011, candidate of legal sciences Chkhvimiani, Eduard Zhulyenovich

Criminal legal and criminological problems of combating extortion 2002, candidate of legal sciences Stupina, Svetlana Aleksandrovna

Extortion and related crimes: Criminological aspect of the study 2001, candidate of legal sciences Shegabudinov, Ravil Shaykhlislanovich

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Extortion and measures to prevent it”

Similar dissertations majoring in Criminal Law and Criminology; criminal-executive law", 12.00.08 code VAK

Extortion in the system of crimes against property: criminological analysis and prevention 2005, Candidate of Legal Sciences Bogomolov, Andrey Anatolyevich

Criminal legal and criminological characteristics of extortion 1998, Candidate of Legal Sciences Koryagina, Olga Valentinovna

Determinants of extortion and features of its prevention in a super-large city 2004, candidate of legal sciences Zharikov, Rustem Aleksandrovich

Criminal liability for extortion: comparative legal analysis of Russian and foreign criminal legislation 2004, candidate of legal sciences Lechiev, Ruslan Samovdinovich

The identity of the criminal and the victim in the mechanism of extortion and the prevention of these crimes 2003, Candidate of Legal Sciences Vinokurova, Natalia Sergeevna

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Criminal law and criminology; criminal-executive law", Buranova, Anna Galievna

List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Legal Sciences Buranova, Anna Galievna, 2011

Read also