Self-government (Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) is considered today one of the most common methods of criminally resolving property disputes. As the subjects of the act are, as a rule, the heads and responsible employees of enterprises of different ownership forms. Illegal behavior is often characteristic of government officials. Let us further consider in detail the phenomenon of arbitrariness.
Art. 330 of the Criminal Code
Normally, the nature of illegal actions is determined and punishment is established. Qualification under this article is carried out if there is an unauthorized, inconsistent with the procedure established by law or other regulatory act, the performance of any actions that, due to their unlawfulness, are disputed by a citizen or organization if substantial harm has followed them. According to Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for such behavior provides for several types of punishment.
- Fine up to 80 thousand rubles. or in an amount equal to s / n (other income) for six months.
- Mandatory work up to 480 hours.
- Arrest up to six months.
- Up to 2 years of corrective labor.
For the acts established in Part 1 of Art. 330 of the Criminal Code, the sentence is relatively mild. In particular, there is no imprisonment or forced labor among the sanctions. The punishment is toughened if there are qualifying signs.
Aggravating circumstances
In the second part of Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the corpus delicti is supplemented by qualifying features. For example, the act indicated above may be committed with the use of violent acts or under their threat. In this case, the following types of punishment are provided:
- Forced labor up to 5 years.
- Arrest up to six months.
- Up to 5 years in prison.
As you can see, the penalty is excluded from the list of sanctions, as well as corrective and compulsory labor.
Commentary on Art. 330 of the Criminal Code
The objective part of the act is unauthorized, unlawful, inconsistent with the established procedure for the commission of actions. Their legality is disputed by a legal entity or a citizen. Illegal behavior is always expressed in active action. It may contradict a government decree, the Federal Law, a regulatory act of a local government structure, and so on. Challenging the behavior of the perpetrator may be carried out in a disciplinary, judicial or administrative manner. This right can be exercised both directly during the commission of actions, and after that.
Public danger
It lies in the fact that the act violates the order of realization by the subjects of their interests and rights, established by the norms. Along with this, the behavior of the perpetrator brings significant harm to the victims. It is caused by the inability to exercise their own rights and interests. The corpus delicti is formulated as material. As a mandatory criterion for qualification acts causing significant damage. It can be applied to organizations or citizens. It is expressed in moral harm, property damage, infringement of interests and so on. Its significance is assessed by the court at the time of the commission of illegal actions.
Subjective part
This side of the act under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code is characterized by intentional guilt. The subject understands the degree of danger of his behavior to society. He realizes that his actions are not consistent with the law or the provisions of another normative act. Thus, he arbitrarily commits something that can subsequently be challenged by a citizen or organization. Guilty implies the inevitability or the possibility of significant damage. But he consciously admits or wants his advance or treats such probability with indifference. A sane citizen who has reached 16 years of age may be held liable (under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). If an unlawful act is committed by an official or employee in a private detective / security service, his behavior is assessed in accordance with Article 203, 201, 285 or 286 of the Code.
Qualifying signs
They are established by the second part of Art. 330 of the Criminal Code. These signs are: the use of violence, the threat of its use. In the case of causing a careless death, as well as serious damage to health, with arbitrariness, the act is qualified additionally under the relevant articles. As a threat of violence, they understand warnings about killing or beating of various severity. The actual infliction of severe damage is additionally qualified under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code.
Delineation from other acts
Some actions that qualify under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code, constitute independent criminal actions. For example, they are provided for in articles 260, 140, 139, 137, 166 of the Code. Moreover, the behavior falling under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code, it is necessary to differentiate, delimit from administrative misconduct on the grounds of the absence of significant damage, as well as aggravating circumstances (the use of violence or its threat).
Features of the implementation of actions
Self-government can manifest itself in the process of exercising the rights that a citizen is legally endowed with if the procedure for their implementation is violated. For example, when a lender seizes a borrower's property to collect a debt without his consent and without a court order. Self-government also takes place when the guilty person mistakenly believes that he has the authority to perform certain actions. Such behavioral acts should be considered unlawful when, in collecting a debt, the lender or entities hired by him use violence against the borrower. Objectively, these actions are similar to robbery, extortion or robbery. But since the use of violence acts as a way of realizing the property law belonging to the perpetrator, his behavior should be considered in the commented article. As mentioned above, in the event of grievous bodily harm, the act is additionally qualified under the relevant criminal articles.
Important point
A person may commit self-acting using official position. In this case, it is responsible for the excess or abuse of authority under Art. 286, 285 of the Criminal Code. An entity that performs managerial work in a commercial or public structure that has committed arbitrariness is held liable under Article 201 of the Code.
Conclusion
In the context of the economic and financial crisis, there has been an increase in the number of crimes related to property or in relation to property accompanied by arbitrariness. Some analysts believe that this situation will continue after the country's exit from an unstable state. Experts explain this by the fact that the reasons for arbitrariness are the weakening of state power, the imperfection of legislation and the judicial system, and other negative phenomena of modern life. However, it should be said that this kind of behavior was common in the old days. For example, in the course of socio-economic transformations in the 90s, arbitrariness manifested itself quite often in resolving property disputes. The types of such actions are diverse and encroach on different objects. Among them, in addition to property relations, it is worth noting dignity and honor, human health and life, management procedures, and so on.