Art. 286 of the Criminal Code. Abuse of power

The excess of official powers (Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) formulates responsibility for the actions of persons (employees of state and local authorities) who explicitly go beyond their competence. Sanctions are imposed in the event of a significant violation of the interests and rights of organizations or citizens, society, and the state. Let us further consider the adopted changes in Art. 286 of the Criminal Code.

Sanctions

The total corpus delicti under art. 286 of the Criminal Code suggests a sentence of:

1. Fine. Its value is up to 80 thousand rubles. or equal to the amount of the guilty income / salary for a period of up to 6 months.
2. Forced labor. Their duration is up to 4 years.
3. The ban on the implementation of certain activities or stay at a particular post for up to 5 years.
4. Imprisonment up to 4 years.
5. Arrest for 4-6 months.

Qualifying signs

Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in part 2 establishes punishment for the above acts if they are committed by a person who is in a public office of the Russian Federation or a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as acting as head of the local authority. In these cases, the sanctions are as follows:

1. Fine 100-300 thousand rubles. or in the amount of the salary (income from another source) of the convict for 1-2 years.
2. 5 years of forced labor.
3. Up to 7 years in prison.

In the last two cases, in addition to the basic punishment, the court may impose a ban on the performance of a specific professional activity or stay in certain posts for up to 3 years.

Aggravating circumstances of part 3

The acts that are provided for in part 1 and part 2 of article 286 of the Criminal Code, can be committed:

• Using special equipment or weapons.
• With causing serious consequences.
• With the use of violence or with the threat of their use.

In these cases, the perpetrator faces imprisonment of 3 to 10 years with a ban on certain activities or stay in specific positions.

Comments

The charge under Art. 286 of the Criminal Code may be presented in the event of the commission of active actions. Moreover, they should clearly go beyond its competence and entail a significant violation of legitimate interests and violation of the rights of others. This act involves indirect or direct intent. In Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation there is an indication of a clear departure from the scope of its competence. It should be obvious, rude, substantial. This category is considered a value concept.

Materiality is established in each case individually. To determine the nature of the actions, it is first necessary to establish the scope of rights and obligations assigned to the suspect, as well as his competence. They are formulated in various regulatory documents. These include, in particular, an employment contract, order, instructions, orders, decrees, law. In case of failure to prove beyond competence, an acquittal is issued . Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is applicable only in the case of an indisputable and obvious departure of the actions of the subject beyond its competence, professional duties and rights.

Objective part

On this side, abuse of authority can be expressed in actions that:

1. Committed in the event of special circumstances. They must, in turn, be determined by a normative act. For example, under Art. 286 of the Criminal Code will qualify the use of weapons in relation to a minor, if his behavior did not pose a real threat to other people.
2. They cannot be committed under any circumstances.
3. Relate to the competence of another employee (equal in status or higher).
4. Done individually, but only collegially or in accordance with the procedure laid down in the law, by agreement with other persons or bodies.

As for the prohibited actions, they can be expressed, for example, in the beating of a detained person or a detainee, causing harm to their health.

Explanation of the Plenum of the Sun

The court ruling noted that when examining the materials, it was necessary to find out specifically what documents established the obligations and rights of the suspect. They must be given in the sentence. In addition, the decision should contain indications of specific duties and rights beyond which the suspect went beyond, with links to the relevant norms (articles, parts, paragraphs).

Subjective part

The motives for committing the crime in question can be completely different. For example, self-interest, revenge, careerism can move individuals. These motives do not matter in the process of qualifying the offense under Art. 286 of the Criminal Code. The subject of the act is special. It is only an official.

Use of violence

This is an aggravating circumstance for the act, which is formulated in Art. 286 of the Criminal Code. In this case, violence is understood to mean causing physical harm to the victim. This includes beating, deliberate moderate and slight harm to health, torture and so on. Murder or serious injuries are further qualified by Art. 105 and Art. 111 of the Criminal Code, respectively.

Threats

They must be real. This means that the victim must have reason to fear the actual realization of threats to the perpetrators. This circumstance is not further qualified under Art. 119 of the Criminal Code. The threat of grievous harm or murder is covered by the composition of the article in question.

Use of special equipment or weapons

It must be factual. It can be expressed physically in the contact of weapons, special equipment or their elements with the body of the victim, as well as psychologically - a blow with a club near him or a shot in the vicinity of the object of the crime, but by. In the latter case, the threat should be perceived as real. If the suspect only shows weapons or special equipment, and there is no real danger to the victim, the behavior of the offender, if there are other grounds, can qualify as a threat of violence in the framework of the article in question. To be held accountable, it must be established what exactly the suspect in violation of the requirements, limits and conditions for using these items established in the legislation used.

Grave consequences

They are also formulated in the third part of the commented article. Determining the grave consequences is considered evaluative. It is formulated in accordance with the specific circumstances in which the act was committed. Severe consequences include, for example, such consequences as a major accident, a long stoppage of transport, disruption of the enterprise (production failure), death due to negligence, suicide or attempt on the victim, and so on. This category also includes harm to health. Additional qualifications in this case under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code is not implemented if liability would be provided for in the first or second parts of this article. In other cases, the act is considered together. Qualification of the crime, which is provided for in part 3 of article 286 of the Criminal Code, qualified with the addition of Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code when the intent of the perpetrator to inflict grievous bodily harm to the victim is proved.

Cause of death

Additional qualifications under Art. 109 does not require the death of the victim through negligence of a person who has exceeded official authority. If the act under the commented article was accompanied by the intention to take the life of another person, then he is imputed in the aggregate. In this case, the crime is considered under Part 3 of Art. 286 and Art. 105 of the Criminal Code.

Important point

If an official inflicted moderate or severe harm to the state of health of the victim or careless death in conditions of going beyond the necessary defense or the limits established by law for measures applied during the detention of a person, the act is covered by Art. 114 or 108 of the Criminal Code. In this case, it does not qualify additionally for the article under consideration. This clarification is given in the Decision of the Armed Forces No. 19.

Additionally

Significant infringement of interests or violation of the rights of organizations or citizens are considered value concepts. They, like other similar categories, are considered specifically for each case. The corpus delicti is material in its construction. The act is considered completed from the moment the consequences provided for in the commented article.

Conclusion

In the modern world, cases of abuse of authority by employees are more likely a rarity. At a certain period in Russia such acts were very common. However, with tougher penalties, these cases are quite rare. The most common such acts were among law enforcement officials. The limitation period for the case is established in accordance with Art. 78 of the Code and depends on the severity of the consequences. To be held accountable, it is necessary to prove intent. Establishing a goal and motive for the act does not matter. When qualifying a crime under Part 3 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code should be guided by the Federal Law "On Weapons", as well as other normative acts, which list the special means. For example, it may be a government Decree No. 1436. It regulates the procedure and conditions for the use of special equipment and firearms by employees of private security.