ЮрИнфоР >>> Институт актуального образования "ЮрИнфоР-МГУ" >>> Конференции и круглые столы >>>

International conference organized by "JurInfoR-MSU" Institute for Contemporary Education, “JurInfoR” center, the Criminalists and Criminologists’ Union (Moscow), and the U.S. Department of Justice, 20-21 May, 1997, Moscow

On combating new types of economic crimes in Russia and the United States

Criminal Law Norms vis-а-vis Real Crime Structure

Mikhail Yurievich Voronin

1. Economic crimes are committed where and when opportunities exist to compete with the legal economy in producing the most profitable goods and services. Importantly, economic crime rates mirror the condition of the legal economy: the worse the condition, the higher the incomes of economic offenders. According to specialists, latency rates for some types of economic crimes exceed 90%.

2. Normal functioning of the economy, especially during a transition period, is guaranteed not only by successful economic reform, but also by criminal law. This is due to the fact that civil, financial, exchange control, tax, and customs legislation is applied in a situation where fair business practices are not yet strong enough or taken for granted. Criminal law bans do a lot to consolidate legality and stability in the economy. However, analysis of investigative and judicial practices indicates that application of laws is hindered by insufficient attention to the exploration of criminal law’s effectiveness against economic crimes, including detection of contradictions and gaps. It is common knowledge that gaps in the Criminal Code of 1960 were a leading crime determinant.

3. A historical analysis indeed indicates a considerable lag that existed between criminal legislation and the more rapid development of social relations.

4. It is widely believed that the new Criminal Code will make it possible to combat economic crimes at a new level of effectiveness. However, the Code creates no prerequisites for applying norms of liability for a number of offenses. The apparent abundance of provisions banning dangerous economic behavior conceals extreme indefiniteness, which makes them potentially difficult or impossible to apply.¹ For example, the wording of Article 169 may be applied even to misconduct subject to disciplinary regulations. Article 182 definitions are entirely assessing in meaning and require clarification. Specification of options available and detailed official interpretation thereof is the condition for the development of stable investigative and judicial practices.

Copyright (c) 1996-2001 Институт актуального образования ЮрИнфоР-МГУ
Замечания и предложения просьба присылать группе разработки Института "ЮрИнфоР-МГУ"