Ratio of the Continuing and Ongoing Offences

About the author:

Roman S. Pozdishev, Cand. Sci. (Jur.), Senior Lecturer, Department of Preliminary Investigation, Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Internal Affairs Ministry of Russia; rmanpzdyshev@rambler.ru

Abstract:

This article studies the ratio of such legal facts, as the continuing and ongoing offenses, the identification of which is the purpose of the author’s research. The relevance of this subject is due to the synonymity of such participles as “continuing” and “ongoing”, which is one of the causes why the law enforcement officials have difficulties when qualifying offenses as such. Besides, until recently, these phenomena have been sufficiently studied only in the framework of such branch legal sciences as penal and administrative law.

However, at the law theory level, the continuing and ongoing delicts became the subject of the research for the first time, which indicates the scientific novelty of the current work.

In this article, relying on the signs of the lasting and continued offenses created primarily in the penal law, the author formulates general legal criteria of differentiation of these phenomena. They include the following: 1) a mediation of the delict continuing offenses through the objective side of the delict, and ongoing — through the subjective side; 2) the continuing offenses are characterized by a continuous illegal state while the ongoing delicts include several identical acts united by a single criminal purpose.

Based on the conducted research with the purpose of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement and respect for the principles of legality, justice, and inadmissibility of double punishment for one act, the author proposes introducing amendments to the current legislation. He offers to supplement the article 12.19 of the RF Administrative Offences Code with the qualified structure containing the aggravating factor — the violation of the rules of the parking of vehicles lasting more than 8 hours.

References:

1. Slavyanskiy dom knigi, 2016. Bol’shoy etimologicheskiy slovar’ russkogo yazyka [The Great Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language]. Moscow: Slavyanskiy dom knigi.
2. Garbatovich D. A., Sumskiy D. V. 2015. “Otgranicheniye sovokupnosti prestupleniy ot edinichnykh slozhnykh prestupleniy” [The Delimitation of the Totality of Crimes from Single Complex Crimes]. Ugolovnoye pravo, no 1, pp. 28-34.
3. Klepitskiy I. A. 2004. “Evolyutsiya norm ob otvetstvennosti za ukloneniye ot uplaty nalogov” [Evolution of the Rules on Responsibility for Tax Evasion]. Zakonodatel’stvo, no 6, pp. 26.
4. RF Code on Administrative Offenses of 30 December 2001 no 195-FZ. Sobranie zakonov Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2002, no 1 (part 1), art. 1.
5. RF General Prosecutor’s Office Order no 39, RF Ministry of Internal Affairs Order no 1070, RF Ministry of Emergency Situations Order no 1021, RF Ministry of Justice Order no 253, RF Federal Security Service Order no 780, RF Ministry of Economic Development Order no 353, RF Federal Drug Control Service Order no 399 of 29 December 2005 “O edinom uchete prestupleniy” [On the Uniform Accounting of Crimes]. SPS “Konsul’tantPlyus”.
6. USSR Supreme Court Plenum’s Resolution of 4 March 1929 (as amended by USSR Supreme Court Plenum’s Resolution of 14 March 1963 no 1) “Ob usloviyakh primeneniya davnosti i amnistii k dlyashchimsya i prodolzhayemym prestupleniyam” [On Conditions for the Application of Prescription and Amnesty to Continuing and Continuing Crimes]. (Unpublished.)
7. Tambov Regional Court. “Obzor apellyatsionnoy praktiki po ugolovnym delam Tambovskogo oblastnogo suda za 1 polugodiye 2015 goda po delu no 22- 21/15” [Review of Appeal Practice in Criminal Cases of the Tambov Regional Court for the 1st half of 2015 in case No. 22-21/15]. Accessed on 20 March 2017. http://oblsud.tmb.sudrf.ru/modules.php?name=docum_sud&id=120
8. Pastukhov I., Yani P. S. 1999. “Otvetstvennost’ za nalogovyye prestupleniya” [Responsibility for Tax Crimes]. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya, no 4, pp. 23-25.
9. Pozdyshev R. S. 2016. “Dlyashcheyesya pravonarusheniye v administrativnom i ugolovnom zakonodatel’stve: teoretiko-pravovoy analiz” [Continuing Offense in Administrative and Criminal Legislation: A Theoretical-Legal Analysis]. Vestnik Nizhegorodskoy akademii MVD Rossii, no 3, pp. 184-190.
10. Volgograd Region, Judicial District no 21 Resolution on the case of administrative offense no 5-21-317/2012. Accessed on 15 April 2017. http://21.vol.msudrf.ru/modules.php?name=sud_delo&op=sd&number=37215808&delo_id=1500001
11. Irkutsk Region, Ust-Uda District Court Decision of 3 April 2012. Accessed on 20 March 2017. http://domybxy.infocourt.ru/car_ust-udinsky-irk_irkutskobl_sfo/ug/2311785/prigovor-po-st-110-uk-rf--... 
12. Ulyanovsk, Zasviyazhsky District Court Decision of 12 July 2013. Accessed on 15 April 2017. https://sudact.ru/regular/doc/SZzflqTZtpYl/ 
13. Samara Regional Court Decision of 25 June 2015 on the case no 21-601/2015. Accessed on 15 April 2017. https://rospravosudie.com/court-samarskij-oblastnoj-sud-samarskaya-oblast-s/act-495647331/ 
14. RF Criminal Code of 13 June 1996 no 63-FZ. Sobranie zakonov Rossiyskoy Federatsii, no 25, art. 2954.
15. Chernenko T., Silayev S. 2010. “O sostoyanii dlyashchikhsya i prodolzhayemykh prestupleniy (na primere ukloneniya ot uplaty nalogov i sborov)” [On the Status of Continuing and Continuing Crimes (For Example, Evasion of Taxes and Fees)]. Ugolovnoye pravo, no 4, pp. 73-78.
16. Shilnova N. 2013. Bol’shoy slovar’ sinonimov i antonimov russkogo yazyka [Great Dictionary of Synonyms and Antonyms of the Russian Language]. Moscow: Slavyanskiy dom knigi.
17. Yani P. S. 1999. “Nalogovyye prestupleniya” [Tax Crimes]. Zakonodatel’stvo, no 11-12.