CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR FRAUD IN LENDING: PROBLEMS OF ENFORCEMENT

• Main Authors: Farit Gabdrakhmanov, Ruslan Makarov, Sergey Matveev, Evgenia Prygunova
• Format: Article
• Language: Russian
• Published: Inter-regional Institute for Spatial Development 2016-02-01
• Series: Krymskij Naučnyj Vestnik
• Subjects: criminal law; crimes against property; fraud; lending; 159.1 of the criminal code
• Online Access: http://krvestnik.ru/pub/2016/04/04-Gabdrakhmanov-Makarov-Matveev-Prygunova.pdf

In article on the basis of the analysis of special literature and court practice considers the problems associated with the qualification of fraud in lending (article 159.1 of the criminal code), the delimitation of related offences. The analysis of the application of article 159.1 of the criminal code of the Russian Federation revealed the ambiguity of approaches of researchers and legal professionals in matters of determination of legal concepts, objective and subjective signs of a crime, in separating it from adjoining structures. For example, this refers to the content of the concepts of «submission of knowingly false and (or) unreliable information», «money», «lending» or establish any guilty intent on stealing money, etc. The greatest difficulties faced by the judicial practice, related with the necessity to determine the type of participation and qualification of actions of accomplices of a crime, including not possessing signs of the special subject. The authors believe that the definition of the word «borrower» in civil and criminal legal value do not match. Disposition of part 2 of article 159.1 of the criminal code provides the offence by the special entity (borrower) to a group of persons upon a preliminary collusion, goes beyond the common understanding of the doctrine of complicity. Meanwhile, the practice of applying art. 159.1 of the criminal code allows for qualification of actions of accomplices of a crime, including a special entity (the borrower), as committed by a group of persons upon a preliminary collusion. Obviously, this doctrinal complexity of the plan needed clarification of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The study used a dialectical-materialist, comparative-legal, theoretical, applied and formal legal methods.