Issues of Legislative Design and Peculiarities of Practical Application of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The article is devoted to the study of problems of application of the norm of the criminal law that provides for responsibility for evading administrative supervision. The analysis of the legislative design of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has revealed shortcomings associated with different interpretation of the term "contingency" in relation to the Article in question. The author has analyzed the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation with respect of the application of the rule on imposition of responsibility for evading administrative supervision. The article shows the problems encountered in the course of implementation of administrative supervision and identification of elements of a crime under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code in the actions of supervised persons. In particular, the issues related to the need for the supervised person to live at the place of residence or place of stay are raised, and attention is focused on the employment opportunities of a supervised person in another locality. On the example of the Irkutsk region, the employment data with respect of supervised persons are analyzed. The content of such an evaluation element as a legitimate excuse is elucidated. The criteria for "unwarranted" leaving of the place of residence or place of stay are determined. Special attention is paid to the subjective side that includes the purpose of evasion as a compulsory element. The article examines the peculiarities of judicial practice of application of the norm concerning responsibility applied for evading administrative supervision. Recommendations have been developed to improve legislation in this field, the author's wording of the Article in question has been proposed. Explanations are offered concerning the interpretation of such terms as recurrence, repetitiveness, malignancy, contingency. Also, the issues regarding differentiating administrative supervision as a measure of post-penitentiary rehabilitation from such punishment as restriction of freedom are considered. The author gives arguments in favor of the equal existence of the two mentioned institutions. The stance concerning double imputability when the person who has served a sentence is subjected to administrative supervision is refuted. Attention is drawn to the moment since which a supervised person is considered to have committed an administrative offense. The article examines the peculiarities of qualifying evasion from administrative supervision as a crime of prejudicial character and gives recommendations concerning the application of the rule under consideration including the rule formulated by the author.

administrative supervision, recurrence, repetitiveness, malignancy, contingency, restriction of freedom, administrative prejudice, purpose of evasion, legitimate excuse, limitations determined by the court

1. Астахова А. О. Уголовно-правовые последствия административного надзора и ограничения свободы // Вестник Омского университета. - 2015. - № 2. - С. 230-232.

2. Бавсун М. В., Вишнякова Н. В. Сопряженность как уголовно-правовая категория // Общество и право. - 2014. - № 4. - С. 64-68.

3. Дружинин А. В. Уголовная ответственность за неоднократное несоблюдение установленных судом административных ограничений // Проблемы правоохранительной деятельности. - 2016. - № 2. - С. 57-60.

4. Сидоренко Э. Л. Особенности квалификации преступлений преюдиционного характера // Общество и право. - 2016. - № 1. - С. 60-66.