Вестник Томского государственного университета, 2011 N346,
С.103-106.
Раскрываются основные теоретические аспекты норм международного права в рамках ответственности за фальшивомонетничество, возможные санкции, специфика их применения, перспективы совершенствования законодательства. Отражается специфика привлечения физических лиц к уголовной ответственности за подделку денежных знаков в рамках норм международного уголовного права. Проводится анализ санкций, применяемых государствами в национальном законодательстве, рассматривается их соотношение. Рассматриваются вопросы эффективного применения Международной конвенции по борьбе с подделкой денежных знаков, возможность изменения ряда норм; анализируются смягчающие и отягчающие обстоятельства, в том числе их влияние на назначение наказания. Проводится разграничение ответственности физических лиц за государственное и индивидуальное фальшивомонетничество и рассматриваются проблемы разграничения такой ответственности в международном праве.
This article reveals the basic content of inteational law under the responsibility of individuals for counterfeiting, the specifics of its application, and the prospects for improving the legislation. The principle of personal liability of individuals is given. Preventive value of inteational law in combating crime depends on the joint efforts of states in the elaboration of measures to bring individuals to inteational criminal liability. Inteational crimes are committed by people, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who committed them, the instructions of inteational law can be observed. Consequently, along with the responsibility of the state the principle of personal responsibility of individuals is recognized. The subjects of the crime, along with the states, are individuals who are also responsible. This is a correct and fair position, as the state involved in counterfeiting always acts through its officers. Thus, the crime is committed as a result of actions or omissions of individuals. The article presents the delimitation of personal criminal responsibility of individuals for counterfeiting individual criminal responsibility under state counterfeiting. Since the problem of punishment of individuals for counterfeiting is quite complex, national legislations should develop penal provisions, which would reflect the relevant inteational legal norms and should allow punishment of offenders. In this connection it is expedient to establish the same penalties for similar crimes under inteational regulations in different states. The article discusses the possibility of signing agreements between states of a partial harmonization of national criminal laws, including in the area of penalties for counterfeiting. This would create a legal framework, which other states could join. In imposing sentence, all the circumstances are to be considered: the severity of the danger of this crime for interstate relations, damage, etc. If in this regard to consider not only mitigating, but also aggravating circumstances, we should say that the list of circumstances existing in national law is not always sufficient to assess the crimes and criminals, as well as to sentence them properly.
Раскрываются основные теоретические аспекты норм международного права в рамках ответственности за фальшивомонетничество, возможные санкции, специфика их применения, перспективы совершенствования законодательства. Отражается специфика привлечения физических лиц к уголовной ответственности за подделку денежных знаков в рамках норм международного уголовного права. Проводится анализ санкций, применяемых государствами в национальном законодательстве, рассматривается их соотношение. Рассматриваются вопросы эффективного применения Международной конвенции по борьбе с подделкой денежных знаков, возможность изменения ряда норм; анализируются смягчающие и отягчающие обстоятельства, в том числе их влияние на назначение наказания. Проводится разграничение ответственности физических лиц за государственное и индивидуальное фальшивомонетничество и рассматриваются проблемы разграничения такой ответственности в международном праве.
This article reveals the basic content of inteational law under the responsibility of individuals for counterfeiting, the specifics of its application, and the prospects for improving the legislation. The principle of personal liability of individuals is given. Preventive value of inteational law in combating crime depends on the joint efforts of states in the elaboration of measures to bring individuals to inteational criminal liability. Inteational crimes are committed by people, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who committed them, the instructions of inteational law can be observed. Consequently, along with the responsibility of the state the principle of personal responsibility of individuals is recognized. The subjects of the crime, along with the states, are individuals who are also responsible. This is a correct and fair position, as the state involved in counterfeiting always acts through its officers. Thus, the crime is committed as a result of actions or omissions of individuals. The article presents the delimitation of personal criminal responsibility of individuals for counterfeiting individual criminal responsibility under state counterfeiting. Since the problem of punishment of individuals for counterfeiting is quite complex, national legislations should develop penal provisions, which would reflect the relevant inteational legal norms and should allow punishment of offenders. In this connection it is expedient to establish the same penalties for similar crimes under inteational regulations in different states. The article discusses the possibility of signing agreements between states of a partial harmonization of national criminal laws, including in the area of penalties for counterfeiting. This would create a legal framework, which other states could join. In imposing sentence, all the circumstances are to be considered: the severity of the danger of this crime for interstate relations, damage, etc. If in this regard to consider not only mitigating, but also aggravating circumstances, we should say that the list of circumstances existing in national law is not always sufficient to assess the crimes and criminals, as well as to sentence them properly.