On the signs of official forgery
https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-7306-2024-1-3-129-135
EDN: DOJSXA
Abstract
The article reveals the problems of legislative regulation of provisions on official forgery as a crime; these include understanding of the official document, use of official positions with special crimes, forms of acts in official forgery. Blanket disposition part 1 art. 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation makes it difficult for law enforcement officers to have a uniform understanding of the subject of official forgery, and therefore there is a need to study the concept of an official document as the subject of a crime. An analysis of the legislative definitions of “document”, “official document”, as
well as an explanation of the subject of official forgery presented in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, made it possible, in order to bring judicial practice to uniformity, to conclude that it is advisable to supplement Art. 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with a note on the concept of an official document as the subject of official forgery.
About the Authors
O. Yu. Krasovskaya
Saratov State Law Academy
Россия
Россия
Oksana Yu. Krasovskaya, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department
Department of Criminal and Criminal-Executive Law
Saratov
E. N. Konina
Saratov State Law Academy
Россия
Россия
Elena N. Konina, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department
Department of Theory of State and Law
Saratov
References
1. Vasyagina M. M., Shigurov A. V. The concept of an official document as a subject of official forgery: problems of legal regulation and law enforcement practice. Herald of the Russian Law Academy. 2023;(3):66-75. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.33874/2072-9936-2023-0-3-66-75.
2. Tkachev A. V. Legal status of computer documents: main characteristics. Moscow: "Gorodets"; 2000. 95 p. (In Russ.)
3. Surovtseva N. G. Transformation of document attributes in an electronic environment. Herald of an Archivist. 2024;(1):140-153.
4. Sabennikova I. V. Electronic documents in the archive information exchange system. Herald of an Archivist. 2021;(2):520-531.
5. Bachteev D. V. Pre-expert verification of forged signatures: human and machine approaches. Russian law: education, practice, science. 2023;(4):4-10.
6. Bukalerova L. A. Criminal legal protection of official information circulation. Komossarov V. S., Pikurov N. E. (eds.). Moscow: "Yurlitinform"; 2006. 360 p. (In Russ.)
7. Plotnikov S. I., Sbitnev V. S. Subject of office forgery. Ural Journal of Legal Research. 2021;1(14):42-47. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.34076/2658_512X_2021_1_42.
8. Kuznetsov A. V. Responsibility for forgery of documents under criminal law. Moscow: "Gosyurizdat"; 1959. 111 p. (In Russ.)
9. Borkov V. Topical issues of application of the rule on official forgery. Criminal law. 2008;(5):8-14. (In Russ.)
10. Ilyashenko A. N., Chesnokov O. V. The objective side of official forgery. Society and law. 2011;3(35):168-173. (In Russ.)
11. Malysheva Yu. Yu. Criminal and legal and criminological aspects of official forgery in medical activities. Vestnik of Volzhsky University named after V. N. Tatishchev. 2023;1,2(104):142-149. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.51965/2076-7919_2023_1_2_142.
12. Timoshenko N. A., Kulik I. S. On the objective side of forgery. Vestnik of Donetsk National University. 2022;(1):111-116. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Krasovskaya O.Yu., Konina E.N. On the signs of official forgery. North Caucasus Legal Vestnik. 2024;(3):129-135. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-7306-2024-1-3-129-135. EDN: DOJSXA
Views:
28
JATS XML
Email this article 