Спросить
Войти
мер по предупреждению нелегальной миграции; проведение постоянной целенаправленной работы по приему и обустройству трудовых мигрантов из иностранных государств; создание в городах (регионах) страны центров по оказанию правовой, психологической и социальной помощи иностранным гражданам и лицам без гражданства, при которых должны быть «телефоны доверия», курсы обучения русскому языку и т.д. Также в процессе проведения оперативно-разыскных и следственных мероприятий по уголовным делам, возбужденным по фактам совершения преступлений монголами и гражданами других зарубежных стран, возникает проблема языкового барьера, что значительно затрудняет раскрываемость данных дел. В связи с чем считаем, что необходимы специальные программы в плане подготовки специалистов не только с хорошим знанием иностранных языков, но и с глубокими знаниями зарубежного законодательства, с последующим их трудоустройством в соответствующие правоохранительные структуры.
Раднаева Эльвира Львовна, кандидат юридических наук, доцент заведующий кафедрой уголовного права и криминологии БГУ, председатель Бурятского регионального отделения Российской криминологической ассоциации, е-mail: elviraradnaeva@mail.ru
Гармаева Арюна Эрдынеевна, кандидат филологических наук, старший преподаватель восточного факультета Бурятского государственного университета, е-mail: aryunabanz@mail.ru
Radnaeva Elvira Lvovna, candidate of law sciences, associate professor, head of the department of criminal law and criminology, Buryat State University, Chairman of the Buryat Regional Branch of the Russian Criminological Association,. E-mail: elviraradnaeva@mail.ru
Garmaeva Aryuna Erdyneevna, candidate of philological sciences, senior lecturer, oriental faculty, Buryat State University. Е-mail: aryunabanz@mail.ru
УДК 343.2 © Чен Йнг-уи
СРАВНИТЕЛЬНОЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ СИСТЕМЫ УСЛОВНОГО ОСУЖДЕНИЯ
Автор провел сравнительное исследование системы условного осуждения, установления испытательного срока и внес предложения по совершенствованию китайского законодательства, связанного с условным осуждением.
Chen Ying-hui
A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON CRIMINAL RESTRAINING ORDER
The author has carried out a comparative study on the system of restraining order, determination a trial period, and puts forward recommendations on the improvement of Chinese legislation concerning restraining order.
Criminal restraining order is prohibitive obligation issued by the court for the offender, which compels the offender to observe in a certain period and to forbid the offender to perform special action. From the perspective of other criminal legislation in other countries, many countries have regulations on this kind of system, but the names are different. Chinese criminal law has never set criminal restraining order system, but the system is added in the Eighth Amendment
to Criminal Law passed and taking effect in 2011. The legislative regulation is relatively simple and the rule on the system is unsound, thus a comparative study is done by the author to provide valuable suggestions on the perfection of that system.
I, Comparison between the Properties of Criminal Restraining Order
From the perspectives of the regulations on criminal law in various countries, the property of criminal restraining order can be divided into following types:
II, Comparison between the Content of Criminal Restraining Order
The content of criminal restraining order can be generally summarized as the following three types:
The first is the prohibition of going to certain places. For example, it is regulated in the third clause (C) item in the first section of B part in chapter five of American Sentencing Guidelines that one of demonstrative conditions of prohibition examining is that "the defendant is not allowed to going to the places where illegal drugs are sold, used, spread or controlled or other places the court has appointed" [1]; The second is prohibition on certain activity. For example, it is regulated in the 131-34 clause in French Criminal Code the penalty of contracting public project, which means that the defendant is directly or indirectly forbidden in any contract for a construction project which is established by the nation, national public organization, local administrative department and its united group, and local public organization as well as the rented contract established by the nation, local administrative department or its united group and the enterprises controlled [2]; The third is the prohibition on meeting specific people. For example, it is regulated in the German Criminal Code that harmful association is prohibited. According to the C item in fifty-sixth clause that of the code, the court is able to give the following instructions to the offender sentenced to probation that association with the specific person or group which may provide another chance or tempt is prohibited, and employment, training or accommodation are also prohibited [3].
From the regulations in various countries, some countries have regulations on these three aspects, while some countries only regulates on one of the three aspects or several aspects of these three aspects.
III. Comparison between the Enforcement Mechanisms of Criminal Restraining Order
In the countries that regard criminal restraining order as security measures, due to the basis of applying security measures-personal dangerousness is a dynamic conception, therefore, to ensure the correct grasp of the personal dange-rousness of the offender, different countries have regulated the examining and testing procedure in the implementation. If the personal dangerousness of the offender is not consistent with the punishment being implemented, then the offender may be handled leniently or the way of punishment may be changed or the implementation may be postponed. According to the regulation in German Criminal Code and German Law of Execution of Punishment, for those who are suitable for the prohibition of operation, after the expiration of the 1 year legal minimum deadline of the execution of prohibition of operation by court, if there reason to believe that the actor does not have the danger of implementing serious unlawful act, the court can postpone the execution of the prohibition of operation. In the period of postponing the execution, instructions can be given to the punished people by the court which especially should assign the helper for the testing for the punished people. If the punished people stand the test, the court can announce the end of the execution of punishment; if not, the court repeals the postponing of execution and executes the prohibition of operation.
In the countries that regard criminal restraining order as qualification penalty, the execution of criminal restraining order abides by the execution rules of qualification penalty. Different countries generally have execution system of qualification penalty. For example, in French Criminal Code, there is execution system which contains two qualification
penalty, the first is common system of probationary suspension and the second is rehabilitation system which includes legal rehabilitation and judgmental rehabilitation.
In the countries that regard criminal restraining order as component of non-custodial penalty, the people sentenced to criminal restraining order are supervised by criminal restraining order proceeded by specialized nation authorized organization. The supervision on the people with special qualification and identification is implemented by special departments regulated by the law. For example, it is regulated in the Russian Federal Criminal Code that the supervision on the military probationer is implemented by the commanding personnel in the force or the office. It is regulated in the Chinese criminal law that the criminals who are suitable for surveillance and probation shall implement community correction. Therefore, the community correction organization is the one that implement criminal restraining order, but public security organization is the one that punish the probationer who has break the criminal restraining order but the details of the case are not serious.
IV, Comparative Analysis
(I) Conclusion of the Comparison
Due to different properties of criminal restraining order in different countries, the application and regulation are also different: the first is the difference in the form of legislative regulation. In the countries that criminal restraining order is regarded as security measures and qualification penalty, based on the principle of legalization of security measures and conviction principle in criminal law, the content of criminal restraining order is regulated in legislation. But in the countries that regard criminal restraining order as the rule of probation and surveillance, the content of criminal restraining order is not listed in the clauses, which is decided by the judge in the sentencing according to the specific situation of the offender; the second is the difference in the foundation of punishment. There are differences in the reasons of application between security measures and criminal penalty. Reason for punishment in security measures is not the crime the offender has committed, but the possibility of committing the crime in the future. Thus it adopts personal dangerousness of the offender as the criteria of judgment. Though security measures are only a kind of special prevention measures in nature, this kind of measure can not only achieve the goal of preventing actor from committing the crime again, but also develop the perfect personality of the punished people [4]. And qualification penalty as one type of criminal penalty, the foundation of application is mainly the offense committed by the actor; the third is the difference in the range of application. In the countries that regard criminal restraining order as security measures, the objects applied are the wildest, but in the countries that regard it as non-custodial penalty, the objects applied are the least wild. Therefore, comparatively speaking, the advantage of defining the quality of criminal restraining order as security measures is obvious because it has the merits of prevention and universality, which is not only consistent with the nature of criminal restraining order, but also favorable for the performance of its function.
Though the names of criminal restraining order are different in various countries and the specific content, property, executing mechanism are also different, but the similarity is obvious: the first is that criminal restraining order can only be issued by the court according to the law. Criminal restraining order is the restriction or deprival of certain obligation of the offender, therefore, the regularities are issued by the court of different countries to ensure the accuracy of application and the human right of the people applying the order; the second is that the regulation and application of criminal restraining order are mainly based on the demand of special prevention. According to the specialty of offender itself, the measures of restricting and depriving specific right are taken to promote the reform and education, which emphasizes protecting the security of society.
(II) Inspiration from the Comparison
By comparing the regulations on criminal restraining order in various countries, valuable inspirations can be obtained: the first is that criminal restraining order is regarded as component of surveillance and probation system in China. Comparatively speaking, the scope of application is very narrow which can only be applied to the controlled offender and probationer in the non-custodial criminal. This has no doubt limited the function of criminal restraining order. Even though China has limited criminal restraining order in the application of non-custodial offender, it can also be applied to the paroled offender and offender executed outside prison and other non-custodial offender. Thus the criminal restraining order can play its role in wider field to realize the effect of safer country and better social order; the second is that whether criminal restraining order is regarded as one part of security measures, qualification penalty or the applying principle of non-custodial penalty, the legislative regulations are clear, specific and meticulous, while the executive mechanism of criminal restraining order has some deficiencies. According to the regulations on China&s criminal law, the criminals who are sentenced to surveillance and probation are required to conduct community correction. And the community correction organization is the executive organization of criminal restraining order. But the punishment for the offender for escaping from surveillance and leaving out surveillance that break the regulation of community correction is in the charge of public security organization. China is a country with a large population and vast territory, leading to the weak control of people. Besides, the community correction organization is not perfect, thus, the implementation of criminal restraining order is the central issue of Chinese criminal restraining order. It is necessary for China to take reference from the beneficial experience of implementing criminal restraining order in foreign countries and further improve the implementation of criminal restraining order to receive ideal effect of the implementation of the system and achieve the anticipated goal.
Чен Йнг-уи, преподаватель юридического факультета Чанчуньского университета науки и технологии, 130022, Китай, Чанчунь, е-mail: Liargminyan6463@mail.ru, тел. 8(301-2) 211917.
Chen Ying-hui, Law School, Changchun University of Science and Technology, Changchun 130022 China, е-mail: Liargminyan6463@mail.ru
УДК 343.72 © Р.Н. Боровских, А.В. Чумаков
ОТЕЧЕСТВЕННЫЙ СТРАХОВОЙ РЫНОК И ПОВЫШЕНИЕ ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТИ ПРОТИВОДЕЙСТВИЯ МОШЕННИЧЕСТВУ В СФЕРЕ СТРАХОВАНИЯ
В статье рассматриваются проблемы, связанные с криминализацией российского страхового рынка, и некоторые направления повышения эффективности деятельности правоохранительных органов по расследованию наиболее распространенных способов мошенничества в сфере страхования
R.N. Borovskikh, A.V. Chumakov
NATIONAL INSURANCE MARKET AND IMPROVEMENT OF COUNTERACTION EFFICIENCY IN THE SPHERE OF INSURANCE FRAUD
The article considers the problems of Russian insurance market&s criminalization and some ways of improvement the law - enforcement structures& efficiency in the investigation of the most widespread methods offraud in the sphere of insurance.
В соответствии с действующим отечественным законодательством страховое дело не является видом предпринимательской деятельности, хотя де-факто обладает всеми признаками последней. С учетом этого можно утверждать, что в настоящее время доминирование бизнес-компоненты в национальном страховании является абсолютным, причем тактика деятельности российских страховщиков на современном этапе состоит в наращивании объемов продаж страховых полисов.
Общественная опасность указанной тенденций обусловливается тем, что данный экстенсивный путь развития страховой компании, не придающей должного внимания качеству своего «страхового» портфеля, не прогнозирующей риски своей возможной неплатежеспособности и т.д., неизбежно ведет к краху страховщика и, как следствие этого, серьезным имущественным потерям его клиентов - страхователей. Следует помнить, что ущерб страховое компании - это ущерб, прежде всего, ее клиентов.
Ярким примером сказанному является ситуация, возникшая в связи с отзывом лицензии у страховой организации «Россия», работавшей на рынке с 1990 года и входившей в топ-15 страховых компаний.
Крах страховой компании «Россия» обернулся крупными имущественными потерями для владельцев ее страховых полисов. Так, свыше 24 тысяч клиентов, имеющих полисы КАСКО (к слову, в первом полугодии 2013 года их продажа принесла компании 348 млн рублей), фактически потеряли страховую защиту: им осталось лишь вставать в очередь кредиторов в процедуре банкротства страховщика [8, с. 15]. По сегменту ОСАГО, согласно оценкам Российского союза автостраховщиков, выплаты за «Россию» из компенсационного фонда союза достигнут 1,6-2,3 млрд рублей, что станет крупнейшей выплатой до настоящего времени [8, с. 15].
Следует отметить, что проблемы у страховщика возникли не одномоментно. Лицензия была приостановлена в октябре 2013 года, но еще в августе 2012 года ЦБ РФ сообщал о наличии «фиктивных» активов на балансе компании. Среди других проблем регулятором отмечались и утерянные полисы ОСАГО (в 2013 году - порядка 200 000 бланков). Ранее лицензию страховщика (только по ОСАГО) приостанавливали дважды - в июне 2009 года и мае 2012 года, но возобновляли каждый раз после обещаний акционеров оказать финансовую помощь компании [8, с. 15].
Как видно, «симптомы» грядущей катастрофы компании «Россия» были понятны для органов страхового надзора задолго до краха, и при этом со стороны регулятора не было принято адекватных предупредительных
