ILLEGAL IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE REPAYMENT OF OVERDUE DEBTS OF INDIVIDUALS: THE BASIS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

Abstract

Annotation. Relevance. The article presents a comprehensive doctrinal analysis of the corpus delicti provided for in Article 172.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the issues of the potential application of this novel. The relevance of the study is due to the transformation of criminal policy in the field of protection of economic relations and the shift in emphasis from protecting the interests of the creditor to protecting the rights of the debtor's personality. The work examines in detail the elements of the crime: the object, the objective side, and the subjective signs. Special attention is paid to controversial issues of qualification, in particular, the problem of a legal "vacuum" in assessing threats to the dissemination of truthful but shameful information about the debtor. The authors distinguished Article 172.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation from related offences (extortion, arbitrariness, etc.). They concluded that sanctions were disproportionate in the current criminal legislation and suggested ways to improve the norm.

The purpose of the article is to provide a comprehensive criminal and legal description of the corpus delicti provided for in Article 172.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to identify defects in legal technology that complicate the qualification, as well as to distinguish this act from related crimes.

Conclusions. The study found that the key criterion for distinguishing between Article 172.4 of the Criminal Code and extortion (Article 163 of the Criminal Code) is the subject of encroachment: the existence of a real right to claim a debt precludes qualification as extortion, even when using illegal methods. The authors identify a significant legislative gap in the construction of the objective side: the wording prohibiting the dissemination of only knowingly false information actually decriminalizes blackmail of the debtor by publicizing truthful but shameful information (for example, about debt or illness). The casual description of the special subject of the crime and the disproportion of sanctions are also criticized.