Qualification of crimes involving forgery of documents as a sign of
The Criminal Code criminalized the following types of forgery of documents: Art. 356 Arbitrariness, Art. 364 Abuse of power or position, Art. 365 Abuse of power or official authority, Art. 366 Private forgery, Art. 367 negligence. In addition, fraud is one of the essential characteristics of the objective side of other criminal offenses (Art. 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, etc.). Thus, Art. 383 of the Criminal Code ("Завідомо untrue повідомлення about which legal zlochinu") to the qualifying characteristics of the crimes are the artificial creation of prosecution evidence.
St. .. 371 Knowingly illegal detention, drive or arrest Art. 372 Attraction known to be innocent of criminal responsibility, Art. 373 Coercion to testify Art. 374 Violation of the right to protection Art. 375 Decision by a judge (judges) a judgment, decisions or judgments St.383 false report of a crime Art. 384 Knowingly false testimony Art. 385 The refusal to testify or refusal of an expert or a translator to perform duties assigned to them Art. 386 Obstructing the appearance of a witness, victim, forcing them to refuse to testify or imprisonment Art. 396 Concealing crime Art. 397 Interference in counsel or representative
The legal assessment of such crimes are often difficult due to the use (or non-use) of the rules on the definition of crimes together, the choice of general or special rules, etc. Forgery of documents within one composition serves as an alternative indications of variations of the acts of others - in the form of specifying the feature that secures the main action. The first group consists of acts which are based on alternative actions, each of which affording all the necessary attributes to constitute a crime, designated provisions of relevant rules. Such actions are contained in Art. 375 (Resolution of the judge (judges) is clearly unjust verdict, decision or ruling). In all of the elements of crime imposes liability even though for the same type but different socially dangerous acts. These compounds in the theory of criminal law usually referred to complex alternative formulations of crimes. Defining characteristics of such formulations is that they cover several acts, each of which expressly provided in the Criminal Law as a separate crime. In other words, in these criminal torts, the objective side which includes the alternative action - forgery of documents, for the presence of only one crime of this action. Acceptance of alternative actions in the complex elements of the crime sufficient criterion for the qualification of the act suggests the action of the special variety of other, more common type of criminal conduct (in this review - forgery of documents). This means that the relevant alternative actions are a special kind of forgery of documents (as an independent offense). From this I discovered that in committing forgery of documents covered by the signs article. 371, 372, 373, 374, 375 and others. Art. Criminal Code of Ukraine, such actions should qualify for these items, without combination with other types of forgery. Defining features here, as a rule, the subject of forgery and the overall thrust of criminal acts. Note that in all these rules provide for a special subject of the crime. The second group of offenses involving forgery of documents as a sign of a crime - it is an act in which the forgery is the determining method of committing. These include compounds under Art. 383 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine ("false report of a crime"). The basis of the commission of these acts are actions defined in the law by using such phrases as: "by submitting false information," with the fraudulent use of documents, "to include knowingly false information", "by forging documents, etc. As is known, the offense is a system of signs, which are necessary and sufficient for the recognition that a person has committed the offense. The presence of the offense instructions on the method of its commission indicates that the item in a version of the act is mandatory sign. The basis of a decision on the selection of certain elements of the crime, including the way it was committed, as we know, is not subjective will of the legislator, but an objective necessity of social practices. The way the commission along with other signs of an offense intended to individualize certain type of crime, clearly reflect their danger to the public, to outline the range of disturbed social interests. In general, the definition of crimes, taking into account how the act applies the one article of the Criminal Code, which fully covers the committed, including the modus operandi. It should not be difficult when the forgery as a sign of a crime is inherent in him, as it forms its content. Situation is more complicated in cases where forgery is a way to commit an act which encroaches on the appropriate object of criminal - legal protection. The problem is that the forgery of documents simultaneously, as part of another composition, acts as a separate crime, and regulations providing for responsibility for the forgery of documents, is in competition with the norm, establishing liability for the compound offense. It would seem obvious that the application in this case, be liable to a rule that most completely covers the signs of the offense. After all, there is a rule: if the rule providing for a way to a socially dangerous act, competes with the rule providing for the offense in general, the application is subject to final rate Meanwhile, socially dangerous acts, including forgery of documents as a sign of a crime may be regarded as a variant of the ideal set of crimes. Both options have their weaknesses. Qualification of their crimes on set of competing standards leads to an artificial creation of multiple crimes where there is none, and in some cases - to an unjustifiable increase criminal liability. On the contrary, if the forgery of documents sufficiently self-sufficient and harm other public interests, skills act as a "whole" does not allow full consideration to the gravity of the offense. Actions constituting a separate offense set forth in the form of modus operandi of a crime, represent the special case when the law takes into account the totality of the relevant crimes. The legislator must do so fully into account all possible harm, the brunt of the offense. Overall, therefore, when qualifying the crimes committed by forging documents, if this method, while a separate offense, is also fully reflected in the disposition should be subject to the rule providing for responsibility for his acts in general, without further qualification under punishing the independent variety forgery of documents. It should be recognized that the universality of this rule is relative, since different offenses include, as a rule, specific, non-uniform action on forgery of documents, so in each case is required not only to relate signs of fraud - forgery and fashion - independent of the crime, but also the elucidation of other features of the act. Consider the rule formulated in relation to specific elements of the crime of forgery of documents containing as a way to commit them. In the considered norm also referred to the agents' false denunciations. In accordance with art. Penal Code undercover report made by a statement or report in the prescribed form (written, oral, by electronic transmission or otherwise) of precise information about the crimes of their parties, etc. These actions under Art. 383 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine ("false report of a crime"), suggests the creation of false statements (messages). However, in this case a false intelligence report can not be considered subject to a crime under Art. 383 of the Criminal Code, since such a statement can not be considered an official document. In art. Criminal Code expressly states that a false intelligence report is a document testifying to the facts of legal significance, since the registration of its adoption by the competent authority in a special order. In connection with this false intelligence report does not form a set of crimes and forgery. This rule is not followed and jurisprudence Bereznegovatskom and Snegirevskom paradise. Courts and Court of Appeal in Mykolaiv region. In these rules as a way to provide intellectual forgery of documents, including both the actual creation of false intelligence reports and its application in order to avoid criminal responsibility. This construction method of the crime is fully involves forgery of documents (both general and business). Additional qualifications for some compositions of forgery of documents in this regard is not required. Moreover, the documents (intelligence report), which are the subject of fabricating elements of the crime do not possess features official documents. Situation is more complicated with the criminal - legal evaluation of the acts covered by qualified indications of knowingly false denunciation (Article 383 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine ("false report of a crime.") This structure provides for liability for false report of a crime, coupled with an artificial creation of prosecution evidence, as well as other actions. It is known that the evidence in a criminal case may make different objects (tools, signs, items of a crime, etc.). Much of the evidence are documents. So, if falsification of documents "proving" facts false reports of crime, the question arises of preference for art. 383, 365 competition rules or qualifications for the aggregate. Furthermore, it is unclear how to assess the actions of the person reporting on the alleged criminal facts are documented, made by him jointly with officers person - or investigator,, operatives, undercover spy, and others Note that in a criminal trial is proof of a strictly defined by law, which in turn should ensure the reliability of conclusions. Face Chernjuk AY - The subject of false denunciation, strictly speaking, self can not fabricate evidence of certain facts. This is the "prerogative" of forensic - investigative bodies Bereznegovatskogo police department, police department Snegirevskogo, reg. ATC Control in Mykolaiv region. Lzhedonoschik only involved in the creation of fictitious proof of the accusation, saying on misleading information, "connected" with the artificial creation of prosecution evidence. Evidence is inextricably linked with the criminal case. Outside of the criminal case, there are only certain facts, which only during the proceedings acquire properties of evidence. A false report of a crime in most cases can only serve as a pretext for instituting criminal proceedings (there are cases where false information may be considered in a proceeding in another case), and are subject to review in accordance with Art. CPC. We believe that in the case of complicity of a private person, falsely accusing someone of a crime, and the officer handling the criminal case (or defense), actions lzhedonoschika should qualify under Art. 383 of the Criminal Code, and the actions of investigators, etc. - Under Art. 364, 365, 371, 372,373,374,375, 383.384, 396 of the Criminal Code. This rule is due to three factors. First, the officer falsifying relevant evidence, commits acts infringing on the interests of justice. The nature of such actions is the closest to the complicity of false denunciation. Secondly, the method of committing false denunciation (the artificial creation of prosecution evidence) completely covers the falsification of evidence as an independent socially dangerous act. Thirdly, under Art. 365 of the Criminal Code provides for a more severe punishment than under Art. 383.384 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
However, if lzhedonoschik independently forged a document certifying certain facts that make "authentic" his false statement, it should additionally be responsible for the article. 364, 365, 371, 372,373,374,375, 383.384, 396 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In this situation, forgery and misleading information, coupled with the fabrication of evidence, form a real set of crimes. Forgery of documents violates another sphere of public relations, non-object assault crimes against justice. Forgery of documents must have a self-assessment and because the actions to create artificial prosecution evidence suggests, first of all, the use of fraudulent documents, that is, its presentation, presentation to the appropriate law enforcement agency. In addition, you may find that a forged document lzhedonoschikom has no relevance to the property of a particular event, and therefore can not serve as proof. This fact emphasizes the independent nature of the crime of false documents, lzhedonosov as prosecution evidence. Accordingly, for the forgery of documents must bear the responsibility of the person produced a fake request lzhedonoschika, even if they did not know about the purpose of the document.
