Abstract
Despite the legislator is step by step expanding the number of bodies of a crime with the sign of administrative prejudice, up to the present, the General part of the RF Criminal Code does not define administrative prejudice. It leads to the fact that the Special part of the RF Criminal Code formulates the administrative prejudice features in the bodies of crimes in different ways. In particular, only some of the bodies of crimes contain the duplicity feature as an administrative prejudice element. Within this investigation, the author considers as well the other criminal law institution – multiple crimes. It is caused by the fact that collaterally with the administrative prejudice, the liability for persons previously convicted for identical and (or) similar actions starts to be introduced. It speaks for both the reappearance of liability for special recidivism and the introduction of the criminal law category not covered by this concept. To identify the problems related to the structure of bodies of crimes with indicated signs and specify the ways for their solution, the author carried out the interdisciplinary comparison of norms of criminal and administrative legislation, analyzed doctrinal points of view, explained the position of the executor of law represented by the supreme judicial authorities, and investigated a draft law on the amendments in the RF Criminal Code. As a result of the study, the author concludes that the Special part of the RF Criminal Code formulates the administrative prejudice signs in the bodies of crimes in different ways. It complicates the correct interpretation of specified criminal law norms. Moreover, the author considers incorrect the structure of part 1 of Art. 284.1 of the RF Criminal Code, which contains both the sign of administrative prejudice and the sign of conviction for identical action. The position of the RF Government expressed in draft law No. 536-8 on the amendments in Art. 116.1 of the RF Criminal Code calls for comments as well.
Email this article 
