Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://r.donnu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/2593
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorМовчан, Р. О.-
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-25T15:17:24Z-
dc.date.available2023-01-25T15:17:24Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.otherУДК 343.7-
dc.identifier.otherDOI https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2022.01.52-
dc.identifier.urihttps://r.donnu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/2593-
dc.descriptionСтаття у науковому журналі «Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство» юридичного факультету ДВНЗ «Ужгородський національний університет»en_US
dc.description.abstractThe article is devoted to the analysis of the legislative decision on strengthening criminal liability for looting. According to the results of the study, firstly, he presented his own vision of those controversial provisions, the mastery of which can cause the greatest difficulties for both ordinary citizens and law enforcement, and secondly, identified and proposed proposals to eliminate inherent shortcomings of the Act. will most likely have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the relevant criminal law prohibitions. In particular, it is proved that under parts four of Articles 185, 186, 187, 189, 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as «committed under martial law (state of emergency)» should be qualified as the terrain and circumstances of their commission, ie whether they were directly related to the use of the mentioned conditions (in case of martial law or state of emergency). At the same time, it was concluded that the differentiation of liability should be associated only with the commission of criminal offenses against property in question «using the conditions of martial law or state of emergency», which should be mentioned in the improved versions of the ban in question. provisions». In addition, the provision is substantiated that the list of acts provided for by the Law of Ukraine of March 3, 2022, for which responsibility should be strengthened in case of their commission in martial law or state of emergency, should be supplemented by violations of Article 190 («fraud»), 262 (« illegal possession of firearms (except smooth-bore hunting), ammunition, explosives, explosive devices or radioactive materials») and 289 («illegal possession of a vehicle») of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.en_US
dc.publisherУжгород: Ужгородський національний університетen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesАналітично-порівняльне правознавство. КРИМІНАЛЬНЕ ПРАВО ТА КРИМІНОЛОГІЯ;КРИМІНАЛЬНО-ВИКОНАВЧЕ ПРАВО;с. 281-285-
dc.subjectмародерствоen_US
dc.subjectкримінальні правопорушення проти власностіen_US
dc.subjectвоєнний станen_US
dc.subjectшахрайствоen_US
dc.subjectнезаконне заволодінняen_US
dc.subjectlootingen_US
dc.subjectcriminal offenses against propertyen_US
dc.subjectmartial lawen_US
dc.subjectfrauden_US
dc.subjectmisappropriationen_US
dc.titleАНАЛІЗ ЗАКОНОДАВЧОГО РІШЕННЯ ПРО ПОСИЛЕННЯ КРИМІНАЛЬНОЇ ВІДПОВІДАЛЬНОСТІ ЗА МАРОДЕРСТВОen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:Бібліографічні матеріали

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
3.pdfСтаття у науковому журналі «Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство» юридичного факультету ДВНЗ «Ужгородський національний університет»162,82 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.