Problems of exemption from criminal liability in connection with reconciliation with victim
( Pp. 224-230)

Formulation of the problem. The concept of long-term Russia's social and economic development for the period up to 2020, in section 8, «The development of social institutions and social policy», as a priority calls need to establish a system of crime prevention, including «the formation and development of restorative justice mechanisms ... implementation of restorative justice techniques and procedures of conciliation». In this regard, one of the most important trends in modern criminal policy of Russia is to introduce in the criminal legislation and its implementation of a wide range of alternative ways of settlement of criminal legal conflict related to compensation for damage caused to public relations and the victims of the crime. Based on Chapter 11 of the Criminal Code, the following types (forms) of positive post-criminal behavior can be distinguished: surrender; facilitating the disclosure and investigation of a crime; compensation of the damage caused and other redressing of the damage caused by the crime; reconciliation with the victim; special types of active remorse; filing a declaration («amnesty of capital»). Specific forms of (kinds) of positive post-criminal behavior have a specific content, many aspects of which are discussed in the literature and ambiguously refers to practice law. Purpose of article. The proposed publication is aimed at formulating, based on an analysis of the legal positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, a number of specific recommendations on the criminal legal assessment of reconciliation with the victim as grounds for exemption from criminal liability. Results. The study of reconciliation with the victim it possible to identify and disclose the number of characteristic features of the release of the base from criminal responsibility: the recognition of the victims of a particular person; the voluntary nature of the victim’s declaration of reconciliation with the person who caused him harm, as well as compensation for the damage caused by the latter or other compensation for the harm; the possibility of transferring the rights of the victim.

Andrianov V.K., (2020), PROBLEMS OF EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH RECONCILIATION WITH VICTIM. Economic Problems and Legal Practice, 3 => 224-230.

Alikperov KH.D. Osvobozhdenie ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti. Voronezh, 2001.
Artemenko N.V., Min kova A.M. Spornye voprosy primeneniya normy ob osvobozhdenii ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti v svyazi s primireniem s poterpevshim. // Rossiyskiy sud ya.2006. № 7.
Brilliantov A.V. Osvobozhdenie ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti s uchetom obobshcheniya sudebnoy praktiki: nauchno-prakticheskoe posobie. M.,2015.
Golovko L. V. Al ternativy ugolovnomu presledovaniyu v sovremennom prave. SPb., 2002.
Davydova E.V., Kibal nik A.G., Solomonenko I.G. Primirenie s poterpevshim v ugolovnom prave. Stavropol , 2002.
Endol tseva A.V. Institut osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti: problemy i puti ikh resheniya. M., 2004.
Zvecharovskiy I.E. Otvetstvennost v ugolovnom prave, SPb, 2009.
Kommentariy k Ugolovnomu kodeksu RF v 4 t. Tom 1. Obshchaya chast / otv. red. V.M. Lebedev. M.,2020.
Matveeva YA.M. Institut osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti v rossiyskom ugolovnom prave: modernizatsiya i poisk al ternativnykh sposobov uregulirovaniya ugolovno-pravovogo konflikta: Diss kand. yurid. nauk. SPb.,2015.
Naumov A.V. Praktika primeneniya Ugolovnogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii: kommentariy sudebnoy praktiki i doktrinal noe tolkovanie / Pod red. G.M. Reznika. M.,2005.
Novikov V.A. Osvobozhdenie ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti. Diss. kand. yurid. nauk. Krasnodar, 2003.
Pavlenok V. A. O nekotorykh problemnykh voprosakh prekrashcheniya ugolovnykh del v svyazi s primireniem s poterpevshim i deyatel nym raskayaniem // Pravo v Vooruzhennykh Silakh. 2005. № 10.
Pustovaya I.N. Prekrashchenie ugolovnogo dela v stadii predvaritel nogo rassledovaniya s osvobozhdeniem litsa ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti. Diss. kand. yurid. nauk. CHelyabinsk, 2002.
Sabitov R.A. Teoriya ugolovno-pravovogo regulirovaniya povedeniya litsa posle soversheniya im prestupleniya i vyneseniya emu prigovora. M.,2013.
Sverchkov V.V. Osvobozhdenie ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti, prekrashchenie ugolovnogo dela (presledovaniya), otkaz v ego vozbuzhdenii: problemy teorii i praktiki. SPb.,2008.

positive post-criminal behavior, exemption from criminal liability, criminal law compromise, reconciliation with the victim.