Issues in the Substantive Legal Defense of Defendants Having been Subject to Entrapment in the Course of Investigation
( Pp. 165-169)

This article explores the issues related to the legal implications that arise when law enforcement investigators violate the prohibition to instigate, induce, or incite people directly or directly to commit unlawful acts. National legal scholarship has dedicated significant amount of attention to this issue with regard to criminal responsibility for corruption and illicit traffic in narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances. Nevertheless, only few studies have dealt with entrapment as a complex issue important for many other types of crimes apart from the ones mentioned above. In any case, this holds true for works authored by B.V. Volzhenkin, A.B. Groshev, L. Lobanova, V. S. Komissarov, A.V. Shmonin, P.S. Yani, and others. The scope of this article did not allow for a detailed analysis of provocation and entrapment techniques employed by law enforcement agencies. The issues posed by the topic are analyzed from a systemic and functional perspective based on the statutory and case law approaches to entrapment. This method was chosen under the consideration that entrapment presents an objective phenomenon. The centerpiece of this article deals with the legal characterization of the behavior of the defendants having been subject to entrapment. The arguments presented allow the following conclusions: (a) entrapment and its substantive law characteristic merit more scholarly attention and should not be seen merely as a form of instigation; (b) case law offers a number of valuable guidelines helping distinguish between a lawful experiment and provocation; (c) statutory criminal law could be improved by introducing special concepts describing certain forms of entrapment as an absolute criminal law defense [circumstance precluding wrongfulness].

Engelgardt A.A., (2015), ISSUES IN THE SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL DEFENSE OF DEFENDANTS HAVING BEEN SUBJECT TO ENTRAPMENT IN THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 5 => 165-169.

Vagin O.A., Isichenko A.P., CHechetin A.E. Kommentariy k Federal nomu zakonu ot 12 avgusta 1995 g. N 144-FZ quot;Ob operativno-rozysknoy deyatel nosti quot; (postateynyy). - M.: quot;Delovoy dvor quot;, 2008/Dostup iz SPS Garant.
Volzhenkin V.B. Dopustima li provokatsiya kak metod bor by s korruptsiey//Rossiyskaya yustitsiya, 2001, №5.
Groshev A.V. TSel kak kriteriy razgranicheniya pravomernogo eksperimenta i provokatsii vzyatki libo kommercheskogo podkupa//Kategoriya tsel v ugolovnom, ugolovno-ispolnitel nom prave i kriminologii: Materialy IV Rossiyskogo kongressa ugolovnogo prava 28-29 maya 2009 g.- M.: Prospekt, 2009.
Zenkin A., Bondarenko O. Kriterii provokatsii nezakonnogo sbyta narkotikov v resheniyakh Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka//Zakonnost , 2013, №9.
Kanygin V.I. O znachenii kodifikatsii kak sposoba sistematizatsii norm v tselyakh sovershenstvovaniya pravovogo regulirovaniya operativno-rozysknoy deyatel nosti//Kodifikatsiya zakonodatel stva: teoriya, praktika, tekhnika: Materialy Mezhd. nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii (Nizhniy Novgorod, 25-26 sentyabrya 2008 g.)//Pod red. V.M. Baranova.- N.Novgorod: Nizhegorodskaya akademiya MVD Rossii. 2009.
Kerimov D.A. Zakonodatel naya tekhnika. Nauchno-metodicheskoe i uchebnoe posobie. - M.: NORMA. 1998.
Komissarov V., YAni P. Provokatsionno-podstrekatel skaya deyatel nost v otnoshenii dolzhnostnogo litsa kak obstoyatel stvo, isklyuchayushchee otvetstvennost za poluchenie vzyatki//Zakonnost . 2010, №9.
Kommentariy k Federal nomu zakonu ot 12 avgusta 1995 g. №144-FZ Ob operativno-rozysknoy deyatel nosti //Otv. red A.I. Alekseev, V.S. Ovchinskiy.- Prospekt, 2011.
Lobanova L. Provokatsiya vzyatki: nekotorye problemy kvalifikatsii i zakonodatel noy reglamentatsii//YUridicheskaya tekhnika i problemy differentsiatsii otvetstvennosti v ugolovnom prave i protsesse. Sb. nauch. statey. -YAroslavl : 1999.
Mishin G.K. Bor ba s vzyatochnichestvom: nekotorye napravleniya sovershenstvovaniya ugolovnoy politiki//Ugolovnoe pravo. 2000. №3
Radachinskiy S. Provokatsiya kak obstoyatel stvo, isklyuchayushchee prestupnost deyaniya//Ugolovnoe pravo, 2009, №2.
Slovar sinonimov russkogo yazyka/Pod red. L.A. CHeshko.- M.: Sov. Entsiklopediya, 1969.
Sovremennyy tolkovyy slovar russkogo yazyka/Gl. red. S.A. Kuznetsov.- SPb.: Norint, 2006.
Ugolovnoe pravo: Uchebnik: V 3 t. T. 1. Obshchaya chast /Pod obshch. red. A.E. ZHalinskogo.- M.: Gorodets, 2010.
SHmonin A.V., Semykina O.I. Provokatsiya prestupleniy so storony pravookhranitel nykh organov: sravnitel nyy analiz rossiyskogo i zarubezhnogo zakonodatel stva//ZHurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2013. №7.

operatively-search activity, provocative-inflammatory action, the distinction between legitimate experiment and provocation, crime, the circumstance excluding criminality of act.