CC BY
141
Section 18. Science of law
tions, etc.) already has certain bases of the moral principles put in character of the person by a family. Therefore defects of family education is one of the main reasons of crimes and other offenses of minors.
Adults for the growing person are certain "the psychological center”. It is known that when "the psychological center" in the person of mother, father or other person replacing them doesn't carry out assigned to him/her by the nature and society of function, the child has a feeling of concern, uncertainty and the vulnerability. It forms child’s mind a personal position of rejection of environment, misunderstanding. The child even starts expecting threat from society.
Now in the most difficult situation in society there are children and teenagers who aren't protected from negative influence of a dysfunctional family therefore considerable part of children and teenagers receive an example of an immoral way of life, are deformed in the development, gaining negative personal qualities.
One of the incentive reasons of commission by teenagers of offenses is unfair, ill-treatment of adult family members with them. Teenagers who constantly are exposed in a family to ill treatment, have a belief that roughness is a norm of human relations. They easily fall into a condition of anger, and their anger most often streams on weaker: younger on age, old, sick people, animal. Often the unfair attitude towards to teenager causes desperate desire at any cost to revenge the offender and conducts to commission of crime.
It should be noted that in families where the violence is a lever, at children the animosity against parents remains for the rest of life.
One of the specific reasons of crime of minors at the present stage of life of society is catastrophic situation with the organization of leisure of children and teenagers in a residence. The youth does nothing [3]. Because ofhigh prices the majority of forms of leisure is inaccessible to teenagers. Many child care facilities, the organizations stopped the existence, and the rooms belonging to them are leased to commercial structures. In the summer the younger generation is provided to itself. Many improving camp for children and teenagers are closed, children from incomplete needy families can not always get in existing camp because of the high cost of permits.
Therefore attics, cellars became favorite pastime of teenagers. In many cities there are no youth centers, sports grounds and sports clubs. And after all sport is that tool by means of which it is possible to fight teenage crime.
Thus, we came to a conclusion that the main reasons promoting commission of crimes by minors are lack of due control from parents, the low level of social financial position of families, weak organization of free leisure of minors, not employment by socially useful work in free time from study time, weak control from administration of educational institutions, weak scheduled maintenance of law enforcement agencies.
In normal conditions the teenager will never become a criminal. It is necessary not to forget that the minor criminal is a child who as a result of the wrong education and a bad example became a criminal. This is the child who didn't feel support of parents, societies and the governments in due time.
Proceeding from it, it’s necessary to build a prevention of deviant behavior of teenagers which could help him to adapt to the social environment.
References:
1. Shakhbanova H.M. The main reasons for crime of minors at the present stage of development of the Russian society http:// vestnik.uapa.ru/ru-ru/issue/2013/02/27/
2. Bakayev of A. A. Sistem of prevention of offenses of minors. - M, 2004.
3. Prevention of offenses of minors - Almaty: Dayk-press, 2007
Efremova Marina Aleksandrovna, Ulyanovsk State University, Associate Professor, The faculty of laws E-mail: seamaid63@gmail.com
Computer fraud
Abstract: The article tells about such form of plunder as a computer fraud. The article gives the analysis of norm recently included in the criminal code of Russian Federation which provides responsibility for such an act. The author notes its imperfections and shows the ways of their elimination.
Keywords: criminal law; computer fraud; computer information; plunder.
Rapid development and widespread implementation of the Internet lead to the appearance of new ways of its use. However, it inevitably lead to the expansion of the “domain” for criminals and the appearance of new types of law violation including computer fraud. According to the statistics for
the first six months of 2012, 5696 cybercrimes were registered in Russia — that is 11 % more than for the same period of 2011. The majority of them are made up by crimes connected with the creation, spread and use of malicious software as well as fraud in the Internet. For six months of 2012 -
126
Computer fraud
1443 (+44 %) of such crimes were registered. In addition to that, according to the experts, real number of internet fraud is several times higher as such crimes are characterized by high latency [1]. Therefore, many researches today are studying the problem of criminal responsibility for computer fraud.
The discussion about fraud with computer information has been going on for a long time already; ideas of including the corresponding articles into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation have also been expressed [2, 157-161]. However, only several years ago such crimes were criticized, and fraud with computer information was qualified cumulative with Chapter 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation norms. According to A. A. Komarov Chapter 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a sufficiently stable construct as imputing articles cumulatively in some cases allows avoiding ungrounded alterations to the Criminal Code, linked with marking out several types of computer crimes, in particular components of crime or widespread implementation of qualificatory signs. Law enforcement practice followed that path [3]. Paragraph 12 of the Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 27.12.2007 No. 51 “On judicial practice on fraud, misappropriation and misapplication" says that fraud with use of computer information shall be qualified cumulatively with article 159 and article 272 or 273 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation correspondingly [4, 14].
In foreign practice, criminal legislation of some countries already has such components of crime. The Criminal Code of Estonia, for example, contains Section 14 “Crimes in the sphere of computer information and data processing”, the article 268 of which stipulates responsibility for such computer fraud, i. e. for the acquisition of other person’s property, property or other advantages by introducing computer programmes or data, their modification, elimination, blocking or other types of interference in data processing, influencing the result of data processing and conditioning direct property or other type of damage to the other person. Criminal code of Germany also provides criminal responsibility for computer fraud (§ 263a). Computer fraud means that fraud is directed not at a person but at a programme as the property is damaged by influencing data processing process and by improper programme installation, use of incorrect or incomplete data, and by unauthorized influence on data processing processes. In the European Union Convention on cyberfraud adopted in Budapest on 23.10.2001, which the Russian Federation rejected in ratification, Art.8 called “Computer fraud” implies fraudulent (intentional) and illegal dispossession of other person of his/her property by: a) any type of entering, altering, deleting or blocking of computer data; b) any type of interference in the computer system operation with fraudulent or dishonest intention of illegal economic benefiting for him-self/herself or for another person [5].
In time the above stated position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation changed drastically; Plenary Session Decree № 6 of 05.04.2012 “On putting forward to the
State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation a draft of the Federal Law “On changes in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and other legislative acts of the Russian Federation” ” offered to introduce six new articles to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation providing responsibility for different types of fraud [6]. Art. 159.6 “Fraud in the sphere of computer information” was one of them. The draft was supported by the legislative body and by Federal Law No. 207-ФЗ of 20.11.2011 “On changes in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and some legislative acts of the Russian Federation” corresponding changes were made in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In our opinion the introduction of this article does not solve the existing problems, moreover, it may even aggravate them. First, the name of Art. 159.6 itself is not correct. Phrase “in the sphere of computer information” (which was repeatedly asked for changing in case of Art. 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) is vague, as there is no clear definition of what is implied under this sphere and what it covers. Therefore, a question arises, what type of acts shall be deemed as crime in computer information sphere. In articles and researches on the topic apart from the term “computer fraud” such terms as “cyberfraud” and “fraud in the Internet” are used. We may suggest that terms “cyberfraud” and “computer fraud” are synonyms. Due to the fact that the current legislation does not define the notion “computer fraud” it is understood as having criminological nature and means stealing other person’s property or obtaining the right for other person’s property by fraud or abuse of trust, committed with the help of computer tools [7]. As for “fraud in the Internet”, it presupposes a whole aggregate of crimes characterized by the similar means of committing them (use of technological and communication facilities of computer systems, connected to the Internet for committing fraud of a person or a computer system) and by the mercenary motives of the crime [3, 13]. Thereby, fraud in the Internet is a type of computer fraud. Bank cards fraud shall be noted specially. It does not mean stealing the card itself and getting money in the ATM (which makes up another type of theft). To commit bank card fraud it is sufficient for the criminal to know its number and a secret code. Fraud with mobile communication tools (“telephone” or “mobile” fraud) which is widely spread in our country shall be noted as well. Mobile phones can process and store computer data; people can access the Internet via their mobile phones. Besides, there are other devices which function similarly to computers and may be data carriers. Therefore, it is important to speak not about computer data, but about electronic data, which includes data processes on computers, mobile phones and other devices functioning similarly. Second, speaking about computer frauds in general, we may divide them into two groups. The first group consists of the crimes where computer data is the target of a crime. The second group includes the crimes where data is the means of committing the crime. Computer fraud belongs to the second group. Therefore, the term “fraud with use of computer information” would be more reasonable.
127
Section 18. Science of law
According to the disposition of part 1, art. 159.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation fraud in the sphere of computer information shall mean stealing other person’s property or obtaining the right for other person’s property by of entering, deleting, blocking, modifying of computer data or any other interference in the operation of computer information storage, processing or transferring devices or information-telecommunication networks. In our opinion, this point needs to be clarified. The notion “computer information" given in notes to art. 272 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, does not stand up to criticism and shall be studied and changed in the future. Enforcement practice has already faced the problem of what shall be considered as “means of storing, processing or transferring computer information”. Sometimes even cash registers are referred as such. The phrase “any other interference” in the operation of the abovementioned devices is very vague as well. We also believe that it shall be clarified to avoid broad interpretation. Article 159.6 also provides for aggravated components. Part 2 ofart. 159.6, for example, establishes responsibility for these acts committed by a group of people by previous concert, as well as with extensive damage to a person. Under part 3 art 159.6 criminal responsibility is imposed on a person who committed a crime in the sphere of computer information using his/her official position, as well as grand theft. Part 4 of art. 159.6 provides for responsibility for the same acts, committed by an organized group or grand theft. It shall be noted that in the context of art. 159.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “grand larceny” shall be deemed as the cost of property exceeding two hundred fifty thousand rubles; especially grand larceny is for one million rubles. In respect to art.159.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation grand larceny shall be deemed the cost of property exceeding one million five hundred thousand rubles, and especially grand larceny — six million rubles, that is in both cases six times more than under art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As of sanctions of art.159.6, they are practically coincide with the sanctions of art.
159 with one exception: part 1 ofart. 159.6 does not provide for custody as the punishment, but art. 159 provides for this punishment for the term of two years. In the sanctions of parts 2 and 3 of art. 159.6 custody as the punishment is provided for and may be imposed for the term to four and five years, against five and six years of custody stipulated in sanctions of parts 2 and 3 of art. 159. Based on the analysis of sanctions of these articles, we may conclude that computer fraud is less socially dangerous due to less strict sanctions for its commitment. At the same time it is important to underline that fraud and computer fraud differ only by the means of stealing of other person’s property or obtaining the right for other person’s property. Moreover, if deeds punished under art. 159.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are committed by an individual entrepreneur in the course of his business activity, or by a member of a management body of a commercial organization in the course of exercising his/her authority ofthe organization management or in the course of the organization’s economic activity, legal proceedings may be instituted only on the ground of the statement of the victim or his authorized representative. Therefore, if there is no statement of the victim party, a person may avoid criminal responsibility even if he commits fraud of especially grand larceny, which, as noted above, makes up the sum of more than 6 million rubles. It is evident that such a situation does not stand up to criticism.
Summarizing, we may come to the conclusion that the aim pursued by the legislator in including art. 159 in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not clear. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation may soon be overloaded with useless computer components of a crime. We believe that the most logical solution would be including the most widespread means of committing fraud including electronic information fraud — which shall mean stealing other person’s property or obtaining the right for other person’s property by entering, copying, deleting, modifying, blocking of electronic information, in art. 159.
References:
1. September 30 - Internet Day in Russia//Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. [Electronic resource]. -Available from: http://www.mvd.ru/news/show_113808/(accessed on 10.10.2014).
2. Tropina TL. Cybercrime: definition, statistics, criminal law measures: PhD in Law dissertation abstract. - Vladivostok, 2005. - P.
13.; Brazhnik S. D. Crimes with use of computer information: problems of legislation: PhD in Law dissertation. - Izhevsk, 2002.
3. Komarov A. A. Criminological aspect of Internet fraud: PhD in Law dissertation abstract. - Saratov, 2011.
4. Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 51 of 27.12.2007 “On judicial opinion on fraud, misappropriation and misapplication”. Accessed in information system “ConsultantPlus”.
5. The Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001. [Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/rus/Treaties/Html/185.htm (accessed on 10.10.2015).
6. Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 6 of05.04.2012 “On putting forward to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation a draft of the Federal Law “On changes in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and other legislative acts of the Russian Federation”. [Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_125978/http://www.vsrf.ru/search.php?searchf= %EF % F0 %E5 %F1 %F2 %F3 %EF %EB %E5 %ED %E8 %E5+ %E2+ %F1 %F4 %E5 %F0 %E5+ %EA %EE %EC %EF %FC %FE % F2 %E5 %F0 %ED %EE %E9+ %E8 %ED %F4 %EE %F0 %EC %E0 %F6 %E8 %E8# (accessed on 10.10.2014).
7. Zykov D. The definition of computer fraud//Computer crime Research Centre. [Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://www.crime-research.org/library/Concept. (accessed on 10.10.2014).
128
