Omsk Regional Court. Judicial district

According to Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Case no.

Accepted Pechenga district court(Murmansk region)

Pechenga District Court of the Murmansk Region, consisting of:
presiding judge Gorbatyuk A.A.
under Secretary Bogdanova S.N.,
with the participation of the public prosecutor and.about. Deputy Prosecutor of the Pechenga District Timokhin I.D.,
defendant Furman S.N.,
his defenders: lawyer Kuznetsov R.V., who presented certificate No. and warrant No. dated February 1, 2012,
lawyer Filippov I.E., who submitted certificate No. and warrant No. dated January 31, 2012,
having considered the materials of the criminal case against
FURMANA S.N., *.*.* year of birth, native<адрес>, citizen<данные изъяты>that works with *.*.*<данные изъяты>living without registration at the address:<адрес>, <данные изъяты>:
<данные изъяты>;
accused of committing a crime under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
Installed:
Furman S.N. evaded administrative oversight, namely: non-arrival, without good reason, of a person in respect of whom administrative supervision is established upon release from places of deprivation of liberty, to the place of residence or stay chosen by him in a place determined by the administration correctional facility term, as well as unauthorized abandonment by this person of the place of residence or stay, committed in order to evade administrative supervision.
The crime was committed under the following circumstances.
*.*.* By verdict<данные изъяты>Furman S.N. found guilty of committing a crime under Part. 2 Article. 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and he was sentenced to 3 years in prison with a fine of 30,000 rubles.
*.*.* Furman S.N. arrived to serve his sentence<данные изъяты>. During the period of serving the sentence in<данные изъяты>, Furman S.N. recognized as a violator established order serving the sentence. As a result, the administration<данные изъяты>contacted<данные изъяты>with a petition to establish in relation to Furman C.GN. administrative oversight.
*.*.* by decision<данные изъяты>based on administration<данные изъяты>in relation to Furman C.N. administrative supervision was established for a period of 2 years with administrative restrictions in the form of: a ban on staying outside a residential or other premises that is his place of residence or stay, from 22-00 pm to 06-00 am, the obligation to appear in the internal affairs body at the place of residence or stay twice a month for registration and prohibition of travel outside Russian Federation during the period of administrative supervision, Furman C.N. the procedure for exercising administrative supervision and responsibility under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
*.*.* when released from<данные изъяты>, Furman S.N. stated that he would reside either at:<адрес>, either in<адрес>. When released from places of deprivation of liberty by the administration<данные изъяты>, Furman S.N. duly notified of the obligation to arrive at the place of residence or stay: on the territory<адрес>- no later than *.*.*, but on the territory<адрес>- not later *.*.*.
After being released from<данные изъяты>Furman S.N. at the place of residence chosen by him at the address:<адрес>did not arrive, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for<данные изъяты>not registered as a person subject to administrative supervision and restrictions.
In violation of paragraph.n. 1, 2 h. 1 tbsp. 11 of Federal Law No. 64-FZ “On Administrative Supervision of Persons Released from Places of Deprivation of Liberty”, that is, the obligation of a person in respect of whom administrative supervision is elected by a court decision to arrive within the period determined by the administration of the correctional institution at the place of residence or stay chosen by him after release from places of deprivation of liberty, as well as to appear for registration with the internal affairs body within three working days from the date of arrival at their chosen place of residence or stay after being released from places of deprivation of liberty, Furman C.N. arrived in the territory<адрес>after his release from places of deprivation of liberty and neglecting the obligation imposed on him to appear in the internal affairs body, deliberately, without good reason, in order to evade administrative supervision over him, did not register with the internal affairs department in due time as a person who was administrative supervision. Only *.*.* Furman S.N. appeared at the department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Pechenga district of the Murmansk region, located at:<адрес>for registration as a person subject to administrative supervision. *.*.* being in the premises of the Russian MIA Department for the Pechenga district, located at:<адрес>in order to evade the implementation of administrative supervision over him, deliberately, as well as, not wanting to comply with the administrative restrictions imposed on him by the court, Furman C.GN. falsely informed the police officer that he would permanently reside at the following address:<адрес>where he did not really live. Continuing to realize his criminal intent, Furman S.N., being in a place unidentified during the investigation on the territory of the Russian Federation, in order to evade the exercise of administrative supervision over him from the moment of registration as a person in respect of whom the court established administrative supervision, in period from *.*.* to 22 hours 45 minutes *.*.* at the address<адрес>did not live; the authorities supervising him did not notify him of leaving his place of residence; administrative restrictions imposed on him by the Decision<данные изъяты>*.*.*, did not comply, than he committed unauthorized abandonment of his chosen place of residence.
*.*.* at 22:45 Furman S.N. was found by the police in the vicinity of the house<адрес>.
AT court session defendant Furman C.GN. pleaded not guilty to the charge, explained that in the court session<адрес>was not present, received a copy of the decision to establish administrative supervision over him two days after the court session. When released from places of deprivation of liberty, he did not receive any instructions and obligations to appear, he did not refuse signatures. His lawyer T. explained to him that he had appealed against the decision of the court dated *.*.*, and therefore did not enter into force. *.*.* arrived in<адрес>, identified himself in the Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Murmansk region, *.*.* came to<адрес>, turned to the chief of police D., then to the district police officer Z., who *.*.* did not draw up any documents for him, invited *.*.* to come. *.*.* he provided district police officer Z. with a certificate of release, which indicated that administrative supervision had been established in relation to him; phone numbers were exchanged and he called Z. to the police department. From *.*.* to *.*.* he lived in apartment 3 at:<адрес>, from 22 to 6 hours was at home.
The defendant's testimony is found by the court to be unreliable and inconsistent. actual circumstances case, as they are refuted by the testimony of witnesses, as well as other evidence examined at the court session.
The guilt of the defendant Furman C.GN in evading administrative supervision is confirmed by the testimony of witnesses M., L, M., L., P., K., O., M., L., P., K., B., S., L., R ., I., Shch., O., K., K., G., F., Shch., Z., T., K., D., K., K., Z and examined at the hearing case materials.
From the testimony of witness M. (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor in connection with the failure to appear and with the consent of the parties) it follows that he works as a head<данные изъяты>. *.*.* Furman S.N. was released from their institution. Upon release, he personally warned Furman about criminal liability for evading administrative supervision under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since after release, at the place of registration or residence, he must be registered with the police department. On this warning, Furman S.N. answered with a categorical refusal. Some time before his release, Furman indicated that he would be living in<адрес>, he (M.) passed this information to the special department<данные изъяты>However, on the very day of his release, Furman explained that he was leaving on<адрес>to the place of residence. Furman categorically refused to sign the subscription to appear at the police station, explaining that he did not want to sign for his own reasons. I put my signature only in the certificate of release and in the statement of receipt Money. The fact that Furman refused to sign was drawn up by a commission of three people. Also, upon release, Furman S.N. explained the obligation to register with the Department of Internal Affairs<адрес>to *.*.*, in<адрес>no later than *.*.* (case sheet 87-91 v.1).
From the testimony of witness L (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor in connection with the failure to appear and with the consent of the parties) it follows that she works in<данные изъяты>. Furman S.N. was released from the institution *.*.* Upon release, Furman was handed an order to leave for the chosen place of residence and explained about criminal liability for evading administrative supervision under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as on the order itself, which was issued to him, it was written that he was warned of criminal liability under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Before the release, when issuing a certificate of release, Furman S.N. indicated the place to which -<адрес>. And already at the release he said that he should<адрес>, therefore, two signatures were drawn up on the appearance at the police department<адрес>and<адрес>. Furman categorically refused to sign in the appearances, about which acts were drawn up. Furman also explained that these documents worsen his position, so he will not sign them. Also Furman S.N. it was explained that if he came to<адрес>, then he will need to register with the Department of Internal Affairs no later than *.*.* (case sheet 92-96 v.1).
From the testimony of witness M. (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor due to his failure to appear and with the consent of the parties) it follows that he is working<данные изъяты>. Furman S.N. was released from the institution *.*.* Upon release, Furman S.N. he was warned about criminal liability for evading administrative supervision under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, because after release, he will be required to register with the police department at the place of residence or registration. Some time before his release, Furman explained that he would be living in<адрес>, which was reported in<данные изъяты>for the preparation of relevant documents. And on the day of liberation, Furman S.N. explained that he would live in<адрес>, which was also reported to the special unit. Upon release, Furman refused to sign to appear at the police department and a receipt to receive the order, citing personal convictions. By this fact act was drawn up. Furman S.N. upon release, it was explained that he must be registered with the police department<адрес>not later than *.*.*, and in<адрес>in the Department of Internal Affairs no later than *.*.* (case sheet 97-101 v.1).
From the testimony of witness L. (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor due to his failure to appear and with the consent of the parties) it follows that he is working<данные изъяты>. *.*.* at the direction of the chief proceeded to the address:<адрес>in order to establish residence at this address Furman S.N., *.*.*, b. During the exit at this address, O. was interviewed, who explained that she had been living at this address for 22 years, and Furman was the common-law husband of her daughter, had never been registered at this address and never lived. The last time she saw him was in *.*.*, after his release in *.*.*, Furman did not live in her apartment, he lives in<адрес>(case file 106-109 v.1).
From the testimony of witness P. (the testimony was read out in accordance with part 1 of article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor due to the failure to appear and with the consent of the parties) it follows that<данные изъяты>. *.*.* from<данные изъяты> <адрес>established administrative supervision and established administrative restrictions. On the basis of the documents received, an administrative supervision case No. was opened in their department *.*.*, but Furman S.N. So far, he has not been registered as a supervised person. The case of administrative supervision was sent to the MIA of Russia for the Pechenga district of the Murmansk region *.*.* (case sheet 110-113 v.1).
From the testimony of witness K. (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor in connection with the failure to appear and with the consent of the parties) it follows that she is working<данные изъяты>. *.*.* from<данные изъяты>they received material in relation to Furman S.N. In accordance with the Ruling of the court dated *.*.* in respect of Furman S.N., who had gone to live in<адрес>established administrative supervision and established administrative restrictions. On the basis of the documents received in their department *.*.*, an administrative supervision case No. was opened, but Furman himself did not register with them and did not arrive. UUP L. *.*.* exited at<адрес>, Furman S.N. was supposed to arrive at this address. During the exit, it was established that Furman never lived at the specified address and does not live, about which explanations were selected from O.. Approximately in the middle *.*.* of the year, lawyer S. came to the department, asked if the documents for Furman had arrived, she replied that they had not. Approximately *.*.* the indicated lawyer came with Furman's cohabitant S.N. O. and said that he had brought documents, namely a certificate from the district police officer for Pechensky district Z., a certificate from acting. head of the department of the Federal Migration Service M., contract social recruitment for an apartment in<адрес>, drawn up on behalf of Z in the name of Furman that he will live in<адрес>, a copy of the certificate of state registration of the right to the above apartment in the name of Z, a copy of the birth certificate of Furman S.N., a copy of the certificate of registration at the place of residence of F., *.*.*.r., a copy of the birth certificate of F. and a copy certificate of paternity in respect of F.. Also, lawyer S. explained that Furman would register and receive a passport in<адрес>, Furman's cohabitant O. also confirmed this. At her request to give Furman's phone number S.N. the lawyer did not give the number and evaded answering (case files 114-119 v.1).
From the testimony of witness O. (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor due to her failure to appear and with the consent of the parties), it follows that for about 22 years she has been living at the address:<адрес>. Knows Furman S.N. about 12 years old. They were introduced by her daughter O., he is the father of her granddaughter. The last time she saw Furman was three years ago. After his release in *.*.*, he did not visit them (case file 102-105 v.1).
From the testimony of witness M. it follows that she works<данные изъяты>. *.*.* Furman S.N. turned to her on the issue of documenting the passport of the Russian Federation, presented a certificate of release and a number of documents. When studying the documents, differences were established, therefore *.*.* his documents were sent for verification in<данные изъяты>. Until now internal check not finished. Furman, when addressing, explained that he arrived at the place of birth with his family and wife. When submitting documents, indicated the address in<адрес>. Before *.*.*, lawyer Filippov addressed her on the issue of obtaining citizenship by Furman, Furman himself S.N. did not apply.
From the testimony of witness L. (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor due to his failure to appear and with the consent of the parties), it follows that he works in the position<данные изъяты>. *.*.* Furman S.N., born *.*.*, applied to him with a request to issue a passport, provided a birth certificate and a certificate of release from a correctional colony. Earlier, in *.*.*, Furman S.N. made a similar request, a request was made to<адрес>on the provision of form 1. The answer came that Furman S.N. received a passport unreasonably because it is not<данные изъяты>. Their department collected all Required documents and sent to<данные изъяты>for an internal audit. When contacted, Furman explained that he lives in<адрес>where he didn't say exactly. AT this moment the passport<данные изъяты>Furman S.N. not issued, because the service check has not been completed (case sheet 197-199 v.1).
From the testimony of witness P. it follows that he works<данные изъяты>. He knows the defendant by the nature of his activity. At the beginning of *.*.*, the department received information about Furman's arrival in<адрес>after serving the sentence. *.*.* Furman came to the department to talk with the deputy chief G. He was also present during their conversation. Furman provided a certificate of release, explained that he would restore the documents, lives in<адрес>at the hotel, will be temporarily registered, the address will be reported. In the certificate of release there was a note about the establishment of administrative supervision in respect of Furman, so they sent a request to the court<адрес>, and on the website of the court they learned that the Decision regarding Furman on the establishment of administrative supervision has entered into force *.*.*. At the end of *.*.* year from<данные изъяты>documents were received in which it was indicated that Furman was obliged to appear at the police department<адрес>not later *.*.*. They found out that Furman was registered in<адрес>*.*.*, lives at:<адрес>. In *.*.* they received information that Furman does not live at the indicated address, in<адрес>two employees K. and K. were sent on a business trip, who *.*.*, together with the district commissioner, visited Furman’s place of residence at 22:00 and established that he does not live at the address specified during registration with the MIA, the MIA according to<данные изъяты>put the defendant on the wanted list. On the same day, i.e. *.*.* Furman was detained at 10:45 p.m.<адрес>where is<данные изъяты>. A protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up against Furman under Art. 19.24 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. Also, when watching a video from a club<данные изъяты>it was established that on October 2 Furman was in<данные изъяты>at 04:00, knows that on this fact Furman was brought to administrative responsibility. *.*.* Furman was detained by them in a restaurant<данные изъяты>»at about 10:50 pm, a protocol on an administrative offense was also drawn up against him under Art. 19.24 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. The powers of the ORC do not include administrative supervision of persons released from places of deprivation of liberty, Furman appeared for a conversation at the ORC, because. takes<данные изъяты>.
<данные изъяты>. He knows the defendant by the nature of his activity. Furman, after being released from prison, was sent to serve administrative supervision at the place of residence. *.*.* they found that Furman at the place of residence in<адрес>was not, was detained in<адрес>at 23 o'clock in<данные изъяты>on<адрес>. During the arrest, Furman drew their attention to his watch, which had the time of 19:00. Furman was also detained *.*.* for committing administrative offense discovered while watching the video. The defendant is<данные изъяты>", takes<данные изъяты>, so it is within their field of vision.
It follows from the testimony of witness B. that in *.*.* he was present with another young man as an attesting witness when Furman refused to sign the documents, it was a violation of supervision. In the house<адрес>he has been living for five years, he has never seen Furman in the courtyard of his house.
From the testimony of witness S. (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor in connection with the failure to appear and with the consent of the parties) it follows that *.*.* at about 11:30 at the request of a police officer, he and another young man testified to the refusal of Furman S.N. from signing the questionnaire and schedule. The district commissioner Z. read out the questionnaire and the schedule to Furman S.N. and to them, according to the questionnaire, Furman lives at:<адрес>. Furman confirmed this information, but refused to sign (case sheets 47-49 v.1).
It follows from the testimony of witness L. that he has been living at the following address since *.*.*:<адрес>. Who lives in the apartment<адрес>does not know, he has never seen the defendant in their entrance.
Testimony given during preliminary investigation, confirmed.
Being interrogated during the preliminary investigation, witness L. (testimony was read out in accordance with Part 3 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor in connection with significant contradictions) testified that in the apartment<адрес>lives Z, she lives alone, I have not seen any man living in her apartment (case sheet 144-146 v.1).
From the testimony of witness R. it follows that he lives at the address:<адрес>. In the apartment<адрес>there lived a woman, about 50 years old. I did not see men leaving or entering her apartment. The defendant was never seen before the trial.
From the testimony of witness I. it follows that for about 6 years he and his wife have been living at the address:<адрес>. In the apartment<адрес>an elderly woman lives, lives alone, did not hear male voices from her apartment. The defendant is neither in the yard of the house, nor in the apartment<адрес>did not see.
From the testimony of witness Shch., it follows that for about 5 years she and her husband have been living at the following address:<адрес>. The police officers turned to her, showed a photo of a young man, she replied that she did not know him. The second time she was asked to be understood in the apartment<адрес>and testify that there are no traces of a man living in the said apartment. In addition to her, the witness was a neighbor from the apartment<адрес>, while the landlady herself was present<адрес>, who was at home in a dressing gown.
She confirmed the testimony given during the preliminary investigation, explaining that she remembered everything better before.
Being interrogated during the preliminary investigation, witness Shch.<адрес>Z lives, she lives alone. *.*.* In her presence, 3 police officers explained that she lives in her apartment permanently and alone, does not rent the apartment or part of it to anyone. Indeed, apart from the hostess, there was no one in the apartment; if someone else lived at Z, she would know, because. does not work and stays at home all the time.
From the testimony of witness O. it follows that since *.*.* she has been cohabiting with the defendant, they have a daughter, *.*.* year of birth. After being released from prison in<адрес>she met him, they also met with lawyer T., who told them that Furman was under administrative supervision, that he had to be at home from 10 pm to 6 am. He explained that there was a court session without the participation of Furman and him (the lawyer), who determined the punishment, but the decision did not enter into force, t.to. they filed an appeal. The lawyer also explained that Furman must register in<адрес>so determined by the court. When he was released, Furman was not given a passport, because. citizenship has not been established. Furman decided to go to<адрес>to recover documents. *.*.* She and Furman arrived by train at<адрес>, and on the same day we went by car to<адрес>. *.*.* they arrived at<адрес>, Furman S.N. I went to the police to announce my arrival. *.*.* in the morning Furman went to<адрес>recover documents. The fact that in relation to Furman S.N. established administrative supervision, learned *.*.* from him, and then from a lawyer, realized that he should serve administrative supervision in<адрес>, but since Furman had no documents, he decided to go to<адрес>. AT<адрес>her mother lives, Furman never lived at this address and was not registered. At the beginning of the *.*.* year, a district police officer came to her mother and asked if Furman lived with her. In *.*.* she was called to the police<адрес>, they asked where Furman lives, she explained that in<адрес>, the address was not specified. Knows that in<адрес>Furman rented an apartment from Z at:<адрес>She has been there several times. I rented an apartment from Z for about 2 months, then in *.*.* she bought an apartment for<адрес>for family living, tk. Furman needs to restore his documents and serve administrative supervision.
From the testimony of witness K. (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor due to the failure to appear and with the consent of the parties) it follows that she lives with her husband K. at the address:<адрес>In the next apartment<адрес>Z lives alone, because she has never seen any man open the door of her apartment. Furman S.N. does not know. *.*.* At the request of the police, she and a neighbor from the apt.<адрес>testified that in sq.<адрес>the man does not live. The door was opened by Z, she was dressed at home, to the question of the police officers Z explained that she lived alone in the apartment and that Furman S.N. never lived here (case file 181-185 v.1).
From the testimony of witness K. (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor due to his failure to appear and with the consent of the parties) it follows that he lives with his wife K. at the address:<адрес>Knows that in sq.<адрес>a woman named Z lives, lives alone, saw that her grandson comes to her, he looks about 20 years old. In the period from *.*.* to *.*.*, he lived in his apartment, did not see any the man lived in the apartment of Z. Furman S.N. does not know personally and has never seen before (case file 186-188 v.1).
From the testimony of witness G. (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor due to the failure to appear and with the consent of the parties) it follows that until *.*.* he will make repairs in the apartment<адрес>, the owner of this apartment is F.. When he started to repair this apartment, no one lived in it. I did not see any strangers, except for the owner of the apartment and his wife. Furman S. is not known to him (case file 36-39 v.1).
From the testimony of witness F. (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor due to the failure to appear and with the consent of the parties) it follows that in *.*.*, he and his wife acquired D. apartment<адрес>located in<адрес>. Only their apartment is residential, the rest are offices. Currently, this apartment is being renovated, they did not rent the apartment to anyone (case sheet 50 v.1).
It follows from the testimony of witness Shch.<данные изъяты>located at:<адрес>from *.*.* year. She knows that in the apartment<адрес>a married couple lives, they are about 35 years old. The wife's name is V., they have two children. The last time she saw them was in *.*.*, since about mid-August, repairs have been carried out in this apartment, they are being carried out by young people. Furman S. is unknown to her. She learned her surname and description from police officers (case sheet 40-42 v.1).
From the testimony of witness Z., given by him during the preliminary investigation (the testimony was read out in accordance with Part 3 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor in connection with significant contradictions), it follows that he<данные изъяты>*.*.* at about 11 o'clock in the office No.<адрес>addressed Furman S.N., *.*.*, born, showing a certificate of release from<данные изъяты>. The certificate of release indicated that Furman was under administrative supervision for a period of 2 years and that he had to appear at the police department for registration. He compiled a questionnaire for a supervised person, in which Furman indicated that he lives at the address:<адрес>, as well as the schedule of arrival for registration, however, Furman refused to sign these documents, without explaining the reasons. After *.*.* Furman did not come to him for registration. *.*.*, *.*.*, *.*.* and *.*.* in the evening he went out to the address indicated by Furman, but he was not at home. Z lives at this address, and she explained that she knew Furman, but had not seen him for about 10 years and had not contacted him. After *.*.* Furman S.N. he didn't see him, he (Furman) didn't call him, didn't send him any documents (case file 31-34 vol. 1). He added that his duties include monitoring persons who are on preventive records and live in the administrative service area of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for<адрес>. They repeatedly different time days, the address of the place of residence of Furman S.N. was checked, namely:<адрес>However, no one opened the door of the said apartment for him. From the words of his neighbors, he knows that only Z, no man named Furman S.N. lives in the indicated apartment. does not live in this apartment (case sheet 189-191 v.1).
The Court recognizes as reliable and bases the Judgment on the above testimony of witness Z., given by him during the preliminary investigation, t.to. they are consistent, logical, consistent both with each other and with the testimony of witnesses B., S. (case sheet 47 v.1), according to which they were attesting witnesses when Furman S.N. from signing the questionnaire and the schedule in the premises of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to<адрес>, other evidence in the case examined at the court session.
The court regards the change in the testimony of witness Z. at the hearing as a way to help the defendant Furman S.N. avoid criminal liability.
Moreover, the testimony of witness Z. given by him during the preliminary investigation is also consistent with the testimony of witnesses T., K., D., K., K., questioned at the hearing at the request of the prosecution.
So, from the testimony of witness T. it follows that in the period from *.*.* to *.*.* he<данные изъяты>. *.*.* was at the workplace, he received a call from the district commissioner Z. that Furman S.N. had come to register. in respect of which administrative supervision has been established and which refuses to sign. He invited two citizens to Z.'s office and, in the presence of Furman, S.N. on the questionnaire and the chart, he made a note about Furman's refusal to sign these documents, which was evidenced by the invited citizens. Z. made copies of Furman's certificate of release, drew up a certificate of the preventive interview, and photographed Furman. *.*.* In the evening I received a letter by fax from<данные изъяты>, which indicated that there was a court decision on administrative supervision in relation to Furman. Court requests were made<адрес>, <данные изъяты>the answers are attached to the case on administrative supervision. Z. visited Furman at the address indicated by him in the questionnaire,<адрес>, wrote reports that were transmitted to the head of D. and then returned to Z. with his (D.) resolution. He, in turn, filed the data of the report in the case of administrative supervision. After the third visit to Furman at the place of residence, Z. said that he could not find Furman at home, therefore, a senior district police officer K. was sent to the address, who drew up an act on Furman's absence from the place of residence, took explanations from the neighbors. From the explanations of the owner of the apartment, it followed that she had not seen Furman for 30 years. Only after questioning the neighbors, *.*.* Z. provided him with a rental agreement for Furman's living quarters and Z.S. the management appointed him (T.) as the head, and Z. wanted to take this position.
It follows from the testimony of witness K. that *.*.*, by order of the chief, he went to the address:<адрес>in order to verify Furman C.N. The door of the above-mentioned apartment was opened by a woman, who said that Furman did not live with her, and invited him to enter the apartment. During the conversation, she explained that she knows Furman, saw him 20 years ago, he invited witnesses, drew up an act on Furman's absence at the place of residence, and interviewed neighbors. They communicated normally with the owner of the apartment, pressure and threats from the side law enforcement there was no one addressed to her, one was friendly, there were no traces of the presence of a man in her apartment, the hostess was at home alone, she was dressed in a dressing gown.
From the testimony of witness D. it follows that he works<данные изъяты>. Furman S.N. knows by the nature of his work. *.*.* called him<данные изъяты>G. and said that Furman S.N. arrived from the places of deprivation of liberty, who would come to them to restore his passport. Then information came from<адрес>that administrative supervision had been established against Furman, he instructed the head of the UUP T. to open a case on administrative supervision against Furman, and he, in turn, delegated Z. T. to him reported that the case had been opened, the district police officer Z. was looking into it. He saw the report Z., put resolutions on them on the day of acquaintance with them. From T. there were complaints about improper performance official duties Z., so he called the operational officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who, together with the district police officer K., went to the address of Furman's place of residence, but he was not there, documents were drawn up. Knows that Z. called Furman, which is unacceptable.
From the testimony of witness K. it follows that he works<данные изъяты>). *.*.* he and K. were instructed to proceed to<адрес>and check Furman S.N. at the place of residence<адрес>. Together with the district commissioner, they arrived at the address at 22:15, the door of the apartment was opened by a woman who explained that Furman S.N. she does not live, invited to enter. In the presence of neighbors from apartments<адрес>an act was drawn up on the absence of Furman at the place of residence, about which he reported to his boss. He did not know the owner of the apartment before, he talked with her twice, the first - *.*.* in her apartment, the second in the apartment of her son-in-law A. The second time she refused to sign the protocol of interrogation, explaining that the first time she did not understand , probably Furman lived with her. There were no threats against the owner of the apartment from their side, a pleasant woman herself let them into the apartment, allowed them to inspect the apartment, there were no traces of the man's stay in the apartment.
From the testimony of witness K. it follows that he works<данные изъяты>*.*.* he went to<адрес>to assist the department<адрес>. Arriving at 22:15 hours at the place of residence of Furman S.N. found out that Furman was not there. were at the address<адрес>. There was a woman Z. or Z. in the apartment, who explained that she worked at school with Furman's mother, saw him 20 years ago, that she lives alone, Furman does not live with her. 2 women were invited, an act was drawn up. The owner of the apartment herself invited them to inspect her apartment, there were no traces of the man's presence in the dwelling. There were no threats from their side against the hostess.
From the testimony of witness Z, given by her during the preliminary investigation *.*.* (the testimony was read out in accordance with part 3 of article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor in connection with significant contradictions), it follows that for about 2 years she has been living in address:<адрес>all this time she lives alone. For about 35 years he has known Furman S.N. previously worked with his mother. For about 20 years Furman S.N. she did not see him and did not contact him, he did not call her, does not maintain any relationship with him. Furman S.N. he has never lived with her and has never been with her, where he may be at the present time, he does not know (case sheet 53-55 v.1).
Witness Z's arguments that she did not read the protocol of interrogation, but signed it at the direction of the police officer, the court finds untenable, t.to. in the protocol of interrogation Z from *.*.* there is her own handwritten note - a remark to the protocol regarding her marital status, which gives the court reason to believe that Z was familiarized with the protocol in in full(case sheet 55 v.1).
The facts of police pressure on witness Z, as well as illegal entry into her apartment in *.*.* by police officers were the subject of consideration and did not find its confirmation, which is confirmed by the Resolution on the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings dated *.*.* (l .d.61 v.2).
The Court recognizes as reliable and bases the Judgment on the above testimonies of witness Z, given by her during the preliminary investigation, t.to. they are consistent, logical, consistent both with each other and with other evidence in the case examined at the court session, namely with the testimony of witnesses K., K., K. according to which, *.*.* Z, in the presence of attesting witnesses, explained that she lives alone in her apartment, she has not seen Furman for more than 20 years, as well as with the testimony of witnesses Shch. and K. who were witnesses during the verification of Furman at the place of residence:<адрес>
The court regards the change in the testimony of witness Z at the hearing as a way to help the defendant Furman S.N. avoid criminal liability.
Testimony of witness Z, given by her during the preliminary investigation *.*.* (testimony read out in accordance with part 3 of article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor in connection with significant contradictions) (case file 205-208 v.1) , as well as the explanation Z from *.*.* the court finds not reliable, since they are refuted by the totality of the evidence in the case examined at the hearing.
The Court recognizes as reliable and bases the Judgment on the above testimonies of witnesses, since they are consistent both with each other and with the written materials of the case examined at the court session, including with the Decision<данные изъяты>court<адрес>from *.*.* which in relation to Furman C.N. administrative supervision was established, including an administrative restriction for a period of 2 years in the form of a ban on staying outside a residential or other premises that is his place of residence or stay from 22-00 pm to 06-00 am; the obligation to appear at the internal affairs body at the place of residence or stay twice a month for registration; prohibition to travel outside the Russian Federation during the period of administrative supervision (case sheet 24 v.2).
Message and.about. Chief of Police of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for<адрес>from *.*.* it is confirmed that Furman C.N. until now, to the police located in the territory<адрес>, for the implementation of administrative supervision measures against him, provided for by the Federal Law, did not apply (case file 6 v.1).
Reports of the district commissioner of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for<адрес>from *.*.*, *.*.* and *.*.* it is confirmed that *.*.*, *.*.*, *.*.* Furman S.N., who is under administrative supervision for registration did not appear (case file 19, 20, 21 vol. 1).
*.*.* when visiting st. district police officer K. supervised person Furman C.N. at the place of residence indicated by him when registering:<адрес>established that Furman C.N. does not live at the indicated address, which is confirmed by the act of visiting the supervised person (case sheet 22 v.1).
It follows from the protocol of seizure dated *.*.* that the file of administrative supervision No. on the supervised Furman S.N. was confiscated from witness Z. (case sheet 194-195 vol. 1), and on December 6 the case was examined, which is confirmed by the protocol of examination of documents (case sheet 220-228 vol. 1).
The case on administrative supervision No. in relation to Furman S.N., which was examined at the court session, confirms that:
according to instructions from *.*.*, in relation to the convicted Furman C.GN. in accordance with the Decree<данные изъяты> <адрес>from *.*.* administrative supervision is established. The supervised person is obliged: to arrive at the chosen place of residence or stay along the route<адрес>no later than *.*.*; appear for registration with the Department of Internal Affairs within three working days from the date of arrival at the place of residence or stay chosen by him after release from places of deprivation of liberty, as well as after changing the place of residence or stay; Furman S.N. warned of criminal liability under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for non-arrival without good reason to the chosen place of residence or stay within a certain period, for evading administrative supervision, for non-compliance with administrative restrictions established by the court or failure to fulfill duties;
<адрес> <данные изъяты> <адрес>
the fact of refusal convicted Furman C.GN. from the signature in the obligation to appear is confirmed by an act dated *.*.*, certified by the head of the operational department<данные изъяты>M., chief<данные изъяты>M., head of the special accounting department<данные изъяты>L;
a signature to appear at the police department, which was announced to the defendant Furman S.N. *.*.*, it is confirmed that after release from the colony to the place of residence in<адрес>Furman S.N. must appear at the internal affairs body no later than *.*.*; appear for registration with the Department of Internal Affairs within three working days from the date of arrival at the place of residence or stay chosen by him after release from places of deprivation of liberty, as well as after changing the place of residence or stay; Furman S.N. warned of criminal liability under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for non-arrival without good reason to the chosen place of residence or stay within a certain period, for evading administrative supervision, for non-compliance with administrative restrictions established by the court or failure to fulfill duties; Furman S.N. announced Decision<данные изъяты> <адрес>dated *.*.* in accordance with which administrative restrictions are imposed on him;
the fact of refusal convicted Furman C.GN. from the signature in the obligation to appear is confirmed by an act dated *.*.* certified by the head<данные изъяты>M., chief<данные изъяты>M., chief<данные изъяты>L;
from the receipt from *.*.* it follows that Furman C.N. received an order to leave for the chosen place of residence or stay and was warned of criminal liability for evading administrative supervision, but refused to sign the receipt, which is confirmed by an act from *.*.* certified by the head<данные изъяты>M., chief<данные изъяты>M., chief<данные изъяты>L;
*.*.* by the local authorized representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for<адрес>Z. on Furman S.N. a questionnaire was compiled in which the place of residence of Furman S.N. specified<адрес>in accordance with the schedule of the arrival of the supervised person for registration, Furman C.GN. is required to appear for registration at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for<адрес>, cab. No. by 10 a.m. on the 10th and 20th of each month. The fact of the refusal of Furman S.N. from the signing of the questionnaire and the schedule is evidenced by the signatures of citizens B. and S.;
according to post<данные изъяты>*.*.* received by ATC<адрес>, Furman S.N. is released after the expiration of the term of serving the sentence *.*.* and goes to live in<адрес>, in accordance with the decision of the court in relation to Furman C.GN. established administrative supervision and established administrative restrictions;
ATC message<адрес>dated *.*.* it is confirmed that to date Furman S.N. for registration in the OUUPDN UMVD of Russia<адрес>did not get up, within the time specified by the court in<адрес>did not appear;
*.*.* at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for<адрес>on Furman S.N. administrative supervision case No. was opened, in which the address of the place of residence of the supervised person is indicated:<адрес>.
A certificate from NickelService LLC confirms that at the address:<адрес>, registered Z, *.*.*, b. (case file 50 v.2).
From the ruling<данные изъяты> № <данные изъяты>from *.*.* it follows that Furman S.N. at 22:45 *.*.* during the period of serving administrative supervision was not at the place of residence, but at<адрес>(case sheet 30-31 v.2), and in the administrative offense report dated *.*.* Furman S.N. address of residence:<адрес>(case sheet 34 v.2).
Assessing the above evidence in the aggregate, the court finds the guilt of the defendant Furman C.GN. in evasion of administrative supervision established, and the evidence sufficient for conclusions about his guilt.
To the testimony of witness E. about the appearance of Furman S.N. in the DMIA<адрес>*.*.* and residence of Furman S.N. by the address:<адрес>the court is critical, since in the court session it was established with certainty that the<адрес>Furman S.N. registered *.*.*, but the defendant did not live at the indicated address, and regards them as a way chosen by the witness to help the defendant Furman S.N. avoid criminal liability due to established friendly relations.
The court is also critical of the testimony of witness T. in terms of the fact that at the time of the release of Furman S.N. from places of deprivation of liberty, The court decision dated *.*.* did not enter into force, since from the definition<данные изъяты>from *.*.* it follows that the cassation appeal against the Court decision of *.*.* was left without movement, and by the court ruling of *.*.* returned to the applicant.
Thus it is the decision of the court from *.*.* establishing in respect of Furman C.GN. administrative supervision in accordance with part 1 of article 209 of the Civil procedural code Russian Federation entered into force after the expiration of the period for cassation appeal, that is, *.*.*, which corresponds to the mark of the court on the decision (case sheet 24 v.2).
The arguments of defense counsel Kuznetsov R.V. that the defendant is not obliged to execute the court decision that has not entered into legal force, the court finds untenable, since at the hearing it was established with certainty that the court decision dated *.*.* on establishing in respect of Furman S. N. upon his release from places of deprivation of liberty, *.*.*, entered into force, and according to Part 2 of Article 13 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which entered into force court rulings, as well as legal orders, demands, instructions, calls and appeals of the courts are binding on all bodies without exception state power, bodies local government, public associations, officials, citizens, organizations and are subject to strict execution throughout the territory of the Russian Federation.
The fact that Furman was aware of S.N. about the establishment of administrative supervision in respect of him was confirmed at the court session by the defendant himself, who explained that two days after the court session he received the decision of the court, as well as the testimony of witness O., from which it follows that after the release of Furman from the colony, they met with lawyer T., who told them that Furman was under administrative supervision, that he had to stay at home from 22:00 to 06:00, that Furman had to register at<адрес>.
In addition, upon release from places of deprivation of liberty, the defendant was given an order from *.*.*, which indicated that in relation to the convicted Furman S.N. in accordance with the Decree<данные изъяты>from *.*.* administrative supervision was established and what it consists of, subscriptions were announced to appear at the police department<адрес>and<адрес>in the terms established by the administration of the correctional institution, the consequences of failure to comply with the restrictions and duties assigned to him, Furman C.N. was warned of criminal liability under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
These facts are confirmed by the testimonies of witnesses M., L., M. announced at the court session, which the court has no reason not to trust, since they are consistent both with each other and with the evidence in the case examined at the court session, namely, signatures on appearance at the police department, prescription, receipts and acts.
Inconsistent court finds the arguments of the defender Kuznetsov P.The. regarding the fact that a case on administrative supervision could not be initiated against the defendant, since at the time of his (Furman's) application to the Ministry of Internal Affairs on<адрес>, *.*.*, the police did not have a court decision on the establishment of administrative supervision, for the following reasons.
In accordance with paragraph 7.2 of the Procedure for the implementation of administrative supervision of persons released from places of deprivation of liberty, annexes to the Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia dated July 8, 2011 No. 818, employees of the supervision unit or other officials when exercising administrative supervision, if a copy of the court decision is not received from the correctional institution that initiated the establishment of administrative supervision, it is requested from the specified correctional institution.
Thus, from the foregoing, it follows that the supervised person is obliged to register even if the decision of the court has not been received from the correctional institution by the bodies exercising administrative supervision.
At the court session, witness T. explained that *.*.* in the evening a letter had arrived by fax from<данные изъяты>, which indicated that there was a Court decision on administrative supervision in relation to Furman, requests were made to<данные изъяты>the answers were attached to the case on administrative supervision, witness D. explained that on the day Furman was registered with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, information came from<данные изъяты>that administrative supervision was established against Furman.
The court has no grounds not to trust the testimony of these witnesses, since their testimony is consistent both with each other and with the report.<данные изъяты>available in the case file № on administrative supervision in respect of Furman C.GN.
To the arguments of the defendant Furman S.N., that from *.*.* to *.*.* he lived in apartment 3 at the address:<адрес>was at home from 10 p.m. 186-188 v.1), from which it follows that in the apartment<адрес>a woman lives, Z, alone, a man has never been seen entering or leaving her apartment, according to the testimony of witness Z (case file 53-55 v.1), according to which she lives alone in her apartment, Furman knows, but has not seen for a long time , witness Z. (case file 189-191 v.1), that at the place of residence of Furman S.N. no one opened the door for him, witnesses T., K.. K. and K., that *.*.* at 22:15, Furman S.N. by the address:<адрес>was not, witnesses P. and K., who at the hearing explained that Furman C.GN. *.*.* was detained in<адрес>.
The testimonies of these witnesses are consistent both with each other and with the evidence in the case examined at the court session, namely with the reports of the district police commissioner Z. (case file 19, 20, 21 v.1), the act of visiting the supervised person (case file 22 v.1), Decree<данные изъяты> № <данные изъяты>from *.*.* (case sheet 30-31 v.2), and the fact of the conclusion *.*.* between Z and Furman S.N. The tenancy agreement does not provide evidence of actual residence the defendant at the address indicated by him when registering with the Ministry of Internal Affairs at<адрес>.
On the intent of the defendant Furman S.GN. evasion of administrative supervision is also evidenced by the fact that *.*.*, when drawn up in relation to Furman S.N. protocol on an administrative offense, they were given a false address of the place of residence<адрес>(case file 34 v.2), and according to the testimony of witnesses G. (case file 36-39 v.1), F. (case file 50 v.1), Shch. 40-42 vol. 1) the above-mentioned apartment belongs to F. and in *.*.* years it was being renovated.
The arguments of the defender Filippov AND.E. regarding the fact that administrative supervision in relation to Furman C.N. suspended *.*.* in connection with the announcement of the wanted list, the court finds not consistent, since *.*.* at 22:45 hours the defendant Furman C.GN. was detained by the police, that is, grounds for suspending the term of administrative supervision in respect of Furman C.N. have fallen away.
The arguments of the defense that on the day of the consideration of the criminal case is not determined legal status defendant Furman S.N., whether or not he is a citizen<данные изъяты> legal value to qualify the actions of the defendant do not have.
The actions of the defendant Furman C.GN the court qualifies under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since the defendant Furman C.GN. committed evasion from administrative supervision, namely: non-arrival, without valid reasons, of a person in respect of whom administrative supervision is established upon release from places of deprivation of liberty, to the place of residence or stay chosen by him within the period determined by the administration of the correctional institution, as well as unauthorized leaving by this person of the place of residence or stays made for the purpose of evading administrative supervision.
In imposing punishment, the court shall take into account the nature and degree public danger of the crime committed, information about the identity of the defendant, circumstances mitigating and aggravating punishment, the impact of the punishment imposed on his correction and on the living conditions of his family.
defendant Furman C.GN.<данные изъяты>committed a minor crime at the time the crime was committed<данные изъяты>, work with *.*.*,<данные изъяты>.
The fact of the work of Furman S.N.<данные изъяты>confirmed by a copy employment contract from *.*.*, as well as the testimony of witnesses Kh., K. (V.), questioned at the hearing at the request of the defense, from the testimony of which it follows that Furman C.GN. really works in<данные изъяты>With *.*.*<данные изъяты>, however, went to work several times due to restrictions.
mitigating circumstances Furman S.N. the court recognizes<данные изъяты>.
An aggravating circumstance is the presence of a recidivism of crimes, so he should be punished according to the rules of part 2 of article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In view of the foregoing, and also taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, the personality of the defendant Furman S.N., including the commission of a socially dangerous act by him shortly after his release from prison, which indicates that he does not seek to take the path of correction, did not draw the proper conclusions for itself, the court considers that the achievement of the goals of punishment established by law is possible only when sentencing in the form of deprivation of liberty, applying Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and assigning certain duties to the conditionally convicted person.
Based on the above, guided by Article.Article. 307, 308, 309 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court
Sentenced:
recognize Furman S.N. guilty of committing a crime under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentence him to imprisonment for a period of 8 (eight) months.
Based on Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation consider the imposed punishment conditional with probationary period 6 months, during which the conditionally convicted person must prove his correction by his behavior.
Assign to the convict Furman S.N. taking into account his age, ability to work and state of health, performance of duties: twice a month to appear for registration at the penitentiary inspection of the Department for the Execution of Punishments of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation at the place of residence or stay, do not change the permanent place of residence or stay, as well as work without notifying the penitentiary institution.
preventive measure before the entry into force of the verdict defendant Furman C.GN. leave unchanged - a written undertaking not to leave and proper behavior.
Physical evidence in the case:
- case of administrative supervision No. on Furman S.N., transferred to responsible storage district police officer of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for<адрес>to police captain Z. - leave in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for<адрес>.
The judgment may be appealed to cassation to Murmansk regional court within 10 days from the date of the proclamation, and convicted Furman S.N. within the same period - from the date of delivery of a copy of the Judgment.
Judge A.A. Gorbatyuk

The study of judicial practice in criminal cases on a crime under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - evasion from administrative supervision

The information was prepared based on the materials of criminal cases considered by the courts in 2012-2015.

Federal Law No. 66-FZ of 06.04.2011 introduced into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation a provision providing for criminal liability for evading administrative supervision - Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

In the wording of this law, criminal liability occurred in cases of non-arrival, without good reason, of a person in respect of whom administrative supervision is established upon release from places of deprivation of liberty, to the chosen place of residence or stay within the period determined by the administration of the correctional institution, as well as unauthorized leaving by the supervised person of the place of residence or stays committed in order to evade administrative supervision.

On December 31, 2014, this provision of the law was supplemented by the second part, providing for liability for repeated non-compliance by a person in respect of whom administrative supervision is established, administrative restrictions or restrictions established by a court, associated with the commission by this person of an administrative offense against the management order (with the exception of Art. 19.24 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), or an administrative offense infringing on health, sanitary and epidemiological well-being and public morality.

For the correct application of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to be guided by the provisions of the Federal Law of April 06, 20011 No. 64-FZ “On Administrative Supervision of Persons Released from Places of Detention” and the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 27, 2013. No. 22 "On the application of legislation by the courts when considering cases on administrative supervision."

The study of judicial practice has shown a number of typical mistakes made by the courts when considering this category of criminal cases.

1. A person cannot be found guilty of evading administrative supervision if it is established incorrectly and illegally.

Administrative supervision may be established for an adult who has been released from places of deprivation of liberty and has an outstanding or expunged conviction for committing a grave and especially serious crime in case of recidivism when committing an intentional crime against a minor.

Administrative supervision is established without fail to an adult person released from places of deprivation of liberty and having an outstanding or expunged conviction for committing a crime in case of a dangerous and especially dangerous recidivism, or for committing an intentional crime against the sexual inviolability and sexual freedom of a minor.

With regard to other persons falling under the requirements of the law on the establishment of administrative supervision, such supervision is established, provided that this person, during the period of serving a sentence in places of deprivation of liberty, was recognized as a malicious violator of the established procedure for serving a sentence, or after serving a sentence of deprivation of liberty for year they commit two or more administrative offenses infringing on public order and public safety and\or\ on public health and public morals.

According to paragraph 4 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 27, 2013 No. 22 “On the application of legislation by the courts when considering cases on administrative supervision”, a person released on parole from places of deprivation of liberty in accordance with Article 79 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is considered not to have served his sentence and he cannot be subject to administrative supervision.

By virtue of Part 7 of Article 79 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if a person evades the fulfillment of duties imposed on him by the court upon parole, as well as if he commits an administrative offense or crime before the expiration of the remaining unserved part of the punishment, parole the release may be canceled with the execution of the remaining part of the sentence not served. Administrative supervision to this person cannot be applied before the expiration of the term of the unserved sentence.

The most common error in the practice of the courts is related to the establishment of administrative supervision during the period of parole of the defendant.

By the verdict of the Kuibyshevsky District Court of Omsk dated May 18, 2015, Starostin A.A. was found guilty and sentenced under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 7 months in prison to be served in a strict regime correctional colony.

Administrative supervision was established by Starostin A.A. decision of the Sovetsky District Court of Omsk dated February 2, 2012, during the period of parole from serving a sentence by the verdict of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Omsk dated August 23, 2007, evasion from administrative supervision was committed Starostin A.A. after the expiration of the parole period.

Starostin A.A. at the time of establishing administrative supervision, he was considered a person who had not served his sentence, administrative supervision could be established for him only after the expiration of the term of parole, therefore, the charge against him contradicted the current legislation, the provisions of Article 79 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The court of first instance had to evaluate the correctness of establishing administrative supervision and ascertain the validity of the charges brought in connection with this.

Appellate ruling judicial board in criminal cases of the Omsk Regional Court dated July 14, 2015, the judgment of the Kuibyshevsky District Court of Omsk dated May 18, 2015 was annulled.

convicted Starostin A.A. by the time the case was considered by the appellate instance, he had served 2 months in prison, he was recognized as having the right to rehabilitation.

According to the verdict of the Nazyvaevsky City Court Omsk region dated 08/01/2014 Belyaev M.V. was found guilty and sentenced under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 4 months in prison, in accordance with Part 5 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, on the totality of crimes, with a sentence of the Central District Court of Omsk dated July 15, 2014, he was sentenced to 3 years and 7 months in prison to be served in a special regime colony.

Administrative supervision was established for Belyaev M.V. by the decision of the Nazyvaevsky City Court of the Omsk Region dated June 13, 2013, during the period of parole from serving a sentence by the verdict of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Omsk dated January 11, 2005

Evasion from administrative supervision was committed by Belyaev M.V. during the parole period.

Belyaev M.V. at the time of establishing administrative supervision and at the time of evading administrative supervision, he was considered a person who had not served his sentence. Administrative supervision could be established for him only after the expiration of the term of parole, therefore, the charge of evading administrative supervision was unreasonably brought against him.

By the cassation decision of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Omsk Regional Court dated 06/29/2015, the sentence of the Nazyvaevsky City Court of the Omsk Region dated 08/01/2014 was canceled for Belyaev M.V. recognized the right to rehabilitation.

Similar mistakes were made in the study period by a number of other courts of the city and region.

The above examples show that the courts, when considering criminal cases under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, did not consider and evaluate the question of the validity of establishing administrative supervision, which led to the unlawful conviction of persons.

2. Qualification of the actions of the perpetrator when committing several facts of leaving the place of residence and stay.

The correctness of the qualification of the actions of the person involved, convicted of two types of crimes, is questionable.

By the verdict of the Tara city court of the Omsk region dated June 18, 2013, Gaizulin I.Ya. was found guilty and convicted under Articles 314.1, 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for failure to arrive at the chosen place of residence within three days after his release from prison and for leaving his place of residence without permission.

According to the materials of the case, evasion from administrative supervision was revealed by the district police officer on 04.02.2013 during the door-to-door round, on the same day Gaizulin I.Ya. was registered.

On April 18, 2013, a criminal case was initiated for the non-arrival of Gaizulin I.Ya. to their designated place of residence.

On April 22, 2013, a criminal case was initiated for unauthorized abandonment by Gaizulin I.Ya. living place. Later, the criminal cases were merged into one proceeding.

In the above example, the actions of the person involved were of a continuing nature, covered by a single intent and disposition of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, therefore they should have been qualified under the same composition of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

3. The period for which administrative supervision is established, and the period of supervision in case of a dangerous or especially dangerous relapse

According to clause 19 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 27, 2013 No. 22 “On the application of legislation by courts when considering cases on administrative supervision”, in the absence of an indication in the verdict of the presence of a recidivism of crimes, the court in the framework of a case on administrative supervision is not entitled to establish these circumstances.

The Sovetsky District Court of Omsk, in its decision of April 27, 2012, when considering the application of the administration of the correctional colony to establish administrative supervision in respect of Byvalin S.A., and the absence of an indication in the verdict of the Poltava District Court of the Omsk Region of July 14, 2010 on the type of relapse, he himself indicated the presence of a dangerous relapse and established Byvalin S.A. administrative supervision for 6 years.

Supervision in this case could be established for a period of 1 to 3 years, and not for the period of repayment of a criminal record, as in the case of a dangerous or especially dangerous recidivism.

When the type of recidivism is not determined by the verdict, then administrative supervision can be established on the basis of clause 2, part 1, article 3 of the Federal Law of April 6, 2011 No. in the presence of the conditions stipulated by part 3 of article 3 of this law, namely: if a person was recognized as a malicious offender during the period of serving a sentence, or if this person, during the period of expiration of a conviction, committed two or more administrative offenses against the management order, or encroaching on public order, public safety, public health and public morality.

Administrative supervision in this case is established for a period of 1 to 3 years, and not for the period of repayment of a criminal record, as in the case of a dangerous or especially dangerous recidivism.

The term of administrative supervision is established on the basis of Article 5 of the Federal Law of April 6, 2011 No. 64-FZ “On Administrative Supervision of Persons Released from Places of Detention”.

When determining the period of administrative supervision, based on the period of expiration of a conviction, it should be taken into account that the period of expiration of a criminal record, for which administrative supervision is established, is determined by the law in force at the time the crime was committed, and has retroactive effect if it mitigates or improves the situation of the convicted person.

The deadlines for the cancellation of convictions, provided for in Article 86 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, have been amended by the Federal Law No. 3218-FZ of July 23, 2013: the term for the cancellation of a conviction against persons convicted of serious crimes was 6 years, for especially serious crimes - 8 years before 07/23/2013, after 07/23/2013, for the repayment of a criminal record in relation to persons convicted of grave crimes, the period is 8 years, for especially grave crimes - 10 years.

By the decision of the Leninsky District Court of Omsk dated December 25, 2012, in relation to Rusanov V.A., who committed a crime with a dangerous relapse, administrative supervision was established for a period of 1 year, instead of 6 years.

By the decision of the Kuibyshevsky District Court of Omsk dated 10/11/2012 in relation to Kovalev S.A., who committed a serious crime with a dangerous relapse, administrative supervision was established for a period of 3 years, instead of 6 years.

By the verdict of the Sovetsky District Court of Omsk dated July 16, 2013, N.I. Yashina was found guilty and sentenced under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 6 months in prison.

Resolution of the Soviet District Court of Omsk on 22.12.2011, Yashina N.AND. administrative supervision was established for a period of 8 years.

Yashina N.I. She was convicted of a serious crime on June 29, 2007.

The court, when establishing administrative supervision, proceeded from the period of expiration of the conviction at the time of this decision, without taking into account the provisions of Article 5 of the Federal Law of April 6, 2011 No. 64-FZ “On administrative supervision of persons released from places of deprivation of liberty” about that the term for the expiration of a conviction for which administrative supervision is established is determined by the law in force at the time the crime was committed and has retroactive effect if it mitigates or improves the situation of the convicted person.

Yashina N.I. committed a crime under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a year after the establishment of an incorrect term for administrative supervision (8 years instead of 6).

In the event that she commits such an offense after 6 years, on the 7th or 8th year of the term of administrative supervision, then bringing her to criminal responsibility under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will be illegal, due to the establishment of an incorrect term for administrative supervision.

4. Establishing the intent of a person and the purpose of evading administrative supervision without good reason is prerequisite bringing a person to criminal liability under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

After evaluating the correctness of establishing the administrative supervision itself and the period for which it is established, it is necessary to establish the subjective side of the corpus delicti under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Finding out the reasons for non-arrival to the chosen place of residence or place of stay, their unauthorized abandonment is mandatory.

According to the verdict of the Kalachinsky City Court of the Omsk Region dated March 25, 2014, Mukhin A.V. was acquitted. due to the absence in his actions of the corpus delicti provided for by Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely, due to his lack of intent to evade administrative supervision.

Mukhina A.V. arbitrarily leaving the place of residence was imputed.

During the trial, it was found that Mukhin A.The. worked on a rotational basis, went to work according to the route sheet, noted it, but forgot it on the watch and did not pass it, therefore, being afraid of punishment, I decided to go to the watch again, pick up the route sheet and hand it over to the police, had no intentions to evade administrative supervision .

During the period of administrative supervision, he was characterized positively, fulfilled all the established restrictions.

Under such circumstances, the court reasonably did not see in the actions of Mukhina A.The. corpus delicti, acquitted him and recognized his right to rehabilitation.

By the verdict of the Novovarshavsky District Court of the Omsk Region dated March 25, 2013, Trishin R.A. was found guilty and convicted under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. for voluntarily leaving the place of residence.

According to the materials of the criminal case, Trishin R.A., the only breadwinner in the family, went to work without notifying the district police officer, and later provided travel documents.

During judicial trial Trishin's intent to evade administrative supervision was not ascertained.

5. The need to distinguish between the elements of a criminal offense under Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - evasion from administrative supervision, and an administrative offense under Art. 19.24 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - non-compliance with administrative restrictions and failure to fulfill obligations established during administrative supervision.

Systematic violation of the restriction established by the court decision on the establishment of administrative supervision does not constitute a criminally punishable act under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. These actions should be qualified as an administrative offense under Article 19.24 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

By the verdict of the Omsk District Court of the Omsk Region dated May 6, 2013, A.G. Chernykh was found guilty and convicted under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. for evading administrative supervision by absenting without good reason at the place of residence from 11 p.m. hours.

6. Sentencing

The most severe form of punishment is the sanction of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for imprisonment for up to 1 year.

Taking into account the fact that in most cases of this category, the actions of convicts are seen as a relapse of crimes, the punishment, in accordance with the requirements of part 2 of article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, cannot be imposed less than 4 months of imprisonment, and with a special procedure for considering the case - less than 3 months.

According to the verdict of the Nazyvaevsky City Court of the Omsk Region dated July 1, 2014, Nikitin D.V. was sentenced to 3 months in prison, by the verdict of the Leninsky District Court of Omsk on 13.12.2014, Rusanov V.A. was sentenced to 2 months in prison, by the verdict of the Tara City Court of the Omsk Region dated 03.03.2014 Anufriev P.I. was sentenced to 2 months in prison.

All of these individuals were sentenced for recidivism.

When imposing punishment by the courts with the application of Article 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in relation to persons convicted of evading administrative supervision, the courts should evaluate the identity of the defendant, relapse and the prospect of serving a suspended sentence with all restrictions and obligations, if the person involved has already evaded administrative supervision , did not comply with the restrictions established by the court and make a reasoned and reasoned decision on this issue.

Conditional sentences for the majority of sentences were not served by the convicts, which was initially predictable and subsequently led to the abolition of probation.

By the verdict of the Leninsky District Court of Omsk dated January 23, 2013, Kurbanov R.Ya. was found guilty and convicted under Article.314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in conjunction with Part 1 of Article.158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 1 year of suspended liberty.

In imposing punishment, the court did not take into account the fact that Kurbanov R.Ya. was repeatedly tried for robberies, relapse is seen in his actions. Administrative supervision was established for him as a malicious violator of the order of serving a sentence; during the period of evading supervision, he committed theft, however, the court considered that a conditional sentence was sufficient for correction.

According to the verdict of the Kuibyshevsky District Court of Omsk dated May 27, 2014, Vaganov E.M. was found guilty and convicted under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. to 6 months of imprisonment on probation with a probationary period of 6 months.

Vaganov E.M. administrative supervision was established after serving 15 years in prison for sexual assault and murder with special cruelty of a minor.

He did not appear at the hearings, the proceedings were suspended, Vaganov E.M. was put on the wanted list, his preventive measure was changed to detention, certain place also had no residence.

After his conviction, he never appeared at the penitentiary institution and on 11/19/2014 probation it was cancelled.

7. Jurisdiction

In accordance with Part.1 Article.31 Code of Criminal Procedure jurisdiction of Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is assigned to federal courts.

In practice, there have been cases of sending criminal cases for consideration by the justices of the peace, as well as cases of consideration of cases of this category by justices of the peace.

Sentence from February 11, 2016

In case No. 1-25/2016,1-337/2015

Accepted Leninsky District Court of Vladimir ( Vladimir region)

Leninsky District Court of Vladimir, consisting of:
presiding judge Godunina E.A.,
under the secretary Molyakova Yu.V.,
with the participation of public prosecutors
assistants to the prosecutor of the city of Vladimir Kudelkina E.I.,
Gunina A.A.,
defendant Belova A.V.,
defense counsel - lawyer Ivolgin N.N.,
who submitted certificate No. and order No.,
Having considered in an open court session in the city of Vladimir in a special manner the criminal case against
Belova A.V., born DD.MM.YYYY ...., residing at: , convicted:
March 18, 2008 by the verdict ...., subject to changes made by the decision .... under Part 2 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to imprisonment for a term of 6 years 3 months with serving in a strict regime correctional colony,
released on March 25, 2014 after serving his sentence,
accused of committing a crime, under Part. 2 Article. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Installed:
Belov A.V. has repeatedly failed to comply with the administrative restrictions imposed on him by the court in accordance with federal law by a person in respect of whom administrative supervision has been established, associated with the commission by this person of an administrative offense infringing on public order and public safety, under the following circumstances.
March 25, 2014 Belov A.V. served the sentence by sentence.... for hours. 2 Article. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, was released from prison. November 29, 2013 .... in relation to Belov A.The. administrative supervision was established for a period of 6 years, minus the period elapsed after serving the sentence, from the date of registration with the police department at the chosen place of residence or stay, with the following administrative restrictions: mandatory attendance at the police department at the place of residence or stay for registration once a month , the prohibition of staying outside the residential premises or other premises that are the place of residence or stay from 22 o'clock to 6 o'clock. April 1, 2014 in relation to Belov A.The. Police Department No. 1 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the city of Vladimir opened a case of administrative supervision, about which Belov A.V. notified on the same day.
On December 31, 2014, Belov A.V., knowing that he was a person in respect of whom the court established administrative supervision and administrative restrictions, did not appear without good reason for registration at the OP No. in connection with which, on March 21, 2015, by the decision of the magistrate of the court district No., he was brought to administrative responsibility under Part 1 of Art. 19.24 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation to punishment in the form of 1 day administrative arrest. On April 28, 2015, Belov A.V., knowing that he is a person in respect of whom the court established administrative supervision and administrative restrictions, again did not appear without a good reason for registration at the OP No. 1 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the city of Vladimir, the supervisory authority did not notify, in connection with which on May 1, 2015, by the decision of the magistrate of the judicial district No. .... he was brought to administrative responsibility under Part 3 of Art. 19.24 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation to punishment in the form of 10 days of administrative arrest.
On July 4, 2015, at 00:20, A.V. Belov, being a person who twice within 1 year was brought to administrative responsibility for non-compliance with administrative restrictions and failure to fulfill obligations established during administrative supervision, again violating the administrative restriction established by the court in the form the prohibition of staying outside the residential premises at night, was in public place- on the street near house No. po in a state of alcoholic intoxication, offending human dignity and public morality, that is, he committed an administrative offense infringing on public order and public safety, in connection with which, on July 8, 2015, by the decision of the deputy head of the OP No. 1 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the city of Vladimir was brought to administrative responsibility under Art. 20.21 of the RF Code of Administrative Offenses to be punished by a fine of 505 rubles.
defendant Belov A.The. his guilt in committed crime recognized fully and prior to the start of the trial filed a petition for consideration of the criminal case in a special manner.
Defender Belova A.V. - lawyer Ivolgin N.N. He supported the defendant's petition for consideration of the case in the order of special proceedings.
public prosecutor in the case of Gunin A.A. expressed his consent to the consideration of the case in a special order of the trial.
The court believes that the conditions for issuing a verdict without a trial are met, since the defendant confirmed that this request was made voluntarily by him, after consultation with the defense counsel, and he is aware of the consequences of the verdict in a special manner.
The court concludes that the accusation, with which the defendant A.V.
actions Belova A.The. court qualifies for hours. 2 Article. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as repeated non-compliance by a person in respect of whom administrative supervision has been established, with administrative restrictions imposed on him by a court in accordance with federal law, associated with the commission by this person of an administrative offense encroaching on public order and public safety.
When assigning the type and amount of punishment to the guilty, the court takes into account the provisions of Articles 6, 60, 61, 63, part 5 of Art. 62, part 2 of Art. 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and part 7 of Art. 316 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, takes into account the nature and degree of public danger of the deed, the circumstances of the crime, data characterizing the personality of the defendant, attitude to the deed, circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment, and the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the defendant.
The Court takes note that Belov A.The. previously convicted, repeatedly brought to administrative responsibility, is not registered in narcological and psycho-neurological dispensaries, at the place of residence, at the place of execution of administrative supervision by district police officers, and also at the place of serving the sentence in .... is characterized negatively.
As a circumstance, mitigating punishment Belova A.The., the court takes into account the admission of guilt and remorse for the deed.
In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 18 of the Criminal Code in the actions of Belova A.The. recurrence of crimes is seen. This circumstance, the court in accordance with paragraph. «a» h. 1 Article. 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation recognizes as aggravating.
Considering the above, and also, taking into account the public danger committed by Belov A.The. acts, the commission of a crime in conditions of recidivism of crimes, the personality of the guilty person, who is negatively characterized, his behavior both before and after the commission of the crime, in order to correct the convicted person and prevent him from committing repeated crimes, taking into account the principle of justice and achieving the goal of correcting the convicted person, the court comes to conclusion about the need to appoint Belovu A.The. punishment in the form of imprisonment and the impossibility of its correction without isolation from society.
Exceptional circumstances entailing the application of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court did not establish grounds for the application of Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not available.
The criminal case against Belova A.The. considered in accordance with Chapter 40 Code of Criminal Procedure, in connection with this the court imposes punishment according to the rules h. 5 Article. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Considering the circumstance that the crime Belov A.The. committed in terms of recidivism, when sentencing the court takes into account the provisions of h. 2 Article. 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Serving a sentence Belovu A.The. in accordance with paragraph. «in» h. 1 Article. 58 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is necessary in a strict regime correctional colony.
Guided by Article.Article. 302-308, 309, 316 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court
Sentenced:
Belova A. The. found guilty of committing a crime, under Part. 2 Article. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 5 months with serving in a strict regime correctional colony.
sentence Belova A.The. counted from the moment of pronouncement of the verdict.
A measure of procedural coercion in the form of an obligation to appear in relation to Belova A.The. change to a measure of restraint in the form of detention. Take into custody Belov A.The. in the courtroom.
The judgment may be appealed to appeal within the limits established by Art. 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, to the Vladimir Regional Court through the Leninsky District Court of Vladimir within 10 days from the date of its announcement, and to the convicted - within the same period from the date of delivery of a copy of the verdict to him.
If the defendant makes a petition for participation in the consideration of his appeal by the court of appeal, this is indicated in his appeal or in objections to the complaint, presentation brought by other participants in the criminal process.
presiding E.A. Godunin

Art. 314-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was created by the legislator in order to hold persons accountable for evading administrative supervision. Those citizens who repeatedly do not comply with the restrictions that were established by the judiciary in accordance with the relevant laws of the Russian Federation (plenum Supreme Court). At the same time, punishment applies only to those cases where non-compliance with restrictions is associated with the organization by this person of various violations of the law against this order. Exceptions in this case are those violations of the law, which are provided for by Art. 19.24 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (Code of Administrative Offenses).

The article contains norms concerning supervision, the violation of which entails punishment.

Let's list them:

Absence of a person without a legitimate reason to the place of punishment. In this case, this refers to the person in relation to whom supervision was applied after his release from the objects of deprivation of liberty. Similar rules apply to those persons who have chosen a place of residence or are in institutions with a correctional regime.
Leaving by a person of his place of residence, residence or location in order to evade oversight bodies.
These offenses committed by a controlled person are punishable by either a ban on liberty for 1 year, or forced labor for 24 months, or compulsory work in the amount of 180-240 hours.

Another behavior that falls under the scope of rule 314.1 is violations of existing rules of law that infringe on the integrity, inviolability of objects of society or public order, or on objects of security within society.

This also includes all those offenses that infringe on morality within society, the welfare or health of the public.

Such acts may be punished in the following ways:

penalties up to 60 thousand rubles;
six times the salary or any income;
work in the amount of 100-180 hours;
completion of work within a period of one calendar year;
arrest for 6 months;
imprisonment for 12 months.

Systematic non-compliance refers to non-compliance with restrictions judiciary, regulated by the relevant federal and other types of laws within the ongoing case, when a person has previously been prosecuted for the same or similar act.

Supervision is established in cases where the following offenses were noted for a person:

The crimes are especially grave or grave in nature.
relapse cases.
Intentional, if the victim is a minor.

Supervision is necessary in order to prevent crimes and any other violations of the law, as well as to influence and carry out preventive measures aimed at protecting the state and society.

Subjective side expressed in the following steps:

Non-arrival of a person without good reason at an institution established and designated by the competent authorities.
Voluntary leaving by a person of the place where he should be, live or stay according to a court order.

According to latest changes article 314.1 and the legal commentary, certain points were made regarding the objects objective side, supervision and other points.

According to legal commentaries, the object of the crime is those relationships that ensure the implementation of supervision. Such supervision, within the meaning of Article 314.1, is understood to be supervision initiated by the competent ATC authorities over a person who has been released from imprisonment upon establishing any time limits in relation to the freedom and rights of this person, as well as in the duties assigned to this person.

Within the scope of Art. 314-1 subjects include:

Released, but having both unexpunged and outstanding convictions.
Recognized as persistent offenders while serving their sentences.
Those who have served their sentences and have a criminal record.

We are talking about those who, despite the existing criminal record, committed new acts within 12 months after the verdict of the court.

The offense reports also reflect some other evidence. For example, this is evidence.

In the process of forming the accusation, the investigator notes such points as:

circumstances and facts of the offense;
place, time of the offense;
restrictions in relation to the citizen, which were established by the court and violated by the citizen;
human actions when committing an offense;
the guilt of the citizen;
definition of motives and forms of guilt.

The main feature of proving under rule 314.1 is that there will be reports of violations in the case. They will be the evidence during the production.

Among the cases of judicial practice under Article 314.1, the following can be distinguished:

The article under consideration in connection with the following compositions of the Criminal Code:

These are the main types of illegal actions that are associated with the norm 314.1 of the Criminal Code of Russia.

Links with Administrative Code:

Violation of the rules of alcoholic and alcohol-containing products - No. 14.16 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
Failure to comply with regulated federal laws requirements related to counteracting the processes of legalization of income - No. 15.27.
The appearance of a person in public places in a state of alcoholic or other types of intoxication - No. 20.21.

Links with articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

The procedure for issuing a court verdict and holding a court session - No. 316;
Limits and framework for appealing the established sentence - No. 317.
These are the relationships with other rules of law.

Histogram of links to other legal norms

Zarechensk city court of the Penza region, consisting of:

presiding judge, judge *.*. Zhitenev

under Secretary Fedyashkina *.*.,

with the participation of the public prosecutor

Senior Assistant Prosecutor ZATO Zarechny Zanadolbin *.*.,

Defendant Zobnin *.*.,

defense lawyer Yumin *.*., who presented a certificate (Number) and an order (Number),

having considered in open court session, in the courtroom, the case on charges

Zobnin *.*., whose identity has been established, previously convicted:

(Date) by the Zarechensky City Court of the Penza Region under paragraph “c” of Part 3 of Art. 132, part 1 of Art. 132, 135, part 1 of Art. 151 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 5 years in prison. (Date) released after serving his sentence;

(Date) by the Pervomaisky District Court of the city of Penza under paragraph "a" part 3 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 3 years in prison without a fine. (Date) released after serving his sentence;

registered and residing at (Address),

accused of committing a crime under Art. 314.1. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

Installed:

Zobnin *.*. accused of leaving his place of residence without permission in order to evade administrative supervision.

The crime was committed under the following circumstances:

So, on the basis of the decision of the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Penza dated (Date), in relation to ZOBNIN, convicted on (Date) by the Pervomaisky District Court of Penza under paragraph "a" part 3 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and having a criminal record that has not been withdrawn and not canceled, since (Date) administrative supervision has been established for a period of 6 years. In accordance with this, the latter, as a supervised person, is subject to an administrative restriction in the form of a ban on staying outside a residential or other premises that is the place of residence from 22 pm to 06 am of the next day and the obligation to appear twice a month at the internal affairs body at the place of residence or stay for registration. (Date), an employee of the Federal government institution IK (Number) of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the Penza Region, ZOBNIN was informed of the Decision of the Railway Court of the city of Penza dated (Date) on the establishment of administrative supervision in relation to him and an order was issued for registration with the internal affairs body of the city of Zarechny, Penza Region. (Date), Deputy Head of the Department of Precinct Commissioners of the Police and Juvenile Affairs of the Intermunicipal Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the closed administrative-territorial formation of Zarechny, Penza Region - Police Major *.*. V., ZOBNIN was registered and duly notified of the establishment of administrative supervision and administrative restrictions in relation to him, warning of responsibility for evading administrative supervision, in connection with which the deputy head of the department of district police officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for ZATO Zarechny, Penza Region, Major police *.*. V., as well as employees of the department - *.*. BUT., *.*. In and *.*. I., carried out administrative supervision, i.e. control over the execution by ZOBNIN of the established restrictions. However, the latter, being notified of the establishment of administrative supervision and restrictions related to it, in order to evade it, at about 5 p.m. Penza, where he was without notifying the police. At the same time, in accordance with the Court decision on registration, (Date) deliberately did not appear at the police department at the place of residence. Realizing the consequences of violation of administrative supervision, while staying in Penza with his acquaintances until 24:00 (Date), ZOBNIN deliberately did not return to his place of residence, thereby deliberately evading administrative supervision, violating the restriction established by the court - in the form of a ban on staying outside the residential or other premises, which is the place of residence of the supervised person, during the period from 22 pm to 06 am of the next day.

At the hearing, the defendant Zobnin *.*. and his counsel supported the petition declared during the preliminary investigation to consider the case in a special manner, provided for in Chapter. 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, explaining that the defendant admits guilt in full and to the extent in which it is formulated in the indictment. Also Zobnin *.*. explained that his position was agreed with the defense counsel and explained to him the consequences of the consideration of the case in a special order.

The public prosecutor during the trial, against the application special order acceptance judgment didn't mind.

At the hearing, it was established that the defendant understood the charge, he fully agrees with it and supports the petition for the decision of the Sentence without a trial. This petition was made voluntarily, after consultation with a lawyer and the consequences of the judgment without trial Zobnin *.*. realizes.

Thus, all the conditions for the decision of the verdict without a trial are met.

The court considers that the accusation, with which the defendant agreed, is justified and is supported by the evidence collected in the present criminal case.

Based on the foregoing, the actions of Zobnin *.*. the court qualifies under Art. 314.1. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since he committed unauthorized abandonment of his place of residence, in order to evade administrative supervision.

When appointing Zobnin *.*. the type and amount of punishment, the court takes into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, the identity of the defendant, mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

On the basis of paragraph «and» h. 1 Article. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, that Zobnin *.*. from the very beginning preliminary investigation fully recognized the guilt of the alleged crime, the court recognizes it as a fact of actively contributing to the disclosure of the crime, i.e. circumstance mitigating his punishment.

At the same time, on the basis of Part 1 of Art. 18 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since Zobnin *.*. committed an intentional crime of minor gravity, being convicted for previously committed intentional crimes to real deprivation of liberty, in his actions there is a recurrence of crimes, which is an aggravating circumstance, which excludes the possibility of applying to him Part 1 of Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The court also takes into account that at the place of residence Zobnin *.*. is characterized satisfactorily, and at the place of serving the sentence and by the district commissioner - mediocre, previously brought to administrative responsibility, is not registered with a narcologist, did not express any complaints about the state of health.

Based on part 5 of Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and part 7 of Art. 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, according to which the punishment imposed on Zobnin *.*. cannot exceed more than 2/3 of the maximum term or the amount of the maximum strict form punishment provided for the crime committed, taking into account the identity of the defendant, and on the basis of n. «in» h. 1 Article. 58 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court considers that his correction is possible only in isolation from society, with serving his sentence in a strict regime correctional colony.

Based on the above, guided by art. 316 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

Sentenced:

Zobnina *.*. found guilty of an offense under Art. 314.1. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and with the application of Part 5 of Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 5 (five) months, to be served in a strict regime correctional colony.

To the convicted Zobnin *.*. preventive measure in the form of a written undertaking not to leave and proper behavior, before the entry into force of the verdict, to change to detention.

Take Zobnin *.*. into custody in the courtroom.

The term of punishment for Zobnin *.*. calculated from the date of pronouncement of the Sentence, namely from (Date).

The verdict can be appealed in cassation to the Penza Regional Court, through the Zarechensky City Court, within 10 days from the date of its announcement, and by the convicted within the same period from the date of delivery of a copy of the Sentence, in compliance with the requirements of Art. 317 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. In the case of filing a cassation appeal, the convict has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the court. cassation instance and to entrust the implementation of his defense to an elected defender.

presiding *.*. Zhitenev