The subject. The article is devoted to analysis of court practice concerning crimes in public procurement. The purpose of the paper is to solve the problem of delimitation of theft committed by the perpetrator with the use of his official position, from abuse of official powers and official forgery is topical. The methodology. General scientific methods as analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, comparison were used. The system method allowed to consider misdemeanors and a set of rules providing for responsibility for their commission, in conjunction with public relations, which need criminal law protection. The functional approach made it possible to address the issues of qualification for official crimes against the contract system and the state de-fense order, taking into account the forms and methods of activity of the subjects of con-tractual relations. Results and scope of application. An important role in improving the effectiveness of public procurement is played by officials who, in dealing with suppliers of goods and executors, are called upon to defend public interests. The public danger of crimes committed by offi-cials in this sphere is manifested in the destruction of the material basis of the functioning of the state, undermining its defensive capacity and reducing the level of security. Judicial practice testifies to the lack of uniform approaches to the qualification of crimes committed in the sphere of execution of the state and municipal contract. The article proposes criteria for delimiting the encroachments of officials on the expendi-ture of budgetary relations, taking into account the addition of the criminal law to norms that provide for responsibility for abuse in the performance of the state defense order (art. 201.1 and 285.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In the qualification of crimes committed in the sphere of contractual relations, and the application of art. 201.1 and 285.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are proposed to be guided by the recommendations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the delimitation of abuse of official powers from embezzlement. Conclusions. It is necessary to proceed from the existence of two lines of activity of the customer. The first is the acceptance of the delivered goods, the work performed, the ser-vices rendered. The second is payment for goods, work and services.
展开▼
