Registration Number
2122U001269, Article
popup.category
Стаття
Title
popup.author
Мовчан Р. О.
popup.publication
01-01-2022
popup.source_user
Донецький національний університет імені Василя Стуса
popup.source
https://r.donnu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/2598
popup.publisher
Запоріжжя: Запорізький національний університет
Description
Стаття в електронному науковому фаховому виданні Юридичний науковий електронний журнал, № 5/2022
the Criminal Code of Ukraine on Improving the Effectiveness of Combating Cybercrime under Martial Law”. In particular, the study made it possible to formulate the author’s recommendations for solving the most complex law enforcement problems, as well as to propose changes to the Criminal Code of Ukraine aimed at eliminating the shortcomings of the Law under consideration, the adoption of which will contribute to
the achievement of the highest efficiency of the relevant criminal law prescriptions.
Criticized the position that in order to qualify the relevant encroachments under Part 5 of Art. 361 of the Criminal Code, it is not required that they be committed “using the conditions of martial law”, but it is enough to commit them under martial law and inflict the consequences provided for in part 3 or part 4. It is summarized that the direct result of such a legislative step was that now, for example, banal, but
unauthorized viewing of television programs committed in wartime conditions should receive a criminal legal assessment with reference to Part 5
of Art. 361 of the Criminal Code.
A hypothesis is put forward regarding the unjustified severity and sanctions provided for by most other parts of Art. 361 of the Criminal Code of punishments.
The inexpediency of linking increased responsibility for unauthorized interference with both “creating the danger of severe technological
accidents or environmental disasters, death or mass illness of the population or other serious consequences” (part 4 of article 361 of the Criminal
Code), and with “commission during martial law ”(part 5 of article 361 of the Criminal Code).
The erroneousness of the withdrawal of the previously existing in the footnote Art. 361 of the Criminal Code of a fundamentally important
reservation that when assessing “significant damage”, the mentioned property equivalent should be taken into account only when such damage consisted in causing material damage, which led to a significant and unjustified narrowing of the scope of potential application of Part 4 of Art. 361 of the Criminal Code.
popup.nrat_date
2025-01-09
