Sankt-Peterburg, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
UDK 34 Право. Юридические науки
GRNTI 10.77 Уголовное право
OKSO 40.06.01 Юриспруденция
BBK 67 Право. Юридические науки
The article is devoted to the study of the regulation of criminal liability for crimes committed using electronic means of payment related to cybercrime in the legislation of certain foreign countries of the Romano-Germanic legal family. The article notes that the Romano-German legal system is significantly distinguished from other families not only by the fact that it possesses, due to historical traditions, many characteristics of the law of ancient Roman jurisprudence, but also by the legal peculiarities of criminal legislation on cybercrime. The relevance of cybercrime, its differentiation based on the Convention on Crime in the Field of Computer Information (ETS No. 185) and the peculiarities of the criminal regulation of crimes committed using electronic means of payment in Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, China and the Baltic States are noted. It is pointed out that the issues of combating such crimes are of particular importance in all countries of the Romano-Germanic legal family. Despite differences in the position of legislators with regard to the criminalization of acts committed by electronic means of payment, in all countries attacks on property are considered as attacks on the foundations of the State, and protection against such attacks is one of the most important State functions. It is noted that the criminal codes of most States include rules on computer fraud, computer theft; Obtaining information constituting commercial and banking secrecy through improper access to computer information (commercial, banking espionage); Extortion using computer equipment. It is stated that the first step towards criminal law protection of computer information, development of criminal legislation to counter economic cybercrime was taken in Sweden in the Law on Computer Crimes (1973).
Romano-Germanic legal system, crime, cybercrime, fraud, deception, theft, computer information, criminal legislation, counteraction
1. David R. Les grands systems de droit contemporains (Droit comparé). - Paris: Dalloz, 1964. - R. 133.
2. Smirnov A. M. Nekotorye problemy kvalifikacii moshennichestva kak specifichnogo sposoba hischeniya // Novyy yuridicheskiy vestnik. - 2019. - № 1. - S. 53-55.
3. Zhalinskiy A. E. Sovremennoe nemeckoe ugolovnoe pravo. - Moskva: Prospekt, 2004. - 560 s.
4. Yastrebov D. A., Ivanovskiy P. S., Bryanceva N. V. Institut ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti za komp'yuternye prestupleniya v Germanii [Elektronnyy resurs] // Elektronnyy nauchnyy zhurnal «NaukaRus». - 2007. - URL: http://naukarus.com/institut-ugolovnoy-otvetstvennosti-za-kompyuternyeprestupleniya-v-germanii (data obrascheniya: 10.02.2020).
5. Chernyakova A. V. Mezhdunarodnyy i zarubezhnyy opyt ugolovno-pravovogo protivodeystviya hischeniyam, sovershaemym s ispol'zovaniem komp'yuternoy informacii // Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravoohranitel'naya praktika. - 2018. - № 4 (46). - S. 168-179.
6. Korchagin A. G., Trushova I. V. Problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya raschetov bankovskimi kartami // Yuridicheskie issledovaniya. - 2012. - № 3. - S. 43-77.
7. Shamahov V. A., Eremina N. V., Mezhevich N. M. Osnovnye harakteristiki politicheskogo razvitiya stran Pribaltiki i ih ekonomicheskie posledstviya // Upravlencheskoe konsul'tirovanie. - 2019. - № 3. - S. 8-23.
8. Kudryavcev R. V. Organizaciya deyatel'nosti po raskrytiyu distancionnyh moshennichestv // Molodoy uchenyy. - 2019. - № 24 (262). - S. 218-221.
9. Ivanova L. V. Vidy kiberprestupleniy po rossiyskomu ugolovnomu zakonodatel'stvu // Yuridicheskie issledovaniya. - 2019. - № 1. - S. 25-33.
10. Pchelkina E. V. Evolyuciya razvitiya moshennichestva, sovershaemogo s ispol'zovaniem bankovskoy garantii // Problemy pravoohranitel'noy deyatel'nosti. - 2019. - № 4. - S. 45-49.
11. Lapshin V. F. Ugolovno-pravovye sredstva protivodeystviya nezakonnoy bankovskoy deyatel'nosti // Problemy pravoohranitel'noy deyatel'nosti. - 2020. - № 2. - S. 6-10.
