Abstract: This article analyzes the draft law on implementation of the institution of criminal misconduct into the criminal legislation that was submitted to the State Duma upon the initiative of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The author traces the history of the problem, difference between the new and the previous draft law, which has received a negative response from the Government of the Russian Federation, and thus has not been implemented. The newly introduced institution viewed from the perspective of cross-sectoral competition, systematicity of criminal legislation, terminological accuracy, adequacy of sanctions for different types of offenses, correlation between the institution of criminal misconduct and the institution of exemption from criminal liability. The author also raises the question on the impact of implementation of the new institution upon the workload of law enforcement and judicial branches. The following conclusions were made: the institution of criminal misconduct would extend the chain of concepts that cannot be clearly defined: crime – minor misconduct – criminal misconduct – administrative offence; such institution violates the system of sanctions for unlawful acts, as the sanctions  for most criminal misconducts are milder than for administrative offenses. The authors of the draft law underline the effectiveness of the norms on minor misconduct, administrative prejudice, and exemption from criminal liability, without clarifying the goals that cannot be achieved by these existing instruments. Most likely, the new institution would require increasing the workload of judges. The draft law violates the systematicity in establishing liability for infringement of intellectual property rights. It is recommended to include in the draft Paragraph 4 of the Article 15.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation reference to the Part I and Part II of the Article 146, and Part I of Article the 147 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The conducted research allows concluding that the draft law does not have sufficient criminological and criminal-legal scientific substantiation.

Abstract: This article is devoted to the analysis of the object of the crime and the object of criminal-legal protection in the field of intellectual property. The author of the article sets a goal to define the relationship between these terms and their contents. Titov concludes that these terms are based on the same values but describe different functions. In relation to a criminal these values act as the object of the crime and in relation to the state they act as the object of criminal-legal protection. The author applies the methods of grammatical analysis, systemic-structural analysis and others. Certain provisions are enforced with cases from judicial practice. Titov concludes that out of all elements of social relations that arise in the process of protection of intellectual property, a criminal harms only a rightholder. The latter is seen as the object of the crime. A socially dangerous action is aimed at the following values possessed by a right holder: firstly, authorship is an intangible benefit that connects an individual and results of his or her intellectual activity; secondly, exclusive right is the right of a rightholder to use scientific, literary or artistic work including computer software and data base, trademarks, TV and radio broadcasting, schemes, models, microschemes, trade secrets, etc. The article has been written and published as part of the university program of Ulyanovsk State Pedagogical University. 

Abstract: This article is devoted to the issue of delineation of illegal export and crimes in the area of intellectual property, in cases where the object of illegal export is the scientific-technical information. The problem consists in the fact that scientific-technical information can be the result of intellectual activity, particularly when it can greatly impact development of weapons of mass destruction, means of their delivery, other types of munitions and military technology, as well as products that can be used in preparation and/or commissions of terrorist acts. The positions of this article are substantiated by the analysis of case law. Based on the conducted research the author concludes that there is absence of collisions between the norms on crimes in the sphere of intellectual property and illegal export. In the cases where the culprit simultaneously violates the rules of export control and intellectual rights, the act should be classified as multiple counts of crime as established in the Article 189 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as one of the Articles on crimes in the area of intellectual property. This work is prepares within the framework of requirements for the university grant competition of the Ilya Ulyanov State Pedagogical University.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to determination of range of the elements of crimes in the area of criminal law protection of intellectual property. The author comes to a conclusion that the object crime and the object of criminal law protection in the area of intellectual property do not always align. Based on this, the author suggest to classify the elements of crime into three groups: aimed directly at the protection of intellectual property (object of a crime and object of protection align); aimed at the protection of intellectual property indirectly (rightsholder is the object of protection, rather than the object of crime); and those aimed at the protection of intellectual property intermediately (rightsholder is not the object of protection or crime). The scientific novelty first and foremost consists in substantiation of the position that the general prevention of crime in the area of intellectual property is realized not only through direct criminal law prohibition, but also indirectly. In the case of the latter, this refers to the elements of crime, when the rightsholder is either the object of protection, but not the object of crime; or is neither.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to determination of range of the elements of crimes in the area of criminal law protection of intellectual property. The author comes to a conclusion that the object crime and the object of criminal law protection in the area of intellectual property do not always align. Based on this, the author suggest to classify the elements of crime into three groups: aimed directly at the protection of intellectual property (object of a crime and object of protection align); aimed at the protection of intellectual property indirectly (rightsholder is the object of protection, rather than the object of crime); and those aimed at the protection of intellectual property intermediately (rightsholder is not the object of protection or crime). The scientific novelty first and foremost consists in substantiation of the position that the general prevention of crime in the area of intellectual property is realized not only through direct criminal law prohibition, but also indirectly. In the case of the latter, this refers to the elements of crime, when the rightsholder is either the object of protection, but not the object of crime; or is neither.