Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Legal Studies
Reference:

Features of persons with leadership status in the criminal environment


Novozhilov Sergei Sergeevich

Postgraduate Student, Department of Criminal Law, Moscow State Law University named after Kutafin O.E.

125993, Russia, Moscow, Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya str., 9

sbtantiterror@gmail.com
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7136.2023.5.40470

EDN:

PEQOYN

Received:

16-04-2023


Published:

01-06-2023


Abstract: The article highlights the main problems associated with the definition of persons with leadership status in the criminal environment, the categories of persons are considered: "thief in law", "poser", "looker" and their place in the criminal hierarchy. The position of persons who are the leaders of organized criminal communities (OPS), who do not have the specified criminal statuses, but occupy the highest position in the criminal hierarchy of the OPS created by them, is disclosed. The article also considers the position in the criminal hierarchy of "thieves in law", deprived by the decision of the thieves' meeting of status leadership (uncrowned), "thieves in law" retired (proshlyakov). The author raises the question of the ability of persons of this category to occupy the highest position in the criminal hierarchy (to be subjects of crimes provided for in Part 4 of Article 210 and Article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).   In the course of the analysis, the author comes to the conclusion that the criminal hierarchy on the outside is not identical to the prison criminal hierarchy (penitentiary), and a person who occupies a sufficiently high criminal status in the prison hierarchy, after being released and joining a criminal community (criminal organization), may not occupy a leading position there. The author also gives arguments that such persons as "poser" and "looker" occupy the highest position in the criminal hierarchy only if they are the leaders of OPS and EOPS, having a multi-level hierarchy in their structure with the presence of a higher position in it, in all other cases, according to the author, persons of this category do not occupy the highest, and the "high" position and subjects of Part 4 of Article 210 and Article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are not.


Keywords:

Criminal hierarchy, organized crime, Stratification, Higher position, Problems of criminal law, Criminal law, thief in law, Improvement of criminal legislation, Leaders of the criminal world, Leaders of criminal communities

This article is automatically translated.

With the adoption of Federal Law No. 46-FZ dated April 01, 2019 "On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in Terms of countering organized Crime", the legislator set a course to toughen penalties for crimes committed by members of criminal communities (criminal organizations) and persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy. The sanction of the criminal law norm provided for in Part 4 of Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was tightened, the norm on participation in the meeting of representatives of the criminal associations in question was separated into an independent part, the fact that a person occupies a higher position in the criminal hierarchy was criminalized as an independent corpus delicti (Article 2101 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)[1]. All these factors put the task of combating organized crime among the most significant functions of the state, which makes the topic under study the most relevant at the present time. The subject of the study is the criminological features of persons with leadership status in the criminal environment of Russia. The methodological apparatus of scientific research consists of modern methods of scientific cognition: historical, formal-logical, legal-technical, formal-dogmatic, comparative jurisprudence. In the course of the research, such scientific methods and techniques as deduction, modeling, systematization and generalization were applied. The work used a combination of theoretical and empirical information. The scientific novelty of the work is connected primarily with the author's attempt to assess the structural elements of the criminal hierarchical system operating in the Russian Federation, to determine the place of persons with status leadership in it, as well as to understand the definition of the main definitions having an evaluative character.

Theoretical and applied and criminal law issues related to the existence of a criminal hierarchy in Russia and persons occupying the highest position in it (having status leadership) are reflected in the works of E.A. Antonyan, P.V. Agapov, A.V. Brilliantov, S.V. Bondarenko, S.V. Kondratyuk, V.N. Kudryavtsev, A.N. Mondokhonova, I.V. Pikina, P.A. Skoblikova, T.V. Stukalova, V.E. Eminova. However, there are practically no comprehensive monographic studies devoted to the problems of the formation and functioning of the criminal hierarchy in Russia and the presence of persons with status leadership in it. Some scientists believe that the provisions of Article 2101 of the Criminal Code of Russia correspond to the current state of organized crime[2]. In the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 10, 2010 No. 12 "On judicial practice of consideration of criminal cases on the organization of a criminal community or participation in it (her)", an attempt was made to clarify the content of the concept of "the highest position in the criminal hierarchy". In particular, paragraph 24 of the resolution of the Plenum No. 12 clarifies that resolving the issue of the subject of the crime of Part 4 of Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to establish his position in the criminal hierarchy.

At the same time, the specified resolution of the Plenum does not contain specific definitions of the above definitions, which creates certain problems in law enforcement practice, since a uniform approach to their interpretation has not yet been developed. Moreover, due to the small number of law enforcement practices under Part 4 of Article 210 and Article 2101 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, neither the criminal law nor the Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia contain explanations of most of the terms used in these articles. In particular, such concepts as "criminal hierarchy", "superior position" are evaluative in nature and are interpreted differently by the courts of the first and appellate instances. The lack of a unified approach to the definition of these concepts and the meaning of terms such as "thief in law", "poser", "looker" significantly reduces the effectiveness of the application of Part 4 of Article 210 and Article 210 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since it is unclear which of these persons are the subjects of these crimes and occupy the highest position in the criminal hierarchy.

 How should law enforcement and court practitioners determine the highest position of the subject in the "criminal hierarchy"?

V.S. Ishigeev, N.L. Romanova, V.L. Lapsha, as well as the well-known criminologist L.M. Prozumentov, believe that without the implementation of a special criminological, socio-psychological research without the criminals themselves and the criminal environment, this is not possible[3].

In practice, there are problems with the definition of the subject of the crime provided for in Article 2101 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. After all, in the "thieves", as well as the "penitentiary" segment of the criminal hierarchy of Russia, persons of the category "thief in law" (hereinafter referred to as the VVZ), authorities of the criminal environment who do not have the status of the VVZ, as well as "positioners", "watchers", "holders of thieves' common stock" are initiated on a permanent basis.

         Which of these persons occupies the highest position in the criminal hierarchy?

This issue is debatable in the science of criminal law and criminology.

Representatives of the classical school of criminal law point to the problems of law enforcement related to the evaluative content of these provisions of Article 2101 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation[4]. Considering that it is not about the signs of the corpus delicti, but about the signs of the criminal's identity.

      If we resort to grammatical and systematic interpretation, then the word "higher" can be defined as a superlative from the adjective "high", from which, according to P.A. Skoblikov, it follows that in the criminal hierarchy that the legislator has in mind, there is a step "higher" (main), as well as located below the "high" step (above most, but not the highest) and the rest, further down. Consequently, the criminal hierarchy referred to in Part 4 of Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Article 2101 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation must have at least four gradations: lower, middle, high and highest[5].

Therefore, the question arises at what stage of the criminal hierarchy are certain persons and which of the representatives of the criminal environment occupies the highest position there.

A number of authors believe that persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, first of all, should include "thieves in law", "posits" and "lookers-on"[6].

Other experts believe that only "thieves in law" belong to persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, and "positioners" and "watchers" are special subjects provided for in Part 1 of Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation[7].

S.A. Kutyakin adheres to the opposite opinion of these authors, arguing that responsibility for occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy is subject, along with "thieves in law", and "positioners" and "watchers", and Part 1 of Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be incriminated to "authorities of a lower class"[8].

A.Y. Grishko, appealing to the experience of Georgia, suggests adding a note to Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which would define the concept of a person occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy. He notes that other persons may also be liable under Part 4 of Article 210 of the Criminal Code and Article 2101 of the Criminal Code if they do not belong to the listed groups, but, according to law enforcement agencies and the court, occupy the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, considering that the list of such persons cannot be closed[9].

In order to occupy the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, it is not necessary to have the criminal status of "thief in law", "poser" or "looker".

In the history of the criminal world, there are many cases when a person occupied the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, being the leader of a criminal community organized by him (hereinafter-OPS).

P.A. Skoblikov rightly notes that "there are no grounds in the criminal law for a restrictive interpretation of the circle of subjects of the crime provided for in Part 4 of Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, so that only the leaders of the "thieves' community" fall into it. There are no criminological prerequisites for this either. It is unlikely that anyone will be able to justify that the head (or their group under the collective leadership) of a criminal community, which includes the first persons of the executive and legislative authorities of the subject of the Russian Federation, who have a powerful administrative resource, control the financial flows of the region, by virtue of their official position, having a significant influence on law enforcement agencies and courts, are less dangerous and they are less influential than the leaders of the "thieves' community" (who, as a rule, have previous convictions and are under more or less tight control of law enforcement agencies)."[10]

A person can be a "thief in law", for example, to make an appropriate amount of money to the "community" and buy a status, such cases are known in history when the so-called "oranges", "lavrushniki" were crowned for money by previously convicted persons who had not been in prison for a single day. In fact, after such a "coronation", they acquired the status of "thief in law", but they had no weight in the criminal environment, did not create criminal communities (organizations), did not manage criminal groups and their structural units, did not coordinate criminal actions, did not live a life of thieves.

It is not uncommon for a person who is a "thief in law" to be "debunked" for committing an act discrediting honor and dignity, deprived of his status at a thieves' meeting. At the same time, if there is not enough "thieves' mass" (the number of delegates) at the specified thieves' meeting, other persons of the "thief in law" category may not consider it legitimate and continue to recognize the status leadership for the specified person.

As an example, we can cite the "thieves' run" in relation to the "thief in law" T.G. Oniani, born on 06/02/1952, the criminal nickname "Taro", who is the leader of the "Kutaisi criminal group", who was repeatedly declared "not a thief".

There are also cases when the criminal status of a person of the "thief in law" category is "frozen" before a decision is made by a thieves' meeting, at the specified time the person actually occupies a neutral status, he has authority and weight in the criminal environment, is able to solve certain issues, but the status of "thief in law" in relation to him is suspended.

In addition, a person may be "uncrowned" and not have the status of a "thief in law", but occupy the highest position in the criminal hierarchy of the current criminal community.

As an example, we can cite A.V. Severov, born on 04/25/1959, the criminal nickname "Sasha Sever", who is a legend of the criminal world.

While serving his sentence in the Federal Penitentiary Institution T-2 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Vladimir region in 1993, a "thieves' approach" was made to him by persons with leadership status in the criminal environment, R.G. Tsitsishvili ("Tsitska"), R.V. Bukhnikashvili ("Petso"), S.A. Boytsov ("Fighter"), who at the so-called "thieves' meeting" assigned Severov a status position in the criminal hierarchy, in accordance with the ceremony established in the criminal community and the subsequent notification of the results to a wide range of interested persons. For more than 20 years of his life, Alexander Severov was a crowned "thief in law" and was responsible for the "thieves' move" in the Tver region. In 2014, at one of the thieves' gatherings, Sergei Volkov, criminal nickname "Wolf", Yuri Pichugin ("Pichuga"), Vasily Khristoforov ("Vasya has Risen"), made a joint decision to "uncrow" Severov. There must be very good reasons for removing the crown. And they were provided. The "North" was accused of the incorrect distribution of the "thieves' commissary". He was accused of sending unjustifiably small amounts to the All-Russian "thieves' commissary", and spending the remaining money for other purposes. The second accusation was that he communicates with journalists and gives interviews on topics that are not accepted to advertise in the thieves' community. The third accusation was made on the topic of his drug use. But the loudest accusation was that he filed a claim in order to obtain material damage, which goes against the concepts established in the "thieves' segment" of the criminal community. A theoretical question arises, can a person like Alexander Severov, after "uncrowning", lead an organized criminal community and occupy the highest position in the criminal hierarchy of the criminal organization led by him?

Of course it can. "Uncrowning" does not entail the loss of his criminal authority, earned over the years by impeccable "thieving behavior" and compliance with all the requirements of the thieves' subculture.

Now consider the following question: "Are the "poser", "looker", "holder of the thieves' commissary" persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy?" 

A.Y. Grishko believes that these persons are occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy[11].

We can partially agree with this position, because, in our opinion, not every "poser", "looker", "holder of a thieves' commissary" occupies the highest position in the criminal hierarchy.

In the appellate ruling of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 29.05.2018 No. 51-APU 18-4 (criminal case against M.A. Chkadua), the court thoroughly investigated the question of the meaning of the criminal concepts of "thief in law", "poser", "looker", "criminal hierarchy", which was of great importance to establish the actual circumstances of the case and the legal assessment of the actions of the convicted.

A "thief in law" is a person who occupies the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, and therefore has an indisputable authority in the criminal world with all its representatives below him.

"Posenets" is the main person in the criminal world in the territory of a particular region, put by "thieves" ("thief"), is in fact a trusted person of the thief, acts on his behalf. In this regard, all the "criminal people" in the specified territory should treat him with respect.

A "looker" is a person who was chosen by the local "criminal administration" (i.e., the structure) as the main one in a particular territory (city, district), that is, responsible for everything that happens on "his" territory[12].

In the Resolution of the Vologda Regional Court No. 2-2/2021 (2-11/2020) dated 02.12.2021 on the case against the "thief in law" N.D. Jinchvelashvili, the court determined the content of the key terms used during the court hearing. In particular, he defined the "criminal hierarchy" as an established system of relationships between persons who have committed a crime, depending on their status, that is, a certain order of subordination of the lower elements of this system to the higher ones. Further, he pointed out that the "holder of the thieves' common fund" is a person authorized by the leaders of the criminal environment for the responsible storage and distribution of a set of material resources, financial resources accumulated, controlled and distributed in the interests of the criminal world or its representatives.

Let's look into the criminological content of these concepts.

The "poser" is appointed by the "thief in law" and he is responsible to the thief, most often, the "poser" is appointed responsible for the order in places of deprivation of liberty. Not every "poser" has real power, moreover, posers are not equal to each other in their status and authority in the criminal environment, a "poser" can be removed by a thief who "put him in a position", or he can be removed by the decision of a thieves' meeting if he commits actions discrediting him honor and dignity, will allow lawlessness or innocent blood will be shed through his fault. He has a temporary status, unlike a "thief in law", whose status leadership is lifelong.

Moreover, the "positioners" are persons serving sentences in places of deprivation of liberty, where they are "put in a position", after their release, such a person loses his status, and on the outside he may not enter the current criminal hierarchy at all and not occupy the highest position in it, since the structure of the criminal hierarchy on the outside and the criminal hierarchy in places of deprivation of liberty (prison hierarchy) are not identical.

 In addition, there is always a "thief in law" above the "poser", who occupies a higher place in the criminal hierarchy, since the "poser" is responsible to him and is bound to him by the framework of strict criminal subordination. A "poser" cannot sign a "thief's run" and act on his own behalf, always acting on behalf of a "thief in law".

As for the "looker", his criminal-legal status is even more "blurred" than that of the "layman". Unlike the "poser", the "looker" can also be appointed by the "bratva" and, therefore, he will be responsible to her, and the "poser" is always appointed by the "thief in law".

In addition, the criminal status of the "beholder" implies its division into types. For example, "watching the game", "watching the general".

Can a "looker" behind the game, limited by strictly assigned functions, occupy the highest position in the criminal hierarchy? Obviously not. The analysis carried out allows us to conclude that persons of the category of "poser" and "looker", as well as "holder of thieves' commissary", except in cases when they are the leaders of organized criminal communities (criminal organizations) those who have a multilevel hierarchical system in their structure, which has a higher position in its composition, are persons who occupy not a higher, but a "high" position. In other words, persons of this category are in the criminal hierarchy lower than the "thief in law" and therefore the subjects of crimes provided for in Part 4 of Article 210 and Article 2101 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are not.

         The most important point continues to be the question, can a person who is a "thief in law", whose status is the highest in the thieves' segment of the criminal hierarchy, not occupy the highest position?

 There are many "thieves in law" who are at an advanced age, including those who are disabled, who were crowned back in Soviet times and have retained their criminal status (their thieves' name) to this day, but due to their state of health are unable to manage a criminal community (criminal organization) and, moreover, to occupy the position of a leader there, which, of course, requires tremendous dedication (in other words, they cannot fulfill the objective side of the crime).

A person who is at an advanced age is physically not always able to solve such issues and take responsibility, therefore, due to the loss of his capabilities, he is physically unable to occupy the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, although the status of a "thief in law" remains with him.

In addition, a person can gradually retire from business, but, due to his impeccable behavior, compliance with all standards of behavior of the thieves' subculture, does not lose his status, can such a person occupy the highest position in a multi-stage criminal hierarchy, carrying out a continuous struggle for the spheres of criminal influence?

Obviously not.

         Therefore, it can be concluded that not every person, even those who have the status of VVZ, is a person occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy.

With regard to persons who occupy the highest position in the criminal hierarchy and are on the outside, it should be noted that they are not identical to "thieves in law", "posits" and "lookers".

In the history of Russian criminality, there are many cases when a person actually occupied the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, but at the same time did not have the status of an air Force, moreover, there are cases when such a person has never even been brought to criminal responsibility (being the leader of an organized criminal community that created itself).

 As an example, we can cite the leaders of the so-called "Orekho-Medvedkovsky" organized criminal group (hereinafter -the organized criminal group) operating on the territory of the Moscow region from 1988 to 2000.

The founder and leader of the "Orekhovo-Medvedkovsky" organized criminal group was S.I. Timofeev, born on 18.07.1955, criminal nickname "Sylvester".

Timofeev has never been crowned, has never had the status of a "layman" or a "looker", but, despite this, he had a huge influence in the criminal environment, occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy.

Also, the authorities and leaders of the Orekhovskaya organized criminal group, who came to manage the group after the death of Sylvester, S.Y. Butorin, born on 11/19/1964, the criminal nickname "Osia", Marat Polyansky, who is the "right hand", were neither "thieves in law", nor "postioners", nor "watchers". Butorina.

Were S.I. Timofeev, S.Y. Butorin persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy?

It is safe to say that they were.

We draw this conclusion from their influence in the criminal environment, the leadership of the criminal community (organization) and its structural units, subordination to them of persons occupying a lower position in the criminal hierarchy of the Orekhovskaya organized criminal group. 

A similar situation was typical for the Kurgan organized criminal group, one of the most violent criminal groups in Moscow in the 1990s.

The Kurgan organized criminal group originated in 1990 in Kurgan, its leaders were former athletes Vitaly Ignatov born in 1962, Andrey Koligov born in 1964, Oleg Nelyubin born in 1965, all three were previously not convicted. In the late 1980s, they worked as gravediggers at the Kurgan city cemetery. Together with them, Alexander Solonik, a cadet of the Higher School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, worked as a gravedigger (who later became a full-time killer of the group).

Were the leaders of the "Kurgan" organized criminal group, Ignatov, Koligov, Nelyubin, persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy?

Based on the criteria outlined above, it is safe to say that they were, however, they did not have any criminal status in the criminal environment, they were neither persons of the category "thief in law", nor "positioners" and neither "watchers".

When investigating the criminal activities of the "Kurgan" organized criminal group, an interesting fact is the death of some of the leaders of the "Kurgan" organized criminal group who found themselves in prison.

In particular, it is known that on 01.10.2005 Andrey Koligov committed suicide while in the colony (according to the official version of the FSIN staff).

At the same time, according to an unofficial version, Koligov was raised to the gallows at night by his cellmates executing the sentence, "thieves in law", according to whom, a person involved in the organization and commission of murders, including authorities and leaders of the criminal environment, cannot live in places of imprisonment where the "thieves' move" operates", that is, the rules established by "thieves in law" apply, and the zone is "black". On 17.01.1998, on one day in the pre-trial detention center No. 1 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in Moscow (Matrosskaya Tishina), the leaders of the "Kurgan" organized criminal group Oleg Nelyubin and his "right" hand Pavel Zelenin, who is the authority of the "Kurgan" organized criminal group, died in fights with cellmates (according to the employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service). 

Summarizing the examples given, it is possible to draw a general conclusion of the conducted research that the list of persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy cannot be exhaustive, these persons include both "thieves in law" and the leaders of independent criminal communities (criminal organizations) in their composition having a criminal hierarchy providing for the presence of the highest position in it. At the same time, we are convinced that such categories of the criminal "elite" as "the poser", "the looker", "the holder of the thieves' commissary" occupy not the highest, but the "high" position, which is one step lower in the criminal hierarchy and may be the subjects of crimes provided for in Part 4 of Articles 210 and 210 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation only if they are the leaders of independent organized criminal communities (criminal organizations) in which there is a multi-level criminal hierarchy providing for a higher position. In addition, it should be noted that not every "thief in law" occupies the highest position in the criminal hierarchy. In particular, when determining whether the accused occupied the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, the court must take into account all the available facts, namely, to establish from what time the person occupied the highest position, whether he is deprived of his criminal status, whether, due to old age and the presence of severe chronic diseases, he is able to perform the objective side of the crime. And only based on the results of an objective and comprehensive study of all the facts and evidence presented, to involve a person under Part 4 of Articles 210 and 210 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

References
1. Agapov P.V., Salnikov N.V., Kondratyuk S.V. Actual issues of the implementation of criminal responsibility for occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy// Law and order, history, theory, practice. 2021 No. 3. pp. 49-55.
2. Belotserkovsky S. The new Federal law on strengthening the fight against criminal communities: commentary and problems of application// Criminal law. 2010 No. 2 p . 13.
3. Burlakov V.N., Shchepelkov V.F. Leader of the criminal community and the basis of responsibility: postmodern in criminal law// All-Russian Criminological Journal. 2019. Vol. 13. No. 3, pp. 465-476.
4. Grishko A.Ya. A particularly qualifying sign of the creation of a criminal community (criminal organization)// Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2017. No. 2. pp. 84-85.
5. Ishigeev V.S., Romanova N.L., Noodles V.L. Criminal subculture and its role in determining the highest position in the criminal hierarchy (qualification issues of Article 2101 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Bulletin of the East Siberian Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia 2020 No. 93 p. 84.
6. Kutyakin S.A. Problems of countering criminal opposition in the Russian penal system: scientific significance and research objectives. Penitentiary science 2012. No. 17. p. 66.
7. Petrov A.M. Problems of qualification of criminal actions of persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy// Penitentiary law: legal theory and law enforcement practice. 2014 No. 2 pp. 92-96.
8. Skoblikov P.A. The highest position in the criminal hierarchy, the criminal law, its prerequisites, interpretation and application. Moscow, Norm 2021, p. 22.
9. Shalagin A.E. Criminological characteristics of a person occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy// Bulletin of the Kazan Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2016 No. 4 p.36.
10. Yakusheva T.V. Counteraction to criminal communities (criminal organizations) and leaders of the criminal environment: destructive tendencies, search for new legislative solutions. All-Russian Criminological Journal. 2020.T. 14 No. 5 p. 725

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study. The reviewed article "Features of persons with leadership status in the criminal environment" is devoted to the independent composition of a crime in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - the fact that a person occupies a higher position in the criminal hierarchy (Part 4 of Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), which has been criminalized since 2019. Research methodology. The methodological apparatus of the article consists of modern methods of scientific cognition: historical, formal-logical, legal-technical, formal-dogmatic, comparative jurisprudence, etc. The author of the article also used such scientific methods and techniques as deduction, modeling, systematization and generalization. The work used a combination of theoretical and empirical information. Relevance. The process of spreading a criminal subculture in society is currently taking place. The activities of the so-called "leaders" of the criminal environment are of great importance for strengthening and spreading the criminal subculture in society. As the author notes, "in the "thieves'" as well as the "penitentiary" segment of the criminal hierarchy of Russia, persons of the "thief in law" category (hereinafter referred to as the VVZ), authorities of the criminal environment who do not have the status of the VVZ, as well as "positioners", "watchers", "holders of thieves' community service"". According to the author, it is important to identify these categories of persons - "leaders of the criminal world" not only at the doctrinal, but also at the legislative level. These circumstances indicate the relevance of the topic of the article. Scientific novelty. It cannot be said that the topic of the article is new for domestic legal science. There are enough publications on this topic in the science of criminal law. However, the author may choose a new aspect for research. The author's conclusion, as a result of his research, needs to be carefully worked out in terms of significance for science and practice: " Therefore, it can be concluded that the criminal hierarchy on the outside is not identical to the prison criminal hierarchy, but a person occupying a sufficiently high criminal status in the prison hierarchy, having been released and joined a criminal community (criminal organization), may not occupy a leading position there." It can be said that the conclusion does not reflect the result of the study. Style, structure, content. Starting with the title of the article, you can make 2 comments to the author at once: 1. The absence of punctuation marks: according to the rules of the Russian language, a comma is placed before the participial turnover; 2. Criminal environment - the use of 2 synonymous words at once, it is necessary to leave either "criminal environment" or "criminal environment". The article as a whole is descriptive in nature. Although the material is interesting. It is necessary not only to describe the problem, but also to offer your vision of its solution, taking into account the analysis of legislation (including foreign legislation) and law enforcement problems. Bibliography. Although the author has used many sources, there are much more scientific publications on this topic, you can also get acquainted with others (for example, with the works of such authors as: S.V. Kondratyuk (Proving leadership in the criminal hierarchy), T.V. Stukalova, I.V. Pikin, etc.).It is also necessary to arrange bibliographic sources in accordance with GOST. Appeal to opponents. There are references to other authors in the work. the appeal to other people's opinions is correct, decorated with links to the author and the source of the publication. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The article needs to be finalized. The topic is quite relevant and has practical significance. An article on this topic may be of interest to the readership, including scientists and practitioners.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research in the article submitted for review, as indicated by the author, is "... criminological features of persons with leadership status in the criminal environment of Russia." The declared boundaries of the study are fully respected by the scientist. The methodology of the research is indicated by the author: it was "... composed of modern methods of scientific cognition: historical, formal-logical, legal-technical, formal-dogmatic, comparative jurisprudence. In the course of the research, such scientific methods and techniques as deduction, modeling, systematization and generalization were applied. The work used a combination of theoretical and empirical information." The relevance of the research topic chosen by the author is justified in sufficient detail: "With the adoption of Federal Law No. 46-FZ dated April 01, 2019 "On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in terms of countering organized Crime," the legislator set a course to toughen penalties for crimes committed by members of criminal communities (criminal organizations) and persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy. The sanction of the criminal law norm provided for in Part 4 of Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was tightened, the norm on participation in the meeting of representatives of the criminal associations in question was allocated to an independent part, the fact that a person occupies a higher position in the criminal hierarchy was criminalized as an independent corpus delicti (Article 2101 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)[1]. All these factors place the task of combating organized crime among the most significant functions of the state, which makes the topic under study the most relevant at the present time." The scientist pointed out that "Theoretical and applied and criminal law issues related to the presence of a criminal hierarchy in Russia and persons occupying the highest position in it (having status leadership) are reflected in the works of E.A. Antonyan, P.V. Agapov, A.V. Brilliantov, S.V. Bondarenko, S.V. Kondratyuk, V.N. Kudryavtseva, A.N. Mondokhonova, I.V. Pikina, P.A. Skoblikova, T.V. Stukalova, V.E. Eminova. However, there are practically no comprehensive monographic studies devoted to the problems of the formation and functioning of the criminal hierarchy in Russia and the presence of persons with status leadership in it," i.e. revealed the degree of study of the problems raised by him in the article. As the researcher noted, "The scientific novelty of the work is primarily due to the author's attempt to assess the structural elements of the criminal hierarchical system operating in the Russian Federation, to determine the place of persons with status leadership in it, as well as to understand the definition of the main definitions of an evaluative nature." The article certainly has the property of scientific novelty and deserves the attention of the readership. Through his work, the scientist made a definite contribution to the development of domestic sciences of the criminal law cycle, and, above all, criminal law and criminology. The scientific style of the research is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the work is quite logical. In the introductory part of the study, the author explained in detail the relevance of his chosen topic of the article, revealed the methodology of the study. In the main part of the work, the scientist analyzed the structure of the criminal hierarchical system operating in Russia, identified the place of leaders in it, and also proposed interpretations of the key concepts used in the article. The final part of the article contains some conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the work fully corresponds to its title, but is not without some drawbacks. So, the author writes: "In the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 10, 2010 No. 12 "On the judicial practice of considering criminal cases on the organization of a criminal community or participation in it (her)", an attempt was made to clarify the content of the concept of "the highest position in the criminal hierarchy". In particular, paragraph 24 of the resolution of the Plenum No. 12 clarifies that in resolving the issue of the subject of the crime, Part 4 of Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to establish his position in the criminal hierarchy. At the same time, the specified resolution of the Plenum does not contain specific definitions of the above definitions." I would like to know the author's opinion on the need for such a definition, given that the presence of evaluative concepts, as a rule, creates certain problems in law enforcement practice, at least until a uniform approach to their interpretation is developed. The scientist needs to disclose the content of all the key concepts used in the scientific article (in particular, "criminal suit"). All abbreviations (OCG, EOPG) must be deciphered at the first mention in the text. The final part of the article needs to be finalized, which will be discussed in more detail below. The bibliography of the study is presented by 10 sources (scientific articles). From a formal and factual point of view, this is quite enough. The nature and number of sources used by the author made it possible to reveal the stated research topic with the necessary depth and completeness. There is an appeal to opponents, both general and private (A.M. Petrov, P. A. Skoblikov, A. Ya. Grishko, etc.), and it is quite sufficient. The scientific discussion is conducted by the author correctly, his judgments on controversial issues are justified to the necessary extent and illustrated with examples where necessary. Conclusions based on the results of the study are available ("... persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, including those who are the leaders of various influential organized criminal groups, once in places of detention, often do not correspond to the prison hierarchy operating in places of detention. Thus, a person, being the leader of the OPS and occupying the highest position in it, can occupy the lowest place in places of deprivation of liberty, without falling into the "criminal suit" at all) and, of course, deserve the attention of the readership, but they need to be supplemented by specifying in more detail how, from the point of view of the author, it is necessary to interpret the legal term used by Articles 210 and 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - "the highest position in the criminal hierarchy" (ideally, to propose an appropriate definition, especially since there is no official one) - and how the scope of this concept should relate to related concepts ("thief in law", "poser", "looker"). Obviously, the final part of the work cannot consist of a single sentence. The article needs additional proofreading by the author. It contains typos, spelling and punctuation errors. The interest of the readership in the article submitted for review can be shown primarily by specialists in the field of criminal law and criminology, provided that it is finalized: refinement of some provisions of the work, addition of conclusions based on the results of the study, elimination of violations in the design of the work.

Third Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "Features of persons with leadership status in the criminal environment." The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to the peculiarities of "... persons with leadership status in the criminal environment." The author has chosen a special subject of research: the proposed issues are investigated from the point of view of criminal and criminal procedure law, while the author notes that "... the legislator has taken a course to toughen penalties for crimes committed by members of criminal communities (criminal organizations) and persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy." NPA and judicial practice relevant to the purpose of the study are being studied. A large volume of Russian scientific literature on the stated issues is also studied and summarized, analysis and discussion with these opposing authors are present. It should be noted that almost all references to the bibliography do not match. At the same time, the author notes: "... these factors put the task of combating organized crime among the most significant functions of the state, which makes the topic under study the most relevant at the present time." Research methodology. The purpose of the study is determined by the title and content of the work: "... there are criminological features of persons with status leadership in the criminal environment of Russia", "... to assess the structural elements of the criminal hierarchical system operating in the Russian Federation, to determine the place of persons with status leadership in it, as well as to understand the definition of the main definitions having an evaluative character." They can be designated as the consideration and resolution of certain problematic aspects related to the above-mentioned issues and the use of certain experience. Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen a certain methodological basis for the study. The author uses a set of private scientific, special legal methods of cognition, including "... historical, formal-logical, legal-technical, formal-dogmatic, comparative jurisprudence. In the course of the research, such scientific methods and techniques as deduction, modeling, systematization and generalization were applied." In particular, the methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to generalize approaches to the proposed topic and influenced the author's conclusions. The most important role was played by special legal methods. The author applied formal legal and comparative legal methods, which made it possible to analyze and interpret the norms of acts of Russian legislation, judicial practice and compare various NPAs. In particular, the following conclusions are drawn: "... the specified resolution of the Plenum does not contain specific definitions of the above definitions, which creates certain problems in law enforcement practice, since a uniform approach to their interpretation has not yet been developed", etc. Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is fully adequate to the purpose of the article, allows you to study many aspects of the topic. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. This topic is important in Russia, from a legal point of view, the work proposed by the author can be considered relevant, namely, he notes "... there are practically no comprehensive monographic studies on the problems of the formation and functioning of the criminal hierarchy in Russia and the presence of persons with status leadership in it", "The lack of a unified approach to the definition of these concepts and the meaning of such terms such as "thief in law", "poser", "looker" significantly reduces the effectiveness of the application of Part 4 of Articles 210 and Article 2101 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since it is unclear which of these persons are the subjects of these crimes and occupy the highest position in the criminal hierarchy." And in fact, an analysis of the opponents' work should follow here, and it follows and the author shows the ability to master the material. Thus, scientific research in the proposed field is only to be welcomed. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is beyond doubt. It is expressed in the specific scientific conclusions of the author. Among them, for example, the following: "... the list of persons occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy cannot be exhaustive, these persons include both "thieves in law" and the leaders of independent criminal communities (criminal organizations) in their composition having a criminal hierarchy providing for the presence of a higher position in it." As can be seen, these and other "theoretical" conclusions "... in our opinion, such categories of the criminal "elite" as "poser", "looker", "holder of thieves' commissary" occupy not the highest, but a "high" position, located one step lower in the criminal hierarchy and may be the subjects of crimes provided for Part 4 of Articles 210 and 2101 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation only if they are leaders of independent organized criminal communities (criminal organizations) in which there is a multi-level criminal hierarchy providing for a higher position" can be used in further research. Thus, the materials of the article as presented may be of interest to the scientific community. Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal "Legal Studies", as it is devoted to the characteristics of "... persons with leadership status in the criminal environment." The article contains an analysis of the opponents' scientific works, so the author notes that a question close to this topic has already been raised and the author uses their materials, discusses with opponents. The content of the article corresponds to the title, since the author considered the stated problems and achieved the goal of his research. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as improved. The subject, objectives, methodology, research results, and scientific novelty directly follow from the text of the article. The design of the work meets the requirements for this kind of work, except for the design of the bibliography. No significant violations of the requirements were found, except for the bibliography (12 references - more than in the bibliography, there are only 10) and descriptions "and interpreted differently" (in different ways), "organized" (organized), "available" (present). The bibliography is quite complete, contains publications that the author refers to (although not a single link matches). The editorial requirements were not met: "In the list of references, sources are listed in the order of citation (mentions in the text of the article), and not in alphabetical order." The bibliography allows the author to correctly identify problems and put them up for discussion. The quality of the literature presented and used should be highly appreciated. The presence of scientific literature showed the validity of the author's conclusions and influenced the author's conclusions. The works of these authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of many aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author conducted a serious analysis of the current state of the problem under study. The author describes the opponents' different points of view on the problem, argues for a more correct position in his opinion, based on the work of opponents, and offers solutions to problems. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are logical, specific "... the court, determining whether the accused occupied the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, must take into account all available facts, namely, to establish from what time the person occupied the highest position, whether he is deprived of his criminal status, whether, due to old age and the presence of severe chronic diseases, he is able to perform the objective side of the crime. And only based on the results of an objective and comprehensive study of all the facts and evidence presented, to involve a person under Part 4 of Articles 210 and 2101 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation", etc. The article in this form may be of interest to the readership in terms of the systematic positions of the author in relation to the issues stated in the article. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides of the article, "I recommend sending it for revision", taking into account the comments on the bibliography and descriptions.