The article analyzes the institutions of administrative and criminal liability in the field of export control of the Russian Federation as a key instrument ensuring national and international security. It examines the relationship between mandatory requirements established by export control legislation, compliance with which is assessed during state control by the Federal Service for Technical and Export Control (FSTEC Russia) and customs authorities, and the applicable liability measures provided by the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation (CoAP RF) and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code RF). Special attention is given to justifying the imbalance between the number of detected violations and the limited number of initiated cases that lead to the imposition of punishment, as well as the issues of qualifying unlawful acts when distinguishing between export and customs control. The authors investigate the duplication and competition of the provisions of Articles 14.20 and 16.3 of the CoAP RF and Articles 189 and 226.1 of the Criminal Code RF, the impact of judicial practice on the implementation of the principles of non bis in idem for the same act, and the effectiveness of combating illegal cross-border circulation of dual-use goods and technologies. The research methods employed by the authors include both general scientific methods (abstraction, induction, deduction, hypothesis, analogy, synthesis, typology, classification, systematization, generalization, and others) as well as specialized methods of scientific cognition (system analysis, comparative legal, formal-legal, legal hermeneutics, system-structural, legal modeling, etc.), which are applied depending on the objectives and characteristics of the research object. The authors propose a comprehensive model of the correlation between mandatory requirements in the field of export control, detected violations, and resulting legal liability, allowing for a foundation of their systemic disproportion. It is proven that the priority of administrative offenses in the field of customs over special offenses in the field of export control, as well as the significantly limited statute of limitations for the latter, actually undermines the functions of the legal liability institution and the preventive potential of regulation. The necessity of recognizing Part 1 of Article 14.20 of the CoAP RF as a special norm in relation to Article 16.3, increasing the statute of limitations, and limiting the application of insignificance as a basis for exemption from liability is substantiated. The authors demonstrate that the low effectiveness of Article 189 of the Criminal Code RF is caused not by defects in the disposition but by the fragmentation of the evidence base among controlling bodies.
Shkiperov et al. (Thu,) studied this question.