The subject of the research is the norms of the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic regarding liability for the circulation of malicious computer programs, as well as the scientific works of Russian and Kyrgyz scholars that reveal the content of the objective side of the examined offenses. The aim of this work is to identify the conceptual similarities and differences in the approaches of the two legislators to the criminalization of the circulation of malicious programs. To achieve this goal, the following tasks were set: to examine the content of alternative actions (creation, use, distribution) in the doctrine of both countries and in law enforcement practice; to analyze the significance of such a characteristic as "making changes" to a program under the legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic in comparison with the Russian approach; to compare the constructions of the offenses (formal, material, formally) and determine their impact on the moment of completion of the crime and the effectiveness of law enforcement. The methodological basis of the work consists of the universal dialectical method of cognition, as well as a set of specific scientific methods: comparative legal (used to compare the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic, identifying similarities and differences in the approaches of the legislators), formal-legal (applied to analyze the text of the criminal law, doctrinal sources), and systemic-structural methods. The novelty of the work lies in conducting a comparative analysis of the objective signs of crimes provided for in Article 273 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Article 320 of the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic, taking into account the recent changes in the criminal legislation of both countries. As a result of the study, it was found that a key difference is the presence in Article 320 of the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic of an independent characteristic of "making changes to existing software products," which was excluded from Russian legislation in 2011. The author justifies the expediency of restoring this characteristic to the disposition of Article 273 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to eliminate legal uncertainty and adequately assess activities related to the modification of malicious code. Significant differences in the construction of the offenses have also been established: the formal composition of Article 273 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation allows for more effective counteraction to threats at an early stage, while the formally-material construction of Article 320 of the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic, which requires significant harm to result from use and distribution, creates additional barriers for law enforcement.
Alesya Nikolaevna Vostrova (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: