As one knows, it is a general practice in the criminal law to divide bodies of crime into material, formal and inchoate. The division depends on how lawmakers constructed the objective aspects of specific crimes in articles of the Criminal Code. At that, the crimes, the objective aspect of which includes only commission of a socially dangerous act as a required characteristic, are called formal. If the objective aspect includes, along with a specific act, socially dangerous consequences occurring as a result of the committed act, the bodies are defines as material by their construction.
As applies to the examined group of crimes, it should be noted that they include both material and formal elements. For example, material include the crimes provided for by part 1, article 191; sub-item «b», part 2, article 191; article 194; article 195; part 2, article 200; article 220 of the Criminal Code, and formal include crimes provided for by items «a» and «b», part 2, article 191; part 1, article 200 of the Criminal Code.
It should be noted in this connection that the division of the bodies of crime into material and formal provides for an opportunity to determine the moment of completion of a specific crime, which is very important for the correct qualification of an act (omission) of guilty person.
Sometimes a specific legal offence may entail different types of legal responsibility. For example, illegal banking activities will be qualified as a crime only it caused the consequences provided for by article 191 of the Criminal Code. If these consequences (heavy damage, or deriving revenue on a large scale) have not occurred, the acts by the guilty persons, depending on the circumstances under which the offence was committed, can be qualified as an administrative offence under the relevant articles of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences (hereinafter referred to as the «Administrative Offences Code») [26].
On how lawmakers construct objective aspect of the elements of a crime depends determination of guilt as a mandatory characteristic of subjective aspect of the crime. For example, a person can be brought to responsibility for commission of a crime in the sphere of financial and credit relations only if he understood social danger of his act, foresee the possibility or inevitability of socially dangerous consequences and either wanted or knowingly admitted their occurrence.
Analyzing crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations, it should be noted that lawmakers sometimes provides for occurrence of two consequences within the framework of one and the same crime. An example is the construction of article 191 of the Criminal Code, which provides that a completed crime must involve a «heavy damage» on an individual, organization or the state, or «deriving revenue (by the guilty person) on a large scale».
Finally, examining the above-mentioned group of crimes, it one should note the importance of establishment of the philosophical, as well as legal category, of causal relation for the correct qualification of crimes. Russian professor of law V.E. Melnikova [27] interprets the causal relation as «the process going in time». She believes that the «first criterion (condition or characteristic) of a causal relation is time, a certain time sequence of the act and its effects». Because of this, in order to impose criminal responsibility on a person, it is necessary to establish that the offence forming the objective aspect of the crime preceded in time the socially dangerous consequences. For example, as the analysis of the construction of article 219 of the Criminal Code reveals, presentation by a bank employee of knowingly false information about transactions on bank accounts of legal entities and individuals must precede the occurrence of a dangerous consequence, infliction of «heavy damage» on an individual, organization or the state. If such damage was inflicted before that, for example, as a result of negligence by the bank employee, i.e. before the submission of knowingly false information about the performed transactions on the bank account, there will be no elements of crime provided for by this norm of the criminal law.
Thus, the establishment of causal relation between the committed socially dangerous act and occurred consequences plays a very important role in investigation and consideration of criminal cases, in particular, on a number of crimes committed in the sphere of financial and credit relations.
In conclusion of this section of the monograph it should be noted that since the objective aspect of a crime is the element most fully reflected in the disposition of norms of the criminal law, the differentiation of crimes by characteristics of the objective aspect may seem less complex. However, as the investigative and judicial practice evidences, there are very and very many mistakes relating to the establishment and examination of the objective aspect of crimes. Detailed and scrupulous establishment of all characteristics of the objective aspect of a crime is therefore essential for the correct application of the criminal law.
A more detailed examination and description of the objective aspect of the crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations will be offered in later sections of this paper, which will provide legal analysis on some specific special elements.
1.4 Subject of crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations
Recognized as the subject of crime is only an individual who committed the crime and has the characteristics provided for by the criminal law. These characteristics include: capacity, achievement of a certain age and in a number of cases some special characteristics (for example, official position, profession and specialty, military service status, etc.).
It follows from the sense and content of articles 6, 7, and 8 of the ROK Criminal Code that the effects of the criminal law apply to the citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan, stateless persons, and foreign citizens, i.e. to individuals. Pursuant to the Kazakhstan law, the subject of crime can not be animals, birds, lifeless articles, legal entities, though there are examples in history when criminal responsibility was imposed on animals, birds, and some articles. At the present time, criminal laws of some countries, for example, England, USA, Netherlands, France, provide for responsibility of legal entities as well. It should be noted that during development of the new Criminal Code some Kazakhstan legal scholars have also proposed to introduce a special chapter about responsibility of legal entities into the criminal law, but this idea was not supported by those who developed the law and the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Different opinions have been expressed concerning the subject of crime in the legal literature. For example, A.N. Trainin [28] was against studying the subject of crime in the system of the crime elements believing that a person is not an element of the act he committed. The characteristic of the subject that belongs to the elements, according to A.N. Trainin, are specific and special subjects. A similar position was taken by B.S. Utevsky [29], who believed that the «concept of the subject of crime should be excluded from the crime elements» and substituted by the concept of the personality of criminal.
Meanwhile, under the traditional approach to the criminal law science, the subject of crime is considered as a mandatory element of the crime. This problem, which is directly related to the legal status of a person as a subject of criminal legal relations, has been considered in the works of a number of well-known legal authors like A.N. Agybayev [30], L.V. Bagriy-Shakhmatov [31], Ya.M. Brainin [32], V.A. Vladimirov and G.A. Levitsky [33], U.S. Jekebayev [34], M.I. Kovalev [35], M.P. Karpushin [36], G Kriger [37], I.S. Noi [38], R.O. Orymbayev [39], M.S. strogovich [40], M.D. Shargorodsky [41], ect.
The criminal law of the Republic of Kazakhstan connects the responsibility with the the ability of the person who committed the crime to be aware of his acts and direct them, and only humans do have such ability in full. Hence, the first characteristic of the subject of crime is, as it was effectually noted by Russian scholar L.D. Ermakova [42], «its physical nature: only an individual, a human, can be the subject of crime».
As it has been mentioned above, humans that are able to understand the actual nature and social danger of their acts or direct them, i.e. sane persons, can be the subject of crime. Hence, there is an axiom that the guilt both in the form of criminal intent and negligence shall be excluded in all the cases when the person did not realize the nature of his acts or negligence and could not direct them at the moment of commission of a socially dangerous act.
The ability to realize acts and direct them appears, as is known, in mentally sane people not from the moment of birth, but upon achievement of a certain age. This means that by that age the person would have accumulated certain experience, clearer established criteria of perception of the external world, acquired the ability to understand the nature of his behaviour from the point of view of usefulness or danger for the people around, evaluate the situation that he may find himself in, and decide between violating the exiting prohibition for commission of certain acts or refrain from such a step.
Thus, under the criminal law of the Republic of Kazakhstan (article 15), only sane individual who reached the age of sixteen years by the time o commission of the crime, and the age of fourteen years for commission of some types of crimes, can be subject to criminal responsibility. These significant characteristics of all subjects of crime constitute scientific and legislative concept of a general subject of crime.
Along with this, on a number of cases Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides for additional characteristics of the subject of crime. These additional characteristics turn the relevant person to a special subject of crime.
Hence, the subject of crime is defined as a person who committed a socially dangerous act, is sane and reached a certain age, and in cased directly provided for by the law, has also other (special) characteristics that have criminal law significance for imposition of criminal responsibility, its differentiation, individualization, and implementation.
There is no definition of a general concept of special subject in the existing criminal law. Characteristics of special subjects are provided for in the norms of Special Part of the ROK Criminal Code and there are many of them. For example, there are about 40% of crimes with special subject in the ROK Criminal Code, including crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations.
Special characteristics may relate to different aspects of the criminal personality: official status, position, profession or specialty, negative testimonials as concerns the crime, military status, family status, etc. For example, subject of the crime provided for by article 220 of the ROK Criminal Code, shall be not any sane individual of sixteen years of age or more, but only a person that have certain characteristics provided by the law: who is an employee of a specific bank vested with the right to manage bank’s owned capital; subject of the crime provided for by article 195 of the ROK Criminal Code may be, apart from a simple individual, the head of the enterprise (organization) who maliciously evade payment of credit indebtedness on a large scale after enactment of a relevant judicial act.
In some cases, characteristics of special subject are established in a special norm of the criminal law. For example, comments to article 307 of the ROK Criminal Code give legislative interpretation of special subjects like «official» and «person holding government position of responsibility».
It should be noted that a special subject is very typical for the examined group of crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations.
For example, analysis of the investigative and judicial practices on criminal cases reveals that, as a rule, crimes in the examined sphere of economy are committed by special subjects: officials of banks and financial and credit institutions; officials of enterprises, organizations, and institutions, especially, private companies; bank employees. The structure if many articles providing for responsibility for crimes in the financial and credit sphere also stipulates that these acts can be committed only by special subjects.
However, this does not exclude the possibility of imposition of criminal responsibility for these crimes on the persons that do not have characteristics and general properties of a special subject. For, example, bank funds can be stolen by any person by many ways, as well as the information constituting commercial or bank secret can be collected by any person (part 1, article 200, of the ROK Criminal Code).
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the prevailing majority of crimes in question is committed by only by special subject. That is why the existence of a concept of special subject of crime in the criminal law is determined by the specificity of individual types of crimes, the commission of which is possible only in relation to certain activities of people and the performance of certain functions they are vested with under the law or other regulations. Providing for a criminal responsibility for some crimes, lawmakers stipulate that their subject, unlike all other crimes, shall be not any person who is able to commit them, but only the person who has special properties or characteristics provided for by the law.
In view of the above and proceeding from academic works of Kazakhstan and Russian legal scholars on the subject of crime, one can characterise this mandatory element of the criminally punishable act, as concerns the group of crimes in question, as follows.
The subject of crime in the sphere of financial and credit relations is a physically sane person who reached the age of criminal responsibility provided for by the law (general subject). Meanwhile, the most of the crimes in this sphere of economy are committed by person who have special properties and characteristics like: official position (for example, a head of a bank who carries out illegal bank activities or a head of an enterprise who has allowed using loan for a wrong purpose); performance of professional duties (for example, computer programmer in a bank who has unlawfully disclosed or illegally used the information constituting commercial or bank secret); nature of the work (for example, an employee of a credit department who has submitted knowingly false information on bank operations); special status of the person relevant to commission of the crime (for example, a person with precious conviction for illegal bank activities or illegal entrepreneurship).
Thus, characteristics of a special subject, as it is reflected in the work of Kazakhstan scholar S.M. Moldabayev [43], serve as additional characteristics of the elements of crime. Their specificity, as well as that of optional characteristics of other elements of crime (objective and subjective aspects of crime), is that they:
- Can serve as constructive characteristics of the crime, without which this crime does not exist. For example, only the head of a bank or other credit organization engaged in illegal bank activities can become the subject of illegal bank activities (article 191 of the ROK Criminal Code). Other bank employees themselves can not be the subject of such crime.
- Can serve as a qualifying characteristic that form the body of an aggravated crime. For instance, if illegal bank activities are performed by a person previously convicted for a similar crime or illegal entrepreneurial activities, the acts shall be qualified under item «c», part 2, article 191 of the ROK Criminal Code.
- Can be relevant for individualization of the punishment serving as an aggravating circumstance. For example, pursuant to item «n», part 1, article 54, of the ROK Criminal Code, as an aggravating circumstance can be qualified by the court the «commission of crime with the use of trust that the guilty person enjoyed because of his official position or contract» (part 2, article 200, of the ROK Criminal Code).
Analysing characteristics and properties of the subject of crime, one should also analyse the personality of the criminal, because the criminal law science and criminology proceed from the point that even though the concepts of the «subject of crime» and «personality of criminal» are interconnected, they are not identical.
As it was mentioned above, the subject of crime is the aggregate of characteristics and properties of the person who committed the crime, beyond the framework of which there is no crime. In other words, characteristics and properties of the subject of crime are the component of the legal grounds for imposition of the criminal responsibility. The lack of any of them, even an auxiliary one, means the lack of the crime.
Any case of crime, however, has its own individual properties, including characteristics of the guilty person. Every personality has specific characteristic that form its individuality. The individuality includes the following properties of the personality:
- Biological (gender, age, health condition);
- Psychological (mental development, temperament);
- Social (behaviour in everyday life, attitude to work and to generally accepted social life rules);
- Other social and demographic (education, ethnicity, family status, previous convictions, occupation).
It should be noted that all individual characteristics of personality can not be reflected in the legislative provisions because lawmakers, when constructing the bodies of crimes, select, as a rule, most typical criminal characteristics and include them into the specific bodies as characteristics of the subject, whether general or special. At that, a portion of characteristics of the personality of criminal, stays beyond the framework of the elements of crime and is not included into the main body or the body with aggravating circumstances. These properties and characteristics, however, do not lose their legal relevance and can be taken into account when determining the punishment for the guilty person or implementing preventive measures on certain types of crimes.
Thus, the personality of criminal is, according to Russian scholar L. Ermakov [42, p. 221-223], a «system of socially relevant properties of a person who committed the crime that affect the possibility of his correction through the criminal law means (punishment or other criminal law provided measures)».
During the study of personalities of the people who committed crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations, attention has been paid to general social and demographic characteristics common for this category of subjects that are not qualifying characteristics of the crimes in question. These are state legal status of the person (citizenship), age, gender, education.
According to the results of the study, crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations are mainly committed by citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan (98.7%), males (74.4%), with higher education (98.2%), without previous convictions (8.1%).
Data on the age of person’s committed economic crimes have certain theoretical and practical importance as well.
The age structure of people convicted under the studies criminal cases looks like as follows:
a) from 16 to 17 years old - 0.0%
b) from 18 to 25 years old - 14.7%
c) from 26 to 40 years old - 39.3%
d) from 41 to 50 years old - 36.8%
e) 56 years old and above - 9.2%
Thus, it is evident from the above statistics that the most criminogenic age in this sphere of financial and credit relations is the age from 26 to 50 years (76.1%).
The share of persons previously convicted for crimes in this sphere of social relations or other crimes is quite insignificant, because business practices in the financial and credit sphere exclude, as a rule, the possibility of participation therein of the previously convicted persons.
The educational data evidence that the higher level of education and significant experience of work in this sphere of social relations is typical for the criminal personality. This is explained by the fact that main qualification requirements for work in the financial and credit sphere include higher specialist education and the relevant work experience. According to the statistics of the studied criminal cases, 78.7% of persons convicted for such crimes have higher education and at least 5 years of work experience.
It should be noted that the moral position of the persons who committed crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations is mainly characterized by lucrative inclination. Most of the persons who committed such crimes are reluctant to relate the satisfaction of their material and spiritual demands to the consideration they receive for their work.
Analysis of the above characteristics and properties of the personality of criminal makes it possible to solve correctly the issues of individualization of responsibility and punishment, deeply and comprehensively examine the causes and conditions that give rise to such crimes, as well as work out efficient preventive measures.
1.5 Subjective aspect of crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations
Based on classic theoretical prepositions concerning this element of the body of crime, the subjective aspect of crime means psychic activities directly relating to commission of the crime. It forms psychological, i.e. subjective, content of the crime and is therefore it internal (as opposite to the external) aspect.
The content of the subjective aspect of crime is disclosed with the use of legal notions like guilt, motive and purpose of crime. Representing different forms of psychic activities, these notions are organically interrelated and interdependent. Along with this, according to Professor F.I. Rarog [44], guilt, motive and purpose are independent psychological phenomena with independent content; none of them include the other as a component. He believes that the legal significance of all them is also different.
By definition of S. Rakhmetov [45], the subjective aspect of crime means mental attitude of a person to his acts and their consequences. He also believes that that the subjective aspect includes: guilt, motive, and purpose. All these in aggregate characterize the internal process that takes part in the mind of the person who committed crime and reflect the connections between the person’s mind and will of with the act he committed.
Some scholars, however, in particular, P.S. Dagel and D.P.Kotov [46], V.S. Utevsky [47], G.A. Kriger [48] believe that subjective aspect of crime is identical only with guilt, which, in their opinion, includes motive and purpose.
The subjective aspect of crime represents a reflection in a subject’s mind of objective characteristics of the committed act and characterizes the subject’s attitude to them. This opinion is shared by I. Lekshas [49] and T.L. Sergeeva [50]. They believe that if one crime if different from other by objective characteristics, there subjective aspects must be different s well. Even when objects, objective aspects and subjects of two or several crimes coincide, they have different characteristics of the subjective aspect, because otherwise it were not several but one and the same crime.
Thus, based on the above theoretical prepositions, one can conclude that the subjective aspect of crime is made of the guilt, motive, and purpose. At that, as is shown in joint work by V.Sergiyevsky and S. Rakhmetov [51], characteristics of the subjective aspect of crime are divided into main (obligatory) and optional (additional). The first include the guilt, or more precisely, its forms - intentional and negligent. In the real life it means that the intent or the negligence (their types include direct and indirect, presumption and carelessness), depending on the essence and nature of crime, are present in any crime serving as mandatory characteristics of the subjective aspect.
It should be noted that the correct determination of the subjective aspect of crime, form of guilt, motives and purposes is very important: it makes possible to differentiate the criminal from non-criminal, accurately qualify crimes, differentiate between the crimes with similar objective aspects, determine the degree of danger of the person who committed a criminal act, and individualize punishment.
The criminal law attaches equally important significant to characteristics of both objective and subjective aspect of crime. For example, as V.N. Kudryavtsev [52] indicates, overestimation of the objective aspect to the prejudice of subjective characteristics leads to a so-called objective imputation, while overestimation of the subjective one involves the imposition of responsibility not for a socially dangerous act, but for dangerous thoughts or a dangerous condition.
Proceeding from the classic approach to this element of the crime, the main criterion of differentiation of crimes by the subjective aspect is the form of guilt. Imposition of responsibility only in the presence of guilt is the essential principle of the criminal law. This principle is expressly formulated in article 19 of the ROK Criminal Code.
Under part 1, article 19 of the ROK Criminal Code, a person shall be subject to criminal responsibility only for the socially dangerous acts (or omissions) and their dangerous consequences that his guilt has been established for. The criminal law does not accept the objective imputation, i.e. imposition of responsibility without guilt, only for infliction of harm to a person, society and the state. However, unfortunately, it happens in practice of both law enforcement and judicial bodies, despite that fact that part two, article 19, of the ROK Criminal Code prohibits the objective imputation without establishment of the guilt.
The necessity of a thorough examination of content of the subjective aspect has been reiterated also in Regulatory Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan #1 dated 30 April 1999 «On Court’s Compliance with Law when Imposing Criminal Responsibility» [53], which stipulates that «when determining the degree of social danger of a committed crime, it is necessary to proceed from all circumstances of the specific criminal offence in their entirety (form of guilt, motives, method, circumstances and stages of commission of the crime, gravity of the consequences, degree and nature of participation of every party to the offence, etc.).
Criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides for two main forms of guilt - intent and negligence (article 20 and 21 of the ROK Criminal Code). In its turn, the intent is divided into a direct and indirect one, and the negligence into presumption and neglect. The law also stipulates for two forms of guilt (article 22 of the ROK Criminal Code).
For the purpose of further analysis of the subjective aspect of crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations, it seems appropriate to cite here the classic preposition that a crime is considered committed with the direct intent, if a person was aware of public danger of his acts (omission), foresaw a possibility or inevitability of occurrence of socially dangerous consequences and desired their occurrence (part 2, article 20, of the ROK Criminal Code).
A crime is considered committed with indirect intent, if a person was aware of the social danger of his acts (omission), foresaw a possibility of occurrence of socially dangerous consequences, did not desire but consciously admitted the possible occurrence of such consequences, or had an indifferent attitude towards them (part 3, article 20, of the ROK Criminal Code).
It should be noted that the consciousness of the socially dangerous nature of the act or omission and foresight of the socially dangerous consequences as the processes going in the mind form the intellectual element of the intent.
Thus the consciousness of the socially dangerous nature of an act or omission is the necessary element of the intent and the lack of it excludes the intentional guilt. The consciousness of the socially dangerous nature of the act or omission suggests that the guilty person realizes not only its actual side but also its social effects, i.e. the harm that the act or omission will or may inflict to the social relations protected by the criminal law.
The ability to realize the social danger of the committed act is inherent in human as a result of his life experience, education, general culture, legal knowledge, etc..
Nevertheless, as M.N. Syzdykov [54] notes, «Consciousness of the social danger of the act must not be identified with the consciousness of its unlawfulness or prohibition by the criminal law». He further writes that «consciousness of the social danger of the is essential for the intentional guilt, but it is not required that the guilty person realize the unlawfulness of his act. The law (article 20 of the ROK Criminal Code) does not include the consciousness of unlawfulness into the required characteristics of the intent».
Proceeding from these theoretical premises, it should be noted that not only the realization of the socially dangerous nature of an act or omission, but also the foresights of its socially dangerous consequences, as well as causal relation between the committed act and the consequences, are included into the intent in the material elements of crime. For the presence of the intent, it is sufficient that the guilty person foresaw development of the causal relation between the committed act and its consequences in general terms. According to M.N. Syzdykov [54, p.74] «it is not required that the guilty person understand development of the causal relation in detail».
Only realization of the social danger of the committed act or omission relating to the objective aspect of this crime is included into the content of the intent in the formal elements, however, and it is not required that the guilty person foresee development of the causal relation, because consequences are not a required element in these crimes.
In should be noted in relation to the above that crimes in the sphere of credit and financial relations belong to the category of intentional crimes and, as a rule, are committed with a direct intent.
For example, subjective aspect of illegal bank activities (article 191 of the ROK Criminal Code) is determined by the intentional guilt: a specific person realizes that he exercises bank activities or bank transactions without a special permit or in violation of terms of licensing, foresees the possibility or inevitability of infliction of a large damage to an individual, organization, or the state, and desires or knowingly admits the infliction of such a damage and has an indifferent attitude to its occurrence, or the guilty person realizes that he extracts a large income from these illegal activities and desires it.
In case of a malicious evasion of repayment of credit indebtedness (article 195 of the ROK Criminal Code), the subjective aspect is determined by guilt in the form of a direct intent, because the head of an organization or an individual realizes that by non-fulfilling the relevant judicial decision that entered into legal force he maliciously evades the repayment of credit indebtedness in a large scale.
In case of an unlawful obtaining or wrong use of a loan (article 194 of the ROK Criminal Code), unlawful obtaining and disclosure of information constituting commercial or bank secret (article 200 of the ROK Criminal Code), submission of knowingly false information about bank transactions (article 119 of the ROK Criminal Code), unlawful use of monetary funds of a bank (article 220 of the ROK Criminal Code), the subjective aspect is also determined by the direct intent.
Hence it should be noted that crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations can not be committed by neglect proceeding from the provisions stipulated in the disposition of the elements of crimes examined in this dissertational work.
In conclusion of this chapter of the monograph it should be noted that the form of guilt (subjective aspect of the crime) of the person that committed a criminally punishable offence is when it is:
- It is directly specified in the law (for example, a murder means a «illegal intentional causation of the death of another person»);
- Follows from the sense of the used terms (for example, «illegal bank activities»);
- Follows from the references in the law to the motive, purpose or advanced knowledge, which characterize an intentional crime (for example, provision of knowingly false information about bank operations);
- Follows from a systematic interpretation of the law, for example, based on the judicial and investigative practice.
Let us also discuss some other characteristics of the subjective aspect of the crime (motive and purpose), which also significantly affect differentiation of socially dangerous acts, determination of the form of guilt of the person that committed the crime, identification of the circumstances mitigating or aggravating the responsibility of the guilty person.
The motive of crime means the internal incentives that the subject is guided by when committing the crime. The motive always precedes the intent, which arises and strengthens under the influence of one or several motives.
Motives of crime can be different and, as Russian scholar A.I. Rarog points out [44, p. 190-193], based on the morality and law, they can be divided into two groups: base ones and those lacking the base content. The base motives include the motives and purposes that the law associate the aggravation of the criminal responsibility with, or which are considered aggravating circumstances in General Part of the criminal law, or which are considered qualifying characteristics, as well as required conditions of the criminal responsibility, in specific crimes of the in Special Part of the criminal law.
According to this scholar, other motives and purposes, those that the law does not connect the subjective basis of the criminal responsibility or its aggravation, belongs to those not having base content.