The article explores the issue of the possibility of counteracting the sale of oil products that do not meet the requirements of technical regulations, as well as counteracting the acts that are the conditions for such sale by criminal means. The author indicates a range of actions that contribute to the emergence and marketing of petroleum products that do not meet the requirements of technical regulations, at auto-filling stations. As such acts, smuggling, embezzlement, illegal business, acquisition or sale of property obtained by criminal means is considered. Considering the options for legal assessment of the sale of petroleum products that do not meet the requirements of technical regulations, the author raises and solves the question of the possibility of applying Art. 238 (in the part of marketing products that do not meet security requirements) and art. 159 of the Criminal Code (fraud). The study of judicial practice, the clarification of the content of the signs of the composition of these crimes (with regard to fraud, taking into account the history of its correlation with consumer fraud and related administrative offenses) led to the conclusion that the sale of oil products that do not meet the requirements of technical regulations, legal subjects of entrepreneurial activity can not be qualified according to the norms of the criminal law and entails only administrative responsibility.
marketing, oil products that do not meet the requirements of technical regulations, illegal entrepreneurship, fraud, criminal liability, administrative liability
1. Poyasnitel'naya zapiska k proektu federal'nogo zakona «O vnesenii izmeneniy v Kodeks Rossiyskoy Federacii ob administrativnyh pravonarusheniyah v chasti otvetstvennosti za sovershenie pravonarusheniy v sfere vypuska i obrascheniya topliva na rynke». URL: http://sozd.parlament.gov.ru (data obrascheniya: 01.02.2018).
2. Kolpakov A. Vospitanie rynka // Ekspert Severo-Zapad. №19-22. URL: http://expert.ru (data obrascheniya: 12.04.2018).
3. Prigovor Syzranskogo gorodskogo suda Samarskoy oblasti № 1-488/2016 ot 27 sentyabrya 2016 g. po delu № 1-488/2016. URL: http://sudact.ru (data obrascheniya: 10.04.2018).
4. Prigovor Kochubeevskogo rayonnogo suda Stavropol'skogo kraya № 1-139/2016 ot 27 iyunya 2016 g. po delu № 1-139/2016. URL: http:// sudact.ru (data obrascheniya: 20.04.2018).
5. Grechannik A. Beregi avtomobil': skazhi «palenke» net. «Komsomolka» vyyasnila, kto i kak poddelyvaet toplivo i kak kontrafakt popadaet na AZS. URL: https://www.omsk.kp.ru (data obrascheniya: 08.04.2018).
6. Prigovor Ramenskogo gorodskogo suda Moskovskoy oblasti № 1-188/2017 ot 31 marta 2017 g. po delu № 1-188/2017. URL: http://sudact.ru (data obrascheniya: 19.04.2018).
7. Itogovyy doklad o rezul'tatah i osnovnyh napravleniyah deyatel'nosti FTS Rossii v 2017 g. URL: http://www.customs.ru (data obrascheniya 15.03.2018).
8. Prigovor Kulundinskogo rayonnogo suda Altayskogo kraya № 1-119/2016 ot 17 oktyabrya 2016 g. po delu № 1-119/2016. URL: http:// sudact.ru (data obrascheniya: 16.04.2018).
9. Ob utverzhdenii perechnya strategicheski vazhnyh tovarov i resursov dlya celey stat'i 2261 Ugolovnogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federacii: postanovlenie Pravitel'stva Rossiyskoy Federacii ot 13 sentyabrya 2012 g. № 923 (s izm. i dop. ot 16.12.2014, 09.08.2016). Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoy sistemy «Konsul'tantPlyus».
10. Prigovor Sankt-Peterburgskogo garnizonnogo voennogo suda № 01-0057/2014 1-57/2014 ot 26 avgusta 2014 g. URL:http://sudact.ru (data obrascheniya: 16.04.2018).
11. Prigovor Sergievskogo rayonnogo suda Samarskoy oblasti № 1-168/2015 1-5/2016 ot 27 aprelya 2016 g. po delu № 1-168/2015. URL: http://sudact.ru (data obrascheniya: 16.04.2018).
12. Prigovor Zavodskogo rayonnogo suda g. Saratova № 1-262/2016 ot 5 sentyabrya 2016 g. po delu № 1-262/2016. URL: http://sudact.ru (data obrascheniya: 16.04.2018).
13. Prigovor Angarskogo gorodskogo suda Irkutskoy oblasti № 1-361/2017 ot 2 maya 2017 g. po delu № 1-361/2017. URL: http://sudact.ru (data obrascheniya: 16.04.2018).
14. Prigovor Novopokrovskogo rayonnogo suda Krasnodarskogo kraya № 1-161/2016 ot 16 dekabrya 2016 g. po delu № 1-161/2016. URL: http://sudact.ru (data obrascheniya: 16.04.2018).
15. Reshenie Stavropol'skogo kraevogo suda № 7-596/2017 7A-596/2017 ot 31 maya 2017 g. po delu № 7-596/2017. URL: http://sudact.ru (data obrascheniya: 12.04.2018).
16. Naumov A. V. Dva goda deystviya Ugolovnogo kodeksa RF: dostizheniya i proschety // Rossiyskaya yusticiya. 1999. № 9. S. 28-30.
17. Kaufman M. A. O principe besprobel'nosti zakona i neizbytochnosti zapreta v ugolovnom prave // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2003. № 4. S. 36-38.
18. Egorova N. A. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost' za obman potrebitelya // Rossiyskiy sledovatel'. 2003. № 8. S. 10-12.
19. Grinevskiy R. Obman potrebiteley: posledstviya dekriminalizacii // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2004. № 3. S. 23-25.
