The main criteria for distinguishing Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Article 14.10 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation

Currently, there is an increase in the number of norms in domestic criminal law that simultaneously link several objects of protection with norms of various industry affiliation. Thus, mixed illegality has become the subject of active discussion within the framework of criminal law. This problem affects a wide range of cross-sectoral issues and has significant theoretical and practical importance. The article deals with the problem of distinguishing in practice responsibility for the illegal use of means of individualization of goods (works, services) in domestic criminal legislation (Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and administrative legislation (Article 14.10 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). The author considers the solution of the problem at two levels: general and special. At the general level, the problem is related to the difficulty of distinguishing crimes and administrative offenses in general, regardless of the type of specific illegal acts. At a special level, the problem is manifested by the example of specific types of illegal acts. The methodological basis of the article is the dialectical-materialistic method of cognition and general scientific and private research methods based on it (analysis, synthesis, logical-legal, comparative-legal, structural-functional, formal-legal methods). As a result of a comparative analysis of Articles 180 of the Criminal Code and Article 14.10 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, the criteria for distinguishing these norms are established. In order to overcome the identified problem, the author believes it is possible to amend the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation in terms of settling liability for repeated commission of an administrative offense provided for in Article 14.10 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, the possible normative consolidation of the criteria for the repetition of an illegal act and the duration of its action within the framework of an administrative prejudice will help to offset the difficulties encountered by a law enforcement officer in differentiating the composition of offenses and their correct qualification. The presented proposals are intended to help solve the problems that arise when distinguishing the composition of the considered offenses due to the coincidence of their features in criminal and administrative legislation.

criminal liability, administrative responsibility, criteria of differentiation, trademark, means of individualization, criminal law, repeatability, administrative prejudice, illegality, public danger