Mystery of correspondence: definition, violation, principles and requirements

Violation of the secrecy of correspondence in Russia is punishable by law. The normative acts establish the responsibility for manifesting an undue interest in the private life of citizens.

Relevance of the issue

With the development of technology and technology are being improveda variety of listening, audio, video and other surveillance devices. Currently, there is always the possibility of hacking Internet pages containing confidential (personal) data, including correspondence with other persons. Unprotected are also paper carriers. However, everyone has the right to privacy of correspondence. Its non-compliance is fraught with criminal liability. In some cases, the law provides for the possibility of acquaintance with the personal information of the subject. This is possible if there are grounds for suspecting a citizen of a crime if these data can pose a security risk in other similar situations. In all other cases, the secrecy of correspondence must be preserved. The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees citizens the inviolability of their private life.

Criminal norms

The Criminal Code provides for Art. 137-139. They are protected by the inviolability of the home, the secret of correspondence / telephone conversations, the privacy of individuals. These norms have much in common. However, the legislator does not combine them into one article, but does the division of deeds. A common sign of crimes is the fact of encroachment on the freedoms established by the Constitution. The essence of differentiation is the isolation of individual elements that constitute different designs of encroachments. For example, spying on someone else's correspondence, eavesdropping on someone's conversations does not always indicate the person's desire to gather information about someone and use them for selfish purposes. Often people are moved by usual curiosity. In this regard, the legislation sets out a narrow norm relating to oral or written interaction between subjects.

Secret of correspondence, telephone, other negotiations

Often the question arises: in which cases can we talk about intrusion into a person's private life? Often, citizens in public transport or on the street loud enough to talk with someone on a variety of (including private) topics. Is it possible, in such a situation, to count people who pass by or are nearby criminals? In this case, the surrounding citizens are not violators. This is due to the fact that loudly speaking subjects do not take measures to preserve the confidentiality of information. But if, for example, a nearby person displays unhealthy interest and tries to look into the phone of another person while the person is in correspondence with someone, this behavior will be illegal.

CC: Article 138

This provision provides for liability for violation of the secrecy of telegraphic, postal and other communications, correspondence, negotiations. For the crime, the perpetrator can receive:

1. A fine of up to 80 thousand rubles. or a recovery equal to the income for six months.
2. 360 hours. mandatory or up to one year of correctional labor.

Aggravating circumstances

If the secrecy of correspondence was not observed by the subject who used his official position, he is threatened:

1. Collection in the amount of 100-300 thousand rubles. or making up the income for 1-2 g.
2. Compulsory work up to 480 hours.
3. Up to 4 years in prison.
4. Up to 4 months. arrest.
5. Deprivation of the right to carry out professional activities of a certain type or occupy the relevant positions within 2-5 years.

Analysis of the act

The secret of correspondence will be considered non-compliant inThe moment when the culprit was acquainted with the contents of the message. The crime established by Article 138 is considered to be formal. The object is the right of a person to keep in secret the information present in messages received in various ways (verbally, in writing on paper, using a telephone, a computer, etc.).

The objective part

It consists of familiarizing the culprit withcontent of information that is transferred by one citizen to another. At the same time, it should be noted that such a concept as "secret of correspondence" does not exist for persons who are in places of serving a criminal punishment. The amount of information, the confidentiality of which has not been preserved, does not affect the qualification of the deed.

The subjective side

It is characterized by the presence of intent. As a perpetrator, a person who has reached the age of 16 may be brought to justice. The offender, getting acquainted with the content of other people's information, understands that his actions are illegal. However, he does nothing to ensure that the secrecy of correspondence is preserved. Part 2 of Article 138 provides for a special entity. He is an official who used his official position to commit a crime.

Qualifying signs

The responsibility for the 138th article is drawnpersons who have made a conscious acquaintance with the contents of telephone conversations, correspondence or messages of any type without receiving judicial authority or one of the participants of the relevant relationship. As was said above, 16 years old sane physical persons act as subjects of crime in general cases. When committing an act by an official, a more severe penalty is applied.

Case Studies

Let's consider some cases of application of the 138th article of the Criminal Code.

• The company hired an employee to performcontrol over any information received and sent. In the course of his work, an unincorporated e-mail box of one of the company's employees was hacked, and according to the information present there it became clear that he had betrayed his business secrets to competitors. The enterprise sued the court, but it was not satisfied, since access to unincorporated mail was carried out without permission. In such a situation, the responsibility, rather, will be borne by the one who carried out the hacking.
• In another case, a woman in a fit of jealousywas able to access the letters that were in the e-mail belonging to the former wife of her current husband, as well as to a page in one of the social networks. She repeatedly received information intended for the victim. As a result of the trial, the citizen was fined, as well as compensation for moral damage.

Conclusion

It should be noted that even reading the message,which is intended for another person, is a crime punishable by the 138th article of the Criminal Code. However, the value does not have a degree of kinship with the victim. The subject, in turn, has the full right to go to court and bring the perpetrator to justice.