Features of the Commission of Fraud, Coupled with the Failure to Comply with the Provisions of a Civil Contract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relevance of the study due to the need to consider the composition of a criminal offense in the form of fraud under the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan. New market relations and insufficient legal regulation of certain aspects have expanded the offenders' ability to use the imperfections of legal norms for their own mercenary purposes. The difficulties arising in practical activities necessitate the clarification of controversial issues and the development of sound recommendations for the correct qualification and delimitation of fraud from other legal relations. Based on the study of practical examples of individual forms of fraud, the need for a differentiated approach to qualifications and the establishment of responsibility for fraud is indicated. The main content of the article is aimed at identifying and disclosing the basic concepts that determine the content of the considered offense and highlighting the main forms of deception that ensure the offender to achieve a criminal result. The objective and subjective characteristics of the composition of fraud are investigated, the features of establishing individual qualifying characteristics are considered. The main method of research used a comparative legal analysis of domestic legislation, used statistical data and the results of a survey of law enforcement officers. The article touches upon the problem of non-fulfillment of contractual obligations as a sign of fraud in the business sphere. Identified and investigated some signs of the objective side of fraudulent activity, in which as a cover for illegal actions, the use of civil law contracts that facilitate the commission of fraud is used. It justifies the conclusion that, taking into account the signs of the objective side, the moment of the end of fraud, coupled with non-fulfillment of contractual obligations, is different from the moment of the end of the usual fraud. Article materials may be valuable for practitioners of pre-trial investigations in terms of scientifically based proposals and recommendations on the qualification of typical fraudulent acts veiled under a civil law transaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".