THE CRIMINAL WRONGDOING IN THE CRIME OF TAX EVASION
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objectives: The article's objectives were to describe the distinction in the core of action devaluation and result devaluation, between the illegality of tax evasion within the scope of Administrative Law and tax crime. Methodology: The methodology was based on the deductive method, which characterized the present research as descriptive of qualitative nature, through a comparative bibliographic review, the circumstantial analysis of two specific cases and object of a complaint involving tax evasion and judged by the Brazilian Judiciary. The comparative Brazilian and international bibliographic review converge on the dogmatic concept of a criminal offence and an administrative law.Result: The result presented a critical analysis of the explored cases, which resulted in evidence that the Public Ministry and the Brazilian Courts, due to dogmatic mistakes, do not make, with regard to tax evasion, the correct distinction between administrative and criminal offences. Contributions: The article emphasizes the result of the research that established a dogmatic analysis, with emphasis on the distinction between the criminal offence and the merely administrative offence. As a contribution, the article offered a deep discussion and theoretical knowledge of an academic nature regarding the theme. Keywords: tax evasion; tax crimes; fraud; typical illicit. RESUMO Objetivo: O objetivo deste artigo foi traçar a distinção nos núcleos de desvalor de ação e desvalor de resultado, entre o ilícito de sonegação no âmbito do Direito Administrativo e o crime tributário. Metodologia: A metodologia fundamentou-se no método dedutivo, que caracterizou a presente pesquisa como descritiva de natureza qualitativa, por meio de uma revisão bibliográfica comparada e na análise circunstancial da realidade em dois casos concretos, objeto de denúncia envolvendo sonegação fiscal e julgados pelo Poder Judiciário brasileiro. A revisão bibliográfica brasileira e internacional comparada convergem no conceito dogmático de um ilícito penal e um licito administrativo. Resultado: O resultado apresentou uma crítica aos casos concretos explorados, que resultou em evidencia que o Ministério Público e os Tribunais brasileiros, por equívocos dogmáticos, não realizam, no que refere à sonegação fiscal, a correta distinção entre ilícito administrativo e ilícito penal. Acabam, portanto, equiparandoos. Contribuições: O artigo enfatiza o resultado da pesquisa que estabeleceu uma análise dogmática, com ênfase na distinção entre o ilícito penal e o ilícito meramente administrativo. Ainda como contribuição, o artigo aprofundou a discussão e o conhecimento teórico de caráter acadêmico referente a temática. Palavras-chave: Crime tributário; Sonegação fiscal; Ilícito-típico; Fraude; Desvalor de ação; Desvalor de resultado
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it