The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
13
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
13-18
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue05-04
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
08 March 2025
ACCEPTED
04 April 2025
PUBLISHED
07 May 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue05 2025
CITATION
Sardor Uralbaevich Toshniyozov. (2025). Illegal manufacturing, processing,
acquisition, storage, transportation, or dispatch of potent or toxic
substances with the intent of distribution and some issues related to the
objective elements of this crime. The American Journal of Political Science
Law and Criminology, 7(05), 13
–
18.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue05-04
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Illegal manufacturing,
processing, acquisition,
storage, transportation, or
dispatch of potent or toxic
substances with the intent
of distribution and some
issues related to the
objective elements of this
crime
Sardor Uralbaevich Toshniyozov
Independent Researcher, Academy of Law Enforcement Bodies, Republic
of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan
Abstract:
The article examines theoretical views and
practical issues related to the objective aspects of the
crime involving illegal manufacturing, processing,
acquisition, storage, transportation, or dispatch of
potent or toxic substances for illegal distribution
purposes, as well as their illegal distribution. The author
presents insights on the elements of the objective side
of this crime, discusses the problems encountered in the
legal qualification of such crimes, and proposes certain
amendments aimed at improving the legislation
concerning this criminal offense.
Keywords:
Objective elements of crime, potent and
toxic substances, public health, criminal liability, time of
crime completion.
Introduction:
In accordance with Article 13 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan, democracy
in Uzbekistan is based on universally recognized
principles, which regard human beings, their life,
freedom, honor, dignity, and other inviolable rights as
the highest values. Democratic rights and freedoms are
protected by the Constitution and laws.
Nowadays, there are emerging threats to human life
and health, as well as public safety, among which the
illegal circulation of potent and toxic substances is one
of the most dangerous. The illegal handling of these
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
14
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
substances is considered highly socially dangerous, as
their misuse by the population for narcotic purposes
inevitably leads to criminogenic situations and
adversely affects public safety.
Discussion and analysis of main results
Criminal legislation contains several provisions aimed
at combating the illegal circulation of these
substances. Among these provisions, paragraphs 3-5 of
Article 251¹ of the Criminal Code (hereinafter CC)
establish criminal liability for the illegal manufacturing,
processing, acquisition, storage, transportation, or
dispatch of potent or toxic substances intended for
illegal distribution, as well as their illegal distribution.
M. Usmonaliev classifies crimes based on their
structure into three categories: simple, complex, and
alternative crimes. Simple composition crimes do not
include complicating or aggravating elements and have
a single object, single action, and single socially
dangerous consequence. Complex crimes involve
several objects or multiple actions. Alternative
composition crimes, although a type of complex crime,
specify several actions in the disposition, and
committing any one of these actions alone can result
in criminal liability.
The crimes described in the analyzed article fall under
the category of alternative composition crimes.
Specifically, paragraphs 3-5 of Article 251¹ of the
Criminal Code describe several alternative actions
constituting the objective side of the crime:
1.
Illegal manufacturing, processing, acquisition,
storage, transportation, or dispatch of potent or toxic
substances intended for illegal distribution;
2.
Illegal distribution of these substances;
3.
Preparation,
acquisition,
storage,
transportation, dispatch, or distribution of equipment
intended for manufacturing or processing these
substances.
Clarifications regarding actions involving potent and
toxic substances in paragraphs 3-5 of Article 251¹ CC
are provided in Resolution No. 33 of the Plenum of the
Supreme Court dated November 27, 2021, titled “On
judicial practice regarding crimes related to illegal
circulation of potent or toxic substances”.
In particular, paragraph 8 of the Plenum Resolution
stipulates that criminal liability for actions involving
potent and toxic substances arises only when the
individual has intent for future illegal distribution.
Paragraph 3 of the Resolution defines illegal
manufacturing of potent or toxic substances as
intentional actions aimed at illegally obtaining these
substances from chemical sources, plants, or animals.
Currently, the legislation sets several requirements
regarding the manufacturing of these substances.
Specifically, Articles 15 and 16 of the Law “On medicines
and pharmaceutical activity” define manufacturing and
preparing medicines as a pharmaceutical activity that
requires licensing. According to paragraph 35 of the
annex to the Law “On licensing, permissions, and
notification
procedures”,
manufacturing
toxic
substances is a licensed activity. Violating these
established requirements constitutes grounds for
criminal liability.
In analyzing the legal aspects of manufacturing actions,
attention should be given to the possibility of producing
potent or toxic substances, as provided separately from
manufacturing in the legislation mentioned above.
M.Kh. Rustambayev defines the manufacturing of
potent or toxic substances as the process of combining
natural raw materials or ordinary non-toxic substances
into various forms and types, creating (producing) these
substances in necessary quantities. According to this
scholar, creation and production are encompassed
within the concept of manufacturing.
However, I.V. Lezenkova distinguishes between
manufacturing and production, arguing that production
involves batch manufacturing using specialized chemical
and other equipment. She proposes that production
should be specifically included as a separate crime in
criminal legislation for illegal circulation of these
substances. Supporting this viewpoint, it should be
noted that certain articles of the CC (e.g., Articles 186³
and 250¹) already separately define responsibility for
both manufacturing and production. Given that
legislation explicitly differentiates production and
manufacturing, criminal law should similarly establish
separate liability for each.
Responsibility for manufacturing potent and toxic
substances arises when specifically listed prohibited
substances are produced. Creating new substances with
potent or toxic characteristics not included in the
prohibited list does not constitute illegal manufacturing.
According to V.V. Kukharuk, the crime of manufacturing
these substances is completed at the initiation of
actions aimed at obtaining finished products for use.
However, other scholars argue that the crime is
considered completed only when finished substances
ready for use have been obtained. Preparation and
attempted commission of crimes presume the absence
of the criminally intended outcome. The wording of
Article 251¹ of the CC explicitly refers to finished
substances. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the
illegal manufacturing of potent or toxic substances as a
completed crime only upon obtaining finished
substances, and any earlier stages should be regarded
as incomplete crimes.
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
15
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
Paragraph 4 of the Plenum Resolution defines the
illegal processing of potent or toxic substances as
refining (purifying) solid or liquid mixtures containing
one or more potent or toxic substances from additional
substances, or increasing the proportion of potent or
toxic substances in such mixtures, as well as enhancing
their effect on the human div by mixing with other
pharmacologically active substances. From this
definition, it is clear that the primary goal of processing
substances is to enhance their effects when consumed.
According to M.G. Yermakov, purification of
substances from additional mixtures and adjusting
them to the required concentration during the
manufacturing process is covered within the concept
of manufacturing itself, hence not necessitating
separate qualification as processing. This crime is
considered complete once the substance acquires
potent or toxic properties. However, it should be noted
that the crime is not solely completed at this point
since the act of processing also includes enhancing the
effects of already prepared substances, and thus, the
completion of the crime is linked to achieving this
intended objective.
E.G. Shmelyova argues that dissolving potent or toxic
substances in water without additional processes like
evaporation, purification, or sublimation
—
which do
not alter the chemical structure should not be
classified as manufacturing or processing.
The provided definition of processing includes
increasing the proportion of potent or toxic substances
in a mixture. In our opinion, this action involves
exclusively adding potent or toxic substances to a
mixture already containing them. Merely combining
substances of the same category (e.g., pouring the
mixture of “tropicamide” eye drops into a single
container) for future distribution, without the
intention of increasing the concentration or enhancing
the effect on the div, should not qualify as
processing.
Illegal acquisition of potent or toxic substances refers
to obtaining them by any means, including purchase,
gift, as payment for services or debt, exchange with
other goods or items, or appropriation of lost items.
National legislation imposes several requirements
regarding the acquisition of such substances. For
instance, Presidential Decree No. PD
–
4438 of
September 6, 2019, “On strengthening measures to
prevent the illegal circulation of medicines
”, specifies
that retail sale of medicines containing potent
substances listed as controlled drugs is allowed only in
social pharmacies and those licensed to store and sell
narcotic
drugs
and
psychotropic
substances.
Additionally, prescriptions for such drugs must be
retained in the pharmacy for one year. Therefore, such
medications can only be acquired at specific pharmacies
on the basis of a prescription.
According to V.V. Kukharuk, the act of acquiring potent
or toxic substances is considered complete when the
substances come into the possession of the offender,
i.e., when the offender gains the ability to use or control
them.
The temporary safekeeping of potent or toxic
substances should not be considered illegal acquisition.
According to paragraph 6 of the Plenum Resolution,
illegal storage of potent or toxic substances refers to
intentional acts of unlawful possession by a person (e.g.,
storing them on one’s person, in a building, in a hidden
location, or elsewhere). The duration for which the
substances are unlawfully stored is not of legal
significance.
Illegal storage of potent or toxic substances is
considered complete from the moment actions aimed
at storing such substances begin. Determining the
starting point of these actions requires an assessment of
how and under what conditions the substances came
into the offender's possession. In particular, if a person
acquired the substances through theft or robbery, the
storage begins from the moment they had the
opportunity to use or manage them at their discretion.
According to V.V. Kukharuk, all alternative actions
related to the illegal circulation of potent or toxic
substances involve active behavior by the offender.
However, some of these actions, such as unlawful
storage, can be committed through inaction. In our
view, only storage, among the actions listed in
paragraph 3 of Article 251¹ of the Criminal Code, can be
carried out through both action and inaction, whereas
all other actions require active conduct.
According to paragraph 7 of the Plenum Resolution,
illegal transportation of potent or toxic substances
refers to the act of moving them from one location to
another, including within a single populated area, using
any means of transport or any object used as a transport
medium. This also includes transportation by an
authorized representative of a legal entity licensed for
such activity, provided the legal requirements have
been violated.
Transportation of potent or toxic substances is
considered complete from the moment the vehicle used
for transportation begins to move. In our opinion, the
definition of transportation provided in the Plenum
Resolution should be reviewed for greater clarity.
Moreover, the definition specifies that transportation
includes moving potent or toxic substances using any
type of transport or any object employed as a
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
16
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
transportation means. This implies that during
transportation, the substances may be carried on the
offender's person (e.g., in a pocket or bag). This raises
challenges in distinguishing between acts of
transportation and storage.
M.G. Ermakov, in discussing the difference between
transportation and storage, emphasizes the need to
consider the offender's intent. According to him, the
illegal transportation of substances occurs in at least
three scenarios: (1) the substances are moved with the
intent to distribute; (2) the quantity of transported
substances is large; (3) the main purpose of the trip
and the use of transport is to carry the substances.
Indeed, transportation involves the purpose of moving
the substances from one place to another for
distribution, while storage involves concealing them
from others, often with the intent to distribute later. If
a person is traveling with potent or toxic substances in
a vehicle or by other means without the intent to
distribute them during that trip, the act should not be
considered transportation.
It should be noted that we disagree with M.G.
Ermakov’s claim that
the composition of the
transportation offense is valid only when large
quantities are involved. A person may transport even
small quantities of potent or toxic substances with the
intent to distribute, which still constitutes a separately
punishable offense.
Illegal dispatch of potent or toxic substances refers to
deliberate actions aimed at transferring such
substances using postal services, air transport, or other
transportation means in violation of established legal
procedures, including sending them as mail parcels,
packages, or luggage, and doing so through another
person without the direct involvement of the sender.
From this definition, it becomes clear that the essential
feature of dispatch is the indirect nature of the
sender’s involvement.
Uzbek legislation provides specific rules concerning the
dispatch of potent or toxic substances. For instance,
Article 15 of the Law “On postal services” states that
postal operators and providers have the right to retain
postal and courier shipments that contain prohibited
enclosures. According to the Rules on the Provision of
Postal Services (registered under No. 2219, dated April
18, 2011), subparagraph “b” of paragraph 1 of the List
of Prohibited and Restricted Items and Substances
prohibits the dispatch of potent and toxic substances
in both domestic and international postal or courier
shipments.
Furthermore, Annex 1 to the Regulation on Conducting
security inspections in civil aviation of the Republic of
Uzbekistan, approved by Resolution No. 183 of the
Cabinet of Ministers dated June 2, 2016, prohibits the
carriage of potent and toxic substances aboard aircraft.
Therefore, dispatching potent or toxic substances in
violation of these rules for the purpose of distribution
gives rise to criminal liability.
According to I.V. Lazenkova, criminal liability for
dispatching potent or toxic substances arises from the
moment a parcel (e.g., an envelope or package) is sent,
regardless of whether the recipient actually receives it.
In this context, sending a parcel should be understood
as handing it over to the postal operator or provider,
since all further actions occur without the sender’s
involvement.
The subjective side is important in distinguishing
dispatch from transportation. If a person transports
potent or toxic substances belonging to someone else
and is aware of the nature of the items, both the owner
and the transporter may be deemed to have jointly
committed the act of transporting the substances for
the purpose of distribution. However, if the transporter
is unaware of the restricted nature of the substances,
they bear no criminal liability, while the sender’s actions
may still qualify as dispatch.
According to paragraph 9 of the Plenum Resolution, the
illegal transfer (distribution) of potent or toxic
substances includes their delivery to another person by
any means, either for compensation or free of charge
(e.g., sale, gift, exchange, in lieu of debt, or as a loan).
This transfer can occur directly or by other methods
(e.g., informing the recipient about the storage location
or leaving the substances at an agreed-upon place).
There are differing views on when the act of transfer
constitutes a completed crime. For example, M.Kh.
Rustambayev believes that the crime is completed at
the moment the substance is handed over to at least
one person. In contrast, E.G. Shmelyova argues that the
crime is complete only when the recipient has both
received the substances and acquired the ability to use
them excluding cases involving controlled purchase
operations.
We do n
ot agree with E.G. Shmelyova’s interpretation
regarding the moment of completion. The objective of
transfer is to pass the substances to another person, and
the purpose, ability, or intent of the recipient to use the
substances is irrelevant. Therefore, transfer should be
considered complete once the substances have been
handed over.
Another important issue concerns when the act is
considered complete if the transfer occurs by informing
the recipient about the storage location or placing the
substances at an agreed spot. Nowadays, many cases
involve the transfer of potent substances through such
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
17
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
methods. E.G. Shmelyova maintains that the act is
completed as soon as these actions are taken.
Paragraph 9 of the Plenum Resolution similarly
recognizes that transfer can be carried out by leaving
substances at a designated location or disclosing their
whereabouts.
However, we believe that these interpretations do not
align with Article 26 of the Criminal Code. Transfer
implies actual delivery to another person. When
someone informs the recipient about the storage
location or places the substances at a predetermined
site, they do not fully transfer possession. Imagine a
scenario in which a person agrees to transfer potent
substances, leaves them at an agreed location, but
then retrieves them before the recipient can collect
them. In our view, such a person should be considered
to have attempted the transfer but voluntarily
withdrawn from committing the crime.
According to Article 26 of the Criminal Code, if a person
voluntarily abandons the act before completing the
crime and prevents the occurrence of criminal
consequences, this constitutes voluntary renunciation
and exempts them from criminal liability.
According to Article 26 of the Criminal Code, if a person
voluntarily abandons the act before completing the
crime and prevents the occurrence of criminal
consequences, this constitutes voluntary renunciation
and exempts them from criminal liability.
Moreover, the definition of transfer does not clarify
whether giving substances temporarily to another
person is included or if it only refers to full transfer of
ownership. According to M.Kh. Rustambayev, transfer
implies that the substances become the possession of
another person. Therefore, temporary possession
granted with the intent to maintain control may
instead fall under the crime of illegal storage if the aim
is future transfer.
M.G. Ermakov considers injection of potent or toxic
substances into another person as an act of transfer,
unless the injected person is the owner of the
substance. However, when such substances are used
as instruments in crimes against life, health, property,
or other types of offenses, they are not additionally
qualified as illegal transfer of potent substances.
These views are partially reflected in the resolutions of
the Supreme Court Plenum. For instance, paragraph 7
of Resolution No. 6 of April 30, 1999, “On judicial
practice in cases involving theft, robbery, and armed
assault of others’ property”, states that if a firearm
requiring a permit, or another object that could be
used as a weapon (such as explosives or toxic
substances), is used during a robbery, the act should
be qualified as a combination of relevant crimes.
Indeed, a person may inject potent or toxic substances
into another individual with malicious intent as a means
of committing other crimes. Such cases should be
assessed as acts of illegal transfer of substances. Since
this rule was introduced within a resolution concerning
specific types of offenses, legal practitioners may not
always classify every instance of injection as illegal
transfer. Considering that similar rules are included in
the Plenum resolution concerning crimes involving
narcotic drugs, analogues, and psychotropic substances,
it would be advisable to reflect these parallels in the
Supreme Court Plenum’s Resolution No. 33 of
November 27, 2021, “On judicial practice regarding
crimes related to illegal circulation of potent or toxic
substances”.
Indeed, a person may inject potent or toxic substances
into another individual with malicious intent as a means
of committing other crimes. Such cases should be
assessed as acts of illegal transfer of substances. Since
this rule was introduced within a resolution concerning
specific types of offenses, legal practitioners may not
always classify every instance of injection as illegal
transfer. Considering that similar rules are included in
the Plenum resolution concerning crimes involving
narcotic drugs, analogues, and psychotropic substances,
it would be advisable to reflect these parallels in the
Supreme Court Plenum’s Resolution No. 33 of
November 27, 2021, “On judicial practice regarding
crimes related to illegal circulation of potent or toxic
substances”.
CONCLUSION
The study of the objective elements of crimes related to
the illegal circulation of potent or toxic substances
allows for the following conclusions:
•
The illegal handling of potent or toxic
substances constitutes an alternative (composite)
offense, in which several preparatory acts are treated as
completed crimes due to the high degree of social
danger posed by the dissemination of such substances;
•
The definitions of actions constituting this
offense contain ambiguities that hinder the
development of uniform legal practice. Therefore, it is
necessary to clarify these definitions and expand the
scope of actions listed in part 3 of Article 251¹ of the
Criminal Code to explicitly include the act of production.
REFERENCES
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Конституцияси. [Матн]
расмий нашр –
Тошкент: “O’zbekiston” нашриёти.
2023.
–
128 б.
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг Жиноят кодекси –
http://lex.adm.uz/uz/docs/111453.
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг 2016 йил 4 январдаги
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
18
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
“Дори воситалари ва фармацевтика фаолияти
тўғрисида”ги
ЎРҚ–
399-
сон
Қонуни
–
http://lex.adm.uz/uz/docs/2856464.
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг 2021 йил 14 июлдаги
“Лицензиялаш, рухсат бериш ва хабардор қилиш
тартиб
-
таомиллари
тўғрисида”ги
ЎРҚ–
701-
сон
Қонуни –
http://lex.adm.uz/uz/docs/5511879.
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг 2022 йил 9
июндаги
“Почта алоқаси тўғрисида”ги ЎРҚ–
777-
сон Қонуни –
http://lex.adm.uz/uz/docs/6058066.
Ўзбекистон
Республикаси
Вазирлар
Маҳкамасининг 2016 йил 2 июндаги “Ўзбекистон
Республикаси
фуқаро
авиациясида
авиация
хавфсизлиги кўздан кечирувини ўтказиш тартиби
тўғрисидаги низомни тасдиқлаш ҳақида”ги 183
-
сон
қарори –
http://lex.adm.uz/uz/docs/2971699.
Ўзбекистон
Республикаси
Вазирлар
Маҳкамасининг
2019
йил
27
сентябрдаги
“Ўзбекистон Республикасида кучли таъсир қилувчи
моддалар
муомаласини
тартибга
солиш
тўғрисида”ги 818
-
сон ҳамда 2022 йил 21
февралдаги “Махсус электрон тизим орқали айрим
фаолият
турларини
лицензиялаш
тартиби
тўғрисидаги ягона низомни тасдиқлаш ҳақида”ги
80-
сон
қарорлари
–
http://lex.adm.uz/uz/docs/4532164.
Ўзбекистон Алоқа ва ахборотлаштириш агентлиги
бош директорининг 2011 йил 22 февралдаги 1
-
ю
-
сон буйруғи (рўйхат рақами 2219, 18.04.2011 й.)
билан тасдиқланган Почта алоқаси хизматларини
кўрсатиш
қоидалари
–
http://lex.adm.uz/uz/docs/1772402.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Олий суди Пленумининг
1999 йил 30 апрель “Ўзгалар мулкини ўғрилик,
талончилик ва босқинчилик билан талон
-
торож
қилиш жиноят ишлари бўйича суд амалиёти
тўғрисида”ги
6
-
сон
қарори
–
http://lex.adm.uz/uz/docs/1448644.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Олий cуди Пленумининг
2017 йил 28 апрелдаги “Гиёҳвандлик воситалари,
уларнинг аналоглари ва психотроп моддалар билан
қонунга хилоф равишда муомала қилишга оид
жиноят ишлари бўйича суд амалиёти тўғрисида”ги
12-
сон қарори –
http://lex.uz.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Олий суди Пленумининг
2021 йил 27 ноябрдаги “Кучли таъсир қилувчи ёки
заҳарли моддаларни қонунга хилоф равишда
муомалага киритиш билан боғлиқ жиноят ишлари
бўйича
суд
амалиёти
тўғрисида”ги
33
-
сон
қарорининг 5
-
банди –
http://lex.uz.
М.Усмоналиев. Жиноят ҳуқуқи. Умумий қисм. Олий
ўқув юртлари учун дарслик. Т.: “Янги аср авлоди”.
2010.
–
147-
148 б.
М.Ҳ.Рустамбаев.
Ўзбекистон
Республикасининг
Жиноят кодексига шарҳлар. Умумий кисм /
М.Рустамбаев.
-
Тошкент: “Yuridik adabiyotlar
publish”, 2021.
И.В.Лазенкова.
Уголовная
ответственность
за
незаконный
оборот
сильнодействующих
или
ядовитых веществ в целях сбыта: дисс. ... канд. юрид.
наук.–
М.:, 2015.
-
с. 81
-82.
В.В.Кухарук.
Уголовно
-
правовые
и
криминологические проблемы борьбы
с
организованным
незаконным
оборотом
сильнодействующих или ядовитых веществ в целях
сбыта: дисс. ... канд. юрид. наук. –
М.:, 2000.
-
с. 110.
Ё.Г.Шмелёва.
Незаконный
оборот
сильнодействующих или ядовитых веществ
в
целях
сбыта:
уголовно
-
правовые
и
криминологические аспекты: дисс. ... канд. юрид.
наук.
-
Казань, 2008.
-
с. 102.
М.Г.Ермаков. Уголовно
-
правовая характеристика
незаконного
оборота
сильнодействующих
и
ядовитых веществ: дисс. ... канд. юрид. наук.
-
Омск,
2014.
–
с. 80.
