Siberian Fire and Rescue Academy of the State Fire Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia (sudebnoyekspertizy, docent)
employee
, Russian Federation
Russian Federation
UDK 34 Право. Юридические науки
GRNTI 10.77 Уголовное право
The purpose of the study is to analyze the features of legal relations regulated by Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as to identify and resolve the problems related to the proper legal definition of these relations. The main research methods are: structural-system, methods of logical analysis and synthesis, formallegal, comparative-legal, as well as collecting information through the study of scientific periodicals and materials of judicial practice on this issue. The article discusses in detail the features of the delimitation of relations arising in accordance with Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The authors note that in the theory and practice of both criminal and civil law, one of the most controversial issues is the problem of differentiating a criminal offense under Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and acts that are not such (Article 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). So, to date, there is no consensus about the signs of differentiation of these compositions, and the criteria that have been developed at the present time are very vague and contradictory. Misinterpretation and application of norms when qualifying relations in accordance with Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not allow citizens to protect effectively their rights and legitimate interests. Therefore, in order to prevent violations of civil rights, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive scientific study of the features enabling to differentiate the above mentioned relations. Considerable attention is paid to the problem of appropriation of the found someone else’s property, when this property has identifying features. The authors define the types of property in the possession of the owner or any other type of legal owner, and also disclose the main characteristics of the specified property. In addition, the article formulates the authors’ definitions of such concepts as «finding» and «appropriation» of what was found. Based on the analysis of judicial and investigative practice, the authors propose the following recommendations for changing the legislation and the practice of its application in order to resolve controversial issues arising from the qualification of crimes against property. First, it is necessary to make clarifications in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2002 No. 20 «On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and banditry» which property should be recognized as being in the possession of the owner or other legal owners and determine the characteristic features of such property ... Secondly, it is necessary to formulate and consolidate the legal definition of a find in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Thirdly, to return into Chapter 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation «Crime against property» the part «Appropriation of the found property».
theft, heist, find, appropriation of the found, other people’s property
1. Sklyarov S. V. Krazha zabytogo imuschestva // Ugolovnoe pravo. – 2017. – № 3. – S. 68–73. 2. Hilyuta V. Prisvoenie poteryannyh i zabytyh veschey // Ugolovnoe pravo. – 2010. – № 1. – S. 45–48.
2. Ryabinin N. A., Kazanceva K. Yu. Sootnoshenie zakonnogo i nezakonnogo vladeniya i pol'zovaniya vesch'yu v grazhdansko-pravovyh otnosheniyah s protivopravnymi deyaniyami, predusmotrennymi ugolovnym zakonodatel'stvom // Sovremennoe pravo. – 2018. – № 11. – S. 45–51.
3. Hilyuta V., Bil'deyko A. Nahodka ili krazha? // Ugolovnoe pravo. – 2014. – № 3. – S. 93–97.
4. Bagautdinov F. N., Valiullin L. F. Krazha ili nahodka – problemy razgranicheniya // Zakonnost'. – 2017. – № 6. – S. 46–47.
5. Brilliantov A. V. Hischenie ili neosnovatel'noe obogaschenie? // Ugolovnoe pravo. – 2016. – № 4. – S. 9–13.
6. Zubcov A. A. Razgranichenie norm o nahodke i taynom hischenii chuzhogo imuschestva: problemy teorii i praktiki // Ugolovnoe pravo. – 2019. – № 3. – S. 25–31.
7. Lukinov A. S., Malyavkin K. O. Krazha ili nahodka – trudnosti i zabluzhdeniya // Zakonnost'. – 2017. – № 10. – S. 42–43.
8. Sichkarenko A. Yu. Otgranichenie prisvoeniya naydennogo ot hischeniya // Rossiyskiy sledovatel'. – 2018. – № 11. – S. 53–58.
9. Hromov E. V. Vina i status naydennoy veschi kak glavnye kriterii razgranicheniya krazhi i nahodki // Ugolovnoe pravo. – 2019. – № 2. – S. 86–95.
