PROSPECTS OF IMPROVEMENT OF LIABILITY REGIME FOR CRIMINAL OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY

Abstract

The article analyzes certain provisions of the draft of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine, dedicated to criminal offenses against property. Emphasis is placed on finding out the extent to which the achievements of domestic criminal law science, court practice and relevant foreign experience had been taken into account when formulating relevant pro-jected provisions. The debatable nature of unconditionally classifying considered torts as criminal of-fenses against the economy and the prospect of recognizing them as a type of criminal of-fenses against a person has been pointed out. It has been proven that the title of section 6.1 of the project needs to be clarified in order to harmonize it with the achievements of civil law science. The provision on the need to clarify the issue of: recognition of cryptocurrency as a subject of criminal offenses against ownership; qualification of «no gain» theft has been ar-gued. It has been shown that the proposed definitions of the concepts of abduction and possession do not cover cases of «mediated» fraud, providing no explanation. The need to correctly use the terms «abduction» and «possession» within the framework of the entire project has been emphasized. It has been established that the idea of unification of liability for all forms (methods) of theft implemented in the project is not consistent with the approaches reflected in other structural parts of the project, which proves the inconsistency of its developers in solving similar legislative issues. The proposal of the project’s authors to establish within one article of criminal law liability for taking possession of real estate and the right to a thing has been criticized, and ways of solving this issue have also been proposed. The debatable nature of approach to preserve the existing state of affairs, according to which property damage is recognized as a crime-establishing element of arbitrary and un-paid use of electrical energy has been pointed out. Arguments have been provided in favor of the provision on the expediency of exclusion of Art. 6.1.12 «Illegal actions involving hu-manitarian aid or charitable donations» from the text of the project.