graduate student from 01.01.2025 until now
Sain-Peterburg, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Introduction. The issue of improving criminal legislation regarding the criminal protection of property through criminal law, to adapt it to the contemporary level of development of social relations in the field of property rights, is closely linked to the emerging law enforcement practices and the number of crimes committed against property. Based on statistical data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, it can be concluded that from January to December 2024, more than half of all socially dangerous acts were property crimes. A significant portion of this total consists of thefts. However, it is impossible to ascertain the number of crimes classified as thefts involving state property due to the absence of specific criminal law norms covering such property. The scientific novelty is determined by the proposed changes to criminal legislation within this article, suggesting a differentiation of criminal liability depending on the ownership of the stolen property. Unlike domestic historical experience, it is proposed to establish a qualified composition of the crime that provides for criminal liability for the theft of state property, which has led to a violation of the country’s defence capability or public safety and/or the security of the state. The aim of the research is to identify the characteristics of the subject of thefts, to analyse established judicial practices, and to address the feasibility of differentiating criminal liability based on the ownership of the stolen property. Methods. The following methods were applied during the research: comparative analysis and synthesis, which revealed similarities and differences in the regulatory acts governing the legal protection of property; abstraction, which highlighted the characteristics of the subject of property crimes and the content of concepts used in modern criminal legislation of the Russian Federation; and empirical methods, which facilitated the analysis of judicial practices related to the research topic and identified the characteristics of the subject of thefts. Results. The established judicial practices regarding the prosecution for the theft of state property were explored, the characteristics of the subject matter of thefts were identified, and the nature and degree of the public danger of crimes involving state property were analysed.
criminal protection of property, subject matter of crimes, public danger, state property
1. Andreev V. K. O federal'noy sobstvennosti kak osoboy forme publichnoy sobstvennosti // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2025. T. 29, № 5. S. 53–62. https://doi.org/10.61205/S160565900032230-7
2. Mazaev V. D. Publichnaya forma sobstvennosti kak instrument konstitucionno-pravovogo regulirovaniya ekonomiki // Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. 2017. № 3. S. 19–33. https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2017.2.19.33
3. Grankin M. I. K voprosu o suschnosti bezopasnosti ekonomicheskoy osnovy konstitucionnogo stroya // Konstitucionnoe i municipal'noe pravo. 2010. № 4. S. 31–34.
4. Golubcov V. G. Rossiyskaya Federaciya kak sub'ekt grazhdanskogo prava : monografiya. Moskva : Statut, 2019. 272 s.
5. Sindeeva I. Yu., Vorob'eva I. O., Chernikova E. V. Sposoby zaschity prava gosudarstvennoy i municipal'noy sobstvennosti // Sovremennoe pravo. 2014. № 12. S. 51–54.
6. Rybkina M. V., Kayumova A. G. Publichnaya sobstvennost' v Rossiyskoy Federacii: ponyatie i formy // Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta Gosudarstvennoy protivopozharnoy sluzhby MChS Rossii. 2013. № 4. S. 104–110.
7. Mazaev V. D. Razgranichenie sobstvennosti i publichnaya vlast' // Yuridicheskiy mir. 2012. № 12. S. 55–59.
8. Gadzhiev G. A. Konstitucionnye osnovy sovremennogo prava sobstvennosti // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2006.№ 12 (120). S. 30–41.
9. Veklenko V. V. Kvalifikaciya hischeniy : monografiya. Omsk : Omskaya akademiya MVD Rossii, 2001. 256 s.
10. Chumakov A. V. Hischeniya v byudzhetnoy sfere kak ob'ekt kriminalisticheskogo issledovaniya // Sibirskoe yuridicheskoe obozrenie. 2025. T. 22, № 2. S. 294–309. https://doi.org/10.19073/2658-7602-2025-22-2-294-309
11. Blagov E. V. Primenenie obschih nachal naznacheniya ugolovnogo nakazaniya : monografiya. Moskva : Yurlitinform, 2013. 192 s.
12. Vinnickiy A. V. Publichnaya sobstvennost' : monografiya. Moskva : Statut, 2013. 732 s.
13. Mozolin V. P. Pravo sobstvennosti v Rossiyskoy Federacii v period perehoda k rynochnoy ekonomike. Moskva: IGPAN, 1992. 175 s.
14. Mozolin V. P. Modernizaciya prava sobstvennosti v ekonomicheskom izmerenii // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2011. № 1 (169). S. 26–30.
15. Shul'ga A. V. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost' za hischenie na sovremennom etape // Rossiyskiy sledovatel'. 2007. № 12. S. 24–27.
