Ermakova O.V.

Title of article

The use of private law concepts in constructing the corpus delicti of crimes against property


Section 6. Law enforcement policy

Issue, year

2 (32) 2015


When constructing the corpus dilicti of most of the crimes, legislator uses the conceptual apparatus of other branches of law. Such borrowing doesn’t cause objections in cases where the interpretation of these concepts in the desired branch and in criminal law theory doesn’t cause difficulties. The concepts used in criminal law often don’t have legal definition and single interpretation in other branches of law. The use of civil law concepts in constructing the corpus delicti of crimes against property is considered. Legislator uses the concept of ownership in the title of the relevant chapter. Being interdisciplinary, it doesn’t have a single meaning. The expediency of combination of economic and legal characteristics in the content of the concept of ownership is substantiated. In civil law meaning the content of ownership has both economic – the property itself and its belonging to the owner (the property is classified as property right) and legal aspect – proprietary rights, namely the powers of possession, use and disposition of property, and the exclusive right to transfer these rights to others. The concept of property damage is used as consequences in Chapter 21 of the RF Criminal Code. However, the property (material) damage in various regulatory areas of law is interpreted differently. Legislator should clarify the content of this concept when using it for different crimes. The need to clarify the meaning of the concepts borrowed from other branches of law (already having a clear definition, including legal one), when used in criminal law provisions, is recognized.


crimes against property, ownership, property damage, property, right to property.


1. Kommentariy k Ugolovnomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Comment to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation]. Moscow, NORMA Publ., 2004. 895 p.

2. Nikiforov B.S. Ob’ekt prestupleniya po sovetskomu ugolovnomu pravu [The object of the crime on the Soviet criminal law]. Moscow, Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ., 1960.

3. Eliseev S.A. Prestupleniya protiv sobstvennosti po ugolovnomu zakonodatel’stvu Rossii [Crimes against property under the criminal legislation of Russia]. Tomsk, 1999. 176 p.

4. Boytsov A.I. Prestupleniya protiv sobstvennosti [Crimes against property]. St. Petersburg, Yuridichesky tsentr Press Publ., 2002. 775 p.

5. Panov N.I. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost’ za prichinenie imushchestvennogo ushcherba putem obmana ili zloupotrebleniya doveriem [Criminal liability for causing damage to property by deception or abuse of trust]. Kharkov, Vishcha shkola Publ., 1977. 127 p.

6. Khabarov A.V. Prestupleniya protiv sobstvennosti [Crimes against property]. Tyumen, Publishing House of the Tyumen State University, 1999. 116 p.

7. Ermakova O.V. Teoreticheskie i prakticheskie aspekty opredeleniya momenta okonchaniya prestupleniy protiv sobstvennosti [Theoretical and practical aspects of the definition of the end of crimes against property]. Barnaul, Barnaul Law Institute of the Russian Interior Ministry, 2013. 100 p.

8. Plokhova V.I. Nenasil’stvennye prestupleniya protiv sobstvennosti: kriminologicheskaya i pravovaya obosnovannost’ [Non-violent property crime: criminological and legal validity]. St. Petersburg, 2003. 295 p.