The purpose of a crime under article 110-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as a mandatory feature of its subjective side

Abstract

The article is devoted to the disclosure of the purpose content as a subjective feature of the composition of a criminal offense, which provides for criminal liability for financing actions committed with the aim of forcibly changing or overthrowing the constitutional order or seizing state power, changing the borders of the territory or state border of Ukraine (article 110-2 of the CC of Ukraine).
 The components of this criminal offense, which are necessary for criminal legal qualification under the specified article of the law on criminal liability, are analysed.
 The generalization of judicial practice (on the example of indictments of Ukrainian courts that have entered into force) on crimes of this category has been carried out.
 A comparative analysis of the crime under article 110-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine with related criminal offenses under articles 258-3 (creation of a terrorist group or terrorist organization), 258-5 (terrorist financing) of this law on criminal liability. This contributed to the possibility of concluding that the pursuit of a special purpose by the subject of a crime is the main distinguishing circumstance that distinguishes these crimes, and the object of criminal encroachment is a derivative.
 The author’s position on the imperfect legal technique of this norm of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in terms of determining the special purpose of a crime is expressed. Arguments are given on this issue, which are based on the study of judicial practice on crimes of this category, our own practical experience, as well as on the scientific positions of national scientists.
 In this connection, it is proposed to amend the current article 110-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the exclusion of the purpose from the note to this article, as well as the exclusion of the purpose (as a mandatory feature of the subjective side of the body of the crime) from its hypothesis and disposition, leaving the vector of active actions of the crime subject, as a feature of its orientation to achieve the criminal result of these criminal actions by fixing in the norm of the law exactly the direct intent of financing such illegal actions.