The article considers the controversial issues of attributing Note 1 to Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (RF CC), which defines the concept of theft, to the theft of objects seized or restricted in civil circulation (narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, firearms, documents, etc.), called special theft in the criminal law literature. The aim of the article is to substantiate that this definition cannot be applied to special types of theft. The features of objects seized or restricted in civil circulation determine the content of the signs of the object, the objective side, the subjective side and the subject of special theft, which is different from the content of similar signs of the composition of theft provided for in Chapter 21 of RF CC. The research is based on domestic criminal and other branch laws, as well as on materials of judicial practice. In the process of working on the article, the following methods were used: the method of comparative jurisprudence, which made it possible to compare the provisions of articles of RF CC on embezzlement provided for in Chapter 21 of RF CC and on special embezzlement provided for in other chapters of RF CC (24, 25 and others); the method of document analysis, which made it possible to analyze judicial practice and Resolutions of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which considered the qualification of special types of theft (narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, firearms, documents, etc.); a formal logical method that allowed an analysis of the content of the norms of RF CC on theft of objects seized or restricted in civil circulation. The article criticizes scientific positions on this issue, justifying the attribution of Note 1 to Article 158 of RF CC, which gives the concept of theft, to theft of objects seized or restricted in civil circulation. It is argued that judicial practice proceeds from the fact that special types of theft have qualification features that differ from the qualification of theft provided for in Chapter 21 of RF CC. It is noted that when stealing items seized or restricted in civil circulation, property is not only the main, but also an additional object of crime; the moment of the end of such theft should be associated with the moment when the culprit has the opportunity to dispose of the stolen at his discretion, and not with the moment of seizure of these items from someone else’s possession; a selfish goal is optional, and not a mandatory sign of such theft; the use of official position in the theft of these items may even consist in the use of ordinary labor functions when working with objects seized or restricted in civil circulation. It is proposed to take into account the highlighted features of special types of theft in the criminal law in the form of their separate definition in RF CC, different from the one given in Note 1 to Article 158 of RF CC.
Read full abstract