Open AccessABOUT MATERIAL SIGN OF EMBEZZLEMENT
Author(s) -
V. V. Narodenko
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
izvestiâ ûgo-zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2686-6757
pISSN - 2223-1560
DOI - 10.21869/2223-1560-2017-21-6-212-218
Subject(s) - embezzlement , criminal code , obligation , law , legislation , subject (documents) , sign (mathematics) , property (philosophy) , political science , criminal law , russian federation , business , computer science , philosophy , mathematical analysis , mathematics , epistemology , library science , economic policy
The article describes provisions which are in the first note to Article № 158 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation and also signs of embezzlement enshrined in criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. Literal interpretation of the specified provisions of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation leads to a conclusion that things having physical expression and sign of corporality can act as a subject of embezzlement. Meanwhile the author of the article criticizes provisions of the criminal law. The author states thesis that despite the instruction in the Criminal code of the Russian Federation on obligation of harm causing to the owner by embezzlement, not only things but also other property can be as a subject of specified criminal encroachment. The article also describes arguments about illegal withdrawal of separate non-material things. Analyzing judgments it is possible to say that practice interprets the first note to Article № 158 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation in broad. It is necessary to understand as property not only things but also other benefits, in particular, non-cash money on bank accounts, paperless securities. Thus, despite difficulties, illegal actions for withdrawal of specified benefits judicial and investigative practice are qualified as embezzlement. These conclusions can be extended to situations connected with illegal withdrawal of other objects which are property but without material expression. The author suggests changing the existing definition of «embezzlement» and replacing the concept "owner" with the uniformed term “possessor of a right”.