Fraud: Theory and Practice of Qualification

The paper continues a multi-year author’s research devoted to topical issues of application of norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on stealing other people’s property. On the basis of the analysis of a specific criminal case, on which the author drafted a scientific advisory opinion, the author describes the deficiencies of the qualification of fraud typical for enforcement practice. Attention is paid to the stereotypes of the prosecution authorities and courts in determining the amount of damage caused by stealing, as well as errors in applying criminal law competing rules containing different definitions of fraud. It is stated that two different in nature and degree of danger acts are factitiously unified in Part 5 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely: a theft of other people’s property and deliberate failure to perform contractual commitments in the field of entrepreneurship. The author regrets that the legislator missed the opportunity to transfer to Chapter 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation the norm on crime in the field of economic activity—deliberate failure to perform contractual obligations in the field of business activity—that has caused damage (significant, large or particularly large) to interests protected by law. The author draws the conclusion on inadmissibility of substituting civil legal disputes by criminal prosecution.

1. Kochoi S. M. Prestupleniya protiv sobstvennosti. — M. : Prospekt, 2014. — 88 s.

2. Lopashenko N. A. Zakonodatel’naya reforma moshennichestva: vynuzhdennye voprosy i vynuzhdennye otvety // Kriminologicheskij zhurnal Bajkal’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta ekonomiki i prava. — 2015. — T. 9. — № 3. — S. 504—513.

3. Chernyshev D. B. Predprinimatel’skoe moshennichestvo: nuzhna li biznesu svoya ugolovnaya stat’ya? // Rossijskij yuridicheskij zhurnal. — 2019. — № 2. — S. 89—97.