CAUSING PROPERTY DAMAGE BY DECEPTION OR ABUSE OF TRUST (ARTICLE 192 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF UKRAINE): PROBLEMS OF DIFFERENTIATION WITH RELATED CRIME STRUCTURES

Abstract

The article deals with the problems of differentiating property damage (Article 192 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) with related crimes against property, such as fraud (Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and misappropriation or seizure of property by abuse of office (Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). It is established that the issue of scientific development of the problem is constantly in the field of view of scientists. However, the social relationships encountered in real life are so diverse that the judicial practice is sometimes incapable of responding properly to such manifestations from the standpoint of law. It is determined that the wording of the disposition of Art. 192 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is sufficiently “meager” about verbal content and at the same time broad enough to interpret it. The complexity of the construction of Art. 192 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and its intersection with related crime structures creates problems of practical implementation of this norm. In this regard, it is noted that the judicial practice often errs in qualifying an act; have been given examples of specific sentences. The using of the comparative legal method has revealed the key features that serve as the basis for delineating the crimes against property. In particular, such a sign as a voluntary transfer of property is characteristic only of fraud, loss of profit – solely for the purpose of causing property damage by deception or abuse of trust, etc. The using of systematic analysis has made it possible to distinguish the features that serve as the boundary between the application of criminal and civil law. Attention is drawn to the fact that the distinguishing features found are characteristic of the most typical manifestations of the crimes under consideration. The conclusions made by the author can be useful both for scientists – for the further development and reflection of theoretical provisions, and for practitioners (lawyers, investigators, judges) – to prevent mistakes in qualifying crimes and to improve the judicial and investigative practice of applying of criminal law.