Minor theft committed from oil, oil product and gas pipelines

Relevance. The article deals with the issues of insignificance of the act, stipulated by item. "b" part 3 part 3 of article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The grounds and conditions of the grounds and conditions of insignificance of thefts. On the basis of the study of judicial practice are outlined peculiarities of application of the provisions on insignificance to theft of hydrocarbon raw materials from the pipeline raw materials.

Purpose: to study the possibility and conditions of applying the provisions of part 2 of article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to the theft committed from an oil pipeline to theft committed from an oil pipeline, oil product pipeline and gas pipeline (item "b", part 3, article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Objectives: study and identification of conditions of application of insignificance of a deed to the theft from pipelines on the basis of analysis of modern judicial practice and provisions of doctrine of criminal law.

 Methodology. The methodological basis of the study was the general dialectical method of scientific cognition. of scientific cognition. The author used such private methods as: Formal-legal, sociological and method of legal modelling.

Results. The authors analyzed and summarized the conditions, distinguished in the theory of criminal law, under which a specific socially dangerous act can be recognized as insignificant and projected on theft committed from an oil pipeline, petroleum product pipeline, petroleum product pipeline. oil, oil product and gas pipelines, and studied the materials of materials of judicial and investigative practice on the termination of criminal cases on theft of raw materials from the thefts of raw materials from pipelines due to insignificance, the author's conditional criteria were singled out criteria under which the theft of oil, oil products or gas can be considered a low-value act. as an insignificant act.

Conclusion: the individual danger of a specific fact of theft from pipelines in some situations may not correspond to the level of criminal danger, which the legislator has laid down in the relevant act as a result of its criminalization. The conducted research allows us to determine the approximate mandatory and optional signs for recognizing theft from pipelines as insignificant.

1. Obrazhiev K.V., Korsun D.Yu. A minor act in criminal law. Moscow: Prospekt; 2024. 232 p. (In Russ.)

2. Yakimenko N.M. Assessment of the insignificance of the act. Volgograd: VSSh; 1987. 28 p. (In Russ.)

3. Vinokurov V.N. Public danger and insignificance of the act. Ugolovnoe pravo = Criminal law. 2023;(10):3–11. (In Russ.)

4. Korneeva A.V. On the qualification of minor acts under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Nauchnye trudy. Rossiiskaya akademiya yuridicheskikh nauk = Scientific works. Russian Academy of Legal Sciences. Is. 15. Moscow: Yurist; 2015. P. 1078‒1082. (In Russ.)

5. Lyubavina M.A. Problems of gas theft qualification. Vestnik Akademii general'noi prokuratury Rossiiskoi Federatsii = Bulletin of the Academy of the Prosecutor General's Office Russian Federations. 2008;(4):24‒28. (In Russ.)

6. Martynenko N. The insignificance of the act in judicial practice and the interests of the victim. Ugolovnoe pravo = Criminal law. 2012;(3):71‒74. (In Russ.)

7. Sharapov R. The insignificance of theft of other people's property. Ugolovnoe pravo = Criminal law. 2020;(6):83‒96. (In Russ.)

8. Vinokurov V.N. On the issue of the possibility of recognizing theft committed with illegal entry into a dwelling (paragraph "a" of Part 3 of Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) as an insignificant act. Ugolovnoe pravo = Criminal law. 2023;(12):3‒9. (In Russ.)

9. Sharapov R.D. Qualification of petty theft in the presence of qualifying signs provided for by criminal law. Zakonnost' = Legality. 2013;(7):29‒35. (In Russ.)

10. Kuznetsova N.F. Crime and criminality. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta; 1969. 232 p. (In Russ.)

11. Lopashenko N.A. About some problems in understanding a minor act under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Ugolovnoe pravo = Criminal Law. 2019;(5):65‒78. (In Russ.)

12. Pudovochkin Yu.E. The court's assessment of the public danger of the crime. Moscow: RGUP; 2019. 224 p. (In Russ.)

13. Zhalinskii A.E. (ed.) Educational and practical commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Moscow: Eksmo; 2005. 1086 p. (In Russ.)

14. Vasil'chenko A.A Differentiation of petty theft and criminally punishable forms of theft. Ugolovnoe pravo = Criminal law. 2003;(4):12‒13. (In Russ.)

15. Vinokurov V.N. Signs and limits of insignificance of an act in criminal law. Sovremennoe pravo = Modern law. 2017;(6):64‒70. (In Russ.)

16. Galakhova A.V. (ed.) Evaluative features in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: scientific and judicial interpretation. Moscow: Norma; 2014. 736 p. (In Russ.)

17. Kadnikova N.G. (ed.) Criminal law. The general part. Moscow: Mosk. un-t MVD Rossii im. V.Ya. Kikotya; 2023. 524 p. (In Russ.)

18. Kutsyk V.P. The admissibility of recognizing as insignificant an act formally containing the signs of a crime provided for in Article 116.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Rossiiskii sud'ya = Russian judge. 2024;(8):27‒32. (In Russ.)

19. Nalimov Yu.D. Criteria for distinguishing vandalism from a minor act. Aktual'nye problemy gosudarstva i prava = Current problems of the state and law. 2021;5(19):486‒499. (In Russ.)

20. Khilyuta V.V. The influence of the criminal's personality on the assessment of the insignificance of the act. Ugolovnoe pravo = Criminal law. 2021;(5):54‒61. (In Russ.)