Criminal responsibility for criminal trespass by deception or breach of trust without larceny

The crime in Article 165 in theRussian Criminal Code has some features, which generate some hardships in the theoretical understanding and in the process of investigationinto charges of criminal trespass by deception or breach of trust without larceny. In law literature many authors, generally, writethat the difference between the criminal trespass by deception or breach of trust without larceny from the closely-related corpus delicti ispresence or lack of real damage in the result of withdrawal and/or appropriation of the alien property. Materials of separate criminalcases show that many disputable issues arise in the process of qualification of illegal acts in the social sphere (illegal obtain of subsidies,pensions or other grants), in the service sphere (unlawful use of electricity) and some other cases, which demand special study of themechanism of illegal behaviour. At present, scientists actively discuss the enactment of a special rule in the Russian Criminal Codeabout responsibility for unlawful use of electricity, though opinions of scientists differ in some main points. Some scientists think thatunlawful use of electricity should be qualified as larceny; others think that it is fault and a new rule of law should be introduced. In thisarticle, the author also writes about fallacious qualification of cases when a public officer illegally uses office car by Articles 165 and285 of the Russian Criminal Code. There are no grounds for qualification of tax evasion by Article 165 of the Russian Criminal Code orby Articles 165 and 198 (199) of the Russian Criminal Code. Unlike the case of car theft, criminal trespass by deception or breach oftrust without larceny does not imply that the offender steals alien property. The main difference between crimes in Article 165 and Article171 of the Russian Criminal Code is the presence or lack of acts of systematic character causing property damage for the victim andillegal enrichment for the offender. On the basis of analysis of the special literature and generalization of court practice, the author of thearticle thinks that criminal trespass by deception or breach of trust without larceny has the following forms (kinds): 1) unlawful use ofalien property; 2) consumption of service without remuneration; 3) appropriation of alien property intended for the victim; 4) default onlaw or provision of a contract brining non-increment of victims property in contravention of the markets conditions (illegal conveyanceof passengers or goods by conductors, non-fulfilment of managerial duties, etc.).

Keywords

Authors

References