Article 168. Destruction or damage to property due to negligence

ST 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Destruction or damage to someone else's property on a large scale, committed through careless handling of fire or other sources of increased danger, is punishable by a fine in the amount of up to one hundred and twenty thousand rubles or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to one year, or by compulsory labor. a term of up to four hundred eighty hours, or correctional labor for a term of up to two years, or restriction of freedom for a term of up to one year, or forced labor for a term of up to one year, or imprisonment for the same term.

Commentary to Art. 168 Criminal Code

1. Some of the signs of this crime coincide with the corresponding signs of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code.

2. The objective side of the crime involves the destruction or damage of someone else’s property on a large scale (Note 4 to Article 158 of the Criminal Code), committed in a special way - through careless handling of fire or other sources of increased danger (clause 11 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 5 2002 N 14 “On judicial practice in cases of violation of fire safety rules, destruction or damage to property by arson or as a result of careless handling of fire”).

3. The subjective side is characterized by negligence.

What documents are required for a business trip in 2017?

Since 2015, the following documents have ceased to be mandatory for use (subparagraph “e”, paragraph 2 of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2014 No. 1595):

• travel certificate;
• official assignment;
• trip report.

As a result, the main ones turned out to be (Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 13, 2008 No. 749):

• the employer’s order to send him on a business trip, drawn up in writing (clause 3);
• an advance report on the trip, confirming not only the expenses, but also the actual duration of stay (clause 7, clause 26).

Confirmation of dates is not a problem with dated travel documents, although they may allow for adjustments to take into account the time required to reach the departure or arrival point of the main vehicle outside the populated area.

For cases of lack of travel documents, clause 7 of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 13, 2008 No. 749 provides 2 more options for confirming dates:

• By dates of documents of residence. Departure and arrival dates in this situation can be justified by a memo explaining the method of travel to and from the business trip location.
• In the absence of residence documents, it is possible to accept a memo referring to other confirmations of dates to justify the dates. The most reliable document in this situation will be the one issued by the receiving party.

Second commentary to Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. On the objective side, this crime differs from the crime provided for by the previous norm in two ways.

Firstly, careless destruction or damage to property only on a large scale is criminally punishable (see note 4 to Article 158). Secondly, a mandatory feature of the crime in question is the method of its commission: careless handling of fire or other sources of increased danger (mechanisms, machines, electrical equipment, etc.).

Advertisement

3. The subjective side of the crime is characterized by carelessness in the form of frivolity or negligence.

4. Responsibility begins at the age of 16.

What rules for payment for business trips does Article 168 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation contain?

Article 168 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation declares the employer’s obligation to compensate the employee for expenses associated with a business trip:

• along the road in both directions;
• for renting housing;
• additional, arising due to being away from the place of permanent residence (daily allowance);
• others, which may include expenses for travel at the place of business travel, baggage transportation, and postage.

Despite the fact that the general rules for sending on a business trip are regulated at the state level (Article 166 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 13, 2008 No. 749), the legislator leaves the establishment of a certain procedure, content of expenses and specific amounts of compensation for each position at the discretion of the employer.

Third commentary to Article 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. The objective signs of this crime, with the exception of its socially dangerous consequences - destruction or damage to property on a large scale, completely coincide with the signs of the act discussed above. The law recognizes the only way to destroy or damage someone else's property: careless handling of fire or other sources of increased danger (for example, high-voltage power lines, oil or gas wells, explosive storage facilities, etc.). Large size in accordance with paragraph 4 of the note to Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation recognizes the value of destroyed or damaged movable or immovable property of others in excess of 250 thousand rubles. This consequence is expressed in real (positive) material damage caused by the crime to the owner of the property.

2. The subjective side of the crime is expressed in a careless form of guilt in the form of frivolity or negligence. Due to the careless nature of the crime, its motivation and purposefulness have no criminal legal significance. When committing a crime out of frivolity, the subject foresees the possibility of destruction or damage to someone else's property on a large scale, but without sufficient grounds for this, he arrogantly expects that this will not happen. When committing a crime through negligence, the subject does not foresee the possibility of the occurrence of such socially dangerous consequences of his actions, although with the necessary care and forethought he must and can foresee these consequences.

3. The subject of a crime can be any sane person who has reached the age of 16 years.
In this article, the legislator, in order to differentiate responsibility and individualize punishment, included in the sanction for committing a qualified type of crime a punishment in the form of compulsory labor for a period of 180 to 240 hours, and the restriction of freedom was reduced to one year. ‹ Article 167. Deliberate destruction or damage to propertyUpChapter 22. Crimes in the sphere of economic activity ›

What unusual situations may accompany a business trip?

Situations not covered by official documents are common for business trips, for example:

• The employee did not complete the task for which he was sent on a business trip. All expenses related to it are nevertheless subject to payment in full (decision of the St. Petersburg City Court dated March 13, 2012 No. 33-3718/2012).
• An employee on a business trip worked overtime or at night. He should be paid for his work at an increased rate (letter from the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated November 14, 2013 No. 14-2-195).
• The employee was not given an advance payment for business trip expenses, and he refused to go. This will not be considered a disciplinary offense, giving the employer the opportunity to punish the employee (appeal ruling of the court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District dated July 25, 2013 in case No. 33-1595/2013).
• An employee leaving on a business trip abroad is given an advance payment partly in foreign currency and partly in rubles. This option does not contradict the current rules, but must be enshrined in an internal regulatory act and carried out in compliance with currency legislation. It will also not be a violation to issue to the employee in foreign currency the amount of overexpenditure on a foreign business trip.
• An employer who is not a state organization determines the daily allowance in a smaller amount than the amount provided for by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 2, 2002 No. 729 (100 rubles). This is possible, since the employer of this form of daily allowance needs to enter independently, and the law does not establish their minimum permissible amount. However, in this case, the employee may consider himself to have been discriminated against (Article 3 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) and go to court.

Thus, for an employee sent on a business trip, the norms of labor law remain effective, and cases of a controversial nature do not deprive him of the opportunity to receive the guaranteed articles.
167 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, average earnings and reimbursement of business trip expenses. You can find more complete information on the topic in ConsultantPlus. Free trial access to the system for 2 days.

Article 168. Invalidity of a transaction that violates the requirements of the law or other legal act

Resolution of the ECHR dated July 25, 2017 “...Taking into account that [K.] did not have the right to carry out actions with the specified housing, he could not exchange it, and [the first applicant] could not obtain an exchange order and move into the specified apartment. The court declares the transactions invalid in accordance with Article 168 [of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation], since they contradict the requirements of Articles 50, 51, 53, 54, 67 - 74 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/05/2019 N 308-ES15-12864 in case N A15-1976/2014

Having examined and assessed the presented evidence according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, guided by Articles , , 166, 168, 209, 301, 302, 305 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code), Articles 15, 20 - 24, 45, 60, 62 Land Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Land Code of the Russian Federation), the provisions of Federal Law dated October 25, 2001 N 137-FZ “On the implementation of the Land Code of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as Law N 137-FZ) and the explanations set out in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 2010 N /22 “On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other property rights” (hereinafter referred to as Resolution N 10/22), courts after the next consideration of the dispute, they satisfied the stated requirements, coming to the conclusion that the local government body could not dispose of the disputed land plots, since the right of permanent (perpetual) use of the Company was not terminated in the manner prescribed by law; lease (sublease) agreements for land plots concluded by the Committee with individuals and the Company, as well as by the Company with an individual, are invalid (void) transactions from the moment of their completion, not entailing legal consequences.

Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 12, 2019 in case No. 309-ES18-16403, A50-10758/2017

Referring to the provisions of Law No. 57-FZ, Articles 166, 168, 181, 195, 199, 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code), the courts refused to satisfy the stated claims on the basis of missing the statute of limitations. At the same time, the courts proceeded from the fact that the Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Perm Territory (hereinafter referred to as the Department) approved the contested transactions separately, therefore, the plaintiff, as an authorized supervisory body, should have learned about the beginning of their execution in 2011 and had the right to make demands for recognition transactions are invalid and the application of the consequences of their invalidity within the period established by paragraph 1 of Article 181 of the Civil Code, which had expired at the time of applying to the arbitration court (04/13/2017).

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 26, 2018 N 306-ES17-19388(19) in case N A65-5821/2017

Recognizing the agreement dated 05.08.2016 as an invalid transaction, the court of first instance, with whose conclusions the courts of appeal and the district agreed, was guided by Article 189.90 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 N 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”, Articles 168, 174 of the Civil Code Code of the Russian Federation and proceeded from the transaction without any reasonable economic motives (on unfavorable terms) in the absence of evidence of repayment of debt under assignment agreements by the Galaktionova company, as a result of which the bank lost the collateral for its loan obligations.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 01/09/2019 N 305-ES18-21570 in case N A41-1763/2014

In the cassation appeal, the applicant points to a violation of Articles 167, 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code). According to EcoMed LLC, the case materials contain evidence of counter-provision for contested transactions, and therefore the use of unilateral restitution violates the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 22, 2019 N 305-ES18-23204 in case N A40-190110/2017

The agreement dated 10/04/2017 on the termination of the contract due to improper performance by the company was signed by the parties voluntarily, which deprives it of the signs of an invalid transaction required by Article 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. There are no grounds for collecting from the institution the amount received under a bank guarantee due to improper execution by the company of the contract as unjust enrichment.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 10, 2019 N 310-ES17-9799(2) in case N A08-7236/2013

Resolving the dispute according to the rules of the court of first instance, the appellate court, with which the district court subsequently agreed, was guided by the provisions of Article 61.2 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 N 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”, as well as Articles and 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and proceeded from the fact that the controversial transactions were actually aimed at the gratuitous withdrawal of assets to the detriment of the debtor’s creditors, and therefore satisfied the stated requirements.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 25, 2019 N 306-ES18-23501 in case N A65-32156/2012

In support of the application, the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor referred to the provisions of Articles 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 61.2 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 N 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” (hereinafter referred to as the Bankruptcy Law), believing that the controversial transactions were completed if there are signs of abuse of rights and with the purpose of causing harm to the debtor and his creditors.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 18, 2019 No. 309-KG18-22949 in case No. A60-25422/2017

When accepting the appealed judicial acts, the courts, guided by the provisions of Articles 168, 301, 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the explanations contained in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 2010 N / 22 “On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other property rights,” having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, they recognized the institution’s claim as justified.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 28, 2019 N 309-ES18-16313(2) in case N A34-9604/2016

Satisfying the requirements, the courts, based on an assessment of the evidence presented in the case in accordance with the rules of Chapter 7 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, guided by the provisions of Articles 167, 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 61.1, 61.6 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 N 127-FZ “On insolvency (bankruptcy)”, the position set out in paragraph 26 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/22/2012 N “On some procedural issues related to the consideration of bankruptcy cases”, indicating the presence of signs of abuse of right when making a controversial transaction , came to the conclusion that Orlov V.V. financial ability to complete this transaction; applied the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction in the form of recovery from V.V. Orlov. in favor of the debtor 4,718,674 rubles.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 28, 2019 N 304-ES18-23754 in case N A45-37651/2017

Having assessed the evidence presented in its totality and mutual connection according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, having established the fact of supply of petroleum products in order to resolve issues of local importance within the boundaries of the relevant municipality (purchase of petroleum products for a boiler house in order to meet the heating needs of the population), taking into account, that, by concluding a supply agreement, the administration assumed all the rights and obligations defined by this agreement, the resulting debt of the recipient of the goods was collected jointly with Teplo LLC and the administration in case No. A45-15027/2015, and in the framework of the consideration of case No. A45-17438 /2014 the parties to the supply contract entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the court, and judicial acts entered into legal force, guided by the provisions of articles , , 166, 167, 168, 181, 199, 200, 322, 323, 421, 532, 363 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation Federation, Article 115 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, Article 6 of Federal Law dated July 27, 2010 N 190-FZ “On Heat Supply”, explanations set out in the resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 23, 2015 N “On the application by courts of certain provisions of Section I of Part first of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation" and dated 09.29.2015 N "On some issues related to the application of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the limitation period", the courts came to the conclusion that the stated requirement was inadmissible, violating the provisions of Article 16 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and, in fact, , aimed at returning funds collected by court decision, also establishing the expiration of the statute of limitations, the application of which was declared by TC Naftatrans Plus LLC.

Damage to what property will result in punishment?

Damage to certain valuables and other people's resources will always be an illegal act. In this case, the fact which property was damaged will also be of great importance.

Damage may be damage to public or administrative property, including desecration of city buildings or other structures.

Particular attention should also be paid to damage to valuables at the enterprise. In accordance with labor standards, an employee bears a certain responsibility for the organization’s property and for the proper treatment of it. If these standards are violated, the employee may be subject to a corresponding claim and demands for compensation for harm for unlawful use and damage to third-party valuable property.

Certain enforcement measures will also be established in the event that there was intentional or unintentional damage to someone else's military property. In such a situation, the military person faces not only an appropriate penalty, but also removal from service if the damage caused is truly serious.

Damage to someone else's and common property in a communal or rented apartment of the landlord, for example, due to flooding, will also entail the establishment of appropriate liability. In this case, legal claims may be brought against the tenant for compensation and compensation for previously caused damage. Inappropriate handling of valuables is also prohibited when visiting the hotel.

The procedure for collecting compensation for damage to someone else's property

Compensation for damage caused to someone else's material assets is carried out in court, at the request of the interested party. A valid sample form or the established document form can be taken at the place where the application was submitted, or downloaded from the appropriate Internet portal.

The claim must include the following information:

1. the full name of the judicial institution, as well as information about the applicant - his full name, residential address, passport information, etc.;
2. description of the problem encountered. The description of the information should be quite brief, but succinct, like a memorandum. Here you should indicate how and when the damage to private or other property occurred, as well as talk about other nuances that are important in this situation.

It is also necessary to provide information about what exactly the damage was caused - it could be causeless, careless, intentional, etc.;

1. an indication of the exact demands that the applicant places on the respondent. Here you can establish the exact amount of the claim that the defendant will be obliged to pay to the plaintiff.

A certain type of punishment can be applied to a guilty citizen even if the latter committed only an attempt to damage other people's valuables. However, this will be possible only when the accused attempted to commit a crime using sources of increased danger, or the damage caused, if the attempt had been carried out, would have resulted in truly serious damage.

As existing judicial practice shows, when assigning a certain punishment for the destruction of other people's things, some problems may arise in the qualification of this crime. First of all, this concerns its intentionality or unintentionality. In this case, evidence of certain information may include: testimony of witnesses, recordings from video cameras, etc.

Great importance must also be paid to additional features of the crime. The illegality of someone else's actions must be proven, as well as the involvement of a specific person in them.

Author of the article

Dmitry Leonov

Work experience 15 years, specialization - housing, family, inheritance, land, criminal cases.

Author's rating

721

Articles written

712

about the author

Useful information on criminal cases

• Humiliation of honor and dignity Criminal prosecution for libel
• Article for libel on the Internet
• False report of rape
• Defense against libel
• Charge of libel
• Theft accusation without evidence
• Sue for personal insult
• Personal insult complaint
• Fine for libel
• Liability for slander of an official
• Violent actions - Article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
• If the boss yells and humiliates: where to complain?
• Insulting a minor child: article
• Neighbor threatens violence: what to do
• Responsibility for violation of confidentiality of correspondence
• Libel lawsuit
• Punishment for public insult to a person
• Does a teacher have the right to insult a student?
• Infringement of the rights of minor children
• Attempted rape
• Blackmail on the Internet - Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
• Rape charge
• Responsibility for non-payment of wages
• Criminal liability for violation of privacy
• What to do if you receive threats over the phone
• Punishment for knowingly false testimony
• Sample statement about threat to life
• Insulting a police officer while on duty