The insignificance of the act. Case studies

Insignificant property value

There is no insignificance when committing the theft of objects of no great value from a home or other premises.
The effect of Article 7.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, in accordance with the note to it, does not apply to the crime provided for in Part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code. At the same time, the current version of the administrative norm entails a situation that contradicts the principles of qualification of criminal acts, when the composition does not contain all the elements of the crime. According to experts, it is necessary to include in Part 2 of Article 158 of the Criminal Code wording providing for sanctions for the theft of property, regardless of value. In the same way, the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 159 and 160 of the Criminal Code.

Tax crimes

The insignificance of an act in a criminal case does not exist if the occurrence of a strictly formalized consequence is a condition for bringing to responsibility. For example, this may be damage in the amount established by law.

Evasion of tax obligations is considered a crime if the tax has not been deducted in large amounts. Accordingly, failure to pay obligatory amounts less than those established by the footnote to Article 198 of the Criminal Code indicates the lack of insignificance of the act and the crime as such, since the obligatory objective sign - consequences - is absent. In this case, liability will arise under Articles 199-122 of the Tax Code.

General information

According to Part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the insignificance of the act indicates the absence of a social basis for bringing to justice the person who committed the crime. In other words, the encroachment does not pose a public danger.

According to a number of authors, the presence in legislation of the concept of insignificance of an act can lead to abuses in practice, so it should be abandoned. Experts justify their position by the fact that the Criminal Code contains other methods of response. The provisions of articles 75-76, 73, 64 are cited as examples.

Meanwhile, the legal consequences of applying the norm of the Criminal Code on the insignificance of an act are somewhat different than those that arise when implementing the above provisions. In this regard, the abolition of Part 2 of Article 14 of the Code can hardly be considered appropriate. However, it is undoubtedly necessary to clearly define the boundaries of the insignificance of an act in criminal law.

Dependence on the role of the person in the crime

Some theorists believe that insignificance can be defined depending on the role played by the subject in committing the unlawful act. Kozlov, in particular, gives the following example.

Two citizens agreed to steal from a store. Having entered the premises, they began to drag out the stolen goods onto the porch. At the same time, they saw that the car of the wife of one of the criminals was standing nearby. She decided to help the attackers because she heard their preliminary agreement.

It seems that in this case it is impossible to talk about insignificance. A subject who joins a crime during its commission should be subject to a suspended sentence, unless there are grounds for imposing a more severe sanction.

Explanations of the Armed Forces

The Supreme Court interprets the insignificance of the act in a broad sense. For example, in paragraph 12 of Resolution No. 26 of 2010, the Supreme Court notes that in the case where illegal fishing (extraction) of biological resources is committed by an entity using a self-propelled craft or in spawning areas, in specially protected areas and formally contain signs of crimes provided for in 253 or 256 articles, but due to the insignificant social danger they do not pose, the court may dismiss the case due to the provisions of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code. The court clarifies that there is no public danger if the actions of the perpetrator did not entail mass destruction of plants and animals, the cost and quantity of fish caught were insignificant, there were no harmful consequences, or the fishing method was not dangerous for biological resources.

However, this approach seems unfounded. The fact is that illegal fishing (extraction) of biological resources cannot be insignificant, since the crime is considered completed at the moment the corresponding actions begin. Moreover, the Code of Administrative Offenses contains Art. 8.37, which establishes sanctions for violations of production rules. The act provided for in Part 2 of Article 253 of the Criminal Code cannot be insignificant either. Search, exploration, research and development of resources are considered completed crimes at the moment these actions are committed by a person who does not have permission to do so. In part 1 of Art. 8.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses establishes punishment for non-compliance with the rules for the safe search, development or exploration of resources.

If there are signs of encroachment established by Article 256 of the Criminal Code, among which the method and place of commission are mandatory, the actions of the subject are already criminal. Depending on the circumstances of the incident, criminal sanctions may be applied to the person: from monetary penalties to suspended imprisonment. If there are no signs of a crime, the citizen must bear administrative punishment for such actions.

The implementation of the recommendations of the Supreme Court, therefore, may lead to ambiguous application of criminal law. In some situations, the subject’s behavior will be considered criminal, and in others – insignificant.

At the same time, in paragraph 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 21 of 2012, the acts provided for in paragraphs “b-d” of 1 part 258 of Article of the Criminal Code are considered completed at the moment of the commencement of actions directly related to the search, tracking, pursuit and extraction of natural resources. In this case, the Court does not connect the insignificance of the act with the means used in illegal hunting.

And again to the question of the insignificance of the act in the Criminal Code

The question of the concept, essence and criteria for identifying a minor act has been the object of discussion among prominent scientists in the field of criminal law for quite some time, however, there are some nuances that are mentioned very briefly or are not mentioned at all by the authors when considering this issue, although in our opinion, they are fundamental for understanding the essence of the institution. Let us immediately note that in this article we will not dwell in detail on the age-old questions about the concept of corpus delicti, however, it should be emphasized that we are closer to the position of understanding the corpus delicti as a legislative model.

Part 2 art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation enshrines the concept of a minor act: “an action (inaction), although formally containing signs of any act provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but due to its insignificance does not pose a public danger, is not a crime.” Thus, the doctrine identifies three main criteria by which a minor act can be determined: 1) The act must contain signs of any criminal act provided for by the Criminal Code. 2) The act must be committed with direct, specific intent (that is, the direction of intent must consist in the desire of the subject to commit just such an insignificant act). 3) There is no public danger in the act. The criticism of these provisions is that these characteristics are imprecise and general in nature: they cannot be formalized due to their situational variability; when applying these signs, a lot will depend on the opinion of the judge.

V. Maltsev [V. Maltsev Insignificance of an act in criminal law // URL: https://www.lawmix.ru/comm/7739] identifies two possible cases of insignificance: 1) theft of a pencil/matchbox, etc. (there is no public danger at all), 2 ) there is a public danger, but it does not exceed the level of a civil or administrative offense. Quite a significant number of scientists and practicing lawyers think in approximately the same vein. However, in our opinion, this position is erroneous. V. N. Vinokurov [V. N. Vinokurov Insignificance of an act in criminal law: signs and forms // URL: www.consultant.ru] correctly notes that when considering insignificance, two types of acts should be taken into account: 1) the act can be subject to both administrative and criminal penalties -legal liability (for example, theft and petty theft), 2) only criminal liability is provided for the act, and there is no additional buffer in the form of administrative liability. The scientist proposes to use the institution of insignificance only in relation to the second case. In our opinion, the position of V.N. Vinokurov as a whole is more consistent with the understanding of the institution of insignificance, however, it should be developed and worked out in more detail.

To fully understand the problem, one should turn to the question of the relationship between the concepts of “corpus delicti” and “public danger”. This issue is perfectly described in the article by Ivanchin A.V. [Ivanchin A.V. Correlation of crime, crime and minor act // Combating crime: criminal legal, criminological and penal aspects: material. III Russian Congress of Criminal Law (May 29-30, 2008). – M.: Prospekt, 2008. – P. 39-42]. In general, there are two main points of view on the relationship between these concepts. The first of them includes social danger in the crime, spreading it across the elements of the crime (dangerous method - the objective side, selfish motives - the subjective side, etc.). The second point of view, the correctness of which is justifiably proven by Ivanchin A.V., says that the corpus delicti is the personification of the sign of illegality, while the public danger is taken out of the scope of the corpus delicti. That is, establishing the elements of a crime gives us only an assumption about the presence of a public danger in the act, but this assumption is refutable precisely in the light of Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which, under the threat of recognizing the act as insignificant, requires the presence of a public danger in the act. Thus, in order to bring a person to criminal liability, his act must contain all the elements of a crime and a public danger.

In connection with the definition of the relationship between the concepts of “corpus delicti” and “social danger”, we can move on to the main question: can the theft of a pencil, notebook, matches, etc. be considered a minor act? The answer to this question should be an unequivocal and categorical no.

A minor act must contain signs of any act provided for by the Criminal Code. Considering that an act will be considered a crime if it contains all the signs of a crime and there is a public danger, in a minor act only the signs of a crime should be present, while there should be no public danger. That is, in a minor act there are signs of a crime, which theoretically will be the basis for bringing a person to criminal responsibility. Consider the example of stealing a pencil. According to Part 1 of Art. 158, theft is the secret theft of someone else’s property, that is, the theft of a pencil seems to fit the criteria of this article, however, we have a norm of the Code of Administrative Offenses on petty theft - 7.27, which says that “petty theft of someone else’s property, the value of which does not exceed one thousand rubles... or two and a half thousand..." is punishable by administrative liability, not criminal, from here we can conclude that for a person to be subject to criminal liability under Part 1 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, he must commit a theft exceeding the value of property of 2,500 rubles or commit qualified theft, but if a person commits a theft for a lesser amount, he will not incur criminal liability according to the Ultima ratio principle. That is, his act will lack such a sign of composition as the objective side. But robbery of a pencil may be considered insignificant, since there is no decriminalization of this act, the elements of a crime will be present, but there may be no public danger. Thus, the legislator himself, through decriminalization, made a minor act - stealing a pencil - into the category of generally non-criminal. In this case, the theft of a pencil will not be a minor act, since theft of a pencil does not itself constitute a crime, and not just a public danger, therefore recognizing such an act as minor means violating Part 2 of Art. 14, in which a mandatory sign of a minor act must be the commission of an act containing all the elements of a crime. Our arguments are also supported by the very essence of insignificance. Only the person conducting the proceedings in the case decides whether to recognize the act as minor or not, while in the matter of the theft of a pencil, the person conducting the proceedings in the case will not be able to bring the accused to criminal liability at all.

Conclusions: 1. A minor act must contain all the elements of a crime and at the same time there must be no danger to society in the act. 2. Decriminalization and transfer of some acts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to the Code of Administrative Offenses removes the question of their insignificance, since the commission of such acts a priori becomes non-criminal. 3. In connection with all that has been said, we consider the wording of the persons conducting the proceedings to terminate the case due to the lack of corpus delicti to be incorrect, since it is not the corpus delicti that is missing, but a public danger under Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Psychological aspect

Behavioral psychology provides for contact of any living individual with the outside world.
It is built on the basis of two elements:

motor activity in everyday coexistence;
internal psychological balance.

The first group is characterized by both motor functions and their absence. This is inherent in a person at the genetic level and has a clear psychological basis.

Actions include objective and subjective aspects. When determining their insignificance or insignificance, one should adhere to the principles of isolated judgments.

In social life, a person exhibits psychological balance, which in practice is realized in the form of behavior and actions. This activity includes all aspects of the expression of the will of any citizen. By actions one can characterize the life position of each person.

Design specifics

The form of the concept of “insignificant act” is inherently ambiguous. The act itself is defined in legislation as an objective component of a criminal manifestation.

The act is a characterizing factor of objectivity. Duality is indicated by the fact that one part of a full-fledged object cannot simultaneously contain the qualitative components of all its components.

The specificity should indicate the content of two definitions in the construction in question:

Insignificance.
Criminal character.

The term requires specification. A twofold situation is seen in Article 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The disposition of the article explains that criminal liability arises for actions that contain individual components of a criminal manifestation.

Assessing insignificance is the competence of the judiciary, prosecutors and investigative bodies. Legislation determines the powers of officials who establish legal significance based on known arguments.

Having summarized the facts of a particular case, a conclusion is drawn about the degree of significance of criminal manifestations.

The bodies of inquiry and investigation, in accordance with the law, interpret the concept of insignificance, based only on a personal understanding of what happened. The complete exclusion of the concept of crime from the actions being assessed occurs upon the occurrence of a certain circumstance. This factor is the absence of signs of violation of the law.

The following are considered clarifying signs of a minor event:

absence of relations provided for by the Criminal Code;
the presence of liability other than criminal.

According to the first criterion, a citizen who has committed minor illegal actions is not subject to prosecution. If a case is initiated, it is closed. In the second case, liability provided for by administrative, civil, and labor legislation is applied.

Concept and signs of crime

Definition 1
A crime is an offense, an act in the form of an action or inaction, leading to socially dangerous consequences, which entails the application of criminal liability measures to the person who committed it.

The consequences can be of a negative mental or physical nature, violate public safety, cause economic damage to the state, society, individual, etc. Actions (or inaction) are realized through human behavior, and have characteristic physiological and psychological properties, in particular, they are: purposeful, motivated , voluntary.

Characteristics of a socially dangerous crime:

in content - this is an objective-subjective category, which is determined by a set of mandatory elements of the crime;
public danger can be considered in terms of objective or objective-subjective harmfulness;
public danger is the basis for their criminalization by law;
is the basis for bringing the perpetrator to criminal liability;
the degree and nature of the danger determines the category of crime;
social danger is a specific property of a crime that allows one to distinguish a criminal act from non-criminal offenses and minor acts.

Are you an expert in this subject area? We invite you to become the author of the Directory Working Conditions

A crime is a guilty act that is equivalent to guilt and social danger as social consequences. Guilt stems directly from the requirements of the principle of legality. Criminal wrongfulness includes a prohibition on committing an act and the threat of punishment provided for by the norms of sanctions.

Criminal wrongfulness reflects the danger of an act and represents the assessment of the social danger of an act by the legislator.

Unfinished crime with unspecified intent

When it is committed, insignificance is impossible. Let's look at a practical example. A citizen illegally entered the library and stole scissors that had no material value. Initially, the actions of the subject were qualified under paragraph “b” 2 of Part 158 of Article of the Criminal Code. From the testimony of the culprit, however, it follows that he entered the library to steal some office equipment, but, not finding anything valuable, he stole scissors, which he later threw away.

Based on the law, other people's property is considered to be objects in respect of which ownership rights have been established, which have a certain value and value. The court ruled in its verdict that the stolen scissors were of no value.

Taking into account the provisions of Part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code, for insignificance the presence of elements of the act is required. The citizen who stole the scissors was not convicted of theft of office equipment, and actions related to the theft cannot be qualified under Part 3 of Art. 30 and paragraph “b” of Part 2 158 of the Criminal Code as an attempt committed with unlawful entry into the premises. The case, accordingly, in this part should be dismissed by virtue of the provisions of Article 24 due to the absence in them

The qualifying feature indicating the location of the offense, as well as the unspecified intent of the perpetrator, do not allow us to speak of the presence of insignificance.

According to Kuznetsova, who is a supporter of a broad interpretation of the concept in question, if an ex-husband enters the home of his ex-wife and steals an album with photographs, on the one hand, we can speak of insignificance due to the fact that the value of the stolen property is small. At the same time, the very fact of illegal entry into the premises must be qualified under Article 139 of the Criminal Code.

Holding an ex-husband accountable under the Criminal Code for the theft of a family album, even conditionally, is hardly fair. Perhaps, indeed, in this case we are talking about insignificance. But it must be said that situations of this kind are quite rare in practice.

Prohibited actions

When assessing the insignificance of an act, it will be important whether there is a ban on a certain action only in the Criminal Code or in the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offenses simultaneously.

A crime can only violate the general rules enshrined in the Criminal Code. For example, murder, robbery, etc. In practice, however, crimes are committed for which liability may arise not only under the Criminal Code, but also under the Code of Administrative Offenses. For example, in Article 176 of the Criminal Code and Art. 14.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses establishes sanctions for illegally obtaining a loan.

Accordingly, two situations occur. The first is associated with the presence of lawful, administrative and criminally unlawful behavior. Here it is a kind of “buffer” between crime and non-criminal actions. In the second situation, everything is simpler: illegal behavior either exists or it doesn’t.

It is more reasonable to talk about the insignificance of the act only in the second case. The fact is that non-criminal behavior does not entail liability at all. In this case, there is not only no danger to society, but also no signs of a crime. According to the provisions of Article 14 of the Criminal Code, one can speak of the insignificance of an act only if there are signs of composition.

Features of material compositions

In theory, a common approach is that insignificance does not occur if the presence of signs of an act is associated with the occurrence of harm. For example, Article 285 provides for punishment for a significant violation of interests and rights through abuse of power.

This approach can be considered justified if the consequences that serve as a condition for recognizing the criminality of an act are materialized. In other words, they must be countable. Many courts believe that infringement of the rights of citizens by default entails a violation of the interests of the state.

For example, a traffic police inspector was found guilty under Article 285 for confiscating a driver’s license without sending him for a medical examination. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict and dismissed the case on the basis of the provisions of Art. 24 (part 1, paragraph 2). At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out that the conclusions of the first instance that the employee’s actions significantly violated the interests of the state were unmotivated.

In the example given, there may be insignificance. The fact is that the consequences, which act as a condition for recognizing a crime, are described using evaluative criteria, since they cannot be taken into account, and the sanction for abuse of power is not established in the Code of Administrative Offenses. Consequently, it is possible to allow the possibility of determining insignificance when a person commits such a crime for which the law provides for disciplinary liability.

For example, a crime, which is provided for in Part 2 of Article 303 of the Criminal Code, is considered completed at the moment of falsification of evidence. Meanwhile, as an analysis of practice shows, courts do not have a unified approach to assessing the consequences of falsification.

In some situations, actions provided for by the above norm are considered criminal, regardless of the purpose of their commission. They can be aimed at acquitting or convicting a citizen. In other situations, if the goal was not established, the act was not considered criminal.

According to lawyers, if an event to be established within the framework of a case is confirmed by other evidence, falsification of materials that only certify the event, but are executed in an inappropriate way, must be regarded as a minor act, despite the fact that it entails disciplinary action for the employee, leading the investigation.

Examples of investigative practice

The decisions of the plenum of the Supreme Court, summarizing law enforcement practice, note the following:

The conviction was overturned against a citizen who, without any intent, kept in his home one cartridge from a hunting rifle found on the street. The basis for the cancellation was the absence of signs of criminal acts in the actions.
Actions that fall under the formal characteristics of Articles 253 and 256, when illegal fishing is carried out in places of population reproduction using a watercraft with a motor, do not pose a threat to society and do not cause harm to nature. For these reasons, the case can be dismissed under Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the current legislation in these circumstances has articles in the administrative code providing for liability for illegal fishing. The investigative or judicial body is guided by its personal understanding of the situation when making a decision.
Violations of tax legislation may be regarded as minor if the amount of unpaid tax is significantly less than the amount provided for in Article 198 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This indicates the insignificance of the act. The punishment in the given example will be applied in accordance with Articles 199 – 122 of the Tax Code.
Minor harm will not be considered as such in case of secret theft with a low value of the stolen property. Article 7.27 of the administrative legislation differs from the norm of part 2 of article 158 of the Criminal Code, since it does not contain qualifying elements of a crime.
An intruder entered the premises to steal a computer. Not finding any office equipment, when leaving, he stole scissors, the value of which was negligible. The investigation applied the norms of paragraph b of part 2 of article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Current legislation defines other people's property as objects that have an owner and an established value. The court found that the stolen scissors had no value, although there had been illegal entry into the premises. This case was dropped due to lack of criminal offenses.

If the crime does not have specific intent and is not completed, triviality does not apply.

Established practice shows that courts, considering the insignificance of open criminal cases, terminate them if there are formalized consequences.

Actions characterized as insignificant form the following signs of the crime:

the form in which the illegal actions were manifested;
motivation that prompted action;
the purpose pursued;
guilt of the person who committed such actions.

The object to which illegal manifestations were directed is associated with characterizing factors of insignificance. If relationships are disrupted and there is a threat to society, then this gives reason to believe that the actions will not be considered insignificant.

If it is insignificant, the following circumstances are not taken into account:

Admission of guilt and repentance.
The desire to compensate for the losses caused.
Personal merits of the culprit.
Having a family.

The insignificance of illegal acts in the current legislation is in the criminal legal field. It is in the nature of an illegal act with formal signs of a criminal act without a threat to society, which is determined by employees of judicial and investigative bodies vested with special powers.

The social nature of the crime and its legal concept

The emergence of crime and crime occurred at a certain stage in the development of society, and was associated with its division into large groups of people (layers, strata or classes) differing in their property status. Norms on crime and punishment began to express the will of the economically and politically dominant classes, primarily in the protection of property and power. The change from one socio-economic formation (civilization) to another, the seizure of power by one or another class (stratum) significantly changed the content that was put into the concept of crime.

In a slave-owning society, the largest class of slaves was not subject to criminal legal protection. Any measure taken by a slave owner in relation to a slave was recognized as legal and justified from the point of view of the interests of the slave owner class. Therefore, an attack on a slave, for example, his murder, could be considered illegal only if this violated the property right of the slave owner.

The criminal legislation of feudal law protected the interests of royal dynasties, the clergy, and the propertied classes with no less cruelty. For example, in Russia, the law of December 13, 1760 gave the nobles the right to exile their serfs to Siberia, and from 1765 to hard labor, for committing “insolent offenses.”

Canonical (church) law, which was in force in the Middle Ages, protected persons of the clergy and other “noble” classes from criminal liability, or significantly mitigated punishment for crimes by replacing punishment with spiritual punishment. So, for example, considering in 1761 the case of the nobleman Lazarev, who ordered his serf, who died as a result of such punishment, to be beaten with sticks for “drunkenness, laziness and discourtesy,” the court sentenced him to church repentance.

In each state, in different historical periods of development, the range of criminal acts changed: the danger of some increased, the danger of others decreased, acts that were not previously crimes were proclaimed as such and vice versa. At the same time, when deciding whether to classify an act as a crime, they did not always proceed from the magnitude of the danger of the act; the influence was exerted by the subjective attitude towards the acts of those in power. That is why it was necessary to enshrine the concept of crime in the criminal law.

Historically, the first legislative act that gave the concept of a crime was the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of France in 1789. Article 5 essentially gave the material and substantive properties of any offense, or rather its harmfulness to society. It stated that the law has the right to prohibit only actions harmful to society, that what is not prohibited by law cannot be prevented, and that no one can be forced to do anything that the law does not prescribe.” In Art. 8, the principle “NULLa crimen, NULLA poena sine lege” was formulated (no one can be punished except by virtue of a law established and published before the commission of a criminal act and applied legally).

Many criminal codes of countries around the world define crimes as acts prohibited under penalty of punishment. Part 1 §17 of the Austrian Criminal Code states, “Crimes are intentional acts that are punishable by life imprisonment or imprisonment for more than three years.”

This definition of crime also existed in the criminal legislation of Russia in the pre-revolutionary period. Article 1 of the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments of 1885 stated: “A crime or misdemeanor is recognized as both the most illegal act and the failure to comply with what is prescribed under penalty of law.”

A similar definition of a crime was enshrined in the Criminal Code of 1903, which replaced the Penal Code: “An act prohibited, at the time of its commission, by law under penalty of punishment” is considered criminal.”

In scientific works of the 19th and early 20th centuries, various definitions of crime were given. These definitions already contain an indication of the main property of the crime - its ability to cause harm.

However, the legal formulations of the crime did not yet contain a sign directly indicating its harmfulness to society. Indication of this sign of a crime in its legal definition makes the concept “material”, allowing one to answer the question of why acts are criminalized.

A significant drawback of the formal concept of crime is that, while quite clearly reflecting the legal sign of a crime - its illegality, it does not reveal the social essence of the criminal and punishable act. It turns out that what is punishable by law is criminal, and what is criminal is punishable. Outside the scope of such a definition remained the basis for the criminalization of the act, the basis for the criminality.

In Russia, the material concept of crime was first given in Article 5 of the 1919 Guidelines on Criminal Law of the RSFSR: “Crime is a violation of the order of social relations protected by criminal law.” The fundamentals of the criminal legislation of the former USSR and union republics of 1958 in Article 7 provided a detailed definition of the crime. This definition, with some changes, was included in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960. This definition highlighted two characteristics of a crime: public danger and illegality.

The sign of “social danger” revealed the social essence of the concept of crime and made it “material.” The sign of illegality emphasizes the legal nature of the crime. In addition to indicating the signs characterizing a crime, the concept of it in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960 included a description of objects of criminal legal protection. The definition emphasized the class orientation of criminal legislation and retained ideological overtones.

In the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996, which entered into force on January 1, 1997, a more technically advanced concept of crime was given. The objects of criminal legal protection are now named in a generalized form in Article 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Along with social danger and illegality, the new definition reflects two more features that have always been included in the concept of crime given by the doctrine of criminal law: “guilt” and “punishability”. The modern definition of the concept of crime as a legal and social phenomenon is enshrined in the first part of Article 14: “A crime is recognized as a socially dangerous act committed guilty of guilt, prohibited by this Code under threat of punishment.”

An analysis of modern theoretical views on crime shows that its substantive feature is socially dangerous behavior, and its formal feature is criminal wrongfulness. Thus, crime appears as a unique social and legal phenomenon, and the concept of it becomes a logical form of reflection of its socio-legal nature.

conclusions

Minor acts, therefore, are attacks that are committed carelessly or intentionally, have all the signs of an unlawful act, are punishable exclusively under the Criminal Code and do not entail either an administrative or material sanction. . Forms of insignificance also include attacks on certain non-property rights: freedom of movement, privacy, causing non-material damage, if the consequences are characterized by evaluative characteristics, etc.

Forms of insignificance also include attacks on certain non-property rights: freedom of movement, privacy, causing non-material damage, if the consequences are characterized by evaluative characteristics, etc.