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.
The structure of the offense under Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Any crime has a clear structure. It is associated with the presence of elements that constitute a crime. Offense under Art. 168 has the following structure:
1) an object is a relationship that can be classified as “property”. That is, the property must be registered as ownership.
2) the subject of the crime must be the property of other persons. This property can be either movable or immovable. Moreover, this property must cost more than 250 thousand rubles, only then is it possible to attract it under this article.
3) the very actions of damaging (destructing) the property of other persons due to careless handling of fire form the objective side of Art. 168. Also under this article, careless handling of other sources of increased danger, which resulted in a fire of someone else’s property, is also possible. Careless handling of fire may include improper handling of gas burners, etc.
4) subject – sane citizens over 16 years of age
5) Intent to commit a crime under Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation forms the subjective side of the crime under Art. 168. It can be either direct or indirect.
What is considered property within the meaning of the article in question?
These are objects of property that can be alienated in accordance with the procedure established by law and have characteristics established by law.
For more detailed information, please contact a criminal lawyer.
Contents of Art. 168 TK
At the beginning there is a list of expenses that the employer reimburses to an employee sent on a business trip. There are four items on this list:
- employee transportation costs;
- expenses for renting residential premises for him;
- expenses due to living outside your place of residence (per diem);
- other expenses incurred by the employee with the knowledge of the employer or with his permission.
Further, the article identifies different categories of employees for whom reimbursement of their expenses justified by business trips is determined on conditions that differ from each other. The first group is employees of government agencies at the federal level: foundations, institutions, authorities. For them, the procedure and amounts of appropriate payments are prescribed at the level of acts of the Government of the Russian Federation.
The second group is employees of local authorities: territorial funds, institutions of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipal structures, etc. For this group, the procedure and amounts of appropriate payments are established at the level of legal acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipal authorities.
The procedure and amounts of appropriate payments for other groups of personnel that do not fall into the above categories are established in collective agreements and local regulations of the employer. Exceptions may concern cases that are specifically designated in the Labor Code and other relevant legislation.
The considered article, as can be seen from its provisions, not only establishes expenses that must be reimbursed by the employer, but also identifies different categories of employees for whom differences in the nature of these payments are possible.
What else is regulated by situations related to this article?
Situations related to Art. 168 of the Criminal Code are regulated, among other things, by Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation No. 14
There are several points of interest in this resolution.
This is clause 7. Attributing these crimes to the number of crimes against property and referring, on a mandatory basis, to clause 4 of the note to Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Clause 14 of this Resolution states that damage as a result of an offense under Art. 168 is reimbursed according to the rules set out in Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. This harm is compensated by the person who caused this harm and he compensates it in full.
Thus, there must be fault in the fire and a cause-and-effect relationship between the actions of the culprit and the fire/consequences. And the damage must be caused to someone else's property, which has all the characteristics of property.
Always consult with an attorney regarding situations involving criminal charges against you. You can find out about the cost and ask questions to a lawyer online.
Share this article:
Article 168. Destruction or damage to property due to negligence
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2018 N 69-APU18-3 In the appeal, lawyer Asadova N.R. in the interests of the convicted Snurnitsyn G.I. expresses disagreement with the conclusions of the court, which in her opinion are based on assumptions, with the court’s assessment of the testimony of Snurnitsyn, who explained his actions with the intention to imitate a fire and scare R. into forcing her to refuse a trip to her husband, in the absence of Snurnitsyn’s goal to take her life; cites in the complaint the testimony of witnesses about the relationship between Snurnitsyn and R. and other evidence, gives them his own analysis and assessment, expresses disagreement with the assessment of the evidence given by the court, with the court’s decision to refuse to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, sets out to the court his own version the motive for the crime committed; refers to Snurnitsyn’s misconception regarding the number of people present in the house at the time of the arson, to the fact that he made an anonymous report about the fire, questions the admissibility of Snurnitsyn’s testimony at the preliminary investigation, and asks for reclassification of Snurnitsyn’s actions under Part 3 of Art. 109 and art. 168 or part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, challenges the punishment, since the court did not take into account that Snurnitsyn anonymously called the fire brigade, sees grounds for applying Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, expresses disagreement with the decision to collect moral damages, questions the moral suffering of the victim, and asks for the sentence to be changed or cancelled.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 26, 2019 No. 5-APU19-6
considered in open court the material on the appeal of Razhabov A.O. to the resolution of the Moscow City Court dated December 21, 2021, by which the resolution of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation dated November 22, 2021 on extradition to law enforcement agencies of the Republic of Uzbekistan for prosecution under Part 1 of Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 27, 2019 N 48-APU19-2
to the competent authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic to bring to criminal liability for robbery under clause 2, part 3, clause 3, part 4 of Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic. After hearing the report of Judge Zatelepin O.K. on the content of the appealed court decision, the substance of the appeal, the speech of P.V. Korchagin, in respect of whom the decision to extradite was made, lawyer V.I. Galperina, prosecutor S.P. Terekhova, Judicial Collegium
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 28, 2019 N 4-APU19-6
As follows from the presented materials, the law enforcement agencies of Uzbekistan are prosecuting Rasuleva for committing crimes under paragraph “a” of Part 3 of Art. 168, part 1 art. , 211 and paragraph “b”, part 2 of Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan and is accused of having, through deception and abuse of trust, seized S.’s property and funds on a particularly large scale in the period from August 30, 2021 to October 2, 2021 in the Almazar district of Tashkent, the Republic of Uzbekistan, and on October 12 2021, acting again, through deception and abuse of trust, took possession of the property of victim A. causing her material damage in a significant amount.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 27, 2019 N 78-APU19-18
On February 6, 2021, the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation issued a resolution on the extradition of I.S. Alimov. competent authorities of the Republic of Uzbekistan for criminal prosecution under clause “b”, part 2 of art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. By the resolution of the St. Petersburg City Court dated April 15, 2021, the complaint of Alimov I.S. the said decision of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation was left without satisfaction.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08/01/2019 N 71-APU19-1
to the resolution of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation dated March 1, 2021 on her extradition to law enforcement agencies of the Republic of Uzbekistan for prosecution for fraud under clauses “b”, “c”, part 2 of Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan and production, forgery of official documents under clause “b”, part 2 of art. 228 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 16, 2019 N 5-APU19-57
By a resolution of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation dated April 5, 2021, the request of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Uzbekistan for the extradition of Fayazov to be prosecuted for committing a crime provided for in paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, to the competent authorities of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 10/07/2019 N 22-КГ19-3
By a resolution of the senior investigator-criminologist of the military investigative department for the Vladikavkaz garrison dated May 10, 2017, to initiate a criminal case on the grounds of a crime under Article 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (destruction or damage to property through negligence), against Taraev Z.Kh. denied due to the lack of corpus delicti in his act. From the contents of this resolution, it is clear that the fuel spill occurred not as a result of the negligence of Z.Kh. Taraev, but as a result of the actions of third parties or the influence of external factors, which were not investigated by police officers during the inspection. The resolution also states that Taraev Z.A. is not a financially responsible person with whom an agreement on full or partial financial liability could be concluded, due to which Taraev Z.Kh. cannot be held responsible for the loss of material assets.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 11, 2019 No. 5-APU19-31
law enforcement agencies of the Republic of Uzbekistan to bring to criminal liability for committing a crime under paragraph “a” of Part 3 of Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. After hearing the report of Judge Zatelepin O.K. on the content of the appealed court decision, the substance of the appeal, the speech of M.M. Mirolimov. coals, in respect of whom the decision to extradite was made, lawyer S.V. Romanov, prosecutor N.V. Savinov, Judicial Collegium
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 6, 2017 N 10-APU17-6
In the appeals and additions to them, the convicted Zherikhina O.A. and lawyer Litvinov V.P. in her defense they express disagreement with the verdict, due to the discrepancy between the court's conclusions and the actual circumstances of the case. Analyzing the evidence in the case, including the testimony of witnesses, the testimony of Zherikhina herself at the court hearing, they claim that there was no intent to set fire to R.’s apartment and that the fire was accidentally caused by an unextinguished match. The lawyer draws attention to the fact that Zherikhina took measures to warn the victim about the fire, therefore, her actions can only be regarded as careless, under Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but due to the insignificance of the damage, there is no corpus delicti in her actions. In addition, the court did not give a proper assessment to the testimony of the convict about her causing bodily harm to V. in the process of necessary defense, who had previously beaten her mother, D., and was aggressive. The court did not take into account Zherikhina’s testimony that she did not strike V. with a knife, but struck them at the level of the victim’s ear, into the pillow. It is also impossible to exclude a slander on the part of witness K. The author of the complaint also draws attention to the fact that no biological traces belonging to V. were found on Zherikhina’s clothes; the convict refused the testimony given during the investigation.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 30, 2017 N 50-APU17-14
He asks that he be acquitted in terms of murder, and that in terms of destruction and damage to the property of the victims, the actions be qualified under Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In objections to the appeal, state prosecutor Mityakin V.V. notes that the verdict is legal, reasonable and fair, there are no grounds for its cancellation or change.
