The Right to Property and Property Rights as Objects of Possession, which is Committed by the Abuse of an Official by his Official Position (Part 2 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)

P. Berzin, Ruslan Anatoliiovych Volynets, M. M. Khomenko
{"title":"The Right to Property and Property Rights as Objects of Possession, which is Committed by the Abuse of an Official by his Official Position (Part 2 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)","authors":"P. Berzin, Ruslan Anatoliiovych Volynets, M. M. Khomenko","doi":"10.21564/2311-9640.2021.15.235700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the criminal and civil understanding of the concepts of \"foreign property\", \"right to property\" and \"property law\". Different meanings of these concepts are considered. Differences in criminal and civil law understanding of these concepts and their relationship are established. \nIt is substantiated that the subject of possession provided for in p. 2 art. 191 of the Criminal Code is only someone else's property, not the right to property and property rights. \nIt is substantiated that the concept of \"property\" in the relevant compositions of criminal offenses against property performs other functions than the concept of \"property\" in civil law, and that the criminal law understanding of property and civil law definition of property in p. 1 of art. 190 of the Civil Code are unequal (different). \nOn this basis and taking into account the legal positions of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the conclusion is formulated that the subject of possession in the relevant composition of criminal offenses against property can be only someone else's property, not the right to it or not a property actions. \nThe concepts of “property right” and “right to property” are not identical, and the concepts of “property right”, the term \"right to property\" constitute real rights on the property, but no other rights that are not property. \nIn view of this, the possession by an official by abusing his official position the right to property or, in other words, the possession by an official by abusing of the right to property cannot be qualified under the relevant part of art. 191 of the Criminal Code. \nIn addition, the article analyzes the definition of \"right to property\", which affect the recognition of the right to property as a kind of \"subject\" of the so-called \"selfish abuses\" under art. 364, 364-1 of the Criminal Code. \nIt is emphasized that when an official possession the right to property committed by abusing his official position, he cannot qualify under the relevant part of art. 191 of the Criminal Code, as there is no such mandatory feature of p. 2 of art. 191 of the Criminal Code of abuse as someone else's property that is the subject of abuse.","PeriodicalId":387320,"journal":{"name":"Herald of the Association of Criminal Law of Ukraine","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Herald of the Association of Criminal Law of Ukraine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21564/2311-9640.2021.15.235700","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article analyzes the criminal and civil understanding of the concepts of "foreign property", "right to property" and "property law". Different meanings of these concepts are considered. Differences in criminal and civil law understanding of these concepts and their relationship are established. It is substantiated that the subject of possession provided for in p. 2 art. 191 of the Criminal Code is only someone else's property, not the right to property and property rights. It is substantiated that the concept of "property" in the relevant compositions of criminal offenses against property performs other functions than the concept of "property" in civil law, and that the criminal law understanding of property and civil law definition of property in p. 1 of art. 190 of the Civil Code are unequal (different). On this basis and taking into account the legal positions of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the conclusion is formulated that the subject of possession in the relevant composition of criminal offenses against property can be only someone else's property, not the right to it or not a property actions. The concepts of “property right” and “right to property” are not identical, and the concepts of “property right”, the term "right to property" constitute real rights on the property, but no other rights that are not property. In view of this, the possession by an official by abusing his official position the right to property or, in other words, the possession by an official by abusing of the right to property cannot be qualified under the relevant part of art. 191 of the Criminal Code. In addition, the article analyzes the definition of "right to property", which affect the recognition of the right to property as a kind of "subject" of the so-called "selfish abuses" under art. 364, 364-1 of the Criminal Code. It is emphasized that when an official possession the right to property committed by abusing his official position, he cannot qualify under the relevant part of art. 191 of the Criminal Code, as there is no such mandatory feature of p. 2 of art. 191 of the Criminal Code of abuse as someone else's property that is the subject of abuse.
官员滥用职权所犯的财产权利和作为占有客体的财产权利(乌克兰刑法第191条第2部分)
本文分析了刑事和民事对“外国财产”、“财产权利”和“物权法”概念的理解。考虑了这些概念的不同含义。刑法和民法对这些概念及其关系的理解存在差异。事实证明,第2条第2款所规定的占有主体。刑法第191条规定的只是别人的财产,没有财产权和财产权的权利。本文论证了财产犯罪相关构成中的“财产”概念所发挥的功能不同于民法中的“财产”概念,并论证了刑法对财产的理解和民法对财产的定义。《民法典》第190条是不平等的(不同的)。在此基础上并考虑到乌克兰最高法院和最高法院的法律立场,得出的结论是,在财产犯罪的有关构成中,占有的主体只能是他人的财产,而不是对财产的权利,也不是财产诉讼。“产权”和“财产权利”的概念是不相同的,“产权”的概念,“财产权利”的术语构成了对财产的物权,而不是其他非财产的权利。有鉴于此,官员滥用职务而占有财产权利,或者说,官员滥用财产权利而占有财产的行为,不能在art的相关部分下得到限定。《刑法》第191条。此外,文章还对“财产权”的定义进行了分析,这影响了对财产权作为一种“主体”的认定,即art下所谓的“自私滥用”。《刑法》第364和364-1条。文章强调,当公职人员滥用职权而取得财产权利时,不具备本条有关规定的资格。《刑法》第191条,因为第2条没有这种强制性特征。《刑法》第191条将滥用视为他人财产即被滥用的主体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信