Curious interpretation of criminal legal rules, including liability for theft

Abstract

Subject of research: the erratological aspect of the interpretation of criminal law norms that provide for criminal liability for theft, that is, interpretive errors of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In this regard, this paper considers a number of modern publications devoted to the qualification of thefts, in which curious (ridiculous) errors of signs of theft, objective and subjective signs of theft and qualifying signs of secret theft of property were made. Purpose of research: to identify the most serious errors in the interpretation of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the possibility of their elimination. Methods of research: the dialectical method of cognition was used in combination with a systematic approach and instrumental methods. Main results of research: the study shows that modern publications on the classification of thefts contain many curious errors that indicate the presence of doctrinal gaps and the need to eliminate them through a systemic interpretation.