Yaroslavl Regional Court of the Yaroslavl Region. Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace Charter on punishments 1864

28.11.2023

Transformations aimed at creating market relations required their legal support and protection. There was a need to bring Russian legislation into line with the legislation of advanced European countries. This could be achieved if there was a well-functioning judicial and legal system with a strict division of powers between all its components. This was the goal of the judicial reform of 1864.

Judicial reform is considered the most radical of all the reforms carried out by the government of Alexander II. It most clearly reflected the basic elements of bourgeois law.

The main legislative acts that radically changed the system of judicial system and legal proceedings in the country came into force on November 20, 1864. This "Establishment of judicial institutions"(bodies) – the law on the judicial system; "Charter of Civil Proceedings" determined the order of civil proceedings; "Charter of Criminal Procedure" law on criminal procedure; And “Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace” - code of substantive law, which magistrates were to be guided in their law enforcement practice.

The basic principles on which the new judicial system was built are the following: 1) separation of judicial power from administrative power; 2) independence and irremovability of judges; 3) all-class court, that is, the introduction of a single court for all classes and equal responsibility of all classes before the court; 4) the law is the basis of the activities of the courts; 5) publicity, adversarial and oral proceedings; 6) collegiality in decision making. The essence of these principles was briefly expressed by the royal decree to the government Senate on the promulgation of new laws and their implementation. "We wish, - it said - to establish in Russia a speedy, just, merciful and equal court for all our subjects, to elevate the judicial power, give it proper independence and generally establish among our people that respect for the law, the net of which is impossible for public welfare and which must be the constant leader of the actions of everyone , from highest to lowest."

Judicial system

The old judicial system, basically created under Catherine II and reorganized in 1801, was cumbersome and ineffective, and did not meet the requirements for it for a long time. There were district courts for all classes (district zemstvo court for nobles, district reprisal for state peasants, city magistrates for townspeople). Instead of the abolished courts of the second link (at the provincial level), chambers of criminal and civil courts operated in provincial centers, and from which decisions of lower instances could be appealed. In addition, court courts for nobles and officials operated in the capitals. The entire system was headed by the Senate as the highest court. There were also special courts: military, spiritual, commercial. In conscientious courts, where two representatives from each class sat, inter-class disputes were considered.

The plurality of judicial bodies, their class-based nature, and the lack of clarity in determining the jurisdiction of cases gave rise to the complexity and complexity of procedural rules. In 1864, the old judicial system was abolished, and the new judicial system, introduced by the “Institution of Judicial Institutions,” took on the following form. It consisted of 2 structures: 1) local courts(for solving minor matters) – volost and world courts", 2) general courts, included district court and judicial chamber. At the head of the judicial system was Senate.

Magistrates' courts were established with the aim of relieving the main link - the general courts - of unimportant cases. The model for them was the English Magistrates' Court, where the government appointed “respected and respectable people” from the local population to the positions of justices of the peace, who did not receive a salary for their work. But in Russia magistrates elected by zemstvo district and city self-government bodies(Zemstvo Assembly and City Duma) and approved by the Senate. A person who met certain qualification requirements could become a justice of the peace: age(not younger than 25 years old), education(higher or secondary), settled life(who has lived in the area for at least 2 years), has at least 3 years of experience in the judiciary and assessor(property qualification). This could be land - from 400-1600 dessiatines in different provinces, real estate or capital from 15 thousand rubles of annual income.

The area of activity of the magistrate's court was world district(county with cities), divided into plots. The local magistrate received a small salary for his work from zemstvo taxes. The elected magistrate refused his salary and was given the title honorary magistrate judge. He could continue to manage the precinct, or he could consider cases in the absence of the precinct officer or at the request of the victims. Retired military and civil officials, former high-ranking judicial officials (senators and chairmen of judicial chambers), and district and provincial leaders of the nobility also became honorary justices of the peace.

Jurisdiction of civil cases in the World Court was determined by the value of the claim. Cases could be considered here in which the damage did not exceed 500 rub. From criminal cases of global jurisdiction were subject to cases of offenses against public order, personal insults and thefts up to 300 rubles). In these cases, magistrates, according to the “Charter on penalties imposed by magistrates,” could do remarks, reprimands, monetary penalties(for an amount not exceeding 300 rubles), arrest(up to 3 months) and imprisonment(for a period not exceeding 1 year).

The main goal pursued by the magistrate’s court was reconciliation of the parties. The magistrate acted in it both as an investigator and as the sole arbiter of the case, and the investigation and trial were carried out simultaneously and, as a rule, in one meeting. The magistrate's verdict was considered final except for the decision on imprisonment, that is, it was not subject to appeal. Inconclusive verdict(about imprisonment) could be appealed in the second instance - congress of magistrates of the district.

The Congress (in a meeting of 3 judges) reviewed the case on its merits. This meeting was attended by a fellow prosecutor of the district court, who gave an opinion on the case on the basis of the statutes of civil and criminal proceedings. The district judge's sentence could be approved or revised within the limits of the revocation (that is, the statement of the party appealing it). The verdict of the Congress of Justices of the Peace was considered final and could only be appealed in cassation proceedings in the Senate.

The magistrate of the station himself carried out the sentence, resorting to the help of the police if necessary. All paperwork in the magistrate’s court (petitions, statements, reviews, etc.) was carried out on plain paper and without any fees, as was the proceedings itself, which was absolutely free.

In 1889, the institution of justices of the peace underwent some reorganization. They were preserved only in the capitals, and locally, in 43 provinces, their functions were transferred to zemstvo chiefs and city judges, who combined judicial powers with administrative ones. The second instance was recognized as the district congress of zemstvo chiefs, in which all members of the district court and city judges participated. The congress was headed by the district marshal of the nobility. The cassation instance for such a court moved from the Senate to the Provincial Presence. But after the reform of P.A. Stolypin in 1912, magistrates' courts were restored. The revival of this judicial institution began in our time, from the end of 1998.

District Court and Trial Chamber. Everything that exceeded the jurisdiction of the magistrate's court was subject to the jurisdiction of the general courts. The main authority here was district Court. It was established, as a rule, one per province or united several districts in large provinces. A total of 104 judicial districts were created. The district court consisted of two departments: civil and criminal cases. In each department, cases were considered collectively by at least 3 judges. This composition was called crown court. At the same time, the transfer of court members from one branch to another was practiced.

In addition to the crown court, the criminal department included trial by jury. Particularly serious cases, cases of crimes that entailed punishment in the form of deprivation of all rights of the estate. All other cases were tried by the crown court.

The second instance in general jurisdiction was court chamber, one for several provinces. There were 11 of them created, then their number increased to 14. It was divided into departments of criminal and civil cases, which were headed by chairmen. The Trial Chamber acted as court of first instance in cases of state crimes and official crimes. When considering such cases, the presence of class representatives(leaders of the nobility, city mayors and volost elders).

As a court of second instance the trial chamber considered on appeal decisions and sentences of district courts (based on complaints from the parties and protests from prosecutors). She also exercised general supervision over the activities of the district courts.

At the end of the 1880s. As a reaction of the authorities to revolutionary terror, cases of political crimes and terrorist acts were removed from the jurisdiction of the judicial chambers and transferred to the Senate (Special Presence), and cases of armed resistance to the authorities and attempts on the lives of officials were transferred to the jurisdiction of military justice. The role of the gendarmerie in conducting investigations into political cases and terrorist acts has increased. Thanks to these and other measures, terror was neutralized, but in the 1890s. The ideology of individual terror of Russian revolutionaries in Russia was replaced by the ideology of class terror - Marxism. Old methods of struggle turned out to be ineffective.

Senate was at the head of the judicial system. He played the role cassation instance and, like a judicial chamber, was divided into 2 departments, criminal and civil cases. The Senate was located in St. Petersburg and received complaints from the parties and protests from prosecutors about the final verdicts. The Senate was also declared the highest body of judicial supervision for all newly created judicial bodies (institutions).

Institute of Judges. The law stipulated that judicial positions could only be held by Russian subjects but only lawyers with special education(having certificates from universities or other higher educational institutions on completion of a course in legal sciences or “having passed an exam in these sciences”). They should have experience in the judicial branch in ranks not lower than the secretary of a district court for 3 years or a sworn attorney (lawyer) for 10 years, with excellent characteristics from the place of service (“certificates of accurate, efficient and impeccable performance of their duties”). University graduates could be appointed to the position of judge if they served in judicial places for 4 years candidates and have reached the age of 25. This service was free. Only fairly wealthy people could acquire candidate experience. But there was no property qualification for judges holding positions, who received very decent monetary remuneration for their work.

The law equated judicial activity with public service. Judges moved up the career ladder (district judge, associate chairman of the district court, chairman of the district court, member of the department of the judicial chamber, senator, etc.). They were awarded orders and received state pensions upon retirement. The rights and benefits assigned to judges also belonged to their families. Upon taking office, judges brought oath of allegiance to the emperor, who approved their purpose, and pledged to sacredly fulfill the law. Guided by the law, judges did not have the right to interpret it, but could rely on dictates of conscience. Judges were obliged to act impartially and respect the dignity of the defendant.

However, the position of judges differed from that of other officials of the empire in one important circumstance. The law came into force the principle of irremovability of judges. Only a criminal court could remove a judge from office. All other cases are own resignation letter. Was not limited and limiting age judges. In case of serious illness, the judge was given a year to recover. Only after this could a resignation without a request follow. Irremovability was the main guarantee of the independence of judges from the administration.

The judge must have high moral qualities. The law prohibited people from holding judicial positions who were under investigation or trial, convicted, expelled from service in court, from the ecclesiastical department for vices, from societies or noble assemblies based on sentences of the classes to which they belonged. Insolvent debtors and those under guardianship for wastefulness could not become judges.

For their actions the judges were liable responsibility: disciplinary(reprimand, reprimand, warning, arrest for 7 days, transfer to a lower position), material(deduction from salary) and criminal. Was introduced and procedure for challenging judges parties for reasons of material or other interest in the case or because of family ties.

The Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace is a collection of criminal laws on criminal acts subordinate to justices of the peace and judicial institutions and persons equal to them in power (zemstvo chiefs, city judges, regimental and crew courts, etc.). The idea of separating from the punishment code decrees on minor offenses, which were subject to judicial-police proceedings according to the pre-reform judicial system, initially arose in 1859, in a commission to draw up projects for the transformation of provincial and district institutions. In total, it was then proposed to identify 605 articles, from which in 1861 a draft of the judicial police department was drawn up. This draft served as material for the II Department of His Majesty’s Own Office when, upon approval on September 29, 1862, the main provisions for the transformation of the judicial part were entrusted with the drafting of the U. on penalties for offenses within the jurisdiction of justices of the peace. The U. under its present name was considered by the State Council in July and September 1864 and approved on November 20 of the same year, together with the judicial U., as a separate part of them. The U. was published for the second time in 1883, and for the third time in 1885. In total, the U. has 13 chapters and 181 articles by number; in fact, the number of articles is greater, since the numbering of the first edition was retained, and new legislation was included with special designations, for example: 30 1, 1041, 1042, etc. Both in relation to the technical processing of resolutions and in resolving many issues of the general part The charter is significantly higher than the code. He does not know the ladder system of punishment; circumstances that reduce guilt are listed in it not exhaustively, but approximately; much more perfect than its definitions about totality, repetition, participation, etc. All these deviations from the code created, however, a duality of legislation that in practice causes extreme misunderstandings and difficulties - difficulties that are all the greater since the courts of higher jurisdiction often apply simultaneously to one and the same. to the same person both the code and the law (for example, when convicting for murder and simple theft), and courts of lower jurisdiction are sometimes obliged to judge according to the code (for violation of the statutes of treasury departments, on duties, trade and industry; see note to Art. 1 U.). The draft criminal code combines decrees on all kinds of offenses, and therefore, once it receives the force of law, the law will also be subject to repeal - See “Judicial Laws with Explanations,” ed. state chancellor (Vol. IV); N. Tagantsev, "U. about punishment, tax world. judges"; N. Neklyudov, "Guide for justices of the peace"; Zheleznikov, "Handbook for justices of the peace."

Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. - S.-Pb.: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907 .

See what the “Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace” is in other dictionaries:

A collection of criminal laws on criminal acts subordinate to magistrates and judicial institutions and persons equal to them in power (zemstvo chiefs, city judges, regimental and crew courts, etc.). The thought of separating from the code of... ...

Approved in 1864 together with judicial statutes (see Judicial reform of 1864) as a separate part of them. A new edition was published in 1883 and revised again in 1885. Provided for liability for relatively minor criminal offenses... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

The official text of the code ... Wikipedia

- (legal) various terms used in the current legislation to designate laws, for example: U. on criminal and correctional punishments, Establishment of the Imperial Family, Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace. These terms... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Charter, establishment various terms used in the current legislation to designate laws, for example: U. on criminal and correctional punishments, Establishment of the Imperial Family, Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace. These… … Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

1) Historical outline of criminal legislation. The primary source of the current criminal legislation is the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich of 1649. By the time Peter the Great ascended the throne, the Code of 1649 had become significantly outdated.… … Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Main article: Criminal law of the Russian Federation History of criminal law in Russia is a branch of science in the history of state and law that studies the development of norms and institutions of criminal law in Russia during all periods of its historical development, ... ... Wikipedia

In criminal law, housing acts as: 1) the object of a crime, 2) the subject of a crime, and 3) the object of punishment. The issue of female crime has criminal political and cultural significance. I. There are crimes in which only J. can... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

A systematic collection of laws in force in Russia, which was the result of the failures of codification attempts that were made in Russia since the beginning of the 18th century. (See Commission for the Delivery of a New Code and Commission for the Drafting of Laws). Imperial Nikolai... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Unlike a civil penalty, a criminal penalty is not the exercise of the right of claim, the execution of a court decision, but the recognition in the prescribed manner of the guilty person as subject to liability, expressed in one or another disadvantageous or... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Books

Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace. explained by the decisions of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Government Senate for the years 1866-1871, N.P. Timofeev. The purpose of the proposed publication is to present to lawyers in general, and to the attention of the Judicial Institute in particular, the Charter on penalties imposed by justices of the peace, explained in full...
The Code on Criminal and Correctional Punishments and the Charter on Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace, according to Art. 1866 and Cont. 1868 and all later additions, V. Gautier. The Code on criminal and correctional punishments and the Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, according to art. 1866 and Cont. 1868 and all later additions published in the Collection...

Judicial statutes, in Russia legislative provisions adopted 20

November 1864 formed the basis of the judicial reform of 1864.

Judicial statutes - in pre-revolutionary Russia, the official name of the laws approved on November 20, 1864: “Establishment of judicial institutions”, “Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace”, “Charter of criminal proceedings”, “Charter of civil proceedings”. Judicial statutes formalized the implementation of the judicial reform of 1864.

According to "Establishment of judicial institutions" (law on the judicial system), judicial power belonged to magistrates, congresses of magistrates, district courts, judicial chambers and the Senate (supreme court of cassation). Justices of the peace decided cases individually. They were located under the world district (county, city), divided into several sections. The magistrate district also consisted of honorary magistrate judges, who, together with the magistrate district judges of the given district, formed the highest authority - the congress of magistrate judges. The district court, established for several counties, included the chairman and members of the court.

The judicial chamber was established in a district that united several provinces or regions (according to a special schedule). It was divided into departments, which consisted of a chairman and members of the department. To manage the judicial part in the Senate, the cassation departments for criminal and civil cases were retained as the supreme court of cassation. Prosecutor's supervision was entrusted to chief prosecutors, prosecutors and their comrades and was carried out under the supervision of the Minister of Justice as Prosecutor General.

“Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace” was a code in which they were separated from “Code on criminal and correctional punishments” less serious crimes (misdemeanors) under the jurisdiction of magistrates.

The charter consisted of 13 chapters. Chapter 1 contained general provisions and a list of punishments for crimes provided for by statutes. Chapters 2 6 - 9 were devoted to petty crimes against the social and political order, offenses against the order of government, etc. Chapters 10 – 13 dealt with offenses against personal safety, against family honor, etc.

"Charter of Criminal Procedure" (Code of Criminal Procedure) determined the competence of judicial bodies to consider criminal cases, general provisions, the procedure for proceedings in settlements, the procedure for proceedings in general judicial places, and an exception from the general procedure for criminal proceedings.

According to the charter, the magistrate considered criminal cases within the limits of his competence, but the cases of some persons (for example, the clergy) were subject to the jurisdiction of other courts; Cases of those whose prosecution changed the composition of the criminal act or entailed increased punishment were excluded from the competence of the magistrate.

The main stages in the criminal process, according to the Charter, were: preliminary investigation, trial, preparatory orders for trial, consideration of the case, execution of the sentence. There were final verdicts (which were subject to review only in cassation, i.e. not on the merits, but only on the issue of their legality or illegality) and non-final (which allowed the possibility of reviewing the case on the merits, i.e. on appeal).

"Charter of Civil Proceedings" (Civil Procedure Code) distinguished between the proceedings of civil cases in magistrates' and judicial-administrative institutions (in the court of zemstvo chiefs and district congresses) and proceedings in general courts. In the Charter, which reflected the basic principles of bourgeois law, the principles of adversarial law were most consistently implemented; the parties had to provide evidence in it. The lowest authority was the district court, the appellate court was the judicial chamber. The hearing of the case took place in open court.

Judicial statutes introduced the jury and the institution of forensic investigators, the prosecutor's office was reorganized, the legal profession was established, and such bourgeois-democratic principles of legal proceedings as publicity, orality, and adversarialism were proclaimed. Some judicial bodies (magistrates' justice) became elected, and a clearer system of judicial instances was created.

Test work

On the history of the Russian state and law

Option #1.

Question for an essay-reasoning:

Exploring the features of Ancient Rus', determine what the nature of the social system was: tribal, feudal, slaveholding? Give reasons for your answer.

Completed:

Student 403 training group FZO

Kolesnikov Alexander Evgenievich

Home address: Kirov region,

Yaransk, st. Lagunovskaya, 26-34

Place of work and position:

security department FBU IZ-43/3

Checked:

Associate Professor of the Department of State and Legal Disciplines

Major of Internal Service Ph.D.

Perepinos Yulia Alekseevna

Test due date:

Vologda, 2010.

Introduction3

1. Essay-reasoning : 4

Exploring the features of Ancient Rus', determine what it was like

nature of the social system: tribal, feudal,

slave-owning? Give reasons for your answer.

2. Practical part. Problems.6

3. Comparison table. 9

Conclusion.22

Bibliographic list.24

Introduction

The history of state and law is both legal and historical science. She studies the general historical patterns of development of the state and law. The state, being an organization of public power, and law as a system of generally binding norms expressing the state will elevated to law, are two interconnected social phenomena.

Turning to the history of Rus' and Russia helps not only to see the present through the prism of the past, but also to answer eternal questions: who we are, where we came from, where we are going, in the name of what. Knowledge of the past helps to understand the present and explains the tasks of the future. A people familiar with their history lives consciously, is sensitive to the reality around them and knows how to understand it. Knowledge of national history is the path to national self-awareness.

To study the question posed and answer it more completely and objectively, I used the following IOGP methods:

historical method - studying the issue in chronological order, i.e. in the process of development;

comparative method - comparison of state and legal phenomena in Ancient Rus' and modern Russia.

This work reveals the stages of the political history of Ancient Rus', its social system. The application of law in specific situations is considered, on the basis of various legal documents in certain periods of development of Russian society. A comparative analysis of Russian constitutions from the beginning of 1918 to 1977 was carried out.

This work will be useful for students of secondary and higher educational institutions as an additional aid for performing independent work, preparing for seminars and tests.

Task No. 1.

Essay-reasoning:

Exploring the features of Ancient Rus', determine what the nature of the social system was: tribal, feudal, slaveholding? Give reasons for your answer.

Exploring the features of Ancient Rus', the processes occurring in Old Russian society, you begin to understand that the nature of the social system was complex and mixed. . Even from the period of Indo-European unity, the Slavs brought developed family relationships, single marriages and types of blood, paternal, kinship. The patriarchal Proto-Slavic family, populating the whole, constituted a community united by ties of consanguinity, otherwise known as clan. The community-clan bore a common name from its ancestor (ending in - ichi, -ovichi, -vtsy), owned property jointly and was governed by its elder (elder, ruler, ruler), who maintained peace and harmony in the community, sorted out misunderstandings among it and managed the labor of its members.

The clan communities of the Eastern Slavs were characterized by the absence of private property; all property was collective.

The emergence of the Old Russian state is associated with the decomposition of the primitive communal system, which the tribes of the Eastern Slavs experienced in the 6th century. Tribal and consanguineous relations are replaced by territorial, political and military ties.

As labor is divided and its productivity increases, the possibility of exploiting the labor of others arises. In the rural community, a process of social stratification begins, the separation of the elite, who grew rich through the exploitation of neighbors and the use of slave labor.

By the 8th century. 14 tribal unions were formed on the territory of the Slavic tribes. The union was headed by prince And princely squad.

The form of social relations of the Slavs in the 7th-8th centuries. performed military democracy . Its signs include:

Participation of all members of the tribal union in resolving the most important issues;

The special role of the people's assembly as the highest authority;

General arming of the population (people's militia). The ruling class consisted of the old tribal aristocracy- leaders, priests, elders - and rich members of the community.

Pursuing military-political goals, tribal unions united into even larger formations - "unions of unions" .

The Old Russian (Kievan) state in its form was early feudal monarchy . It existed until the middle of the 12th century. In the second half of the 11th - early 12th centuries. on its territory began to form principalities-semi-states: Kyiv, Chernigovskoe, Pereyaslavskoe.

The political system of the ancient Russian state combined both the institutions of the feudal formation and the primitive communal system. Later, under Yaroslav Vladimirovich (1019–1054), feudal features were further developed. The head of the state was the prince who ruled in Kyiv. He was the oldest of his kind Rurikovich, the princes of tribal unions had to submit to him. These, as a rule, were the sons and nephews of the Grand Duke.

As a result, we see that in the process of stratification of Slavic society into classes and the further development of social relations, the characteristic features of tribal relations are preserved. This includes the participation of all members of society in resolving important issues when “ military democracy", and the preservation of the institution of the clan with " early feudal monarchy" In both cases, the entrance to the ruling elite was, as in tribal relations, from the warriors who defended their settlement ( princely squad). And the head among them was the prince ( first among equals). With all this, the princes were not the owners of the lands, but managers, upon whose death or their replacement the princely squad was deprived of its privileges given by the former prince.

Task No. 2. Practical part.

Solve problems. The correct answer is considered to be a complete answer to the question with a mandatory link to the corresponding article, chapter, or part of this source.

Task No. 1

Use the text of the Long Edition of Russian Pravda.

On Beloozero, in the village of Vysokoye, boyar Nikifor was killed in a fight. The killers were not found. Who will be held accountable for the crime committed? What punishment will follow for this crime?

According to paragraph 3, 6 of Pr.RP. impose a double fine in the amount of 80 hryvnia on the village of Vysokoye on Beloozero for the murder of the prince's husband (boyar Nikifor) in litter or at a feast. According to paragraph 4 of Ex.RP. must pay in as many years as he can.

Extract from “Long Russian Pravda”:

p. 3. If someone kills the prince's husband in a fight, and they are not looking for the killer, then the viru - 80 hryvnia - is paid by the community in whose district the murdered person was raised. If an ordinary person is killed, the community pays 40 hryvnia.

paragraph 6. But for a murderer who has invested in the community’s virtual payments for others, the community pays according to the plan only when he committed the murder in a quarrel or was revealed at a feast.

p. 4. If any community begins to pay a wild (widespread) crime when there is no murderer, then let it pay it in as many years as it can.

Problem No. 2

Use the text of the Military Article of 1715.

A soldier of the Rostov regiment, Nikita Bobylev, appeared before a military court on charges of losing his uniform. At the trial, he testified that while drunk, he sold his uniform to the merchant’s son Alexei Antipin.

What decision should the court make?

According to Chapter 6, Art. 59 AB. subject the soldier of the Rostov regiment Nikita Bobylev to punishment with spitzrutens and payment of the cost of lost property.

The merchant's son Alexei Antipin will be required to return the uniform he illegally acquired, as well as pay a fine in the amount of triple the cost of the uniform, or, according to the invention of the person, he will be punished with spitzrutens.

Extract from the Military Article of 1715.

Chapter 6 article 59 . If anyone has his uniform, loses his gun, sells it, or gives it up as a pawn, he is first and suddenly cruelly shot, and is punished by paying for what was lost, and in the third, he will be shot. Likewise, the one who buys or accepts such things from a soldier, not only must return what he accepted or bought without money, but must also pay a fine three times what it is worth, or, at the discretion of the person, he will be punished with spitzrutens.

Interpretation. For weapons are the most important members and methods of a soldier, through which the enemy can be defeated. And whoever does not take care of his gun shows a bad sign of his soldiership, and has little desire to carry out his post properly in battle; For the sake of this, it is decent to eat and also cruelly punish the one who helps the soldier in this, for by doing so he makes the soldier unfit for the service of his sovereign.

Task No. 3

Use the judicial statutes of 1864.

In 1869, in the district town of N, retired titular councilor P. stole a bronze candlestick worth 15 rubles from the collegiate assessor Ch. In which court will the case be heard? What decision will the court make?

UDC 343.71 (470)(091):343.71(470)

THEFT IN MODERN RUSSIAN CRIMINAL LAW AND ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER OF PUNISHMENTS IMPOSED BY JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, 1864: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Irkutsk State University, Irkutsk

The work analyzes the objective and subjective signs of theft, fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement, their delimitation from related illegal acts under the Charter of 1864 and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Key words: theft, theft; fraud; appropriation and embezzlement; Statute for punishments imposed by justices of the peace, 1864

One of the features of the judicial reform of the 60-70s. XIX century was the fact that with a “radical” change in procedural legislation and the judicial system inextricably linked with it, criminal law actually did not undergo any serious changes. The criminal law of this period was characterized by some contemporaries as “thin”, “insolvent”. But even if we recognize the existing criminal and material legislation on crime and punishment on the eve of the reform as quite rational, then procedural legislation should still be subject to primary change and reform, as it is closer to the urgent aspirations of the Russian people.

However, criminal legislation was nevertheless reformed, albeit without fundamental changes, in the essence of the fundamental institutions of criminal law - crime and punishment. One of the most interesting innovations in criminal law was the Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, 1864. This legislative act was a criminal code, which contained regulations “on comparatively less important criminal acts subject to the jurisdiction of single judges.” It was published together with the judicial statutes on November 20, 1864 and represented a special part of them. How

N.P. Timofeev clarifies that if the Charter occupies an insignificant place in the general system of judicial statutes, it is only because “very few cassation decisions are given to explain it.” According to, for example, N.D. Sergeevsky, this charter represented a significant step forward compared to the Penal Code of 1845, since it had much clearer dispositions of the articles. However, opinions on the Charter of his contemporaries and today's researchers of legal history do not agree on everything. According to M.I. Sizikov, the Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace not only regulates material legal relations, not procedural ones, but also stands apart, not fitting into the harmonious and logically complete system of judicial statutes. The statute was subjected to fierce criticism by some contemporary jurists.

The need to create a statute on minor criminal offenses was predetermined by the ongoing uncertainty in the delimitation of crimes and criminal offenses during this period. In the first quarter of the 19th century. attempts to distinguish between crimes and misdemeanors at the official level are found in two normative documents - in the imperial rescript of June 5, 1811 and in the Decree of February 14, 1824. In the first document, all crimes were divided into three degrees according to the type and severity of punishment: for committing first degree crimes

the culprit was subjected to civil death or hard labor, the second - exile to Siberia for settlement or military service, the third - light corporal punishment with return to their previous place of residence or detention in restraints and workhouses. We find a similar kind of distinction in the mentioned Decree. In 1859, a special commission of the State Council was created, which proposed to highlight minor crimes and misdemeanors, the consideration of which would be carried out by judicial police or a shortened procedure. In the same year, the commission for preparing a draft for a new structure of provincial and district institutions under the Ministry of Internal Affairs decided to separate from the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments of 1845, as amended in 1857, articles providing for minor crimes and misdemeanors. As a result, the Code “lost” 652 articles. Subsequently, articles from other normative legal acts were added to them, and on the basis of 606 articles, preparation of the future code of offenses began. In 1862, a draft Charter was drawn up on penalties for offenses within the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, consisting of 206 articles, of which the first 27 articles were related to the general part, the remaining 179 to the special part.

On November 20, 1864, the Charter on the penalties imposed by justices of the peace was published, where Chapter 13 dealt with certain attacks on other people's property, including theft, fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement. A comparative analysis of these offenses and similar crimes provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will make it possible to establish their content and determine their role in the formation of criminal legislation on theft of other people's property.

In Art. 169-172 of department 3 of chapter 13 of the Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, 1864, the following provisions on theft are revealed: simple and qualified elements of theft, issues of sentencing in the presence of mitigating circumstances and in the case of an unfinished act.

The simple composition is enshrined in Art. 169 of the Charter - for theft of an item worth no more than 300 rubles, the perpetrators are imprisoned for a period of 3 to 6 months.

Thus, in contrast to the currently existing concept of theft, given in Part 1 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996, there is no such feature as secrecy. This is due to the fact that the legislator, limiting himself only to indicating the concept of theft, is guided by the concept that is disclosed in Art. 1644 of the Code on Criminal and Correctional Punishments of 1845 (as amended in 1866), where theft is understood as any theft, in any way, but secretly, without violence, threats and generally without circumstances related to robbery or robbery other people's things, money or other movable property.

Installing in art. 169 of the Charter of 1864, only the amount of damage (the cost of the item of theft), which cannot exceed 300 rubles, the legislator identifies the elements of theft with a lesser degree of public danger than under the Code of 1845, and refers this unlawful act to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace.

In order for the court to properly resolve the case, when determining the amount of damage, the value of the stolen items must be determined and reflected in the verdict, since this circumstance may affect the amount of punishment.

When analyzing the signs of theft, one must be guided by Art. 17 of the Charter of 1864, which determines the moment of the end of the offense in question - someone else’s thing must pass into the possession of the thief or must be considered to have passed into his possession, and it does not matter whether the thief managed to receive benefit or other benefit from this thing. Thus, similar to the legislation of that time, the moment of the end of the theft is associated with the emergence of the opportunity for the guilty person to use or dispose of someone else’s property.

The Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, explained by the decisions of the criminal cassation department of the Governing Senate for 1866-1871, lists the acts that fall under the signs of theft and, at the same time, makes an attempt to distinguish them from related crimes and misdemeanors. In particular, liability is provided under Art. 169 of the Charter for stealing someone else’s livestock and slaughtering it for the purpose of using the meat, appropriating a lost item by a witness

losses if the owner of the item is known. These clarifications are significant because they determine that the subject of theft can only be someone else’s property.

It is also indicated that theft of documents, including theft of a savings bank book, does not fall under the unlawful act in question. This is contrary to the current criminal legislation, where the secret theft of bearer securities entails criminal liability under Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Qualified offenses of theft are enshrined in Art. 170 of the Charter in question, for committing them a sanction is provided in the form of imprisonment for a term of up to one year: 1) when the theft is committed in a church, chapel or other house of worship (but not church property and without insulting a shrine), or in a cemetery, or from a dead person , but without digging up graves; 2) when the theft is committed at night; 3) when, in order to commit the theft, the perpetrators climbed through a window, climbed over a wall, fence or other fence, or entered the house under a fictitious pretext; 4) when something necessary for the food of the person to whom it belonged was stolen, and the perpetrator knew about it; 5) when the theft was committed by agreement of several persons, but without forming a special gang; 6) when the theft is committed in public places or in crowded gatherings; 7) when the theft is committed by servants, workers, apprentices or other persons living with the one whose property is stolen (however, without agreement and community with other people appointed for this); 7) when the theft is committed by a person who has once been convicted of theft or fraud.

Thus, only two of the eight listed qualified circumstances are enshrined in current criminal legislation. Thus, the elements of the offense provided for in paragraph 3 of Art. 170 of the Charter on criminal penalties imposed by justices of the peace, 1864, is similar to paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “theft committed with illegal entry into a premises or other storage facility” and paragraph “a”, part 3 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “theft committed with illegal entry into a home.”

The Charter also stipulates that entering a house under pretext (deception) and

subsequent commission of theft entails criminal liability under Art. 170 of the Charter. It is expressly provided here that the use of deception to enter someone else's residential premises in order to take possession of someone else's property is not fraud, since deception in this case is not a method of seizing property, but only facilitates access to this property. Currently, this circumstance is not reflected in the text of the criminal law, therefore, in law enforcement practice, errors arise with the qualification of theft committed by entering someone else's residential premises by deception, despite the presence of a corresponding explanation in the official interpretation acts.

In addition, modern Russian criminal legislation has preserved another qualified element of theft - theft committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy. A gang was a form of complicity in which the perpetrators had a preliminary conspiracy to commit several illegal acts. Thus, in its criminal legal meaning, a gang is closer to an organized group.

Consequently, the reference in the Charter of 1864 to the absence of a “special gang” implies that criminal liability under Art. 170 occurs for persons who have previously agreed to commit only one theft.

In Art. 171 of the Charter of 1864 sets out the circumstances in the presence of which the punishment for theft established by Art. 169, 170 of the Charter, can be reduced by half, that is, to the lower limit of one and a half months of imprisonment. Such circumstances include: voluntary return of stolen property to the owner, theft committed “out of extremes” and in the absence of work and means of subsistence, and if the value of the stolen property does not exceed 50 kopecks. .

The explanations to the Charter indicate that the presence of one of the mentioned circumstances does not entail an unconditional reduction of the punishment; its application is at the discretion of the court.

From the point of view of modern criminal law doctrine, committing theft out of “extreme” and in the absence of work and means of subsistence and voluntary

the return of stolen property to the owner is close in content to those enshrined in Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to circumstances mitigating punishment: committing a crime due to difficult life circumstances (clause “b”, part 1, article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and voluntary compensation for property damage to the victim (clause “k”, part 1, article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) ) respectively.

The greatest interest for comparing the elements of theft under the Charter of 1864 and the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is the following circumstance - the value of the stolen property does not exceed 50 kopecks. (causing damage in an amount not exceeding 50 kopecks).

Modern legislation does not provide for criminal liability for petty theft, when committed with specific intent, property damage in the amount of no more than 1 thousand rubles is caused to the owner or other legal owner of the property, i.e., due to its insignificance, it does not pose a public danger.

It follows from the Charter of 1864 that there is no minimum amount of property damage that can be caused when committing theft. Thus, theft of property worth no more than 50 kopecks. does not exclude liability due to the insignificance of the act and, by its nature, is a mitigating circumstance that allows the court to reduce the punishment for the committed act by half.

In Art. 172 of the Charter of 1864 provides for a rule granting the court the right to reduce the punishment of imprisonment by half for attempted simple or qualified theft. Consequently, these provisions are similar in nature to the features of sentencing for an unfinished crime, enshrined in Art. 66 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The next form of theft under the Charter of 1864 is fraud, liability for which is provided for in Art. 173-176 of department 4 of chapter 13. So, in accordance with Art. 173 of the Charter of 1864 for taking measurements and weighing when selling, buying or exchanging goods or other things, as well as for other deceptions in the quantity and quality of goods, in calculations for payments, when exchanging money, when the amount of damage does not exceed 300 rubles, the offender is liable to imprisonment for a period of 1 to 3 months. In addition, liability for fraudulent

st. is provided for in Art. 174 of the Charter of 1864, where a similar sanction is applied for substitution of things entrusted to the offender for storage, transportation, carrying or delivery, deception of money or things through the communication of false news or under the guise of profitable enterprises, imaginary expenses for some business, charitable donations or in any other fraudulent manner, receipt of payment of a debt with failure to return a loan letter, bill, receipt or invoice signed by the buyer with the intention of reclaiming what was paid, failure to return the mortgage provided to secure the loan when paying the debt, leasing or temporary use of someone else's movable property in order to receive what is due hiring money or obtaining other illegal benefits.

According to the Explanations to the Charter of 1864, the offenses provided for in Art. 173 of the Charter of 1864, also include deception when selling a worthless horse, selling drunk tea under the guise of real tea, concealing funds received as a deposit and denying their receipt, selling drinks from unbranded dishes, etc.

Thus, in comparison with the current version of Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in these articles there is no concept of fraud; The legislator limited himself to only listing acts that, by their nature, in one way or another fall under the offense under consideration.

The given version of Art. 173 and 174 of the Charter of 1864 indicates an attempt by the legislator to determine the jurisdiction of magistrates in cases of fraud and to distinguish these acts from other offenses.

The absence of a unified concept of fraud, on the contrary, creates difficulties in the process of qualifying crimes. Not all of the acts described contain an indication of the method inherent in fraud - deception. This approach of the legislator does not sufficiently reveal the essence of fraud and makes it difficult to understand the mechanism of taking over someone else’s property.

In paragraph 7 of the Explanations to Art. 173 of the Charter of 1864 provides a definition of deception, which is understood as the seller’s silence about undetected defects of the product (passive deception), the seller’s communication of information about the presence of quality of the product, which

absent in reality (active deception), the seller commits actions aimed at hiding the defects of the product from the buyer (active deception in actions). Thus, it is necessary to note the uniqueness of the given concept of deception, since in its content it corresponds to the concept that was formed by modern judicial practice. Over the course of a century and a half, only the formulation of the method of fraud under consideration has changed, but the substantive component has not undergone any serious changes.

The concept of deception under the Charter of 1864 cannot be considered in isolation from paragraph 11 of the Explanations to Art. 174 of the Charter, which states that the seizure of someone else’s property is carried out precisely by deception, that is, when the owner transfers the property to the culprit, believing that the latter has any right to this property, or hoping that such a transfer will be beneficial for him. Thus, the fact of transfer of property by the owner is due to the influence of misconception that has arisen as a result of the influence of the culprit on the owner by reporting false information, keeping silent about certain information or committing active deceptive actions. A similar approach has developed in modern judicial practice, which makes it possible to distinguish fraud from related crimes, in the process of committing which deception is also used.

However, not every deception by its nature can be considered as a sign of the objective side of fraud provided for by the Charter of 1864. From the content of the Explanations to Art. 173 and 174 of the Charter of 1864 it follows that punishment is subject to imposition only on such a person whose intent to commit fraud arose before the transfer of property by the legal owner. The presence of the guilty person's intention to seize someone else's property by deception is evidenced, for example, by the commission of preparatory secret actions by the seller, which would give the product imaginary qualities or advantages, or hide existing shortcomings, the failure of the creditor to return the loan obligation to the debtor, when the intention to reclaim the debt is established, expressed in another presentation of a debt obligation for collection, etc.

Nothing is mentioned in the text of the Charter of 1864 about the second method inherent in the modern composition of fraud - abuse of trust. Nevertheless, the taking of property entrusted for a certain use is recognized as fraud, when the guilty person, for selfish purposes, taking advantage of a trusting relationship, receives someone else’s property and turns it to his own benefit.

Thus, based on the analysis of the text of the Charter of 1864, the rules on fraud, although they do not contain its specific concept, but, according to the Explanations to the Charter, in law enforcement practice, objective and subjective methods of deception were identified, which served as criteria for distinguishing fraud from related offenses, crimes and violations of civil law. Considering the fact that the modern concept of deception has largely adopted these features, from the point of view of historical value, the publication of the Charter of 1864 and the Explanations to the Charter of 1864 made a significant contribution to the development of domestic legislation on criminal liability for fraud.

To the qualifying circumstances, in the presence of which Art. 175 of the Charter of 1864 provides for punishment in the form of imprisonment for a term of up to six months for committing acts enshrined in Art. 173 and 174 of the Charter of 1864, include: the guilty person was previously convicted of theft or fraud (clause 1); committing an act by agreement of several persons (clause 2); special preparation for deception (clause 3); the guilty person has special trust due to his knowledge, place or other relationship to the deception (clause 4); the victim of fraud is a minor, elderly, blind or deaf-mute (clause 5); use of superstitious rituals (clause 6); impersonation by a guilty person of himself as an attorney or servant, assignment of a false name (clause 7).

The rules on fraud under the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation retain two qualifying criteria: the commission of an act by agreement of several persons (the commission of a crime by a group of persons by prior conspiracy) and the presence of special trust in the guilty person due to his rank, place or other relationship to deception (use of official position ).

Fraud by agreement of several persons (by a group of persons by prior conspiracy) occurs if at least two persons who can be held criminally liable jointly carry out actions (inactions) that they agreed upon before the commencement of the criminal offense.

Fraud committed by a person who has special trust due to his rank, place or other relationship to deception (using his official position) is characterized by the fact that a certain status of the perpetrator strengthens the trust of other persons, as a result of which it is easier for him to take possession of other people’s property through deception.

However, in comparison with modern criminal law, the Charter of 1864 does not explain under what circumstances a person will be held criminally liable: for fraud committed specifically by the use of rank, place or other relationship to the deception, or when the culprit, having the specified status, commits an act provided for in Art. 175 of the Charter of 1864, including without using his position. But given that in order to impute fraud, it is necessary to establish intent to seize someone else’s property, which is manifested in the commission of certain preparatory actions, then in the case under consideration these actions (inaction) must arise from the position of the guilty person.

In addition, the criteria for finding a person guilty of committing fraud under paragraph 7 of Art. 175 of the Charter of 1864. In particular, there is no list of titles and places in relation to persons who can be recognized as subjects of the offense in question, and the use of such a feature as another special attitude to deception is completely left to the discretion of the court.

In Art. 176 of the Charter of 1864, the court was given the right to reduce the punishment to half for acts provided for in Art. 174-175 of the Charter of 1864, in the presence of circumstances provided for in Art. 171 of the Charter of 1864, considered in relation to the elements of theft.

The rules providing for criminal liability for misappropriation and embezzlement are also provided for in the Charter of 1864 and the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

In Art. 177 of the Charter of 1864 establishes two elements of the offense in question. Thus, for the misappropriation or embezzlement of someone else's movable property entrusted for storage, transportation, transportation or specific use, when the damage does not exceed 300 rubles, the guilty person is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 3 months to 1 year.

If the embezzlement was committed carelessly, and the guilty person voluntarily undertakes to make amends for the damage caused to the victim, then he is subject to arrest for a period of not more than 3 months.

Embezzlement committed through negligence (frivolity), from the point of view of modern criminal law science, does not apply to theft, since theft is an intentional crime and provides for a selfish goal as a mandatory feature.

Therefore, the greatest interest is in appropriation or embezzlement, which is characterized by an intentional form of guilt.

To recognize unlawful taking by misappropriation or embezzlement, it is necessary that the property is in the possession of the guilty person legally for the exercise of established powers: preservation, transportation, carrying or certain use of movable property.

When distinguishing misappropriation or embezzlement from theft or fraud, it is necessary to take into account that the property was entrusted to the culprit, and not transferred under the influence of deception or seized by him personally. In addition, at the time of transfer of the entrusted property, the guilty person must have no intent to seize it.

Appropriation should be understood as denial of receipt of property, or a statement that this property has already been returned, transferred to other persons or used for its intended purpose.

The concept of embezzlement is not explained, but there is an indication that the embezzlement of property entrusted for safekeeping is not theft.

Thus, unlike the current criminal legislation, the Charter of 1864 does not provide a clear distinction between misappropriation and embezzlement. Moreover, the assumption of the use of a thing, which can be expressed in its consumption,

spending or transferring to other persons generally confuses the acts in question, since these signs characterize waste, not misappropriation.

But it is still worth noting that in modern criminal law the circumstances when property is considered entrusted, as well as the criteria for distinguishing embezzlement or embezzlement from fraud, are considered in exactly the same way as under the Charter of 1864.

To summarize the above, one cannot fail to recognize the significance of the Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, 1864, in the development of Russian criminal legislation on crimes against property. Many objective and subjective features of the considered offenses have not undergone any changes over a century and a half and are reflected in the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the form in which they were enshrined in the text of the Charter of 1864 and were developed in the judicial practice of the second half XIX century AND

1. On the development of criminal legislation in Russia, see: Naumov A.V. Crime and punishment in the history of Russia. At 2 o'clock. M., 2014; Georgievsky E.V. Formation and development of ancient Russian criminal legislation. M., 2013; It's him. System and types of crimes in the criminal law of Ancient Rus'. M., 2013; Georgievsky E.V., Kravtsov R.V. Objective elements and signs of a crime in the criminal law of Ancient Rus' // Sibirsk. legal Vestn. 2013. No. 1. P. 60-64; They are. Subjective elements and signs of a crime in the criminal law of Ancient Rus' // Sib. legal Vestn. 2013. No. 2. P. 64-68; They are. The system of penalties in the criminal law of the ancient Russian state // Sibirsk. legal Vestn. 2014. No. 3. P. 73-78; Rozhnov A. A. History of criminal law of the Moscow state (XIV-XVII centuries). M., 2012.

2. Korotkikh M. G. Autocracy and judicial reform of 1864 in Russia. Voronezh, 1989. pp. 2-3.

3. Poznyshev S.V. Basic principles of the science of criminal law. General part of criminal law. M., 1912. P. 186.

4. The statute on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, explained by the decisions of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Government Senate for 1866-1871. St. Petersburg, 1872. P. 4.

5. Sergeevsky N.D. Russian criminal law: a manual for lectures. Part General. St. Petersburg, 1890. P. 84.

6. See: Judicial reform. T. 8 // Russian legislation of the 10th-20th centuries. In 9 vols. M., 1991. P. 386.

7. Ibid. P. 387.

8. Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, 1864. St. Petersburg, 1867. P. 69.

9. Code on criminal and correctional punishments of 1845 (as amended in 1866). St. Petersburg, 1873. P. 476.

10. Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, explained by decisions of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Government Senate for 1866-1871. St. Petersburg, 1872. P. 128.

11. Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, 1864. St. Petersburg, 1867. P. 21.

12. The statute on penalties imposed by justices of the peace, explained by decisions of the Criminal Cassation Department

Tamenta of the Governing Senate for 1866-1871. P. 127.

13. Ibid. P. 128.

14. Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, 1864. P. 74.

15. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: federal. Law of June 13, 1996 No. 63-FZ // Collection. legislation of the Russian Federation. 1996. No. 25. Art. 2954.

16. Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, 1864. P. 75.

17. Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, explained by decisions of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Government Senate for 1866-1871. P. 132.

18. Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, 1864. P. 75.

19. Ibid. From 76.

20. The statute on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, explained by the decisions of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Government Senate for 1866-1871. P. 134.

21. Ibid. P. 135.

22. Ibid. P. 137.

23. Ibid. P. 143.

24. Ibid. P. 137.

25. Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, 1864. P. 78.

26. Ibid. P. 79.

27. Ibid. P. 80.

28. The statute on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, explained by the decisions of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Government Senate for the years 1866-1871. P. 148.

29. Ibid. P. 147.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: federal. Law of June 13, 1996 No. 63-FZ // Collection. legislation of the Russian Federation. -1996. - No. 25. - Art. 2954.

On judicial practice in cases of fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement: resolution of the Verkhov Plenum. Courts of the Russian Federation dated December 27. 2007 No. 51 // ConsultantPlus [Electronic resource]: legal reference system.

Code on criminal and correctional punishments of 1845 (as amended in 1866). - St. Petersburg. : [b. i.], 1873. -549 p.

Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, 1864. - St. Petersburg. : [b. i.], 1867. - 208 p.

Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, explained by decisions of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Governing Senate for 1866-1871. - St. Petersburg. : [b. i.], 1872. - 160 p.

Boytsov A.I. Crimes against property / A.I. Boytsov. - St. Petersburg. : Legal. Center Press, 2002. -775 p.

Georgievsky E.V. System and types of crimes in the criminal law of Ancient Rus' / E.V. Georgievsky. - M.: Yurlitinform, 2013. - 232 p.

Georgievsky E.V. Formation and development of ancient Russian criminal legislation / E.V. Georgievsky. - M.: Yurlitinform, 2013. -320 p.

Georgievsky E.V. Objective elements and signs of a crime in the criminal law of Ancient Rus' / E.V. Georgievsky, R.V. Kravtsov // Sibirsk. legal Vestn. - 2013. - No. 1. - P. 60-64.

Georgievsky E.V. System of penalties in the criminal law of the ancient Russian state / E.V. Georgievsky, R.V. Kravtsov // Sib. legal Vestn. - 2014. - No. 3. - P. 73-78.

Georgievsky E.V. Subjective elements and signs of a crime in the criminal law of Ancient Rus' / E.V. Georgievsky, R.V. Kravtsov // Sibirsk. legal Vestn. - 2013. - No. 2. - P. 64-68.

Zhuravlev M. Current issues of judicial practice in criminal cases of fraud / M. Zhuravlev, E. Zhuravleva // Criminal law. -2008. - No. 3. - P. 36-43.

Korotkikh M. G. Autocracy and judicial reform of 1864 in Russia / M. G. Korotkikh. -Voronezh: Voronezh Publishing House. University, 1989. - 185 p.

Lopashenko N. A. Crimes in the economic sphere / N. A. Lopashenko. - M.: Wolters Kluwer, 2006. - 673 p.

Lunin N. N. Fraud under the criminal legislation of Russia: criminal legal characteristics and qualifications: abstract. ...dis. Ph.D. legal Sciences: 12.00.09 / N. N. Lunin. - M., 2006. - 22 p.

Naumov A.V. Crime and punishment in the history of Russia. At 2 hours / A. V. Naumov. - M.: Yurlitinform, 2014. - 752 p.

Poznyshev S.V. Basic principles of the science of criminal law. General part of criminal law / S. V. Poznyshev. - M.: [b. i.], 1912. - 668 p.

Rozhnov A. A. History of criminal law of the Moscow state (XIV-XVII centuries) / A. A. Rozhnov. - M.: Yurlitinform, 2012. - 512 p.

Sergeevsky N.D. Russian criminal law: a manual for lectures. Part General / N. D. Sergeevsky. - St. Petersburg. : [b. i.], 1890. - 385 p.

Sklyarov S.V. The concept of theft in the criminal legislation of Russia: theoretical analysis // State and law. - 1997. - No. 9. - P. 78-83.

Judicial reform. T. 8 // Russian legislation of the 10th-20th centuries. In 9 volumes - M.: Legal. lit., 1991. - 754 p.

Filanenko A. Yu. Issues of qualification and differentiation of fraud, embezzlement and some crimes with coinciding characteristics // Law and State. - 2008. - No. 12. - P. 119-122.

Stealings in Modern Russian Criminal Law and the Charter of the Penalties Imposed by Magistrates of 1864: Comparative Analysis

The article analyzes the objective and subjective signs of theft, windling, misappropriation or embezzlement, their demarcation from the adjacent illegal acts under the Charter of 1864 and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Key words: stealing; theft; windling; misappropriation or embezzlement; Charter of the penalties imposed by magistrates of 1864.