Theft from oil and gas pipelines is a criminal offense

Fuel theft - article of the Criminal Code

Theft of someone else's property from a gas or oil pipeline is punishable in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Energy sources are an important resource. As a rule, raw materials are stolen for several purposes, namely:

• subsequent benefit;
• personal use;
• resumption of resource supply in case of outage.

Depending on the volume and consequences of the theft of energy resources, administrative or criminal liability may be provided as punishment.

It happens that one crime can accidentally lead to another. For example, other people may suffer due to an illegal connection to a gas pipeline. The fact is that the illegal use of gas transportation communications is not recorded in any way on the maps of various public utilities. Workers may stumble upon an unknown crash. For example, when carrying out maintenance work or other types of excavations in a place where there is an illegal connection.

Such connections are not reliable. This significantly increases the risk when working in such areas. Both the owner of the site and employees of services carrying out certain activities can suffer from an explosion. In case of death caused by negligence, the case will be considered under Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - unintentional actions resulting in the death of a person. They are punishable by imprisonment for up to 5 years.

Theft of gas from a gas pipeline

Most often, such theft takes the form of illegal connection to a resource source, for example, to gas pipelines, without prior permission and approval from the organization providing supplies to the given territory.

Most often, illegal connections occur from individuals who have large debts to pay for used gas. Due to the fact that they were deprived of the source of the resource, they decide to smuggle it into their home without permission, instead of solving the problem with the supplier by paying off the debt.

Note! Due to the size of the fines provided for illegal connection to a gas pipeline, it will cost many times more than formalizing an agreement between a citizen and a gas transportation organization.

In addition to administrative or criminal proceedings, the violator will be forced to pay for the use of gas. As a rule, payments are calculated in accordance with the capacity of the connected equipment and taking into account its round-the-clock operation. The period is determined from the date of the last inspection. If it cannot be established, then a period of six months is taken.

Using a standard gas stove will cost the criminal at least 35 thousand, a gas water heater 45 thousand, and a heating boiler 50 thousand rubles. The unauthorized connection is dismantled.

Diesel fuel theft

There are frequent situations in which diesel fuel is stolen by transport workers. Such actions are carried out for the purpose of personal use or enrichment through its subsequent sale. In practice, fuel theft occurs among drivers engaged in intercity or international flights, or from railway trains as drivers.

Quite often there is a preliminary conspiracy. A group of people organizes and steals the property of an enterprise, thus causing serious damage to it. Sometimes the scale of thefts can be enormous, and production managers or the managers themselves are involved in the crime.

On the issue of determining the end of the theft from an oil pipeline

Correct link to the article:

Lopatin D.A.
— On the issue of determining the moment of completion of theft from an oil pipeline // Legal studies. - 2022. - No. 9. - P. 10 - 16. DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2019.9.29593 URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=29593 Lopatin Dmitry Aleksandrovich
senior lecturer, department of special training, East Siberian Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation

664074, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, st. Lermontova, 110, off. 108

Lopatin Dmitry Aleksandrovich

senior researcher of the Department of Special Training at East-Siberian Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation

664074, Russia, Irkutskaya oblast', g. Irkutsk, ul. Lermontova, 110, of. 108

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7136.2019.9.29593

Date the article was sent to the editor:

23-04-2019

Publication date:

25-09-2019

Annotation:

As an object of research, the author examines the issues of criminal liability and qualification of crimes related to illegal tapping into oil pipelines and oil product pipelines.
As a problem for study, the provisions of criminal legislation relating these acts to completed or unfinished crimes are raised. Particular attention is paid to the results of investigative and judicial qualification of thefts in various circumstances of criminal activity, including when individuals do not have the opportunity to fully realize their intent. The methodological basis of the research is such general scientific and special scientific methods as analysis, induction, deduction, comparative, formal logical and formal legal. Based on an analysis of current legislation, judicial enforcement, modern statistical data and the points of view of other researchers, the reasons are reflected that complicate the action on violators of criminal law and the application of preventive measures within the framework of the problem. The main results of the study allow us to identify significant contradictions in the application of different measures of criminal liability for the same illegal actions committed under identical circumstances. Options for resolving the issue of qualifying these acts by analogy with other formal crimes regulated by more modern regulatory legal acts are proposed. Key words:
theft, oil, tie-in, oil pipeline, corpus delicti, criminal oil business, oil transportation, oil product pipeline, qualification of crime, suspended sentence

Abstract:

The matter under research is the criminal responsibility and classification of crime resulting from illegal tie-in with oil or oil products pipelines. The main issue covered by the author is the provisions of criminal law that relate these actions to complete or incomplete delicti. Lopatin focuses on the results of investigatory and judicial classification of crimes under different circumstances of criminal activity commitment including when an individual does not manage to accomplish his or her intent. The methodological procedures include general and special research methods such as analysis, induction, deduction, comparison, formal law and formal logic methods. Based on the analysis of applicable legislation, judicial law enforcement practice, statistical data and points of view of other researchers, the author of the article examines what complicates the effect of criminal law provisions on volators and implementation of preventive measures. The results of the research demonstrate significant contradictions in provisions that regulate criminal responsibility measures for similar violations committed under identical circumstances. Lopatin also suggests solutions regarding how to classify these actions compared to others, formal delicti that are regulated by most recent legal acts.

Keywords:

oil transportation, criminal oil business, delicti, oil pipeline, tie-in, oil, theft, oil products pipeline, qualification of a crime, conditional punishment Theft of other people's property throughout the history of mankind has been the most common crime in the global crime structure. Modern statistics indicate that theft occupies a dominant share in the Russian crime structure. In fact, every second recorded crime is theft. Thefts of oil and petroleum products constitute a small part of the total thefts, however, the amount of damage caused to property relations of both public and private organizations is colossal [1, p. 51]. Environmental damage is also significant, which is an inevitable consequence of such thefts (every tenth oil theft is accompanied by an uncontrolled spill into soil or water bodies) [2, p. 12]. In addition, a large proportion of thefts remain unreported due to the predominance of the economic interests of the owners over law enforcement ones.

From a regulatory point of view, the main factors that for some time restrained crime in the field of theft of oil and petroleum products were the sanctions provided for in Art. 158 of the Criminal Code “Theft” and the provisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 2002. No. 29 “On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and robbery.”

Since 2007, in order to stabilize the situation in the field of unauthorized connections to oil pipelines, two new norms have come into force in the Criminal Code. In Part 3 of Art. 158, an independent qualifying feature appeared under the letter “b” - “Theft committed from an oil pipeline, oil product pipeline or gas pipeline.” This edition was intended to significantly improve the law enforcement situation in the field of qualification of these crimes, promote the inevitability of punishment and, as a result, have a positive impact on criminal statistics and a visible preventive effect.

However, over the past 10 years, according to various analytical studies, the situation has not changed significantly in a positive direction. With the improvement of legislation, we must not forget that not only the knowledge and skills of organized and group crime are developing, but also their technical side. In addition, the high latency of crimes that constitute organized crime does not allow us to fully assess its condition and structure [3, p. 58]. In addition to Russia, in recent years this problem has become relevant for many pipeline transport operators in European countries. The trend of increasing reports of cases and attempts of theft has been observed since 2011, and concerns, among other things, those countries in which this problem did not previously exist [4, p. 114].

In our opinion, existing measures of criminal legal influence on the criminal oil business are already ineffective and require improvement. Cases of people convicted of criminal activity being sentenced to actual prison terms remain rare. The majority of those accused of stealing oil and petroleum products from pipelines are subject to suspended sentences or fines.

During the study of this problem, court sentences in the Irkutsk, Omsk, Tyumen, Novosibirsk regions, Khabarovsk and Krasnoyarsk territories for the period from 2014 to 2018 were analyzed. As a result of their study, it was found that 85% of the accused receive suspended sentences of imprisonment and monetary fines. Currently, judicial practice is such that a suspended sentence is prescribed not only for theft from an oil pipeline in its pure form, but also for the same acts with more stringent qualifying criteria, such as those committed by an organized group, or on an especially large scale. Those rare cases when the decisions of judges impose punishments associated with imprisonment are thefts committed as part of organized criminal communities or a number of acts counted by the court in aggregate in accordance with Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Too lenient punishments for this type of attack cause numerous discussions in the scientific community, law enforcement agencies and in the representative offices of large interested companies. The Vice President of Transneft PJSC, at a meeting of the expert council on security issues based on the results of 2016, in his speech noted the urgent need to make changes to the legislation that would tighten liability for illegal tapping into oil and petroleum product pipelines [5].

In our opinion, one of the main problems of applying punishment to detainees for criminal oil injections is not the insufficiency of sanctions in the articles of the Criminal Code. An important issue is related to the practical application of its norms. Thus, paragraph 6 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 2002 N 29 “On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and robbery” provides a definition of theft, according to which it will be considered a completed crime, provided that the property is confiscated and the culprit has a real opportunity to use it or dispose of it at his own discretion (for example, to use stolen property in his own favor or in favor of other persons, to dispose of it for personal gain in another way) [6]. In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Attempted crime is the intentional actions (inaction) of a person directly aimed at committing a crime, if the crime was not completed due to circumstances beyond the control of this person” [7].

It is in conjunction with Part 3 of Art. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the vast majority of investigative authorities initiate criminal cases on the basis of unauthorized tappings, which subsequently leads to a more lenient criminal punishment. For example, for the qualification of an attempted crime, it will not matter if the person was detained at the time of tapping into the oil pipeline, or after the tapping itself, connecting the outlet to the tanker and its complete filling. On the one hand, in the second case, all the signs of a crime are evident. However, in accordance with the explanations of the above Resolution, this act will not be considered completed, even if the criminal leaves the scene in a car with stolen oil and is detained by police officers, since he did not complete his criminal intent, in particular, he could not realize the opportunity to dispose of the oil seized for one’s own benefit.

One cannot but agree with the opinion that the most difficult thing for law enforcement agencies is the qualification of the crime itself, since the stage at which it was detected is important [8, p. 7]. At the trial stage, responsibility is imposed on the suspect depending on whether there was an attempted crime or a completed act. One of the grounds reducing criminal liability for an unfinished crime is the law providing for a reduced degree of its public danger. This is explained by the fact that in an attempt, the criminal result established by criminal law as a mandatory element of the crime is excluded.

The array of criminal cases that contains the qualification of theft as a completed crime includes mandatory confessions of detainees, materials about the amount of stolen goods, routes of departure from the crime scene, places of drainage and storage, as well as intentions to sell fuel. However, it is quite difficult to secure such information in the materials of criminal cases using investigative and operational investigative means. As a rule, suspects are detained at the scene of a crime by departmental oil pipeline security officers, police or the FSB. Even during the most carefully prepared operational activities using modern technical means, violators are detained at the time of pumping oil, or at the time of leaving the crime scene [1, p. 20]. This situation directly affects the application of Art. 66 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which reduces the term and amount of punishment for attempted crime by at least three quarters. Thus, in all cases of qualification of crimes under Part 3 of Art. 30 and paragraph “b”, part 3, art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the maximum possible punishment will be no more than 4.5 years of imprisonment instead of the six provided for a completed crime.

These circumstances place law enforcement agencies in strict limits - initiation of a criminal case without reference to Part 3 of Art. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is possible only in two cases:

- when a person fully admits guilt and testifies about the places where the stolen goods are stored (if he is detained for a previously committed crime);

- when, during the preliminary investigation, all the circumstances of the crime have been established by operational and investigative means, incl. transportation routes for stolen goods, as well as places of storage and sale.

It is these situations that are characterized by the completeness of the picture of crimes in which suspects have the opportunity not only to move stolen fuel to temporary storage facilities, to the territory of an illegal oil refinery, transport to other places, but also transfer it to third parties, or perform other actions at their own discretion [9, With. 18]. However, neither the first nor the second case described relates to the exposure of criminals after committing theft, directly at the crime scene, and therefore, initially predisposes to a more lenient qualification. Moreover, in the practical activities of operational units, there are increasingly cases where detention occurs before the moment of direct entry into the pipeline. Law enforcement agencies and interested organizations thus eliminate the possibility of an uncontrolled spill of oil and petroleum products, since such emergencies are increasingly receiving attention from regulatory authorities and the public.

We believe that this situation in the field of qualification of thefts has developed as a result of the lack of an integrated approach by the legislator to the problems of suppressing and preventing thefts from oil pipelines. The above clarifications of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court were published in 2002 and, in the part relating to our problem, have not been edited or supplemented to date. An additional feature qualifying theft from an oil pipeline was introduced 4 years after the clarification of the Plenum Resolution. Thus, it is obvious that the specified normative act of the highest judicial body provided clarifications in the field of application of legislation on criminal liability for various types of thefts without taking into account practical issues related to the qualification of thefts from oil pipelines.

Today, there is a need to make changes to the criminal legislation in this area. In our opinion, the moment of completion of the theft from an oil pipeline, oil product pipeline or gas pipeline should not be associated with the moment when the stolen property was transported or pumped into a temporary tank, or transferred to third parties. It is precisely such actions that are covered by the concept of “having a real opportunity to use or dispose of property at one’s discretion.” It should be sufficient to establish the fact that oil or its refined products were removed from the pipeline and moved within the crime scene to another container (usually a tanker truck). In addition, under such circumstances, the subject of the crime already goes beyond the actual right of use of the companies that own hydrocarbon fuel.

For comparison, let us cite as an example the newer Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which provides clarifications on cases of bribery and other corruption crimes. According to one of its provisions, “Receiving and giving a bribe is considered completed from the moment the official accepts at least part of the values ​​transferred to him. In this case, it does not matter whether the specified person received a real opportunity to use or dispose of the values ​​transferred to him at his own discretion” [10]. In this case, the Supreme Court pays the main attention to the intent of the perpetrator. In accordance with the explanations, even if the bribe-giver or intermediary wanted to transfer, and another person wanted to receive, as a bribe, funds in a significant, large or especially large amount, but the illegal reward actually accepted did not amount to the specified amount, the act is proposed to be qualified as a completed dacha or receiving a bribe, respectively, in a significant, large or especially large amount.

Drawing a parallel with this crime, the theft from the pipeline should be considered completed at the moment of unauthorized removal of at least part of the oil product from his body. In this case, the qualification in terms of the amount of damage can be determined depending on the intent of the perpetrator, as well as taking into account the car tanks and other containers prepared for filling for the temporary storage of stolen property.

For the sake of objectivity of scientific views on these two elements of the special part of the Criminal Code, one important feature should be touched upon, which is the reason for the categorically different classification of these crimes under similar circumstances. It's all about the obligatory objective signs of these acts, described in the disposition of a particular article and which are the basis for distinguishing them into formal and material elements of a crime.

The corpus delicti is considered material when, in order to recognize it as completed, the consequences specified in the law must occur. In relation to theft, if there are no consequences in the form of property damage, the crime will be classified as attempted theft. The only difficulty is that in the disposition of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the consequences are not indicated. However, they are spelled out in Note 1 to this article, which defines the concept of theft: “Theft in the articles of this Code means the illegal gratuitous seizure and (or) circulation of someone else’s property in favor of the culprit or other persons, committed for personal gain and (or) the circulation of someone else’s property in favor of the culprit or other persons, causing damage to the owner or other holder this property" [11].

Unlike theft, taking a bribe is a formal crime. In this case, the law does not provide for the occurrence of any consequences as a mandatory feature. As noted above, this type of crime will be considered a completed act from the moment the official accepts at least part of the funds.

Another comparative example in the field of indicative qualification of completed acts is the practice of law enforcement of norms in the field of drug trafficking. Considering that the disposition of Part 1 of Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for the onset of consequences in the form of illegal distribution of narcotic drugs as a mandatory sign of the objective side of this crime, the relevant Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation prescribes that the composition be considered a completed crime from the moment the person performs all necessary actions to transfer drugs to the purchaser, regardless of their actual receipt by the purchaser, including when these actions are carried out during a test purchase or other operational investigative activity carried out within the framework of the provisions of the Federal Law “On Operational Investigative Activities” [12]. This clarification supplemented the Resolution of the Plenum relatively recently - in 2015 and represents one of the most modern views on the problem of classifying unfinished crimes. In particular, it explains the situation describing the non-obligatory occurrence of consequences included in the objective side of the composition provided for in Art. 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Moreover, in the event that such funds, substances and plants are withdrawn from illegal circulation by law enforcement officers at the time, regardless of the stage of the crime, it will be classified as completed.

Thus, the circumstances described in this study indicate the need for a legislative review of the problem of classifying crimes related to theft from oil pipelines and petroleum product pipelines. Practical employees of internal affairs bodies and representatives of large companies that own hydrocarbon raw materials come to a common opinion on the inevitability of tougher penalties for the unauthorized selection of raw materials from pipelines. Based on the analysis of law enforcement activities and the norms of criminal law governing this area, this will be preceded by changes proposing a new interpretation of this qualifying element of theft in the current Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Another possible transformation may be associated with the introduction of theft from an oil pipeline into an independent criminal act, which involves formal signs without mandatory criteria of the objective side in the form of the onset of negative property consequences, as well as giving criminals the opportunity to dispose of the stolen property.

Bibliography

Results of the article review procedure

Due to the double-blind review policy, the identity of the reviewer is not disclosed. The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

REVIEW of the article On the issue of determining the moment of completion of the theft from the oil pipeline The title generally corresponds to the content of the article. The author did not specify in the title of the article that he meant thefts committed in Russia. The title of the article conventionally reveals the scientific problem to which the author’s research is aimed at solving. The article under review is of relative scientific interest. The author generally explained the choice of research topic and outlined its relevance. However, the article does not formulate the purpose of the study, does not indicate the object and subject of the study, or the methods used by the author. In the reviewer's opinion, the main elements of the research “program” were not fully thought out by the author, which was reflected in his results. The author did not present the results of an analysis of the historiography of the problem and did not formulate the novelty of the research undertaken, which is a significant drawback of the article. When presenting the material, the author selectively demonstrated the results of an analysis of the historiography of the problem in the form of references to current works on the topic of research. There is no appeal to opponents in the article. The author did not explain the choice and did not characterize the range of sources he used to discuss the topic. In the reviewer’s opinion, the author sought to use sources competently, maintain a scientific style of presentation, competently use methods of scientific knowledge, and observe the principles of logic, systematicity and consistency in the presentation of the material. As an introduction, the author indicated the reason for choosing the research topic and outlined its relevance. In the main part of the article, the author informed the reader about legislative decisions aimed at “containing crime in the field of theft of oil and petroleum products,” and focused on substantiating his thoughts on why “existing measures of criminal legal influence on the criminal oil business are already ineffective and require improvement.” . The author reported that he analyzed “court verdicts in the Irkutsk, Omsk, Tyumen, Novosibirsk regions, Khabarovsk and Krasnoyarsk territories for the period from 2014 to 2022.” and found out that “85% of the accused receive suspended sentences of imprisonment and monetary fines,” but the author did not provide links to sources and did not substantiate his conclusion. Next, the author moved on to the analysis of the relevant legal norms and pointed out that “in the vast majority of investigative authorities initiate criminal cases based on unauthorized tappings, which subsequently leads to a more lenient criminal punishment”, etc., that “initiation of a criminal case without instructions for Part 3 of Art. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is possible only in two cases,” etc. The author came to the conclusion that “this situation in the field of qualification of thefts has developed as a result of the lack of an integrated approach by the legislator to the problems of suppressing and preventing thefts from oil pipelines.” The author suggested that in order to find a person guilty of committing theft, it should be sufficient to “establish the fact that oil or its refined products were removed from the pipeline and moved within the crime scene to another container” and drew an analogy with the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which stated “ clarifications on cases of bribery and other corruption crimes,” then with “the practice of law enforcement in the field of drug trafficking,” pointing out “the non-obligatory occurrence of consequences included in the objective side of the composition provided for in Art. 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation." There are multiple errors/slips in the article, such as: “in the Russian structure”, “however, the size”, etc., “as a result of the predominance”, “subsequently leads”, “For example”, “For comparison, we will give”, etc., unsuccessful and incorrect expressions, such as: “However, over the past 10 years, according to various analytical studies, the situation has not changed significantly in a positive direction,” etc. The author's conclusions are general in nature, partly substantiated, but formulated not entirely clearly. The conclusions allow us to partially evaluate the author’s scientific achievements within the framework of his research. In the final paragraph of the article, the author reported the need for a “legislative review of the problem of classifying crimes related to theft from oil pipelines and petroleum product pipelines”, speculatively referring to the fact that “practical employees of internal affairs bodies and representatives of large companies that own hydrocarbon raw materials come to a common opinion about the inevitability tightening penalties for unauthorized selection of raw materials from pipelines” and pointed out likely ways to develop criminal law regulation of liability for theft of oil and petroleum products. In the reviewer's opinion, the potential goal of the study was partially achieved by the author. The publication may arouse interest among the magazine's audience. The article requires improvement, first of all, in terms of formulating the key elements of the research program and the corresponding conclusions.

Link to this article

Simply highlight and copy the link to this article to your clipboard. You can also try to find similar articles

Tweet

Punishment for fuel theft

An administrative penalty is a mild sanction for theft of energy resources. If the crime is regarded as criminal, for it, under Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for punishment in the form of imprisonment for up to 2 years.

If an illegal connection is discovered by utility services, and the court confirms this fact, the consequences will not be limited to a fine. Despite the fact that the amounts of collections can be quite large (from 100 thousand rubles), a second attempt can be regarded as theft on an especially large scale. This carries a criminal penalty of 6 or more years in prison. In addition, a fine will be imposed on the culprit. The term of imprisonment and the amount of the fine are set by the court.

What does the deadline depend on?

The sentences that the court imposes for theft from gas and oil pipelines depend on a number of circumstances:

• volume of stolen raw materials;
• damage to the environment;
• harm caused to human health and life;
• destruction or damage to an oil or gas pipeline, or objects that ensure their operation - alarms, control equipment, automatic devices that make the system function.

The greater the damage caused by the actions of the attackers, the more serious the punishment will be.

To find out more about your rights and options in such a situation, please contact our lawyers at the numbers provided. They will provide high-quality legal advice and, if necessary, represent your interests before government agencies and in court.

if petroleum products cost less than 2,000 rubles

The assistance of a professional lawyer significantly increases the likelihood of a positive outcome of the case.

if the oil products cost less than 2,000 rubles, then such an act can be recognized not as theft, but as petty theft, and then it falls under the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which does not entail a criminal record.

In this case, the decisive factor is whether related actions were committed that entail criminal liability regardless of the cost of petroleum products. For a list of such actions, see this link.

Administrative liability for theft of petroleum products

For the theft of petroleum products worth up to 1,000 rubles, the following liability is provided:

• a fine in the amount of up to five times the value of the stolen property, but not less than one thousand rubles;
• or administrative arrest for up to fifteen days;
• or compulsory work for up to fifty hours.

For the theft of petroleum products worth from 1000 to 2000 rubles, the following liability is provided:

• a fine in the amount of up to five times the value of the stolen property, but not less than three thousand rubles;
• or administrative arrest for a period of ten to fifteen days;
• or compulsory work for a period of up to one hundred and twenty hours.

Legislative regulation

Article 7.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, petty theft (version current for 2022)

1. Petty theft of someone else’s property, the value of which does not exceed one thousand rubles, by theft, fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement in the absence of signs of crimes provided for in parts two, three and four of Article 158, Article 158.1, parts two, three and four of Article 159, parts two, three and four of Article 159.1, parts two, three and four of Article 159.2, parts two, three and four of Article 159.3, parts two, three and four of Article 159.5, parts two, three and four of Article 159.6 and parts of the second and third of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, with the exception of cases provided for in Article 14.15.3 of this Code - (as amended by Federal Law dated 02/05/2018 N 13-FZ)

punishment: entails the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of up to five times the value of the stolen property, but not less than one thousand rubles, or administrative arrest for up to fifteen days, or compulsory labor for up to fifty hours.

2. Petty theft of someone else’s property worth more than one thousand rubles, but not more than two thousand five hundred rubles through theft, fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement in the absence of signs of crimes provided for in parts two, three and four of Article 158, Article 158.1, parts two, three and fourth article 159, parts two, third and fourth of article 159.1, parts second, third and fourth of article 159.2, parts second, third and fourth of article 159.3, parts second, third and fourth of article 159.5, parts second, third and fourth of article 159.6 and parts the second and third articles 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, with the exception of cases provided for in Article 14.15.3 of this Code - (as amended by Federal Law dated 02/05/2018 N 13-FZ)

punishment: entails the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of up to five times the value of the stolen property, but not less than three thousand rubles, or administrative arrest for a period of ten to fifteen days, or compulsory labor for a period of up to one hundred and twenty hours.