The insignificance of the act. Case studies

General information

According to Part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the insignificance of the act indicates the absence of a social basis for bringing to justice the person who committed the crime. In other words, the encroachment does not pose a public danger.

According to a number of authors, the presence in legislation of the concept of insignificance of an act can lead to abuses in practice, so it should be abandoned. Experts justify their position by the fact that the Criminal Code contains other methods of response. The provisions of articles 75-76, 73, 64 are cited as examples.

Meanwhile, the legal consequences of applying the norm of the Criminal Code on the insignificance of an act are somewhat different than those that arise when implementing the above provisions. In this regard, the abolition of Part 2 of Article 14 of the Code can hardly be considered appropriate. However, it is undoubtedly necessary to clearly define the boundaries of the insignificance of an act in criminal law.

Approaches

The social nature of crime (SN) is considered from very different points of view. In Russia, since the times of the Soviet state, a material definition has dominated, the basis of which was a sign of public danger. Currently, the definition of the crime is minimal. Thus, they are recognized as a dangerous act, which is prohibited by the code and faces punishment.

In criminal law, the first definition of criminal activity was given in the Guidelines adopted in the winter of 1919. Then a crime was an action or inaction that could bring certain harm to the entire system of social relations.

However, what was meant by a certain system of social relations? This meant that the crime, in its essence, harms the interests of the working masses. A more comprehensive definition was given in the Criminal Code of 1922. At that time, a dangerous act or inaction that could threaten the Soviet system and law and order was recognized as a criminal act. At the same time, the ruling class was the workers' and peasants' government. The danger of an act was determined by the harm that could be caused to society or the accepted social system. There was no definition of the term in the Fundamental Principles of 1924, but from other articles it can be understood that it was considered based on a material understanding. Any activity that could undermine the power of the proletariat or the established legal order was recognized as a dangerous act. In all documents from 1917 to 1960, the class side of criminal law is very clearly visible. Thanks to modern democratic transformations, in Russia the criminal law is as much as possible devoid of class characteristics, but the interests of the various propertied layers are very clearly visible.

Controversial issues

In a theoretical sense, it is customary to talk about two types of insignificance of an act: when it is and is not an administrative offense.

It seems, however, that the presence of the first type is not entirely justified. The fact is that in this case the insignificance of the act is interpreted in a broader sense. As a result, the boundaries between criminal and non-criminal behavior begin to blur. The application of signs of insignificance of an act to actions that do not entail administrative sanctions seems more justified.

Criteria for insignificant actions

The concept of insignificance is reflected, as mentioned above, in some criteria that make it possible to determine it. Among these criteria are:

Formal illegality is explained by the fact that the actions of the subject of the crime must contain the characteristics of some composition provided for by the Code, but in a situation with a minor action, it is not assumed that the criteria are identical, but only their external similarity.

Minor public danger - this category of action practically eliminates the threat to society. In fact, illegal behavior is not considered illegal, but there are consequences; a prime example would be minor harm to health, which does not require treatment, or damage to property, which is easy to fix.
Lack of excusable behavior. In contrast to the factors specified in Art. 8, the actions of the subject are not useful for other citizens, for their property, and for society as a whole, therefore they cannot be considered acceptable. Such behavior cannot be encouraged and welcomed from the point of view of the law, but it is also impossible to hold people accountable for it, that is, there are insufficient grounds.
Evaluative category - in each case separately, an investigator, prosecutor or judge will assess the situation, that is, the amount of damage will be determined. Based on the legal consciousness of the official, an appropriate conclusion is formulated, as a result of which the behavior is defined as either criminal or insignificant.
Willful character - a minor type of behavior can be determined only by its presence. Intention in this case can be both indirect and direct. If the nature of the intent is not specified, then the behavior can be classified as insignificant. It is also very important to establish the direction of intent in the subject’s actions.
Exclusion of crime - insignificance; the act does not pose a great threat from the manifestation of the unlawful will of the subject; accordingly, criminal wrongfulness is also excluded. However, the actual exclusion of criminal liability does not provide grounds for equating the criminal legal consequences of a minor act with non-criminal acts.

Taking into account each of the above criteria and signs, it is possible to subsequently formulate a generalized definition of the legal category: an insignificant action is a formally illegal, intentional behavior of the subject that is not distinguished by the socially useful nature, and does not pose a great threat.

Prohibited actions

When assessing the insignificance of an act, it will be important whether there is a ban on a certain action only in the Criminal Code or in the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offenses simultaneously.

A crime can only violate the general rules enshrined in the Criminal Code. For example, murder, robbery, etc. In practice, however, crimes are committed for which liability may arise not only under the Criminal Code, but also under the Code of Administrative Offenses. For example, in Article 176 of the Criminal Code and Art. 14.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses establishes sanctions for illegally obtaining a loan.

Accordingly, two situations occur. The first is associated with the presence of lawful, administrative and criminally unlawful behavior. Here, an administrative offense is a kind of “buffer” between a crime and non-criminal actions. In the second situation, everything is simpler: illegal behavior either exists or it doesn’t.

It is more reasonable to talk about the insignificance of the act only in the second case. The fact is that non-criminal behavior does not entail liability at all. In this case, there is not only no danger to society, but also no signs of a crime. According to the provisions of Article 14 of the Criminal Code, one can speak of the insignificance of an act only if there are signs of composition.

Three types of conflicts

When considering the concept of the social nature of signs of crime, scientist V. Kudryavtsev identified three main types of conflicts. Firstly, there is an external conflict that occurs between the victim and the offender. The second conflict is internal, which occurs during the struggle between a person’s various motives. The third is the difference between legal norms and the conscious behavior of the criminal. However, behind all this there is always a contradiction between the individual and society. This is why many scientists believe that V. Kudryavtsev’s classification is not completed.

In the monographs, the social nature of crimes is considered using opposing criteria and subjective judgment. That is why we did not consider the opinions of individual researchers in too much detail.

So we examined the social nature of crimes based on generally accepted classifications. After this, it becomes clear that conflict always begins with a contradiction between an individual and an entire society. And we must not forget about the socio-economic subtext, which is present in 100% of crime cases.

Explanations of the Armed Forces

The Supreme Court interprets the insignificance of the act in a broad sense. For example, in paragraph 12 of Resolution No. 26 of 2010, the Supreme Court notes that in the case where illegal fishing (extraction) of biological resources is committed by an entity using a self-propelled craft or in spawning areas, in specially protected areas and formally contain signs of crimes provided for in 253 or 256 articles, but due to the insignificant social danger they do not pose, the court may dismiss the case due to the provisions of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code. The court clarifies that there is no public danger if the actions of the perpetrator did not entail mass destruction of plants and animals, the cost and quantity of fish caught were insignificant, there were no harmful consequences, or the fishing method was not dangerous for biological resources.

However, this approach seems unfounded. The fact is that illegal fishing (extraction) of biological resources cannot be insignificant, since the crime is considered completed at the moment the corresponding actions begin. Moreover, the Code of Administrative Offenses contains Art. 8.37, which establishes sanctions for violations of production rules. The act provided for in Part 2 of Article 253 of the Criminal Code cannot be insignificant either. Search, exploration, research and development of resources are considered completed crimes at the moment these actions are committed by a person who does not have permission to do so. In part 1 of Art. 8.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses establishes punishment for non-compliance with the rules for the safe search, development or exploration of resources.

If there are signs of encroachment established by Article 256 of the Criminal Code, among which the method and place of commission are mandatory, the actions of the subject are already criminal. Depending on the circumstances of the incident, criminal sanctions may be applied to the person: from monetary penalties to suspended imprisonment. If there are no signs of a crime, the citizen must bear administrative punishment for such actions.

The implementation of the recommendations of the Supreme Court, therefore, may lead to ambiguous application of criminal law. In some situations, the subject’s behavior will be considered criminal, and in others – insignificant.

At the same time, in paragraph 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 21 of 2012, the acts provided for in paragraphs “b-d” of 1 part 258 of Article of the Criminal Code are considered completed at the moment of the commencement of actions directly related to the search, tracking, pursuit and extraction of natural resources. In this case, the Court does not connect the insignificance of the act with the means used in illegal hunting.

My own lawyer

It is not a crime to act (inaction), although formally containing signs of any act provided for by the Criminal Code, but due to its insignificance, not representing a public danger (Part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code). In this norm, the legislator uses the concept of “insignificance”. This concept is evaluative and is associated with determining the social danger of a particular act.

In the theory of criminal law, two approaches to defining the concept of insignificance have been formed. Some lawyers believe that the not entirely successful formulation of the norm of criminal law allows us to distinguish two groups of acts that are only formally crimes:

- acts in which there is a public danger, but it is not enough to recognize the crime as a crime;

- acts in which there is no public danger at all.

These two groups of acts entail different legal consequences. In the first case, responsibility for the commission of an act must arise according to the norms of other branches of law (mainly administrative). In the second case, any liability is excluded.

Other learned lawyers believe the first approach is too broad, since the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code relate only to acts that are absolutely devoid of public danger. In this regard, being non-criminal, a minor act does not entail any legal liability due to the absolutely non-socially dangerous nature of the minor act.

Based on the legislative wording of Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code, two conditions are necessary to assess an act as insignificant.

1. The act (action or inaction) formally has the characteristics of any crime provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code.

In the absence of at least one of the signs, one should initially speak of the absence of corpus delicti, and not of recognizing the act as insignificant.

A typical example from practice. Liability under Part 1 of Art. 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is punishable for illegal acquisition of a narcotic drug in a significant amount without the purpose of selling it. At the same time, a significant amount for each type of narcotic drug is determined by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 1, 2012 No. 1002. Therefore, if a person illegally acquired a narcotic drug in a smaller amount, it is not the insignificance of the act that occurs, but the absence of corpus delicti, its obligatory constructive feature - significant size narcotic drug.

2. The act does not pose a public danger. That is, it did not cause or create a threat of causing significant harm to the object of criminal legal protection.

This is where the main difficulties of law enforcement arise.

Since the law does not define the boundaries of the insignificant social danger of an act, the law enforcement officer sets them independently in each specific case.

As a rule, when assessing the presence, nature and degree of public danger, the courts are guided by the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from paragraph 1 of Resolution No. 58 of December 22, 2015 “On the practice of imposing criminal punishment by the courts of the Russian Federation.” According to these explanations, the nature of public danger depends primarily on the focus of the act on social values protected by criminal law and on their significance.

In turn, the degree of public danger is established by the court depending on the specific circumstances of the act, in particular on the nature and size of the consequences, the method of committing the act, the role of the defendant in the act committed in complicity, the form and type of guilt. Circumstances that mitigate or aggravate punishment (Articles 61 and 63 of the Criminal Code) (for example, the commission of an act due to a combination of difficult life circumstances or motivated by compassion, a particularly active role in the commission of the act) must also be taken into account when determining the degree of public danger of the act.

The question arises. What circumstances characterize the social danger of the act?

Based on the above explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the published practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and lower courts, as well as the content of scientific debate on the issue under consideration, we can conclude that when assessing the social danger of an act and determining its insignificance, the following set of circumstances must be taken into account.

Significance, importance of the object of encroachment. Sometimes the mere importance of the object of criminal legal protection that is being attacked indicates a high social danger of the act, and this excludes its recognition as insignificant.
The method of committing the act. The method of committing an act affects the assessment of its social danger. For example, the use of violence during theft or committing theft with illegal entry into a home, premises or other storage facility indicates an increased social danger of the act.
The amount of harm or the severity of the consequences. An act may be considered minor, and the person who committed it may not be subject to criminal liability if there is no material or other damage or its small amount.

The insignificance of the act may also be indicated by the absence of other harm or danger of its occurrence.

The degree of implementation of criminal intent and the conditions for committing the act. When determining the social danger of an act, it is necessary to take into account the stage at which the perpetrator stopped when carrying out his intent. For example, preparing to steal property is less dangerous than an attempt on it, and even more so than a completed theft causing real damage. In addition, the conditions for committing a specific act should be taken into account: time, place and situation.
A form of guilt. It seems that only an act committed with direct intent (the person wanted to commit a minor act) can be recognized as insignificant. There is no insignificance in cases where a person planned to cause greater harm, but this did not happen due to circumstances beyond his control. For example, a person, in order to steal a large sum of money, opens a safe, but steals only a small amount in it.

There is no insignificance even when a crime is committed with uncertain intent. We are talking about situations where a person foresaw the possibility of consequences of varying severity and desired the occurrence of any of them. In this case, responsibility comes for those socially dangerous consequences that actually occurred. Causing minor harm in such a situation cannot be regarded as a minor act.

Thus, when the perpetrator inflicts multiple blows to the victim with his hands and feet on various parts of the body, his intent simultaneously covers several types of socially dangerous consequences. In this regard, the act must be qualified depending on the severity of the harm actually caused under the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, which provides for liability for crimes against human life and health.

It seems that careless acts also cannot be considered insignificant, since they are criminalized, as a rule, if they cause significant harm to the object of criminal legal protection.

The motive and purpose of the act must be taken into account. The social danger of an act is significantly increased by base motives and goals (for example, the goal of concealing a crime). On the contrary, the presence of socially approved motives and goals reduces social danger.

So, what circumstances influence the recognition of an act as minor?

The fact that it is committed in conjunction with other crimes does not prevent the recognition of an act as insignificant. Each action (inaction) that formally contains elements of a crime must receive an independent legal assessment.

The presence of a qualifying feature increases the social danger of the act, but in itself does not exclude the recognition of the act as insignificant. The question of the possibility of recognizing such an act as insignificant must be decided individually in each specific case, taking into account all the above criteria.

There is also no single approach to the issue of the procedural form of a court decision when recognizing an act as insignificant. If for the courts of appeal and cassation this issue is regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, then in relation to the court of first instance it causes controversy in practice.

Some law enforcers believe that, based on the interrelated provisions of clause 2, part 1, art. 24, paragraph 2, part 1, art. 27, art. 239, art. 302 Code of Criminal Procedure, part 2 art. 14 of the Criminal Code, the identification at the stage of trial on the merits of the charges brought against circumstances that indicate the absence of corpus delicti in the offense in conditions where the prosecutor did not refuse to support the charges in the manner established by Part 7 of Art. 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by virtue of the direct instructions of the law, is the basis for the court to issue an acquittal, but not for terminating the proceedings

The following arguments can be given to justify this approach.

Firstly, Art. 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which sets out the list of grounds for termination of a criminal case at a court hearing, does not provide for the possibility of termination of the case on the basis under consideration.

Secondly, by virtue of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a socially dangerous act committed guilty of guilt, prohibited by this Code under threat of punishment, is recognized as a crime.

Other law enforcers, on the contrary, believe that when concluding that the committed act is insignificant, the court does not have the right to issue an acquittal, but must make a decision to terminate the criminal case with reference to Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The official interpretation on this issue was given in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 30, 2017 No. 48 “On judicial practice in cases of fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement.” Paragraph 33 of this resolution states: “if the actions of a person during fraud, embezzlement or embezzlement, although formally containing signs of the specified crime, due to their insignificance did not pose a public danger, then the court terminates the criminal case on the basis of Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation."

Thus, the dispute about the form of the decision of the court of first instance when recognizing an act as insignificant was resolved by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. However, the question still remains of at what stage of the trial the indicated decision can be made.

In the case where the state prosecutor, due to the insignificance of the act, refuses to charge, the court, guided by Part 7 of Art. 246 and paragraph 2 art. 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code, terminates the criminal case at the stage of the trial at which the state prosecutor stated a reasoned refusal. If the state prosecutor does not drop the charges, then the evidence collected in the case must be examined. The court evaluates them in the deliberation room and, having determined the insignificance of the committed act, makes a decision to terminate the criminal case.

If the appellate court, when considering a criminal case, finds that the act of the convicted person does not contain a crime, it will overturn the conviction or other decision of the court of first instance and terminate the case on the basis of clause 2 of part 1 of Art. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the absence of corpus delicti in the act (Article 389.21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

Based on the systemic interpretation of clause 2, part 1, art. 401.14 and Art. 401.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court of cassation, having recognized the act committed by the convicted person as insignificant, must make a similar decision to cancel the verdict and subsequent court decisions and terminate the criminal case. This is confirmed by established practice (see the definitions of the RF Armed Forces dated 02/07/2017 No. 5-UD17-1)

Another controversial issue concerns the right to rehabilitation when a person has been convicted of committing a minor act.

Judicial practice on this issue is varied. In a number of cases, courts recognized a person’s right to rehabilitation, and sometimes were silent about this in their decisions.

Since the recognition of the committed act as insignificant establishes the absence of corpus delicti in the act and entails the termination of the criminal case under clause 2 of part 1 of Art. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is a rehabilitative basis, this gives rise to the right of this person to rehabilitation in accordance with Art. 133 Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision on this must be contained in a judicial act.

This approach corresponds to the legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Thus, only an act committed with direct intent can be considered insignificant. The commission of an act in conjunction with others and the presence of a qualifying feature do not affect its assessment as insignificant. If the court finds the act to be minor

Tax crimes

The insignificance of an act in a criminal case does not exist if the occurrence of a strictly formalized consequence is a condition for bringing to responsibility. For example, this may be damage in the amount established by law.

Evasion of tax obligations is considered a crime if the tax has not been deducted in large amounts. Accordingly, failure to pay obligatory amounts less than those established by the footnote to Article 198 of the Criminal Code indicates the lack of insignificance of the act and the crime as such, since the obligatory objective sign - consequences - is absent. In this case, liability will arise under Articles 199-122 of the Tax Code.

Insignificant property value

There is no insignificance when committing the theft of objects of no great value from a home or other premises. The effect of Article 7.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, in accordance with the note to it, does not apply to the crime provided for in Part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code. At the same time, the current version of the administrative norm entails a situation that contradicts the principles of qualification of criminal acts, when the composition does not contain all the elements of the crime.

According to experts, it is necessary to include in Part 2 of Article 158 of the Criminal Code wording providing for sanctions for the theft of property, regardless of value. In the same way, the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 159 and 160 of the Criminal Code.

Unfinished crime with unspecified intent

When it is committed, insignificance is impossible. Let's look at a practical example. A citizen illegally entered the library and stole scissors that had no material value. Initially, the actions of the subject were qualified under paragraph “b” 2 of Part 158 of Article of the Criminal Code. From the testimony of the culprit, however, it follows that he entered the library to steal some office equipment, but, not finding anything valuable, he stole scissors, which he later threw away.

Based on the law, other people's property is considered to be objects in respect of which ownership rights have been established, which have a certain value and value. The court ruled in its verdict that the stolen scissors were of no value.

Taking into account the provisions of Part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code, for insignificance the presence of elements of the act is required. The citizen who stole the scissors was not convicted of theft of office equipment, and actions related to the theft cannot be qualified under Part 3 of Art. 30 and paragraph “b” of Part 2 158 of the Criminal Code as an attempt committed with unlawful entry into the premises. The case, accordingly, in this part should be dismissed due to the provisions of Article 24 due to the lack of corpus delicti in them.

The qualifying feature indicating the location of the offense, as well as the unspecified intent of the perpetrator, do not allow us to speak of the presence of insignificance.

According to Kuznetsova, who is a supporter of a broad interpretation of the concept in question, if an ex-husband enters the home of his ex-wife and steals an album with photographs, on the one hand, we can speak of insignificance due to the fact that the value of the stolen property is small. At the same time, the very fact of illegal entry into the premises must be qualified under Article 139 of the Criminal Code.

Holding an ex-husband accountable under the Criminal Code for the theft of a family album, even conditionally, is hardly fair. Perhaps, indeed, in this case we are talking about insignificance. But it must be said that situations of this kind are quite rare in practice.

Dependence on the role of the person in the crime

Some theorists believe that insignificance can be defined depending on the role played by the subject in committing the unlawful act. Kozlov, in particular, gives the following example.

Two citizens agreed to steal from a store. Having entered the premises, they began to drag out the stolen goods onto the porch. At the same time, they saw that the car of the wife of one of the criminals was standing nearby. She decided to help the attackers because she heard their preliminary agreement.

It seems that in this case it is impossible to talk about insignificance. A subject who joins a crime during its commission should be subject to a suspended sentence, unless there are grounds for imposing a more severe sanction.

Feudal society

Now let's look at the social danger and social nature of crimes in feudal society. At that time, only those actions that somehow threatened the feudal church or the feudal lords themselves were considered criminal acts. Even the tiniest violation of some rights of feudal lords was punished very cruelly. At the same time, people with power could hold court themselves and choose reprisals against the serfs. At the same time, the largest landowner was the church, which was the basis of such an inhumane system of human exploitation. If the interests of the church were even slightly offended, then it resorted to very harsh measures and repression. Any difference of opinion regarding religious dogma was punishable by burning at the stake. At the same time, criminal legislation in feudal society was different in that the principle of inequality of punishments for people from different classes for the same crime was very clearly manifested here.

Violation of moral rights

When personal rights are infringed, insignificance may occur, for example, if a person walking down the street, out of curiosity, looked into the window of an apartment located on the ground floor. In this case, visual entry into housing was committed (Article 139 of the Criminal Code), and privacy was violated (Article 137).

An act involving a short-term (within a few minutes) unlawful deprivation of liberty may be considered minor. However, it is absent when an attack is committed on the health and life of the victim.

Some lawyers propose supplementing Article 14 of the Criminal Code with Part 3, which would contain a list of acts that are not minor.

Features of material compositions

In theory, a common approach is that insignificance does not occur if the presence of signs of an act is associated with the occurrence of harm. For example, Article 285 provides for punishment for a significant violation of interests and rights through abuse of power.

This approach can be considered justified if the consequences that serve as a condition for recognizing the criminality of an act are materialized. In other words, they must be countable. Many courts believe that infringement of the rights of citizens by default entails a violation of the interests of the state.

For example, a traffic police inspector was found guilty under Article 285 for confiscating a driver’s license without sending him for a medical examination. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict and dismissed the case on the basis of the provisions of Art. 24 (part 1, paragraph 2). At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out that the conclusions of the first instance that the employee’s actions significantly violated the interests of the state were unmotivated.

In the example given, there may be insignificance. The fact is that the consequences, which act as a condition for recognizing a crime, are described using evaluative criteria, since they cannot be taken into account, and the sanction for abuse of power is not established in the Code of Administrative Offenses. Consequently, it is possible to allow the possibility of determining insignificance when a person commits such a crime for which the law provides for disciplinary liability.

For example, a crime, which is provided for in Part 2 of Article 303 of the Criminal Code, is considered completed at the moment of falsification of evidence. Meanwhile, as an analysis of practice shows, courts do not have a unified approach to assessing the consequences of falsification.

In some situations, actions provided for by the above norm are considered criminal, regardless of the purpose of their commission. They can be aimed at acquitting or convicting a citizen. In other situations, if the goal was not established, the act was not considered criminal.

According to lawyers, if an event to be established within the framework of a case is confirmed by other evidence, falsification of materials that only certify the event, but are executed in an inappropriate way, must be regarded as a minor act, despite the fact that it entails disciplinary action for the employee, leading the investigation.

Question about the form of guilt

According to a number of experts, only acts that were committed intentionally should be considered insignificant. Other experts believe that the crime provided for in Article 293 of the Criminal Code can be included in their number. This opinion is due to the fact that, as one of the consequences of negligence, the current version of the norm establishes a significant violation of the interests and rights of the state, society and citizens. As you can see, the result of a criminal attack is described using evaluative concepts and is not specified. In this case, sanctions for negligence are established only in the Criminal Code.

Modern interpretation

The socio-historical nature of crime is studied with an eye to class society. Despite this, it is still very difficult to unambiguously define the concept of crime. The criminal law defines this term, but it does not provide a full complex, which would consist of the implementation of a criminal act, supported by practical and theoretical meaning. Of course, many definitions can be found in the law itself, but they will not help to fully understand the essence of such phenomena. But we will try to consider this issue through the prism of a certain set of characteristics, such as historical variability and class character.

conclusions

Minor acts, therefore, are attacks that are committed carelessly or intentionally, have all the signs of an unlawful act, are punishable exclusively under the Criminal Code and do not entail either an administrative or material sanction.

Forms of insignificance also include attacks on certain non-property rights: freedom of movement, privacy, causing non-material damage, if the consequences are characterized by evaluative characteristics, etc.