ST 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. Vandalism, that is, desecration of buildings or other structures, damage to property on public transport or in other public places, is punishable by a fine in the amount of up to forty thousand rubles or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to three months, or by compulsory labor. for a term of up to three hundred and sixty hours, or correctional labor for a term of up to one year, or arrest for a term of up to three months.
2. The same acts committed by a group of persons, as well as for reasons of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or for reasons of hatred or enmity towards any social group, are punishable by restriction of freedom for a term of up to three years, or forced labor for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for the same period.
What is vandalism
Article 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation calls the following actions vandalism:
- desecration of buildings and any other structures;
- damage to property in public places and on public transport.
Vandalism can be expressed in the painting of obscene images or drawings on the walls of houses, inscriptions containing insults, obscene expressions, in the contamination of monuments with paints or soiling materials.
Note!
The Criminal Code divides vandalism into that committed out of hooligan motives without aggravating motives - this is Part 1 of Art. 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and for vandalism committed on the grounds of national, racial, and other hatred and enmity, which is regulated by Part 2 of Art. 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
If damage to property that was caused for hooligan reasons is assessed as significant, the person will be held accountable under Part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for intentional damage or destruction of someone else’s property, the maximum penalty for which is up to 5 years in prison.
Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 15, 2017 No. 45 indicates that vandalism differs from another similar crime - hooliganism, which is regulated by Art. 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in that during vandalism not only public order is violated, but also direct damage to property occurs.
Examples of vandalism:
- applying on the walls of structures and buildings with paint or other durable means drawings and inscriptions containing obscene expressions, insults, obscenity, prohibited symbols;
- applying inscriptions, drawings or contamination with paint, as well as other means requiring washing off, monuments and similar protected objects. Destruction of monuments;
- breaking glass in public transport, writing on the walls of transport, damaging seats and armchairs.
Real danger of death or serious injury
Clause 2 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation No. 18 states that criminal liability under Part 1 or paragraphs a, b of Part 2 of Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation occurs provided that the danger of goods, products, works or services to human life or health is real . Let us note that the distinctive feature of Part 1 and clauses a, b of Part 2 of Art. 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is that criminal liability can occur even if, as a result of the actions of a medical worker, no harm was caused to the life or health of the patient. That is, these are formal, rather than material elements of crimes that actually pose the greatest danger to medical workers. Why? Yes, because in order to be held accountable, the mere fact of providing unsafe medical care is sufficient, of course, subject to proven guilt, but more on that later. The RF Armed Forces drew attention to the fact that the mere fact of providing unsafe services (performance of work and beyond) is not enough; a real danger of these very services, works and goods is necessary.
As stated in the resolution, the real danger of goods and products can be evidenced, in particular, by the presence in them at the time of production, storage, transportation or sale of substances or design defects that, if consumed or otherwise used by these goods and products under normal conditions, could lead to death or causing serious harm to human health, and about the real danger of the work performed (performed) or the services provided (rendered) - such a quality in which the performance of work or provision of services under normal conditions could lead to the specified grave consequences.
However, firstly, if you find fault with the words, then “can be evidenced” does not yet “evidence”. That is, the options for what is considered a real danger remain open. Moreover, proving a real danger will be a matter of the subjective view of the prosecution and the internal conviction of the court.
Secondly, the court’s hint regarding the “usual conditions” for the provision of services is not entirely clear. What are considered normal conditions? Will the provision of, for example, urgent or emergency medical care in “field conditions” be considered normal conditions? It is possible that most likely yes, since current legislation provides for the provision of medical care outside a medical organization. In any case, it is hard to believe that our law enforcement officers will understand the usual or unusual conditions of medical care.
Thirdly, the court connects the real danger with the quality of services. At the same time, Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation directly speaks of the provision of services that do not meet safety requirements (and not quality). It is important to note that the concepts of “quality” and “safety” are different in their meaning and legal content. The concepts of “quality” and safety” also differ in relation to the characteristics of medical care, which follows from the Federal Law of November 21, 2011 No. 323-FZ “On the fundamentals of protecting the health of citizens in the Russian Federation” (clause 21, article 2, etc.), Law of the Russian Federation dated 02/07/1992 No. 2300-1 “On the protection of consumer rights” (Article 4, etc.), as well as other regulatory legal acts (for example, Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation dated 01/22/2001 No. 12 “On the implementation of the industry standard “Terms and definitions of the standardization system in healthcare”, etc.).
Additionally, it is important to note, and what has been repeatedly emphasized by the RF Armed Forces, that services (work, goods, etc.) must constitute a real danger of causing serious (not moderate or minor) harm to health or death.
Article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for vandalism
Article 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for vandalism applies to persons who:
- have reached the age of 14 years;
- when committing vandalism, they had direct hooligan intent, which the courts interpret as direct opposition to society, ranging from mischief to motives of national, ideological, political, social, religious hatred and enmity;
- the action was committed in a public place where other people have access, even if the offensive inscriptions or drawings, as well as the actions are directed only against a certain part of society, which can be separated on social, political, ideological, gender, national or religious grounds;
- there was direct damage or damage to property.
Punishment for vandalism under Article 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Punishment for a proven fact of vandalism is available only in the Criminal Code. According to Part 1 of Art. 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, vandalism that was committed without motives of hatred and enmity is punishable on discriminatory grounds:
- a fine in the amount of up to 40,000 rubles or in the amount of wages or other income for a period of up to 3 months;
- compulsory work lasting up to 360 hours;
- corrective labor for up to 1 year;
- arrest for up to 3 months.
According to Part 2 of Art. 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, vandalism committed for reasons of hatred or enmity is punishable:
- restriction of freedom for up to 3 years;
- forced labor for up to 3 years;
- imprisonment for up to 3 years.
According to paragraph 11 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2011 No. 11, if vandalism causes destruction or damage to historical and cultural monuments or desecration of the bodies of the dead and their burial places based on political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity or based on hatred or hostility towards any social group, then such actions will be punishable not only by Article 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but also by Articles 243 or 244 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provide for a maximum penalty of up to 6 years and up to 5 years of imprisonment .
If nationalist or other discriminatory inscriptions or drawings are applied to monuments based on gender, race, religion, language, origin, membership in a social group, or nationalist slogans were expressed in the presence of strangers, then the person is accused of crimes under Article 214, 243 or 244 of the Criminal Code RF and Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Everything about criminal cases
Go to the list of all Plenums
Plenum of the Supreme Court of November 15, 2007 N 45
“On judicial practice in criminal cases of hooliganism and other crimes committed out of hooligan motives” (as amended on November 15, 2007)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| HOLIGANITY (qualifying characteristics) — clause 1 Plenum No. 45 what is a gross violation of public order — — clause 12 Plenum No. 45 takes into account the focus: intent, motive, purpose and circumstances — clause 12 Plenum No. 45 hooligan motives are committed without reason No hooliganism - — clause 13 Plenum No. 45 in relation to familiar persons, then this is not hooliganism ( WEAPON — clause 2 Plenum No. 45 what is meant by the use of weapons — clause 3 Plenum No. 45 what are objects used as weapons — clause 3 Plenum No. 45, the presence of weapons during hooliganism is additionally qualified under Plenum No. 45, even a toy can be a weapon GROUP OF PERSONS — clause 5 Plenum No. 45 group of persons - in case of hooliganism — clause 5 Plenum No. 45 excess of the performer during hooliganism ( — clause 5 Plenum No. 45 there is no intent to use weapons and no motive of hostility ( — clause 6 Plenum No. 45 involvement of a minor in hooliganism ( RESISTANCE to government officials — clause 7 Plenum No. 45 resisting the police during the commission ( — clause 8 Plenum No. 45 what is meant by resistance — clause 9 Plenum No. 45 harm to the health of a government official — clause 10 Plenum No. 45 other persons protecting public order HARM TO HEALTH — clause 11 Plenum No. 45 if harm to health, then additionally an article against the person DAMAGE TO PROPERTY — — |
HOLIGANITY (qualifying characteristics)
1) In accordance with the law, only such gross violation of public order, expressing clear disrespect for society, which is committed:
- using weapons
or objects used as
weapons
,
- or based
political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or based on hatred or enmity against any social group.
When deciding whether the defendant’s actions constituted a gross violation of public order, expressing clear disrespect for society, courts should take into account:
- way,
- time,
- the place where they took place,
- as well as their intensity,
- duration,
- and other circumstances.
Such actions can be committed both in relation to a specific person and in relation to an indefinite number of persons.
A person’s obvious disrespect for society is expressed in a deliberate violation of generally accepted norms and rules of behavior, dictated by the desire of the perpetrator to oppose himself to others, to demonstrate a disdainful attitude towards them.
The court must establish what specifically constituted a gross violation of public order, what circumstances indicated a clear disrespect for society by the perpetrator, and indicate them in the verdict.
WEAPON
2) Under the use of weapons
or objects used as
weapons
should be understood as
deliberate
actions aimed at a person using these objects for both physical and mental influence on the victim, as well as other actions indicating an intention to use violence through these weapons or objects used as weapons.
Items used as weapons
| - in order to recognize an object as such, an examination is not required. - the only sign of such an item: they can cause harm to health ( clause 3 Plenum No. 45) - that is, the properties of this item must be suitable for causing harm to health. It can be almost any item - that is, any thing that is potentially suitable for causing harm to health: a penknife (even with a 1 cm blade), a bottle. Doesn't matter where the item comes from : - he grabbed it from his pocket, or in the heat of a quarrel he grabbed a bottle from the table. Example: two hooligans attacked the victim. A) the first one hit with his fist: he was convicted under b) the second hit with a bottle, he was convicted under Items used as weapons also include : - a children's toy (similar to a pistol), a faulty weapon ( item 4 Plenum No. 45) - an animal, for example a large dog ( clause 3 Plenum No. 45). |
3) When qualifying a person’s actions under clause “a”, part 1 of 213 of the Criminal Code
courts should, if necessary, on the basis of an expert’s opinion, establish whether the object used in hooliganism is a weapon intended to kill a living or other target.
If there are grounds for this, the actions of the person who used a weapon during the commission of hooliganism must be additionally qualified under Article 222 of the Criminal Code
.
Note
| - what is considered a weapon: the definition of the term is contained in (P. Plenum No. 5). |
Objects used as weapons when committing hooliganism are understood as any material objects that, based on their properties, can cause harm to health
person.
In cases where, in the process of committing hooliganism, a person uses animals that pose a danger to human life or health, the act, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, can be qualified under paragraph "a" part 1 of 213 of the Criminal Code
.
4) The use of unloaded, faulty, unusable weapons (for example, training weapons) or decorative, souvenir weapons, toy weapons, etc. during the commission of hooliganism. provides grounds for qualifying the offense under clause "a" part 1 213 of the Criminal Code
.
GROUP OF PERSONS
5) When qualifying the actions of the perpetrator as hooliganism committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, the courts must proceed from the requirements provided for in Part 2 35 of the Criminal Code
.
When deciding on the qualification of such actions under Part 2 213 of the Criminal Code
, courts should keep in mind that a preliminary agreement must be reached not only on the commission of joint hooligan actions, but also on the use of
weapons
or objects used
as
weapons, or on the commission of such actions
motivated
by political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or motivated by hatred or enmity towards any social group by any of the
accomplices
. To qualify the crime, it does not matter whether all persons who agreed to commit such a crime used weapons or objects used as weapons.
If one person, in the course of committing joint illegal actions in the absence of a preliminary conspiracy with other participants in the crime, used weapons or objects used as weapons, or continued hooligan actions based on political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity or hatred or enmity towards any social group, what he has done, if there are grounds for it, is subject to qualification under the relevant paragraph of Part 1 213 of the Criminal Code
(
36 CC
).
Actions of other participants who were not bound by a prior conspiracy and did not use weapons or objects used as weapons, and also did not commit criminal acts motivated by political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or motivated by hatred or enmity in relation to any or social group, do not form part of the specified crime.
If there are grounds for this, such actions may be qualified as petty hooliganism ( 20.1 Code of Administrative Offenses
).
6) If a person has involved a minor in committing a crime under Article 213 of the Criminal Code
, his actions are subject to qualification according to the totality of crimes provided for in the relevant part
213 of the Criminal Code
and
Part 4 of the 150 Criminal Code
(for involving a minor in a criminal group).
RESISTANCE to government officials
7) As hooliganism associated with resistance to a government official or other person performing duties to protect public order or suppress a violation of public order ( Part 2 213 of the Criminal Code
), the actions of the perpetrator should be qualified in the case where resistance was provided directly during
the
commission of criminal hooliganism.
In cases where resistance to a representative of the authorities is offered by a person after the cessation of hooligan actions, in particular in connection with subsequent arrest, his actions are subject to qualification under a set of crimes provided for in Part 1 213 of the Criminal Code
and the corresponding article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, which provides for liability for the crime committed (for example, under
317 of the Criminal Code
or
318 of the Criminal Code
).
Resistance to a government official or other person performing duties to protect public order should be understood as intentional
actions of a person to overcome the legal actions of these persons, as well as the actions of other citizens, preventing a violation of public order, for example, when detaining a person committing hooliganism, disarming him, restraining him or otherwise preventing the continuation of hooliganism.
9) Hooligan actions associated with resistance to a representative of the authorities, during which violence was used, both non-dangerous and dangerous to life and health, should be classified as a set of crimes provided for in Part 2 213 of the Criminal Code
and the corresponding part
318 of the Criminal Code
.
If a person, while resisting a person performing duties to protect public order or suppressing a violation of public order, intentionally caused him serious or moderate harm to health or committed his murder, the act, if there are grounds for this, should be classified as a set of crimes provided for in Part 2 213 of the Criminal Code
and, accordingly,
clause “a” part 2 111
,
clause “b” part 2 112 of the Criminal Code
or
clause “b” part 2 105 of the Criminal Code
, as the commission of these crimes against a person in connection with the performance
of official
activities or performance
public
debt.
10) Persons performing duties for the protection of public order should include:
- military personnel,
— persons engaged in private detective and security activities involved in the protection of public safety and public order,
— officials of local government bodies who, under the special authority of the local government body, carry out functions to protect public order.
Other persons suppressing violations of public order are understood as persons who, although not vested with any powers, nevertheless participate in preventive actions on their own initiative.
HARM TO HEALTH
11) Bearing in mind that the corpus delicti provided for in Article 213 of the Criminal Code
, does not contain such a sign of the objective side of the crime as the use of violence (causing harm to human health of varying degrees of severity), and taking into account the fact that in hooliganism the intent is aimed at a gross violation of public order, in cases where, in the process of committing hooliganism, the victim, as well as a person performing the duties of protecting public order or suppressing hooligan acts is beaten or harmed to health of varying degrees of severity from hooligan motives, the act must be qualified according to the totality of crimes provided for in the relevant part
213
and part of the corresponding article
of the Special
Part of the Criminal Code, which provides for liability for crime against the person.
Url Additional information:
- p.
Plenum No. 1 must have a desire to oppose oneself to others
12) Courts should limit hooliganism, liability for which is provided for in Article 213 of the Criminal Code
, from other crimes, including those committed by a person out of hooligan motives, depending on the content and direction of his
intent
,
motive
,
purpose
and circumstances of the actions he committed.
Direction of intent and circumstances of the committed actions
| Hooligan motives must be expressed obviously . Supreme Court Directions: — P. Plenum No. 1 must have a desire to oppose oneself to others — clause 12 Plenum No. 45 takes into account the focus: intent, motive, purpose and circumstances Direction of intent The court must assess the direction of intent. And this direction must be evidenced by the specific circumstances of the crime, for example, the place where it was committed. ILLUSTRATION (Cassation ruling of the RF Armed Forces dated 09/08/2020 No. 58-UD20-10SP-A5). The Supreme Court ruled out their conviction under paragraphs “and” Part 2 of 105 of the Criminal Code . |
Criminally punishable acts committed out of hooligan motives should be understood as intentional
actions directed against a person’s person or his property, which are committed without any reason or using an insignificant reason. At the same time, in order to correctly establish these motives in the event that the perpetrator commits violent acts during a quarrel or fight, the courts need to find out:
- who initiated them,
— whether the conflict was provoked to be used as a pretext for committing illegal actions.
Hooligan urges
| - hooligan motives: these are actions committed for no reason, without reason or for an insignificant reason (clause 12 Plenum No. 45). Example 1 : — You are standing in line at the box office in a cinema, and you see a person trying to buy a ticket without queuing. You, without explaining anything, strike - there are hooligan motives here. The court will consider that you hit, wanting to show your “coolness” to others, using the victim’s minor offense as a reason to demonstrate your strength. In such a situation, liability arises under a criminal article ( 116 of the Criminal Code ). Example 2 : - the same situation, but you do not hit immediately, but first make a claim, a verbal conflict begins, and in the heat of an argument you strike - there are no hooligan motives here, but there is hostility that suddenly arose during the quarrel. That is, there is no causelessness, there is no intent to commit hooliganism (and the longer the verbal quarrel lasts, the more difficult it is to accuse of hooligan motives). In such a situation, if there is no obvious disrespect for society, then liability will be administrative ( |
Url Additional information:
— P.
Plenum No. 1, if the victim is the instigator, then there are no hooligan motives
If the victim has no obvious wrongdoing
Two types
situations: when there is no
clause "z" part 1 of 61 of the Criminal Code
, but there is
part 2 of 61 of the Criminal Code
If the instigator of a quarrel or fight was the victim, as well as in the case when the reason for the conflict was his illegal behavior, the person is not liable for against such a victim of a crime for hooligan motives.
Causing harm to human health of varying degrees of severity or committing murder based on
political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity or hatred or enmity towards any social group in the absence of other signs of a crime provided for in
213 Criminal Code
, should be qualified under the relevant articles, parts and paragraphs of the Criminal Code, providing for liability for crimes against individuals (for example, according to
clause "e" part 2 112 of the Criminal Code
).
13) Taking into account the fact that the subjective side of hooliganism is characterized by direct
intent, insults, beatings, causing harm to human health of varying degrees of severity, committed in the family, against relatives, acquaintances and caused by personal hostile relationships, incorrect actions of the victims, etc., in the absence of signs of a crime under
Part 1 213 of the Criminal Code
, must be qualified under the articles
of the Special
Part of the Criminal Code
,
which provide for liability for crimes against the person.
DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
14) Deliberate destruction or damage to someone else’s property, committed out of hooliganism
motives and causing
significant
damage should be qualified under
Part 2 167 of the Criminal Code
.
In cases where a person, in addition to the deliberate destruction or damage of property for hooligan reasons, commits other intentional actions that grossly violate public order, expressing clear disrespect for society (for example, using weapons
or objects used as
weapons
against an individual), what he has done must be qualified under
Part 2 167 of the Criminal Code
and the corresponding part
213 of the Criminal Code
.
When deciding whether the victim has suffered significant damage, the courts should proceed from the value of the destroyed property or the cost of restoring damaged property, the significance of this property for the victim, and his financial situation.
15) Vandalism committed based on
political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or based on hatred or enmity against any social group, should be distinguished from hooliganism committed for the same reasons.
Vandalism not only violates public order, but also causes damage to property through desecration of buildings and other structures, damage to property in transport or other public places. In cases where, along with vandalism ( 214 Criminal Code
), a person commits hooliganism, liability for which is provided for in
213 Criminal Code
, the act should be qualified according to the totality of these articles of the Criminal Code.
16) Recommend that the courts, when establishing during the trial cases of hooliganism, as well as other crimes committed from hooligan motives, circumstances that contributed to the commission of crimes, and violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens, respond to these circumstances by issuing private rulings (decisions), addressing attention of relevant organizations and officials to the specified circumstances and facts of violation of the law, requiring the necessary measures to be taken ( Part 4 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
).
Go to the list of all Plenums
Request a consultation
What to do if accused of vandalism
In order to understand whether the accused has a chance of mitigating his sentence, you need to check what actions of his can influence the mitigation of guilt by the court and take all actions required by law to eliminate or minimize the harm caused to him.
Examples of mitigating circumstances used by courts when resolving cases:
- removal of the offensive inscription, restoration of the integrity of the destroyed object, compensation for the damage caused.
The obligation to reimburse the costs incurred by the owner of the damaged property to eliminate the consequences of vandalism falls on the person found guilty of vandalism.
Important for the court will be proactive actions to eliminate the consequences of vandalism, when a person himself, without a court decision, compensates for the damage caused.
- awareness of guilt and the fact of repentance, the desire to correct the damage caused or an apology to victims of vandalism are taken into account when assigning punishment;
- if the person committing vandalism did not realize that he was committing it in a public place, that the offensive inscriptions or drawings could be seen by strangers, then it is important to indicate this fact during interrogation and during the defense process.
Note!
If there are grounds to assert that a structure or building damaged by inscriptions is located in a remote place and there is no permanent presence of people there, then such actions will not create a crime under Article 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
They can be classified as petty hooliganism, which is an administrative offense under Art. 20.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Also, such actions may be assessed by the court as intentional damage or destruction of someone else's property, if such actions did not cause significant damage. This also allows you to avoid criminal liability, and will be limited to administrative liability under Art. 7.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the punishment for which is a fine of 300 to 500 rubles, in addition to compensation for the cost of damaged property.
