IMPROVING THE SANCTIONS OF THE NORMS ESTABLISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR CRIMINAL OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY AS A MEASURE TO ENSURE ECONOMIC SECURITY OF UKRAINE

Abstract

The purpose of the present article is twofold: firstly, to define the essence and content of property penalties under the criminal legislation of Ukraine; secondly, to analyse and summarise the trends in the development of penalty policy under martial law. In addition, the article considers the "economy" of criminal offences against property and the penalties provided for their commission. A scientific discussion on the problem of improving the types of penalties for criminal offences against property and their importance for the economic development of the state is also presented. It is imperative to ascertain appropriate sanctions for criminal infractions, constituting a pivotal responsibility for the legislator in order to forestall an incongruity between the societal threat posed by an act and the nature and extent of the imposed retribution. A methodical examination of the sanctions framework for "simple" property-related criminal infractions reveals that, with the exception of specific (predominantly egocentric and aggressive) acts, the legislator has opted to prescribe penalties in the form of financial penalties and corrective labour. This approach can be explained by the desire to make an offence economically unprofitable for the person committing it. It is emphasised that a fine, as well as correctional labour (which, since the adoption of the current Criminal Code, has also been considered by scientists as a possible type of special fine), are more economically advantageous for the state for the following reasons: 1) no costs for the execution of the sentence by the convicted person; 2) partially free labour services; 3) receipt of funds for the budget; 4) realisation of the purpose of punishment through the restriction of property rights. Results. It is noted that under the conditions of martial law, the approach to the classification of property offences was significantly changed, which, due to the not fully balanced disposition of the relevant parts of the amended articles, created an artificial basis for the non-alternative application of punishment in the form of imprisonment to offenders; ignoring the clarifications of the Supreme Court leads to the continuation of the practice of applying sanctions under Article 185(4) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to persons who have committed simple thefts and imposing a sentence of imprisonment. Such an approach should be considered inappropriate, firstly, given that the purpose of punishment of the accused is not achieved; secondly, in case of application of Article 185(1) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a person could be sentenced to a fine of one thousand to three thousand tax-free minimum incomes, community service for a term of eighty to two hundred and forty hours, or correctional labour for a term of up to two years, which is economically beneficial for the state. While the provisions of Article 69 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code may be applied to such individuals under certain circumstances and for specific types of property, analysis of court practice indicates that this approach is employed less frequently than exemption from punishment with probation. The authors argue that it is expedient to consider the possibility of establishing an alternative form of punishment for offences against property (a fine and correctional labour), if this is consistent with the general principles of criminal policy. It is advisable to impose imprisonment for property offences committed under martial law only if such conditions contribute to the commission of a socially dangerous act.