THE CONCEPT OF “POSSESSION” UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE OF UKRAINE

Abstract

Abstract. The article examines the concept of “possession” in the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The compliance of this concept with the general requirements for terminology, primarily the unity of terminology, is analysed. It is established that using this concept in the Criminal Code of Ukraine does not violate the unity of terminology. The lexical meaning of “possession” gives it a broad scope. Narrowing this scope by indicating regulatory provisions in one way or another is an entirely justified method. It is proven that the use of the concept of “possession” can be broader, in particular in the provisions of Articles 146, 146-1, 149, 158-1, 158-3, 266, 278, 279, 341, 346, 444 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is established that using this concept in the text of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is unsystematic. Moreover, it is proven that the legislator made several logical errors. Accordingly, in order to improve the provisions of the legislation, it is proposed to unify the use of this concept: if the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine should cover all possible forms of turning a thing in favor of a person, based on other signs of the composition of a criminal offense, then the use of the phrase “illegal appropriation” will be sufficient to describe the act; if it is necessary to provide for liability for the appropriation of a thing in a specific way that has an established concise terminological designation (theft, kidnapping, robbery, fraud, etc.), then it will be appropriate to use precisely such terminological designation; at the same time, when constructing regulatory provisions on the appropriation of “special” items such as weapons, narcotics, the wording “robbery with the aim of appropriation” can be used; if it is necessary to provide for liability for the appropriation of a thing by one or more methods that do not have an established concise designation (by using an official position; by committing transactions; by misappropriating property that was entrusted to a person or was in his or her possession), it is advisable to use the construction “(illegal/unlawful) appropriation… by…”.The study also revealed several problems; in particular, the opinion that the concept of “embezzlement” of a thing is covered by the idea of “possession” seems debatable. Therefore, the appropriation of another’s thing should be provided for in the Law as a separate form (type) of encroachment.