CRIMINAL LAW CRITERIA FOR DIFFERENTIATING PROPERTY OFFENCES IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
Keywords:
digital fraud, computer data, property benefit, acquisition of property, criminal characterisation, information system, digital evidence, related offencesAbstract
This article examines the criteria for distinguishing property encroachments committed through information technology from fraud, theft, and computer information crimes. As a decisive criterion of qualification, the legal mechanism that created the property result is proposed, rather than the fact of using the technology. The fact that false information influenced a person’s decision is considered fraud, and the fact that a property transaction was performed automatically without human confirmation as a result of unauthorized influence on computer data is considered an independent crime. A comparative study of foreign and international experience has been conducted, and proposals have been developed to introduce an independent norm into the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan and to harmonize judicial practice.
References
Altiev, R. S. (2019). History of development of legislative acts providing criminal liability for fraud in the criminal legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Journal of Legal Studies, 4(4), 40–45.
Bolsunovskaya, L. M. (2016). Kriminalizatsiya moshennichestva v sfere kompyuternoy informatsii v rossiyskom prave [Criminalization of fraud in the sphere of computer information in Russian law]. Criminologistʼs Library, (3), 15–20.
Brenner, S. W. (2006). Cybercrime jurisdiction. Crime, Law and Social Change, 46(4–5), 197–204.
Clough, J. (2015). Principles of cybercrime (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe. (2001, November 23). Convention on cybercrime (Budapest Convention) (ETS No. 185). https://rm.coe.int/1680081561
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2019, April 17). Directive (EU) 2019/713 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment. Official Journal of the European Union, L 123, 18–29.
Federal Republic of Germany. (1998). Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany. Federal Ministry of Justice.
Kasimov, A. B. (2022). Firibgarlik jinoyati uchun javobgarlikni takomillashtirish masalalari [Issues of improving liability for the crime of fraud]. Oriental Renaissance: Innovative, Educational, Natural and Social Sciences, 2(4), 929–935.
Koops, B.-J., & Goodwin, M. (2014). Cyberspace, the cloud, and cross-border criminal investigation: The limits and possibilities of international law. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2698263
Kudryavtsev, V. N. (2004). Obshchaya teoriya kvalifikatsii prestupleniy [General theory of crime qualification] (2nd ed.). Yurist.
Lopashenko, N. A. (2019). Kompyuternoe moshennichestvo — novoe slovo v ponimanii khishcheniya ili oshibka zakonodatelya [Computer fraud — A new word in understanding theft or a mistake of the legislator]. Perm Legal Almanac, (1), 598–609.
Patskevich, A. P., & Belov, D. N. (2023). Ispolsovanie informatsionnykh tekhnologiy na pervonachalnom etape rassledovaniya moshennichestva [The use of information technology at the initial stage of fraud investigation]. Belarusian State University.
Rarog, A. I. (2003). Kvalifikatsiya prestupleniy po subyektivnym priznakam [Qualification of crimes based on subjective signs]. Legal Center Press.
Republic of Belarus. (1999). Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus. National Center of Legal Information of the Republic of Belarus.
Republic of Uzbekistan. (1994). Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Lex.uz. https://lex.uz/docs/-111453
Sheveleva, S. V. (2017). Moshennichestvo v sfere kompyuternoy informatsii: osobennosti kvalifikatsii i konkurentsii so smezhnymi sostavami prestupleniy [Computer information fraud: Qualification features and competition with related crime elements]. Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, (4), 230.
Stepanov, M. V. (2016). Kriticheskiy analiz normy o moshennichestve v sfere kompyuternoy informatsii [Critical analysis of the norm on fraud in the field of computer information]. Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, (1), 173–178.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2023, June 23). On judicial practice in fraud cases (Resolution No. 17). Lex.uz. https://lex.uz/docs/6523582
Tsebekova, G. V., & Basanov, V. V. (2021). Corpus delicti characteristics provided by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 108, 1598–1604.
United Kingdom Parliament. (2006). Fraud Act 2006. UK Statute Law Database. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35
Yuzhin, A. A. (2016). Moshennichestvo i ego vidy v rossiyskom ugolovnom prave [Fraud and its types in Russian criminal law] (Candidate dissertation). Moscow State University of Law.
Zuykov, G. G. (1971). Kriminalisticheskoe uchenie o sposobe soversheniya prestupleniya [Forensic doctrine on the method of committing a crime]. Socialist Legality, (11), 22.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 JURISPRUDENCE
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
