Limits of punishability of theft of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
The article deals with the influence of the form of theft, its qualifying features on the determination by the legislator of the limits of punishability of theft of narcotic drugs. The author highlighted some shortcomings in the construction of criminal law, providing for liability for theft of drugs. The article deals with some specific situations that demonstrate the paradoxical decision of the legislator to refuse to specify the forms of theft in the qualification of Art. 229 of the Criminal Code and to establish a uniform system of qualifying signs for all seizures of narcotic drugs. Critical assessment received broad interpretation by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation qualifying feature “using official position”. On the one hand, this understanding of this feature casts doubt on the possibility of qualification under part 1 of article 229 of the criminal code of theft of drugs in the form of appropriation or embezzlement, as immediately translates to the qualification under pt. 2 of Art. 229 of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, with this approach, the appropriation and embezzlement of drugs become more dangerous theft than open nonviolent robbery. The author also notes that the court's ability to take into account the degree of public danger of theft of drugs in the form of robbery is significantly limited. Uniform limits of punishability do not allow to take into account properly the signs increasing degree of danger of such plunder. The analysis of questions of punishability of theft of narcotic drugs convinces that Art. 229 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation needs correction, both regarding formulation of dispositions, and regarding revision of sanctions, taking into account essentially differing character and degree of public danger of the acts provided in it.