SOME ISSUES OF THEFT SUBJECT DETERMINING IN USING ELECTRONIC MEANS OF PAYMENT FOR CRIMES

The article discusses some aspects of determining the subject of theft when committing a crime using electronic means of payment. It can be stated that not only the “physical”, but also the “economic” feature of someone else’s property as an object of theft ceases to be mandatory when committing a crime using EMP. Based on the conducted research, the conclusions are formulated that the EMP in any form and on any medium cannot be the subject of theft, since it is not someone else’s property in the criminal legal sense. When giving a criminal legal assessment of what has been done with any method of seizing an EMP, one should take into account the systemic nature of criminal law prohibitions and use the abstraction of criminal law norms. The alarming trend of gradual abandonment of the classic signs of theft and its subject - someone else’s property - leads to a blurring of the boundaries of the concept of “theft” in Russian criminal law and violates the principle of formal certainty of the criminal law prohibition. It is not justified in any way when it comes to attempts to give an expansive interpretation of the concept of “other people’s property” and to extend the criminal law establishing criminal liability for theft of other people’s property to cases of unlawful seizure of EMP.