Кримінально-правова характеристика кваліфікуючих ознак втрати військового майна (ст. 413 КК України)

The article is devoted to the study of qualifying features of loss and damage to military property: committing a relevant criminal offense in a special period, except for martial law, under martial law and in a combat situation. It is established that a special period as the time of committing a criminal offense, according to current legislation, includes three components: mobilization, wartime and part of the reconstruction period after the end of hostilities. Each of these components has its own time limits. Mobilization begins with the promulgation of a decree of the President of Ukraine on mobilization approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in accordance with the procedure established by law and is valid for the period of time specified by the relevant decision. The article substantiates the expediency of improving the statutory definition of the concept of mobilization so that it covers the entire period of being in the “mobilized state”, and not only the transition to it. Wartime is defined as the period of warfare, i.e., the organized use of defense and security forces to fulfill the tasks of defense of Ukraine. However, given the peculiarities of the definition of a special period, military operations cause a special period only in case of a decision to mobilize or impose martial law, which is a serious shortcoming of the legislation and also requires amendments. The timeframe of the recovery period, during which the special period will exist, is not defined in the law. However, it is reasonable to assume that it begins at the end of hostilities and includes the period of demobilization. The article also outlines the beginning and end of martial law, specifies the time limits of martial law in force in 2018 and introduced in 2022, and considers the application of the relevant qualifying feature to acts committed on the day of introduction or termination of martial law. Based on the results of the study, the author concludes that differentiation of liability using the analyzed qualifying features is justified. At the same time, the author proposes changes to their wording: instead of the construction “in the conditions of...”, the author suggests using the construction “during...”.