The study is devoted to the issue of the model of property protection in criminal law. Starting from the constitutional principles of property protection, the article presents the constitutional typology of forms of ownership depending on the entity that owns the property. This is followed by an analysis of the normative status, character, and functions of private, municipal, and state property. Grounded on the principle of a social market economy based on private property, the study provides an analysis of the social, economic, and constitutional function of this form of ownership. In the next step, the article presents the status of communal property, its constitutional functions, and relations to private and state property. Te study also contains the justification for the thesis on the functional approach to state property which, as a type of property, is not constitutional in its nature. In light of the analysis of the methods of infringement on the property and their social consequences, the author presents the justification of the thesis on the equal protection of all types of property in criminal law. He points out the arguments supporting the thesis that in the legal system based on the concept of social market economy there is no justification for differentiating the methods and forms of criminal law protection of property depending on the entity to which ownership is vested. From the perspective of the principle of legal protection, there are currently no grounds for differentiating criminal law protection of state or social property. The social functions of property are associated with every constitutional type of this right, which further justifies the thesis that property should be protected in an equal manner. Possible differentiation of the scope of responsibility for various attacks on property should be based on the assessment of the degree of social harmfulness of the act in relation to the circumstances of the evaluated case. The current criminal law protection of property guarantees adequate protection of this right in relation to all its varieties, as well as enables individualization and differentiation of the scope of criminal liability for attacks on the property depending on the features of a particular case.

Property Protection Rules in Criminal Law. On (Il)legitimacy of Differentiating the Protection of Private and State Property in the Criminal Code at the Level of Description of Prohibited Acts

The study is devoted to the issue of the model of property protection in criminal law. Starting from the constitutional principles of property protection, the article presents the constitutional typology of forms of ownership depending on the entity that owns the property. This is followed by an analysis of the normative status, character, and functions of private, municipal, and state property. Grounded on the principle of a social market economy based on private property, the study provides an analysis of the social, economic, and constitutional function of this form of ownership. In the next step, the article presents the status of communal property, its constitutional functions, and relations to private and state property. Te study also contains the justification for the thesis on the functional approach to state property which, as a type of property, is not constitutional in its nature. In light of the analysis of the methods of infringement on the property and their social consequences, the author presents the justification of the thesis on the equal protection of all types of property in criminal law. He points out the arguments supporting the thesis that in the legal system based on the concept of social market economy there is no justification for differentiating the methods and forms of criminal law protection of property depending on the entity to which ownership is vested. From the perspective of the principle of legal protection, there are currently no grounds for differentiating criminal law protection of state or social property. The social functions of property are associated with every constitutional type of this right, which further justifies the thesis that property should be protected in an equal manner. Possible differentiation of the scope of responsibility for various attacks on property should be based on the assessment of the degree of social harmfulness of the act in relation to the circumstances of the evaluated case. The current criminal law protection of property guarantees adequate protection of this right in relation to all its varieties, as well as enables individualization and differentiation of the scope of criminal liability for attacks on the property depending on the features of a particular case.