The thesis is the first in Ukraine systematic and complex monographic research of differentiation of criminal liability for destruction or damage to property under the
criminal law of Ukraine. The paper examines issue of the concepts, types and means of differentiation of criminal liability for destruction or damage to property under the
criminal law of Ukraine, the problems of application of such means and improvement of articles of the criminal law that contain them.
Analysis of existing doctrinal definitions of such concepts as destruction and damage to property, gives grounds to identify certain essential features that
are inherent in each of them: 1) both of these terms indicate two features of the objective side of the criminal offense – and a socially dangerous act, and socially
dangerous consequences. Therefore, the definitions of these concepts must contain a description of both the action and the consequences. On this basis, they differ from
such terms as «damage», «destruction» of property, which are also used in the current Criminal Code of Ukraine and indicate only the actions, not covering
the consequences; 2) the specifics of the criminal law interpretation of these terms necessitates the indication of unlawful destructive influence on property, as an essential
feature of the act, covered by the concepts of «destruction of property» and «damage to property». If we turn to the general (not criminal-legal) understanding of these
concepts, they cover not only illegal but also legitimate destructive influence on property; 3) the feature that distinguishes the concepts of «destruction of property» and
«damage to property» are the consequences that are caused in the course of these acts. Destruction of property means the following consequences: physical cessation of the
property existence or such physical changes that make it impossible to restore it; complete and constant impossibility of using the property for its intended purpose;
termination of ownership of this property. Whereas, property damage means the following consequences: physical changes that degrade the quality or reduce the
value of the property and can be eliminated; partial and /or temporary inability to use the property for its intended purpose. Conceptual analysis of doctrinal approaches made it possible to identify four aspects of understanding the concept of «differentiation of criminal liability»: 1) as a method or principle of criminal policy; 2) attribution of differentiation
of criminal liability to a number of branch (special) principles of criminal law; 3) differentiation of criminal liability is considered as a legislative and law enforcement process; 4) differentiation of criminal liability is interpreted exclusively as the activity of the legislator. The paper expresses the opinion that the position of those authors who recognize the differentiation of criminal liability as the prerogative of the legislator seems to be more reasonable. Arguments in favour of this position are given. The thesis proposes two definitions of the concept of «differentiation of criminal liability» in the so-called, broad and narrow sense, which made it possible to reduce the degree of discussion in criminal law doctrine. It is suggested the definition of the concept of a means of differentiation of criminal liability and stated that the universal means of differentiation of criminal
liability is the legal structure, the model of the crime – the corpus delicti with all its elements and features. It is concluded that using the capabilities of this universal
«designer», the legislator differentiates criminal liability by constructing: 1) contiguous corpus delicti – corpus delicti that differ in at least one feature, which exists in one structure and is excluded in another; 2) competing provisions that contain corpus delicti, one of which is general and the other (others) special. This group also includes qualified corpus delicti, which by their nature are nothing but corpus delicti contained in special provisions. The only difference is that these rules are contained in one of the general provision
of the article; 3) competing provisions, which contain corpus delicti, one of which is the socalled «entire» and the others – «parts». This situation is observed when the legislator
constructs compiled corpus delicti.
