Criteria for distinguishing vandalism from a minor act

When qualifying vandalism, law enforcement officers often experience difficulties in distinguishing a criminal act from a minor one, which formally contains signs of a crime, but does not pose a public danger. Due to the evaluation of the signs of both vandalism and the insignificance of the act, there is a high probability of qualification errors in which insignificant acts are recognized as criminal, or on the contrary, the actions of persons who committed vandalism are recognized as unapproachable. To date, there is no single doctrinal opinion defining the criteria of insignificance, a similar situation is observed in judicial and investigative practice. For these reasons, the topic is relevant and requires a comprehensive analysis. The purpose of the study is to consider the points of view of researchers of interest to the science of criminal law and law enforcement officers. The tasks are to establish rules for the qualification of criminal and insignificant vandalism, which contribute to the adoption of the right decision by law enforcement subjects, to make scientifically based proposals for the application of Article 14, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in relation to acts that formally fall under the signs of a crime under Article 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. During the research, the following methods are used: dialectical, analysis, synthesis and sociological. As a result of the analysis, the most common mistakes made by the law enforcement officer are identified, the points of view of scientists on the qualification of vandalism are considered. Signs of insignificance were also investigated, taking into account practical and doctrinal positions. As conclusions, the signs of insignificance are proposed, which are subject to establishment by law enforcement agencies, in order to correctly qualify vandal actions.