The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
50
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
50-53
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue04-09
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
26 February 2025
ACCEPTED
22 March 2025
PUBLISHED
25 April 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue04 2025
CITATION
Usmanov Bekzod Absalomovich. (2025). General characteristics of
compensation for damage caused by fraud crimes. The American Journal of
Political Science Law and Criminology, 7(04), 50
–
53.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue04-09
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
General characteristics of
compensation for damage
caused by fraud crimes
Usmanov Bekzod Absalomovich
Independent researcher of the University of Public Security of the
Republic of Uzbekistan
Abstract:
The article substantiates the general
characteristics of compensation for damage caused as a
result of fraud crimes, based on scientific analysis in
accordance with current national legislation, develops
conclusions and proposals on the general characteristics
of compensation for damage caused as a result of fraud
crimes.
Keywords:
Fraud, compensation, damage to the object
and subject of fraud, deception, breach of trust.
Introduction:
No society can exist without people and
without property. Property and property rights exist on
the basis of any society. Therefore, it would not be an
exaggeration to say that the individual and property are
the fundamental elements that form the basis of
society. The protection of the person and property is
one of the priority tasks of criminal law. The widespread
prevalence of theft of property through fraud and the
fact that it causes significant damage to society
necessitate its prevention.
In accordance with Article 54 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, the right to own, use, and
dispose of property belongs only to the owner of this
property. Therefore, any unlawful interference in the
exercise of property rights entails a serious violation of
this right and entails criminal liability. [1]
The adopted laws have increased the effectiveness of
measures aimed at ensuring the proportionality of
punishment for fraud crimes to the committed crime
and preventing such acts. In particular, the maximum
term of punishment for committing fraud has been
increased.
According to Article 168 of the Criminal Code of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, fraud, that is, the acquisition of
another's property or the right to another's property
through deception or abuse of trust, committed by prior
conspiracy by a group of persons, is punishable by
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
51
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
imprisonment from three to five years, committed
repeatedly or by a dangerous recidivist, from five to
eight years, committed on an especially large scale, by
a particularly dangerous recidivist, by an organized
group, or in its interests, from eight to ten years. [2]
The direct object of a crime is social relations aimed at
protecting another's property or property rights.
The subject of fraud, in addition to property, as a legal
category, is the right to another's property, special
powers to property (for example, the guilty party may
acquire the right to live in the house). These rights can
be enshrined in various documents, such as wills,
insurance policies, powers of attorney for obtaining
certain assets, and various securities.
Objectively, fraud consists of the seizure of another's
property or property rights through deception or
abuse of trust. The peculiarity of this crime lies in the
fact that from the external side, the property is
"voluntarily" transferred by the owner or alienated and
transferred to the perpetrator. It is deception or abuse
of trust that gives rise to the idea of transferring
property or property rights to the criminal in the owner
or other legal owner of the property. In this way, by
influencing the consciousness and will of the victim or
abusing their trust, the fraudster achieves the goal of
transferring property for their own benefit or for the
benefit of other persons. Here, deception or abuse of
trust is embodied as a necessary method of robbery.
Deception is understood as the distortion by the guilty
party of any fact or concealment of the truth or the
reporting of knowingly false information in order to
mislead the victim in order to obtain the owner of the
property or the person to whom the property was
entrusted to voluntarily transfer it to the fraudster.
Deception is primarily expressed in the conscious
dissemination of false information by a person to
others. Deception as a method of fraudulent
embezzlement may relate to the true intentions of the
guilty party (for example, borrowing property for the
purpose of non-repayment); to the object, its price,
quantity and quality (production of various items as
gold items using non-ferrous metals, sale of
incomplete goods at full price). Deception can also
depend on the identity of the fraudster, his position
and social status, and profession (for example, a
person introduces himself as a tax inspector and
receives funds as tax payments).
If the perpetrator uses forged documents in the
commission of fraud, their act is covered by the
elements of fraud and does not require additional
qualification under Article 209 (Professional forgery) or
Article 228 of the Criminal Code. However, if the
perpetrator, for the purpose of committing fraudulent
acts, prepares documents, stamps, seals, forms, or
counterfeits them, their actions should be qualified
under Articles 168 and 228 of the Criminal Code
(Production, forgery, sale, or use of documents, stamps,
seals, forms). It should be noted that if a forged
document (disease certificate, driver's license,
certificate, etc.) was not prepared by a fraudster, but
was prepared by another person who knew that this
person would use the document for theft, then this
person will be held liable not only for forgery of
documents, but also as an accomplice in theft through
fraud.
In the commission of fraudulent acts, the perpetrator
may obtain another's property by pretending to be
another person (wearing the uniform of an official
representative of a state div of power or forging a
certificate of a representative of power).
Abuse of trust should be understood as the use by the
guilty person of separate, trust-based relations between
himself and the owner of the property or the person in
whose possession it is located, for the illegal acquisition
of another's property in his favor. Usually, trust-based
relationships can arise between the fraudster and the
victim in a contract of rental, lease, sale, assignment,
etc. A fraudster can also use service, kinship, and
friendship relationships to achieve their intentions.
Fraud is considered a completed crime from the
moment of seizure of another's property and the
opportunity arises for the guilty party to dispose of the
plundered property at their own discretion.
If a person, through deception or abuse of trust,
acquires the property of a mentally incompetent person
or a child who does not understand the nature of the
actions committed against him, the guilty party should
be held criminally liable not for fraud, but for theft.
From the subjective side, fraud is committed with direct
intent, the presence of a malicious intent is a necessary
sign of fraud.
In the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court
"On Judicial Practice in Cases of Embezzlement of
Another's Property by Theft, Robbery, and Robbery," it
is stated that "theft of property by persons who are
incapable of understanding the events being committed
by the guilty party (for example, very young persons,
mentally incompetent persons, those who are in a state
of alcoholic or narcotic intoxication, or those who have
fallen asleep) should be qualified as covert
embezzlement of another's property.[3]
The guilty party understands that they are misleading
the victim in order to seize another's property or
knowingly abuse their trust and wants this to happen.
Also, this criminal act is committed by the guilty party
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
52
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
for the purpose of obtaining property benefits and
enrichment, the presence of a selfish motive is a
necessary sign of fraud, however, if the property was
acquired by deception without selfish intent (for
example, receiving a monthly salary on behalf of
another person for the purpose of transferring it to
him), the act cannot be qualified as fraud.
"It should be borne in mind that the goal of acquiring
another's property may arise not only before the
execution of property transactions, but also in the
process of their execution. Based on the foregoing, the
actions of a person who, for valid reasons, did not
repay the debt on time and did not have the goal of
acquiring another's property for free cannot be
considered fraud."[4]
The subject of the fraud crime can be any sane
individual who has reached the age of 16.
In judicial and investigative practice, there are some
difficulties in distinguishing fraud from theft. When
committing fraud, deception or abuse of trust serves
as a method of seizing another's property, and when
committing theft, the use of deception is a means of
facilitating the seizure of the stolen item. In the case of
fraud, the victim voluntarily surrenders the property or
property right to the fraudster, while in theft, the guilty
party secretly plunders it without the permission of the
owner or the person in whose possession the property
was located. Only someone else's property can be the
subject of theft, and the subject of fraud can also be
someone else's property or right to property.
Part 2 of Article 168 of the Criminal Code establishes
liability for committing fraud:
a) in significant quantities;
b) by prior conspiracy by a group of persons;
c) using computer equipment.
Part 3 of the commented article establishes liability for
the commission of fraud:
a) in large quantities;
b) repeatedly or by a dangerous recidivist;
c) committed using official position.
Part 4 of the commented article establishes liability for
the commission of fraud:
a) in a very large amount;
b) by a particularly dangerous recidivist;
c) by an organized group or in its interests.
Part 5 of Article 168 of the Criminal Code provides for
an incentive norm, according to which, if the accused
compensates for the material damage caused,
punishments in the form of restriction of liberty and
imprisonment are not applied. The Criminal Code does
not specify the amount of compensation for material
damage, but it follows from the essence that material
damage is compensated in full.
Recently, various cases of fraud have become more
frequent among the population. Such fraud leads not
only to the violation of material assets of individuals, but
also to the violation of the rights and legitimate interests
and freedoms of citizens.
The biggest weapon we all have in the fight against fraud
is knowledge.
The most effective method of combating any crime is
crime prevention. The increase and diversification of
fraud crimes in recent years has led to numerous
negative consequences. It is known that, along with
internal affairs bodies, all public organizations are
equally responsible for identifying the causes of fraud,
studying the conditions that contributed to it, and
preventing crimes.
The most effective method of combating any crime is
crime prevention. In recent years, the increase in fraud
crimes, taking on various forms, has led to many
negative consequences. It is known that, along with the
National Guard and internal affairs bodies, all public
organizations are equally responsible for identifying the
causes of fraud, studying the conditions that
contributed to it, and preventing crimes.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, in order to prevent this type of crime,
together with representatives of all state bodies, it is
advisable to intensify awareness-raising work on the
prevention of fraudulent crimes by mahalla citizens'
assemblies and prevention inspectors in the regions, at
enterprises, organizations and institutions, educational
institutions located in the administrative territory,
among the population and the general public.
REFERENCES
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Жиноят кодекси. // Қонун
ҳужжатлари
маълумотлари
миллий
базаси.
(www.lex.uz)
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Олий суди Пленумининг
1999 йил
30 апрелдаги “Ўзгалар мулкини ўғирлик, талончилик
ва босқинчилик билан талон
-
торож қилиш жиноят
ишлари бўйича суд амалиёти тўғрисида”ги
6-
сонли қарори (Ўзбекистон Республикаси Олий суди
Пленумининг 2002 йил 14 июндаги 10
-
сонли
қарорига
асосан
киритилган
ўзгартириш
ва
қўшимчалар
билан)
//
Қонун
ҳужжатлари
маълумотлари миллий базаси. (www.lex.uz)
“Фирибгарлик жиноятларини барвақт олдини олиш
ҳудуд методикаси” методик ва амалий қўлланма
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
53
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
2019 йил.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Олий суд Пленумининг
2016 йилнинг
27 декабрдаги “Жиноят натижасида етказилган
мулкий зиённи қоплашга оид қонунчиликни
қўллаш бўйича суд амалиёти тўғрисида”ги 26
-
сон
қарори. Қонун ҳужжатлари маълумотлари миллий
базаси. (www.lex.uz)
