Annotation

The work is devoted to the analysis of complex issues of qualification of crimes committed by officials in the performance of state defense orders. It is shown how the addition of special rules to the criminal law on encroachments in the contract sphere and in the performance of state defense orders, along with the clarification and differentiation of responsibility, led to the actualization of existing and the emergence of new problems of qualification. Based on the explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the study of decisions on specific criminal cases, the author proposes criteria for distinguishing between abuse of office, which is an administrative decision of an authorized person that generates legal consequences, from the use of official position by a subject making a forged document or from illegal technical, professional actions of an employee of the contract service. Taking into account the criterion of distinguishing official selfish abuse from theft, established in the doctrine and judicial practice, it is shown how the latter can consist in an administrative and economic decision on the expenditure of budget funds, causing real property damage to the owner.