PROBLEMS OF DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN INTERNET FRAUD AND CYBERCRIME IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL LAW PROTECTION OF PROPERTY AND INFORMATION SECURITY

The article examines the problem of differentiating between Internet fraud and cybercrime in the context of the digital transformation of social relations. The purpose of the study is to develop criminal law criteria for distinguishing these offenses based on the nature of the object of encroachment and the functional role of information systems in the mechanism of the crime. The paper proposes criteria for differentiation grounded in the identification of the direct object of criminal encroachment and the role of information systems in the commission of the offense. It is substantiated that cybercrime should encompass acts in which information systems and relations in the field of information security constitute the direct object of criminal protection, whereas Internet fraud represents a form of traditional property infringement in which digital technologies are used as an instrument of deception. It is concluded that a remote method of influencing the victim does not in itself constitute Internet fraud unless the deception is carried out through the use of information system resources. The results are significant for ensuring consistent legal qualification and for clarifying the limits of criminal law protection of property and information relations.

1. Wall, D.S. Cybercrime: The Transformation of Crime in the Information Age / D.S. Wall. – Polity, 2007 – 288 р.

2. Yar, M. The novelty of cybercrime: An assessment in light of routine activity theory / M. Yar // European Journal of Criminology. – 2005. – Vol. 2. № 4. – Рр. 407-427.

3. Chawki, M. Nigeria tackles advance fee fraud [Jelektronnyj resurs] / M. Chawki // Journal of Information, Law and Technology. – 2009. – No. 1 – Rezhim dostupa: https://go.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/2009_1/chawki (data obrashhenija: 03.01.2026).

4. R. Dhamija. Why phishing works: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2006). – Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2006. – Pp. 581-590.

5. F. Maggi, Are the con artists back? A preliminary analysis of modern phone frauds: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology. – Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK, 2010. – Рр. 824-831.

6. Anisimov, V.F. Otvetstvennost' za prestuplenija protiv sobstvennosti s priznakami hishhenija: sostojanie, sushhnost' i problemy kvalifikacii: dis. … d-ra jurid. nauk / V.F Anisimov. – SPb., 2007. – 381 s.

7. Idrisov, N.T. O protivodejstvii recidivnoj prestupnosti (na osnove praktiki Sledstvennogo komiteta Rossijskoj Federacii) / N.T. Idrisov // Juridicheskij vestnik Samarskogo universiteta. – 2018. – T. 4. № 2. – S. 61-64.

8. Kamyshanskij,V.P.Pravo sobstvennosti:predelyiogranichenija: monografija/V.P.Kamyshanskij. – M.: JuNITI, 2000. – 301 s.

9. Pletnev, D.A. Institucional'nye osnovy prav sobstvennosti / D.A. Pletnev // Vestnik Cheljabinskogo universiteta. Serija 8: Jekonomika. Sociologija. Social'naja rabota. – 2006. – № 1. – S. 130-135.

10. Skljarov, S. Ugolovnaja otvetstvennost' za hishhenie nedvizhimogo imushhestva [Jelektronnyj resurs] / S. Skljarov // Rossijskaja justicija. – 2001. – № 6. – Rezhim dostupa: https://base.garant.ru/987536/ (data obrashhenija: 03.01.2026).

11. Parfenov, M.R. K voprosu ob osobennostjah moshennichestva v sfere oborota nedvizhimosti s tochki zrenija neobhodimosti vnesenija izmenenij v dejstvujushhee zakonodatel'stvo / M.R. Parfenov // Evrazijskij Sojuz uchenyh. – 2014. – № 5-5 (5). – S. 155-159.

12. Pleshhickaja, H. Otvetstvennost' rieltora: za chto i kak otvechaet rieltor? / H. Pleshhickaja // Zhilishhnoe pravo. – 2014. – № 8. – S. 59-60.