This article discusses aggravated types of crime against property considering the features of the act committed. This concerns an entrusted movable object (Article 284 § 2 of the Polish Criminal Code), property of substantial value (Article 289 § 2, Article 294 § 1 Criminal Code) and objects of special importance for culture (Article 294 § 2 Criminal Code). Interpretation of these constituent elements has been provided by making references to views presented by the representatives of the legal doctrine and in case law. The author assumes that an entrusted object is one which has been handed over to the perpetrator with the power of disposal, subject to the obligation to return it. It is in the perpetrator’s possession before being misappropriated. Property of substantial value or an object of special importance for culture – pursuant to Article 294 § 1 and § 2 of the Criminal Code – is a constituent element aggravating some crimes against property under the Criminal Code listed in Article 294 § 1, namely: theft of another person’s movable object (Article 278 § 1), theft of computer software (Article 278 § 2), misappropriation of another person’s movable object or property right (Article 284 § 1), misappropriation (Article 284 § 2), switching into a telecommunication device (Article 285 § 1), fraud (Article 286 § 1), computer fraud (Article 287 § 1), destroying, damaging or making useless of another person’s property (Article 288 § 1), breaking or damaging a submarine cable or violating regulations applicable in the case of laying or repairing such cables (Article 288 § 3) and intentional handling stolen goods (Article 291 § 1). The list of the regulations defining the basic types of the crimes is exhaustive (numerus clausus), and this regulation may not be applied to other crimes against property. Property of substantial value is property the value of which at the time of committing of the prohibited act exceeds PLN 200,000 (Article 115 § 5 Criminal Code). The value of the property being the subject of the prohibited act should be calculated as of the time of committing the act and not the time of passing the judgment. In the author’s opinion, cultural property has the same meaning as in the definition provided in Article 2(1) of the Act of 25 May 2017 on the restoration of national cultural property, pursuant to which this is “a monument as defined in Article 3(1) of the Act of 23 July 2003 on the protection and care of monuments, a movable object which is not a monument, and also elements or components thereof the preservation of which is in the public interest, considering their artistic, historical or scientific value or their significance for cultural heritage and development.” One argument for giving it this meaning is the fact that it is determined in the act which is recognised as fundamental as regards cultural property.