The linguistic interpretation of verbal phrase (included in art. 284 § 1 of Polish Penal code): appropriating of property rights, can lead as to conclusion that polish legislator was tending to penalise the behaviour consisting in appropriating of right to immovable – for example: the ownership, perpetual usufruct and others stipulated by the polish law. However, that interpretation can fail on the ground of requirement of indicate the criminal consequence of an offence as well as the exercising a factual control toward a property right to immovable. Therefore this article shows the differences between the meanings of words movable property and property right, conducted from the scope of civil and criminal substantive norms. Namely this issue needs to emphasize the impossibility of exercising a factual control toward property right in the same way toward movable property. Preferably would be define it as a “the circumstance of possibility to exercise the property right”. It deals with overleaping between the scope of penal-law’s meanings for terms: property right, movable property, document. With the regard to the requirement of indicate criminal consequence issue, must be underline existing obstacles in proving the changes to the detriment of victim in the same way it is caused in the scope of appropriating of movable property. Especially worth mentioning is lack of civil law consequence involving the transfer of property right to immovable thing, duo to improper contract (negotium claudicans). Ipso facto it is presumption to refuse the occurrence real property damage or circumstance creating real danger of that damage.