The Doctrine and Legal Positions Developed by the Courts in Theft of Someone’s Property Cases

The paper considers the legal positions developed by the courts in cases of theft of someone’s property. The author is critical of the concept of "judicial doctrine", believing that the courts in essence cannot create a doctrine (theory, science), but notes the significant role of the legal positions of the courts in the formation and development of the doctrine (theory) of theft. The purpose of the work is to find an answer to the question of whether the legal positions of the courts on the application of the legal definition of theft in practice remain relevant (note 1 to Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as well as the doctrine about this crime and its elements. Having studied various points of view contained in the scientific literature, as well as the positions of the courts, including those expressed in individual decisions of the highest judicial instance of the country, the author concludes that neither the legal definition of theft nor the doctrine of it has lost its relevance. We should not be talking about the "revision" of legal and scientific structures or the "collapse of the system", but about the crisis of practice and doctrine due to the uncertainty associated with the emergence of new property goods and objects (virtual assets, digital rights, etc.) and forms of encroachment on property that are not covered by any of the features of theft. For this reason, in the absence of answers to the challenges that have arisen, controversial decisions are made in judicial and investigative practice, and contradictory recommendations are proposed in the scientific literature. According to the author, the crisis that has arisen can be solved by introducing legislative amendments to Chapter 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation aimed at forming norms on new property crimes against property that do not contain elements of theft of someone’s property.

1. Arkhipov AV. Moment okonchaniya khishcheniya [Terminal Time of Theft]. Ugolovnoe pravo [Criminal Law]. 2018;4:20-24. (In Russ.).

2. Eliseev SA. Prestupleniya protiv sobstvennosti po ugolovnomu zakonodatelstvu Rossii (voprosy teorii) [Crimes against property under the criminal legislation of Russia: Issues of theory]. Tomsk: TSU Publishing House; 1999. (In Russ.).

3. Ivanova OM. Khishchenie chuzhogo imushchestva kak ugolovno-pravovaya kategoriya: dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk [Theft of someone else’s property as a criminal-legal category. Cand.Sci. (Law) Thesis]. Samara; 2020. (In Russ.).

4. Kommentariy k Ugolovnomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Commentary to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation]. Moscow: Intel-Sintez; 1997. (In Russ.).

5. Kochoi SM. Otvetstvennost za korystnye prestupleniya protiv sobstvennosti: monografiya [Responsibility for mercenary crimes against property: A monograph]. Moscow: Profobrazovanie, Anteya; 2000. (In Russ.).

6. Kochoi SM. Prestupleniya protiv sobstvennosti: uchebnoe posobie [Crimes against property: A textbook]. Moscow: Prospekt; 2014. (In Russ.).

7. Kochoi SM.Razboy (nekotorye voprosy kvalifikatsii) [Robbery (Some issues of classification)]. Ugolovnoe pravo [Criminal Law]. 2000;2:28-30. (In Russ.).

8. Krieger GA. Kvalifikatsiya khishcheniy sotsialisticheskogo imushchestva [Classification of thefts of socialist property]. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura; 1974. (In Russ.).

9. Sychev PG. O predelakh differentsiatsii ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva po ugolovnym delam o prestupleniyakh v sfere ekonomicheskoy i predprinimatelskoy deyatelnosti [On the limits of differentiation of criminal proceedings in criminal cases on crimes in the sphere of economic and entrepreneurial activity]. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya [Russian Justitia]. 2017;6:31-34. (In Russ.).

10. Tokarchuk RE. Nasilstvennye khishcheniya: sotsialnaya priroda norm i voprosy sovershenstvovaniya ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti: monografiya [Violent theft: The social nature of norms and issues of improving criminal responsibility. A monograph]. Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2012. (In Russ.).

11. Frolov EA. Obekt ugolovno-pravovoy okhrany i ego rol v organizatsii borby s posyagatelstvami na sotsialisticheskuyu sobstvennost: dis. ... d-ra yurid. nauk [The object of criminal legal protection and its role in the organization of the fight against encroachments on socialist property. Dr. Sci. (Law) Dissertation]. Sverdlovsk; 1971. (In Russ.).

12. Khilyuta VV. Mercenary Purpose in Theft: Are There Limits To Broad Interpretation? Lex russica. 2020;4:93- 102. (In Russ.).

13. Khilyuta VV. Prestupleniya protiv oborota obektov grazhdanskikh prav: kontseptualno-teoreticheskie osnovy modelirovaniya : dis. ... d-ra yurid. nauk [Crimes against the turnover of objects of civil rights: conceptual and theoretical foundations of modeling. Dr. Sci. (Law)]. Minsk; 2021. (In Russ.).

14. Khilyuta VV. Khishchenie: raspad sistemy [Theft: The collapse of the system]. VIII Moskovskiy yuridicheskiy forum. 8–10 aprelya 2021 g. [8th Moscow Legal Forum. April 8-10, 2021]. [Internet]. [cited 2021 May 15]. Available from: https://moslegforum.ru/sections/iii-biznes-konferentsiya-novoe-ekonomicheskoe-ugolovnoepravo/ (In Russ.).

15. Chelyabova ZM. Nasilie v posyagatelstvakh na sobstvennost: ponyatie, vidy, problemy zakonodatelnoy reglamentatsii, kvalifikatsii i nakazaniya: dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk [Violence in encroachments on property: concept, types, problems of legislative regulation, classification and punishment. Cand. Sci. (Law) Thesis]. Saratov; 2020. (In Russ.).