Petty Theft: Is Administrative Responsibility Appropriate?

   The decriminalization of petty theft involving private property appears unjustified within the framework of contemporary criminal policy. While the decriminalization of minor theft of socialist property in the USSR was arguably warranted — given the disproportionately severe penalties historically imposed for such offenses — the same rationale does not extend to present-day conditions. Widespread petty embezzlement inflicts tangible harm on the economy, fosters public corruption, and exacerbates adverse criminogenic conditions, thereby facilitating the integration of youth into criminal subcultures. The absence of provisions addressing complicity and attempted theft in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation significantly undermines the effectiveness of legal measures against theft. In determining sanctions for theft, it is advisable to consider the repeated commission of such offenses by individuals with prior theft-related convictions. Reform of the legal framework governing exemption from criminal liability is also warranted, with a view toward generally excluding the possibility of exemption for individuals previously relieved from liability for acquisitive crimes. Given its inherent nature as an act mala in se, theft cannot reasonably be reclassified as a mere violation of public order or an administrative infraction. Individuals accused of theft should be afforded the procedural guarantees characteristic of criminal proceedings. Comparative legal analysis demonstrates that, in the criminal law of economically developed continental European jurisdictions and in England, the monetary value of the stolen property is not a decisive factor in establishing criminal liability. In the United States, consistent with the principles of the historical English common law, both petty and grand theft are subject to criminal prosecution. Notably, in several former Soviet republics, a legislative trend has emerged toward reinstating criminal liability for petty embezzlement.

1. Dolgikh IP, Chernyaev GM. Petty Theft — A Big Problem. Universum: Economics and Jurisprudence. 2014;1(2). Available at: https://7universum.com/ru/economy/archive/item/828 [Accessed 07. 02. 2025]. (In Russ.).

2. Kildyushov OV. Police as Science and Politics: On the Birth of the Modern Order from Philosophy and Policing Practice] Sociological Review. 2013;3(9-40). (In Russ.).

3. Kursaev AV. Single Source as a Feature of Ongoing Misappropriation. Criminal Law. 2024;6:31-44. (In Russ.).

4. Matyukhina TI. Criminal Liability for Petty Theft in the History of the Legislation of the Russian Federation. Vestnik of Economic Security. 2020;1:111-116. (In Russ.).

5. Morozova NA. Complicity in the commission of an administrative offense. Journal of Russian Law. 2014;8:113-125. (In Russ.).

6. Stolleis M. Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland. Erster Band: Reichspublizistik und Policeywissenschaft 1600–1800. München; 1988. (In German).

7. Tagantsev NS. Statute on Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace, with Attached Reasons and Extracts from the Decisions of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Senate. St. Petersburg; 1879. (In Russ.).