The Problems of Differentiation of Theft from Appropriation of Found

Abstract

The article substantiates the need of differentiation of theft and appropriation of the property found, previously lost or forgotten by the owner. The protection of property is one of the most important tasks of criminal law. And practice shows a lot of situations when there are quite complex questions on the qualification of acts related to the violation of property rights. Examples are given that illustrate the position of the courts and law enforcement agencies regarding the fact of differentiation between appropriation of a find and theft of someone else’s property. Based on the analysis of legislation and judicial practice, the author attempts to establish criteria in which cases the appropriation of found is a crime, and when it is not a criminal act. Despite the apparent simplicity, the issue of differentiation between a found and theft in law enforcement is quite complicated. This is also confirmed by the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, formulated in the resolution of 2023. Theft, in contrast to the appropriation of the found, is a more socially dangerous act and the qualification of the actions of the persons who appropriated the found, as theft, violates the principles of law and justice. Despite the fact that earlier attempts were repeatedly made to develop criteria for such differentiation and a large number of scientific works on this topic took place, the problem has not yet been solved. Obviously, clear explanations of the rules and criteria for differentiation theft from appropriation of found property are needed at the level of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. As a result of the study, the author proposes a conclusion to establish of criminal liability for the appropriation of found, since it is in this way that the problem can be avoided when differentiation between the acts under study.