Purpose. The purpose of the work is to analyze changes to criminal legislation and legislation on administrative liability for the secret theft of someone else’s property, further judicial practice on this issue. To identify certain trends in the application by courts of legislation establishing liability for theft under martial law. To analyze the specified changes for their relevance and compliance with the basic principles of liability. The basis for such analysis is the practice of the courts of Ukraine, which is posted in the Unified Register of Court Decisions and previous theses of the author’s conferences, covering individual aspects of the problem under study. Methodology. The methodology includes a comprehensive review and generalization of the available scientific and theoretical material and the formulation of relevant conclusions and recommendations. The following methods of scientific knowledge were used during the study: terminological, systemic and structural, comparative legal and analytical methods (when analyzing and comparing existing judicial practice for several years). Results: During the research, it was recognized that changes to the legislation that provide for legal liability for the secret theft of someone else’s property are hasty, unfounded, and create new problems in law enforcement practice without solving existing ones. Originality. The research found that legislative work on legal liability, as a prerequisite for proper law enforcement, needs to be improved. The research perspective indicated that changes prompted by public demand did not respond to this demand, but were essentially a populist solution. Practical significance. The results of the study can be used in lawmaking activities to develop the necessary changes to the current legislation of Ukraine on criminal and administrative liability, as well as to continue further theoretical research in this area.
Read full abstract