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.