The criminal law characterization of embezzlement (Article 160 of the RF Criminal Code): Problems of theory and judicial practice

Based on the analysis and identified problems, the following recommendations are proposed: 1. To the Legislator: Consider supplementing the note to Article 158 or Article 160 of the Criminal Code with a statutory definition of "entrusted property". This could be formulated as "property legally transferred to the perpetrator by its owner or an authorized person, thereby imposing on the perpetrator obligations for its safekeeping, management, designated use, or return." 2. To the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation: Prepare and adopt a new ruling dedicated exclusively to judicial practice under Article 160. This ruling should provide detailed explanations on distinguishing embezzlement from fraud, qualifying group misappropriation, and interpreting the feature of "using one's official position." Furthermore, it should establish a presumption that in contentious situations where the moment the intent to steal arose cannot be proven, the actions of a person who received property under a contract and failed to return it should be classified not as fraud, but as a civil law tort or under Article 165 of the Criminal Code, provided intent for gratuitous seizure is not proven. 3. To Law Enforcement Agencies and Courts: During the investigation and adjudication of embezzlement and misappropriation cases, increased attention must be paid to establishing and examining circumstances that confirm the legal grounds for transferring property to the perpetrator (e.g., employment contract, job description, civil law contract), as well as the specific direction of intent and the presence of a mercenary motive. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References