Comparative analysis of concepts and forms of embezzlement in Russian and foreign legislation

Purpose of the study is to study domestic and foreign legislation in order to define the concept and forms of theft. Historical-legal and formal legal methods were used. In the last few years, it is necessary to note the increased interest of the legislator in the issues of detailed regulation of various manifestations of theft in domestic criminal law. Despite this, there are still unresolved problems in criminal law science that have negative law enforcement consequences. These include the lack of a uniform approach to classifying specific compounds as theft, despite the presence of a legal definition of theft in Note 1 to Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In the science of criminal law, there are also questions of clearly fixing crimes from the category of theft, determining the classification grounds for forming a unified approach to the species diversity of the category of crimes under consideration in modern criminal law. The pluralism of criminal law thought regarding the issues of the manifestation of forms of embezzlement allowed us to state the existence of a legal backlash in the clear legislative fixation of forms of embezzlement. It is established that along with the traditional types of embezzlement regulated by the provisions of Chapter 20 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (crimes against property), norms also function in other sections of the Criminal Code. The article has a high scientific value, since it proves that the list of crimes containing the term «theft» is wider than the traditional classification of crimes from the category of theft by criminal law science.