{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01675603217158177, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.069105691056911, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Theft and Find: Problems of Differentiation and Qualification

Criminal and legal protection of property is one of the most important tasks of the state policy. According to official statistics, theft is the most common form of misappropriation, and in the process of applying the relevant rules of law, it is quite difficult to distinguish between relations arising from the commission of theft, which is a crime against property, and theft as a civil law behavior. The problems of differentiation of theft and find are quite acute, both in the field of criminal law science and in the activities of law enforcement agencies. Judicial practice on this issue is also contradictory; the highest court bodies have not elaborated relevant explanations. This fact determines the relevance of considering the issues related to the regulation of criminal and civil law relations that protect the institute of property. When qualifying the theft and find, it is necessary to be guided by objective and subjective circumstances, which testify, first, to the mercenary orientation of the actions of the person. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the misappropriation of an abandoned (possessing individual features), rather than a lost thing is considered to be a criminal offence. Based on the conducted analysis the authors defined the criteria of delimitation of a theft from a find and worked out the recommendations, which are important for the judicial and investigative practice.