The concept of "theft," according to the Criminal Code, covers various illegal actions. Their unifying feature is property damage. It represents a real reduction in the amount of material assets owned by the owner or other legal owner. 
Subjective side
It should be understood as the psychic activity of a citizen that has a direct connection with the commission of an unlawful act. The subjective signs of theft are guilt, motive and purpose.
In all cases, the perpetrator acts with direct intent and for a specific purpose. These signs of theft are mandatory.
Direct intent means that the subject understands that, as a result of his actions, property belonging to another person passes into his possession, and desires it. The guilty person is aware of the unlawfulness of his behavior and the gratuitous nature of the illegal possession of values.
The content of the intent also covers the understanding by the perpetrator of the theft of the form of the crime. In particular, he realizes that he seizes property against the will of the owner (in case of robbery or robbery) or by his will (in case of fraud). The perpetrator may commit an act contrary to the wishes of the rightful owner. This situation occurs during the theft (there is no indication of this sign in article 158, however, its presence follows from the explanations of the Plenum of the Armed Forces in the Decree No. 29 of 2002).
The intellectual aspect of guilt presupposes that the subject understands the social danger of his actions. 
Motive
As a rule, when qualifying a crime, it does not have significant legal significance.
As practice shows, theft is always committed with a selfish motive. It is an impulse refracted by the consciousness of a citizen, reflected by his subjective emotions, feelings and feelings.
To commit theft in such forms as theft (Article 158), robbery (Article 161), robbery (Article 162), the subject may be encouraged by envy, anger, a sense of revenge, etc. However, the main motive will still be desire to receive property benefits. This is what is called (based on the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) selfish motivation.
purpose
She expresses the desire of the culprit to turn other people's property into their property or in favor of another entity. The mercenary purpose of theft will be obvious if a citizen seeks to obtain personal gain or enrich people with whom he is associated with certain relationships (friendly, property, family, etc.), accomplices in the act.
It is realized in the form of obtaining a real (actual) opportunity to possess, use, dispose of values as one's own.
Selfish motives suggest the presence of interest in the commission of unlawful seizure of an object. In other words, the behavior of the perpetrator is aimed specifically at the unlawful circulation of property in their favor or in favor of other persons.
The word "self-interest" is usually interpreted as benefit, gain, passion for profit, gain, greed for wealth, money, etc. 
Thus, the purpose of theft is the desire to extract illegal property benefits. When satisfying the individual material needs of the guilty, the presence of self-interest does not cause any doubts.
Meanwhile, it is present in those cases when the subject commits unlawful acts in favor of other persons. In particular, we are talking about situations when stolen property is transferred to citizens, in the enrichment of which the offender is directly interested.
Subject of crime
According to general rules, a citizen who has reached 14 years of age can be held liable for embezzlement. In case of misappropriation of another's property (Criminal Code, Art. 160), the punishment may be imputed from 16 years. A similar threshold has been set for perpetrators of embezzlement and fraud. In this case, the subject of embezzlement or misappropriation of another's property, according to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is special. It is a citizen to whom the stolen property was entrusted.
Legislation gaps
In the design of the act provided for in Article 158 of the Criminal Code, the goal is named as a mandatory feature. She must be self-serving.
For the first time in modern Russian legislation, this element was introduced into the official definition of theft of Federal Law No. 10. After the introduction of the new Criminal Code, the mercenary purpose as a sign of theft was retained in the design.
Despite the fact that quite a lot of time has passed since the introduction of this element into the legislation, disputes about it do not subside. This is due to the fact that the lawmaker, as some lawyers have noted, consolidated the subjective side of theft in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, establishing among its elements a mercenary orientation (goal) of intent, but did not explain what should be understood by such a purpose.
The opinions of lawyers
Many scientists have tried to uncover the meaning of the concept of "selfish purpose." For example, A. I. Boytsov proposed the following interpretation. The mercenary purpose, in his opinion, is the desire of the offender to enrich:
- Myself.
- Your loved ones.
- A legal entity, on which his property status directly depends.
- Other entities that, together with him, commit illegal actions. For example, we are talking about theft by preliminary conspiracy (part 2, paragraph "a" of Article 158 of the Criminal Code).
B.V. Volzhenkin defined the signs somewhat differently. In his opinion, a mercenary purpose will take place if property belonging to another person is withdrawn free and illegally in favor of:
- Guilty.
- Persons close to him, in the improvement of property status of which the attacker is interested.
- Other entities acting as accomplices to the crime.
A. N. Lopashenko believes that in order to establish the sign of self-interest, it is necessary to prove that the guilty person committed theft to enrich himself, to enrich people with whom he has a personal or property relationship, or accomplices in the act.
A broader interpretation was proposed by P.S. Yani. Under the mercenary purpose, according to the author, one should understand the desire to get a real opportunity to dispose of stolen values at one’s own discretion, as one’s own.
Sun explanations
According to the provisions of paragraph 5 of the Decision of the Plenum, Court No. 5 of 1995, the mercenary purpose is also found in the case of illegal temporary use of another's property. In this case, the sign that distinguishes theft from other unlawful acts provided for in Articles 148.1-148.2 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, determining liability for temporary borrowing by others' values and the seizure of immovable objects, is not its presence, but the orientation of the guilty person’s intent to appeal the relevant property in their favor or in favor other persons. 
In 2002, however, the Plenum gave opposite explanations. They are contained in paragraph 7 of Resolution No. 29. In accordance with it, the purpose of the temporary use of property is opposed to the mercenary orientation of intent. The court also indicated that when an unlawful seizure of property was committed during rape, hooliganism and other illegal acts, the purpose of such seizure should be established. If she was selfish, then the offense is qualified by the totality of crimes.
After the adoption of this Decision in its original wording, a review of the practice of the Armed Forces in cases of robbery, robbery, theft was published a few months later. It contained provisions regarding the interpretation of the concept of “selfish purpose”.In particular, the Court indicated that certain instances did not recognize as open robbery the guilty acts aimed at capturing other people's values for their subsequent destruction, committed out of hooligan motives, either for their temporary use, or for real or alleged right to them. To eliminate errors in the proceedings, in fact, explanations of clause 7 of the Resolution were published.
First conclusions
After the explanations were published by the Plenary Session of the Armed Forces, some lawyers began to believe that the mercenary goal was the desire of the attacker to permanently deprive the rightful owner of his property. At the same time, there is no mercenary orientation of intent if the perpetrator has the intention to destroy other people's property. Nor is it when committing the seizure of values from hooligan motives. In addition, lawyers concluded that not in all cases when seizing property in the process of committing rape, hooliganism and other acts, there is a selfish purpose.
Enrichment of another person
It is worth saying that the above provisions did not solve the problem of interpreting the concept of "selfish purpose". From the explanations of the Plenum of the Armed Forces given in the Decree of 2002, it was clear what actions were recognized as self-serving if the perpetrator commits a crime to satisfy his own interest. However, there was no clarification on situations where the offender seeks to enrich another entity. Meanwhile, the need to resolve this particular issue was considered one of the key reasons for introducing indications of the mercenary orientation of intent in the definition of theft.
In 2007, the Plenum of the Armed Forces clarified this issue. Decree No. 51 states that the existence of a self-serving purpose is a mandatory sign of theft. Under it should be understood the desire of the perpetrator to seize / convert other people's values in their favor or dispose of them as their own, including transferring them to the ownership of third parties.
Analysis of the provisions of Decree No. 51 of 2007
According to lawyers, the Plenum of the Armed Forces in the said act did not so much reveal the concept of theft as it determined the content of the volitional element of direct intent. 
If the explanations are literally interpreted, the purpose of the theft is the desire of the offender to seize / convert the values of others in his favor or in favor of an external entity, that is, to actually carry out actions that form the objective side of the act. This fact was pointed out by several experts. For example, S. A. Eliseev rightly noted that from the explanations of the Plenum of the Armed Forces it follows that the selfish purpose as an element of theft reflects the desire of a citizen to commit theft.
At the same time, a slightly different conclusion can be drawn from the literal interpretation of the explanations. Based on the Decree, the Supreme Court considers that embezzlement is committed for the mercenary purpose, implying not only the conversion of values in favor of the guilty person or other entities in which he is interested in improving the property status, but also by transferring these objects to the possession of other persons (including legal entities) . The circle of the latter is not limited to accomplices and citizens close to the attacker.
Simply put, theft can be committed in favor of any persons who are not owners (owners) of stolen property. It was in this interpretation that the explanations of the Plenum were accepted by the courts and lawyers.
Nuances
According to lawyers, there are no grounds for interpreting the explanation given in Resolution No. 51 in any other way. For example, there is no reason to narrow the circle of subjects for the satisfaction of material interests of which stolen values can be turned. In fact, the Plenum could include the relevant instructions in the Decree, but did not. Consequently, the Supreme Court considered that the appeal of the kidnapped is possible in favor of any subject.
Theft for purposes other than selfish interest
In practice, there are many problems with the qualification of such acts. Most often, controversial issues arise when considering the theft of FSS funds when individuals receive benefits in connection with temporary disability.
So, in one of the cases, the court found the citizen guilty of attempted fraud upon receipt of payment of a certificate of incapacity for work. As follows from the decree, the subject allowed absenteeism and presented to the employer a fake document on his state of health in order to confirm the validity of the reason for his absence from the enterprise during working hours. On the basis of the certificate of incapacity for work, the citizen expected to receive a payment, but could not bring the plan to completion, due to the fact that the fact of falsification was revealed by the accountant. The actions of the perpetrator were qualified under 3 parts 30 of the article and part 1 of article 159.2 of the Criminal Code. 
In the verdict, the court indicated that the actions of the citizen were aimed at justifying absenteeism and at the same time had a selfish purpose. Meanwhile, many lawyers object to such conclusions. The criminal law doctrine considers that in every unlawful act there should be one determining goal. It is on its basis that it is necessary to qualify the behavior of the subject.
Another form of guilt
The opinion was expressed that in cases similar to the given example, theft is carried out with indirect, rather than direct intent. It takes place when the seizure of other people's values is an inevitable consequence of the unlawful behavior of the subject, whose main purpose is not selfish in nature.
It is worth noting, however, that many scientists categorically object to the qualification of theft as a crime committed with indirect intent. They substantiate their position by the fact that such an approach will lead to objective imputation.
According to lawyers, the behavior of a person convicted of attempted fraud in the above example cannot be regarded as an act with indirect intent, since there is no reason for this. The authors of this approach draw attention to the fact that the seizure (seizure) of other people's values is inevitable. Moreover, the perpetrator himself understands that such consequences will occur in any case. Consequently, there is not indirect, but direct intent. After all, it is he who is ascertained in the presence of awareness of the actions committed by the guilty. Due to the fact that the subject understands the wrongfulness and danger of his behavior, but continues to act illegally, it cannot be said that the volitional aspect can be expressed in the unwillingness of negative consequences or an indifferent attitude to them.
Direct intent aimed at the unlawful seizure and conversion of values in favor of the perpetrator, presupposes the existence of a mercenary purpose. She will always be present. If the subject pursues not only a mercenary, but also another goal (for example, to justify absenteeism), when qualifying the offense as theft, only self-interest is taken into account. Another focus of intent may receive an independent legal assessment.
Possible solution to the issue of qualifications
According to some lawyers, a more correct approach would be to consider the actions of the culprit in the above example as a combination of crimes, the responsibility for which is established in the third part of Articles 30 and 327, as well as in Part 1 of Art. 159.2 of the Criminal Code. At the same time, according to 327 norm, the use of a fake document to justify absenteeism is qualified (in this case, there is an encroachment on the normal management procedure), and according to other norms, the provision of false information in order to steal disability benefits (here the actions of a person encroach on property and social security relations ) 
Fraud Specifics
Punishment for this act is enshrined in article 159 of the Criminal Code. In practice, difficulties often arise in qualifying the actions of the perpetrator.
Fraud is recognized as a form of theft.However, it is committed through breach of trust or deception. The latter is the provision of knowingly false information, the concealment of truthful information, its falsification, aimed at misleading the subject.
The abuse of trust is the use for personal gain of the trusting relationship established between the guilty and the victim. They can be determined by official position, friendly or family relationship. Confidence is also abused in cases where the perpetrator receives an advance payment for services / work that he is not going to provide / carry out, or for goods that he did not plan to transfer to the victim.
Exceptions
In the legal sense, illegal actions are not recognized as fraud, although they are associated with fraud or breach of trust, but do not have theft.
Article 159 of the Criminal Code does not cover behavior aimed at retaining property seized from a victim by force. For example, a citizen asked for a phone to make a call, but, having received it, immediately disappeared or refused to return. In these cases, the behavior of the offender is qualified as robbery.
In addition, the transfer of property to an attacker under the influence of intimidation or threats is not considered fraud. In this case, extortion takes place.
Fraud is considered a completed crime at the time when the perpetrator received a real opportunity to dispose of other people's property at their discretion.
Additionally
There are various types of fraud. Currently, criminals use a variety of methods to seize someone else's property. Of particular danger is fraud on the Internet. Unfortunately, tracking down criminals using digital technology can be extremely difficult. As a result, their actions cause significant damage to victims.
Often, perpetrators use their official position to commit fraudulent activities. In such situations, criminal behavior infringes on the management order and causes major damage.