Stole a pack of coffee and got sentenced to six years in prison. Is this really what justice looks like?

“Resembles a punishment for a few ears of wheat”

Lawmakers explained that at the onset of the large-scale war, the leniency of the law and panic led to vigilante justice. For instance, in March 2022, when people in the Khmelnytskyi region caught a looter, they pulled down his pants and taped him to a pole. This incident prompted amendments to the law: a classification was added to property crimes — “committed under martial law” (part 4 of the relevant articles).

Before the penalties were tightened, a regular theft (known in legislation as secret appropriation) could result in a fine or restriction of freedom. A robbery (open appropriation of property) was punishable by a fine, community service, probation supervision, or imprisonment.

Legislators aimed to combat looting, but law enforcement misinterprets the legislation, according to lawyer Yulia Kolomiyets. All property crimes began to be labeled as committed under martial law, regardless of the location and method of the crime.

This means that stealing goods from a supermarket in western Ukraine was equated to theft from a home in a combat zone. Even if the stolen goods exceeded 300 UAH, the penalty ranged from 5 to 8 years of imprisonment.

This led to punishments that, in the opinion of some lawyers and judges, are disproportionate to the damage caused. For example, an Ivanofrankivsk resident with no prior criminal record was caught several times stealing items from stores during 2021-2022. He stole food, coffee, and alcohol, with damages totaling over 12,000 UAH.

However, when he stole a bottle of liqueur worth 470 UAH during martial law, he received a 5-year prison sentence. In the Ivano-Frankivsk city court, the defendant admitted guilt, explaining that he had no money and stole to feed himself.

In the appeal, the sentence was upheld, but one of the judges disagreed with the panel. He even publicly expressed his special opinion, stating that a 5-year prison sentence, while legal under martial law, is unjust and does not correspond to the damage caused.

“The severity of this punishment resembles the long-standing practice of excessive penalties for ‘a few ears of wheat’,” the judge stated.

Judges typically released first-time offenders from imprisonment, as not everyone considered such punishment proportional. However, if the defendant had previously committed theft, the representatives of Themis were compelled to impose the minimum possible term — 5 years.

“If a person has not reformed without deprivation of liberty and commits the same or an even more serious crime, the courts will impose punishment considering this,” explains Judge Denys Kovalenko, spokesperson for the Kolomyia district court, in a comment to hromadske.

Have the deputies come to their senses?

Nearly 2.5 years after the tightening of penalties, deputies acknowledged the disproportion of punishments. In August 2024, they passed a new law. According to it, the threshold for criminal liability for theft was raised to 3028 UAH.

But will this law help the man from Rivne, who a year ago was sentenced by the Rivne city court to 3 years and 7 months in prison for attempting to steal diapers worth 356 UAH? It remains unclear. The court imprisoned him, considering that he had a prior conviction for fraud. However, if he had stolen the diapers after August 2024, he might not have been sent to prison.

Still, this man has a chance for release. This applies to those who were convicted of theft under three thousand UAH.

“If a person was found guilty under part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to imprisonment, then the convicted person, their defender, the penal institution, or the prosecutor — anyone can appeal to the court for the sentence to be reviewed according to the new law,” explains spokesperson Judge Denys Kovalenko.

At the same time, Vitalii from Lviv, who stole coffee, was classified as committing robbery under martial law, rather than theft — because he was noticed by a security guard, which qualifies as open appropriation of property. For such crimes, the disproportion of punishment remains, notes researcher Ivan Shmatko from the Center for Sociology of Law and Criminology.

Why are changes necessary?

“The proportionality of punishment is explicitly outlined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. If Ukraine truly wishes to join this union, it must not only demand sympathy and assistance from others but also adhere to basic human rights principles,” says Shmatko.

He adds that keeping criminals is very expensive. One month of detaining a person in a pre-trial detention center costs the state approximately 11,000 UAH. Vitalii from Lviv, for stealing coffee worth 300 UAH, was detained for over 3 months. This means the state spent over 30,000 UAH just on his detention. Moreover, Vitalii still has three years to serve in prison.

“When there is a war and a shortage of funds, it seems absolutely irresponsible to squander them on tightening punishments for property crimes, which were enacted amid the so-called moral panic regarding looting at the very beginning of the large-scale war,” notes Ivan Shmatko.

What to do?

Lawyer Yulia Kolomiyets wrote that to classify theft as a crime “committed under martial law,” law enforcement must prove that the offender exploited circumstances related to the war.

For instance, this could involve stealing from a store damaged by shelling, where security is absent due to this. Or breaking into someone’s home in a zone of active hostilities, knowing that the owners have vacated it due to danger.

The idea is that the crime must be directly related to situations caused by martial law. Therefore, courts must clearly establish whether the accused indeed used the circumstances of martial law to commit the crime, says Kolomiyets.

However, the Supreme Court has already voiced its position: courts should follow current legal norms and not take on the role of lawmakers. And martial law is already sufficient to classify property crimes under part four of the Criminal Code of Ukraine group of articles.

“What measure of punishment can be imposed is primarily a question for the people's deputies, as they are the ones who establish it. Courts are then obligated to apply such punishment if it does not contradict Ukraine's international obligations,” explains spokesperson Judge Denys Kovalenko.

Ivan Shmatko believes that changes in the law regarding theft should be extended to other property crimes. He notes that it is unclear why the error was corrected only for one type of crime and not for the entire group, for which punishment was intensified.

The researcher highlights a serious problem: the parliament lacks analysis of laws post-adoption to understand how they function. Additionally, lawmakers rarely use sociological research to evaluate bills. This could help predict the consequences of changes before they are enacted.

“Did it work? Did it not work? Did it get worse or better? How exactly is everything functioning in practice now? It is not enough to pass laws and forget about them. There should be monitoring of the practical effect and appropriate adjustments made if necessary,” explains Shmatko.

He adds that if the Ukrainian parliament considered these issues, the tightening of penalties for property crimes would never have occurred, just like “many other mistakes that cost many people their lives and the state money.”