COUNTERACTING CRIMINAL OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY UNDER MARTIAL LAW: THE EXPERIENCE OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE AND GERMANY

Abstract

The article presents a comparative legal analysis of approaches to combating criminal offenses against property in three leading European countries — Great Britain, France, and Germany. The authors focus on the specifics of legal regulation, institutional support, and practical mechanisms for combating such crimes as theft, robbery, robbery, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, illegal seizure of vehicles, and other forms of crimes that encroach on private, public, and collective property. The study reveals: the system of criminal law norms that form the basis for combating property crimes in the mentioned states; the structure and powers of law enforcement agencies (police, investigative units, prosecutor's office, gendarmerie, criminal investigation service); the practice of pre-trial investigation, the use of digital tools to track assets and combat organized property crimes; the influence of European standards on the formation of national systems for combating property crime. In the United Kingdom, the key role is played by the police forces of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which operate in coordination with the National Crime Agency (NCA) and local prosecutors' offices. The system focuses on prevention, active patrolling, the use of analytical intelligence and cooperation with the public. France demonstrates an effective model of a dual structure - the police (Police nationale) and the gendarmerie (Gendarmerie nationale), which jointly ensure the protection of property in urban and rural areas. The system is distinguished by a high level of technical equipment and strict sanctions for encroachment on property. Germany implements a decentralized model, in which the 16 federal states have their own police forces, but are coordinated by common databases, federal investigative bodies and specialized crime centers. Particular attention is paid to cybercrime against property, banking fraud and the fight against recidivism. The analysis shows that all three countries have a clearly established hierarchy of response to property crimes, use modern information and analytical resources, video surveillance systems, and criminal offense records, and actively implement a policy of police-society interaction (community policing). The conclusions substantiate the possibility of borrowing a number of elements of these models to improve the domestic system for combating criminal offenses against property. The authors suggest, in particular, the introduction of integrated information databases, increasing the role of local police structures in crime prevention, improving interdepartmental coordination, and developing digital investigative tools.