Estonia's Prosecutor General Andres Parmas announced publicly that dealing with serial thieves will from now on be a low priority for the prosecutor's office. If a theft case yields no result within two months, the proceedings will be closed.
This announcement is causing concern in the retail sector: the prosecutor's office may use the guidance as an excuse not to actively pursue thieves during the first two months after the offence — much as it does today — and then simply close serial-theft cases by referring to the guidance. This significantly undermines the sense of justice of theft victims, both private individuals and businesses, and leaves them without legal protection. Among retailers, doubts have arisen as to whether the prosecutor's office has indeed taken upon itself the right to decide which laws will be enforced in Estonia and who is entitled to state protection.
The prosecutor's office consistently refers to serial thieves as people in financial hardship who steal a loaf of bread or a couple of mandarins from a store, and on whom the state must spend thousands of euros worth of trained lawyers' time.
Retailers know the examples cited by the prosecutor's office are skewed. Retailers have repeatedly explained, including to the prosecutor's office, that the problem is not the occasional mandarin thefts. As the statistics referenced above show, these random petty thefts are generally not even reported. The problem is organised theft rings, which cause tens of millions of euros in damage every year. Security staff may even know members of these rings by sight, but the police and the prosecutor's office consider dealing with them low-priority and unpromising.
According to the prosecutor's office, the roots of the problem lie elsewhere and punishment is pointless. Real life shows, however, that members of organised theft rings are getting younger and younger. Recently, an 11-year-old serial thief was caught at the Tallinna Kaubamaja department store. Behind these children is a network of organisers and resellers of stolen goods. Store losses are mostly caused by theft rings, and goods are stolen for resale, mostly online.
These rings know their rights perfectly and operate systematically, moving from store to store during a "working day" and stealing whatever is easiest and most profitable to resell at the time: expensive cosmetics, alcohol, electronics. The examples cited by the prosecutor's office, however, give the misleading impression that retailers are crying foul over a couple of stolen mandarins. Unfortunately, we are dealing with organised criminal networks, and retailers' losses run into millions of euros.
We would also urge the prosecutor's office to consider that serial theft is usually the first step on the path of crime. Young serial thieves go on to drug dealing, robbery and violent crime, and if they are not dealt with at the first, theft stage, our society becomes more dangerous because of them. Tackling serial theft is, in fact, prevention of more serious crimes, which the prosecutor's office says should be the focus.
The Prosecutor General's decision did not, however, come as a complete surprise. Due to a shortage of resources at the prosecutor's office and the police, property crime has been growing for years. Goods worth tens of millions of euros are stolen from the retail sector every year. Over the past five years, retail losses have grown by about a third, and retailers have increased their security spending by a similar amount to protect themselves. If the goal of the prosecutor's office and the police is to find budget savings by leaving thieves alone, the cost of their inaction to society will be many times greater than the savings of these two state agencies.
The prosecutor's office's recommendation that theft victims still report thefts is surprising, given the knowledge that this information is mostly used to compile statistical tables. There are so many thefts in retail that, to save time and resources, only every fifth one has been reported to the police for years now. Of those, only 10–15 percent are resolved in some way. That resolution may also come with quite a long delay (years, not days), when the statute of limitations is approaching and the case handler is moving to close the proceedings.
For years, retailers have been hearing from case handlers that they lack the human and time resources to deal with these matters. As a result, only the largest, clearest cases and serial thieves are reported to the police. For complaints filed with the police, actual compensation for damages follows in less than five percent of cases. At the same time, the administrative burden each time is high, and businesses weigh the cost-benefit balance on a case-by-case basis.
The prosecutor's office's comment that stores should better protect their property themselves and improve their security systems sounds poorly informed. Of course stores protect their own property, as does any company or citizen. Over the past five years, retailers have increased spending on security solutions and personnel by an average of 25 percent. Retail always looks at theft losses and security spending together, because we have to find a balance. Investing in security solutions is the only way to protect our property when more and more is being stolen.
Unfortunately, a feeling has built up in the retail sector over the years that the state has left them on their own, because data collected on serial thieves goes unused due to a lack of time at state agencies, and thieves are simply not dealt with. It is now common for store staff to spot the same person stealing again the very next day after that thief has been handed over to the police along with the evidence. No real protection of property has come from the police, but other regulations — for example, data protection — punctiliously protect thieves' rights.
Theft from any business or private individual cannot be allowed to become a tacitly accepted activity in the Republic of Estonia. Retailers sincerely hope the prosecutor's office understands this too.