THE FIGHT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT BODIES OF THE UKRAINIAN SSR AGAINST THEFT OF THE NEW HARVEST IN THE MID-1960S

Abstract

An important task that was faced annually by the law enforcement and juridical and prosecutorial bodies of the republic was the fight against theft of the new harvest. The main directions and results of this fight were sent to the head of the republic P. Yu. Shelest under the signatures of the prosecutor of the Ukrainian SSR, the Minister of Public Order of the Ukrainian SSR, and the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Ukrainian SSR. The fact that such material was sent to the first head of the republic and under the signatures of the heads of the three law enforcement agencies of the state testifies to the importance that was attached to this issue, since it was connected with one of the most important social problems – providing the population with food.he study of cases and the analysis of the contingent of persons brought to criminal responsibility showed that in the vast majority of thefts were committed on a small scale by individual collective farmers and workers of state farms, who had direct access to the harvest products during the harvest. However, in some places, group organized thefts of the harvest were allowed on a significant scale. The investigative bodies of the republic opened 930 criminal cases against 1864 persons based on the facts of theft of the harvest discovered in 1965. The heads of the republic’s law enforcement agencies believed that one of the main conditions contributing to the theft of the new harvest was that in a number of farms in the republic, due attention had not yet been paid to the correct selection of persons for materially responsible positions, accounting for agricultural products, and the preparation of documents for its transportation. In a number of collective and state farms, grain was left in the field overnight without security, and when sent to the currents and grain receiving points, it was not weighed or was sent without documents, which created favorable conditions for theft.They saw the reasons for the thefts and looting of the new harvest only in organizational problems, without even mentioning (actually ignoring) social ones. These include the low standard of living, insufficient material security, and the desire to improve it, even by criminal means, the low level of general culture, including legal culture, and a contemptuous attitude towards collective and state farm property. In addition to bringing those guilty of embezzlement to criminal liability, various meetings were organized on this issue, the public began to be more widely involved in combating embezzlement, and preventive work was intensified.