“A man was accused of stealing things from the Epicenter, but he denies the charges because he forgot to pay for the pliers due to a head injury. A man is suspected of stealing the pliers from the Epicenter. However, he assures that he did not intend to steal, because he paid for other goods. He explained that he forgot to pay for the nippers because of the concussion he received. This is stated in Ingulskyi’s decision […]”, — write: businessua.com.ua
A man was accused of stealing things from the Epicenter, but he denies the charges because he forgot to pay for the pliers due to a head injury
The man is suspected in stealing the nippers from the Epicenter. However, he assures that he did not intend to steal, because he paid for other goods. He explained that he forgot to pay for the nippers because of the concussion he received. This is stated in the decision of the Ingul District Court of Mykolaiv, which was made public on January 29, 2026.
On October 25, 2025, a man committed a minor theft of goods in the amount of 247 hryvnias in the Epicenter K store. Accordingly, he committed an administrative violation, the responsibility for which is provided for in Part 1 of Art. 51 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
The man arrived at the court and did not agree with the protocol. He said that he really made purchases at the self-service checkout, he did not intend to steal, because he had paid for other things. He said that due to a head injury, he forgot to pay for the nippers.
What penalty did the court choose? The court terminated the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense under Part 1 of Art. 51 of the Code of Administrative Offenses in relation to him, in accordance with Clause 1, Part 1, Art. 247 of the Code of Ukraine on administrative offenses. His actions do not constitute an administrative offense.
“The materials of the administrative case generally indicate that the case lacks proper, admissible and sufficient evidence to prove intent, which would provide legal grounds for bringing the man to administrative responsibility under Part 1 of Article 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I believe that his actions did not reveal the composition of the administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in connection with this, the proceedings in the case, in accordance with Clause 1, Article 247 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, should be closed,” the court emphasized.
Please wait…