Dismissal of an employee for theft: New procedural nuances and risks for the employer

Starting September 1, 2026, employers will have broader grounds to dismiss employees for theft. The list of circumstances under which an employer may initiate the termination of an employee’s contract following the discovery of theft has been expanded (Federal Law No. 144-FZ of May 25, 2026). This article explains the specific changes, how to properly document a dismissal on these grounds, and the new risks employers may face if the required procedure is not followed correctly.

Take into account the changes made to the dismissal procedure for theft

An employee can be dismissed for theft on a special ground provided for by subparagraph "g" of paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code. To do this, three conditions must be met simultaneously:

1. First, the employee committed theft of someone else's property at the workplace.
2. Second, the employee's guilt was established by a court verdict or a ruling of a judge, body, or official authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses that has entered into legal force.
3. Third, the dismissal will be processed no later than one month from the date the verdict or ruling enters into legal force.

From September 1, 2026, the second condition is expanded: now the employee's culpable actions can be confirmed not only by a conviction by a court or a ruling in a case of an administrative offense, but also in the event that a court decides to terminate criminal prosecution in connection with the imposition of a criminal law measure in the form of a judicial fine or on other non-rehabilitating grounds.

Non-rehabilitating grounds for terminating criminal prosecution include, for example, the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution, amnesty, reconciliation of the parties, active remorse, and compensation for damage. In essence, non-rehabilitating grounds are circumstances that do not exclude a person's guilt in committing a crime. In other words, the accused is not subject to rehabilitation, and the state does not have an obligation to compensate for the harm caused by criminal prosecution. The guilt of the accused in the committed act is recognized, but the case is terminated without imposing a punishment.

A judicial fine is not just a fine, but a separate criminal law measure (Article 104.4 of the Criminal Code). The court imposes it if a citizen has committed a crime of minor or medium gravity for the first time and has compensated for the damage or otherwise made amends for the harm caused by the crime (Article 76.2 of the Criminal Code, Article 25.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code).

Accordingly, in such cases, the employee is not acquitted; the court's decision remains a confirmation of their guilt. Therefore, the employer has the right to terminate the employment contract with the employee on a special ground — under subparagraph "g" of paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code.

It is interesting that previously in judicial practice there were already cases where employers dismissed their employees for theft using this ground if there was a court decision to terminate criminal prosecution on non-rehabilitating grounds. At that time, courts supported the employees and recognized the dismissal as illegal, since dismissal on a special ground required specifically a guilty verdict or a ruling (appeal ruling of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court dated 22.01.2024 in case No. 33-395/2024, ruling of the Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 24.07.2025 No. 8G-18740/2025, 88-18506/2025).

It turns out that the employers from the above examples got ahead of events and interpreted the Labor Code norm at that time more broadly than they should have. But now the legislative approach has changed, thus judicial practice will also change.

Check exactly what actions the employee was convicted for

Dismissal on a special ground is also possible in the case of an attempted theft

Let me remind you that theft, embezzlement, intentional destruction or damage to someone else's property must occur at the employee's workplace. The amount of theft is of no fundamental importance, nor is whether the employee was brought to criminal or administrative liability. Dismissal on a special ground is also possible in the case of an attempted theft.

At the same time, it is necessary to check under which exact article the employee was convicted. Dismissal of an employee under subparagraph "g" of paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code is permissible if the employee was held liable under one of the articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses or the Criminal Code that provide for liability for theft, embezzlement, destruction or damage to someone else's property. If the employee was convicted under a different article, the court will recognize their dismissal on a special ground as illegal.

In accordance with paragraph 44 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court dated 17.03.2004 No. 2, someone else's property should be understood as any property that does not belong to the employee who committed unlawful actions with it. This is property belonging to the employer, other employees, persons who are not employees of this organization, and other legal entities. The property may not be on the employer's balance sheet or in its responsible storage.

Who will file a police report and be recognized as the victim in the case, having direct access to the investigation and case materials, depends on who owns the stolen property. Therefore, the employer can take directly active steps only if its property was stolen. If the property of third parties was stolen, the initiation of an investigation will generally depend on these persons, and the employer will need to maintain contact with them to receive information about the progress of the case.

Observe the dismissal deadlines

Dismissal for theft is a disciplinary measure; it can be imposed no later than one month from the date the court verdict or ruling enters into force

Dismissal of an employee who committed theft under subparagraph "g" of paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code is a measure of disciplinary action. In this regard, a disciplinary sanction may be imposed on the employee no later than one month from the date the court verdict or ruling enters into legal force (para. 44 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court dated 17.03.2004 No. 2).

A ruling in a case of an administrative offense enters into legal force after the expiration of the period established for appealing the ruling. This period is 10 days (para. 1 of part 1 of Article 31.1, part 1 of Article 30.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). A verdict of a court of first instance enters into legal force upon the expiration of the period for appeal, if the parties have not filed a complaint. This period is 15 days (part 1 of Article 390, part 1 of Article 389.4 of the Criminal Procedure Code). A verdict of a court of appeal enters into legal force from the moment it is pronounced (part 2 of Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code).

Please note that on this ground, it is impossible to dismiss a pregnant woman or an employee during vacation or illness (part 6 of Article 81, part 1 of Article 261 of the Labor Code).

There are two main mistakes that employers make when carrying out a dismissal for theft. The first mistake: violating the procedure for bringing to disciplinary liability. For example, not requesting explanations from the employee (ruling of the Ninth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 05.09.2024 No. 88-7895/2024) or dismissing an employee during vacation (ruling of the Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 03.02.2026 No. 88-1575/2026). Courts specifically emphasize that the existence of a verdict does not relieve the employer of the obligation to comply with the requirements of the Labor Code to bring the employee to disciplinary liability.

It is possible to dismiss an employee without observing the procedure for bringing to disciplinary liability if there is a court verdict by which the employee is sentenced to a punishment that precludes the continuation of work. For example, they are deprived of liberty. In such a case, carry out the dismissal in a simplified manner — under paragraph 4 of part 1 of Article 83 of the Labor Code.

The second mistake: despite the direct instruction in the Labor Code, employers dismiss employees without a court decision that has entered into legal force. This is a gross violation of the procedure, and courts recognize such dismissals as illegal (ruling of the Third Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 13.05.2026 No. 88-8710/2026, appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated 02.12.2025 in case No. 33-36046/2025, ruling of the Seventh Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 05.09.2024 No. 88-16568/2024).

Accordingly, waiting for a court decision that has entered into legal force is a mandatory step in the dismissal procedure for theft.

Follow the safe algorithm

Dismissal for theft is a procedure where there are no trifles. Even with a court verdict, the employer risks having to reinstate the employee if they miss the deadline, incorrectly draw up a report, or fail to request an explanation. This section provides a step-by-step algorithm: how to record the theft, collect evidence, and process the dismissal so that it withstands an inspection by the State Labor Inspectorate (GIT) and in court.

If you discover a theft, record the information about it in a report. Attach all evidence to it

1. Record the theft. There is no unified document that needs to be drawn up if a theft is discovered. I recommend drawing up a theft report. Record in the document the place, date, and circumstances of discovering the theft, information about the stolen property, and the date and circumstances of the theft itself, if this data is known. Attach all the evidence you have to the theft report: a memo from the employee who discovered the theft, decrypted video recordings, inventory results, witness statements, etc.
2. Request a written explanation from the employee. Act in accordance with the general procedure provided for disciplinary sanctions by Article 193 of the Labor Code.
3. File a report with law enforcement agencies. Do this if your organization's property was stolen. Attach copies of all documents collected during the recording of the theft to the report.
4. Wait until the court decision enters into legal force. Before dismissing an employee who committed theft, I recommend obtaining a copy of the court decision. This is necessary to review its content once again and check whether there are grounds to apply subparagraph "g" of paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code. To obtain a copy of the decision, it is necessary to file a motion with the court hearing the case (part 2 of Article 29.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
5. Issue a dismissal order. In the "basis for issuing the order" column, I recommend specifying all documents on the basis of which you are issuing the order: details of the court decision, the theft report, memos, inventory report, request for explanations from the employee, the employee's explanations, or a report on the employee's failure to provide such explanations, etc. Familiarize the employee with the document against signature.
6. Submit a report to the SFR. Report the dismissal of the employee for theft to the fund using Form EFS-1.

   Submit EFS-1 no later than the next business day after the date of issuing the dismissal order

7. Enter the dismissal record in the employment record book. The wording will be as follows: "The employment contract was terminated due to the commission of theft of someone else's property at the workplace, established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force, subparagraph 'g' of paragraph 6 of part one of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation."
8. On the day of dismissal, issue the documents to the employee and make the final settlement.

An employer who observes the procedure and deadlines for dismissal will be able to defend their position in court (ruling of the Seventh Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 15.01.2026 No. 88-268/2026, ruling of the First Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 14.07.2025 No. 88-18438/2025, ruling of the Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 04.02.2025 No. 88-2612/2025). At the same time, it is necessary to provide the court with all the materials you collected regarding the violation. Therefore, the correct recording of both the fact of theft itself and the entire subsequent process is important.

In my practice, there was another case where, at the workplace, a client's employee committed unlawful actions that a court could subsequently qualify as theft of someone else's property — the organization's property.

Practice shows that employers rarely dismiss their employees for theft at the workplace. The reasons are as follows: lack of evidence, inability to directly influence the process, reputational risks, and high costs of legal support. But if a theft is discovered, it is important not only and not so much to punish the guilty party, but to eliminate the vulnerabilities in the system that made the theft possible.

If there is evidence of theft, follow the procedure from the article. Act consistently, coordinate the process, and observe the deadlines. If the court confirms the employee's guilt, do not use other grounds for dismissal.

An employee who resigned of their own accord or by agreement of the parties may go to court, arguing their position by the fact that the employer threatened them with dismissal under the article for theft. Judges may consider that the employer forced the employee to resign.