Tactics of working with customers who have committed theft to compensate for damage to a trading enterprise.
The work of the security service departments of a trading enterprise is aimed at solving the main task, — minimizing all types of losses. It includes activities to prevent, detect, suppress and compensate for damage that has been caused or may be caused to a trading company.
One of the areas of work of security units is the activity aimed at compensation for damage that has already been actually caused to the trading enterprise.
There are two standard situations:
1. When the specific person who caused the damage is known. In this case, the work is aimed at collecting the amounts of material damage caused from the specific guilty person.
2. When the amount of damage caused is known, but the person responsible for causing the damage has not been identified.
As a rule, we talk about three types of damage that can be caused to the Company:
- damage that was caused as a result of unprofessional actions or carelessness of employees, that is, errors and violations made during the accounting of the movement of goods;
- damage caused as a result of spoilage of goods;
- damage caused as a result of intentional illegal actions of both the Company's employees and third parties (customers, visitors, suppliers' representatives, etc.).
This article will discuss compensation for damage caused by unidentified persons.
Damage caused to a trading enterprise by unidentified persons is revealed in one of the following ways:
A) Based on the results of current planned inventories and based on the results of the final inventory. Based on the results of the inventories, the total amount of shortages for each of the product items is identified. By conducting analytical work with accounting documentation, primary receipt documentation, video surveillance system archives and some other methods, it is possible to identify the facts of shortages due to the fault of specific officials. However, practice shows that for a significant proportion of identified shortages, it is not possible to identify the guilty parties, and they are completely borne by the losses of the trading enterprise.
B) Upon detection of facts of destruction (damage) of goods. In cases where damaged goods are found (broken, broken, damaged, etc.) and during the inspection it turns out that the fact of damage occurred in non-obvious conditions.
C) When facts of theft of goods by unidentified persons are revealed, and the facts of theft themselves are obvious. For example, when empty packaging from goods is found in the sales area or the goods are incomplete (not the entire goods were stolen, but their components, which deprives the organization of the opportunity to further sell them).
Regardless of the method by which the fact of damage caused by unidentified persons was revealed, work on its compensation must be carried out, and this responsibility must be assigned to the security service units of the trading enterprise.
The practice of communication between security officers and individuals from among buyers who commit thefts has developed two main and most frequently used methods of influencing such unscrupulous «buyers».
The first method, which is absolutely legal and quite preventively justified, is to bring the buyer who committed the theft to legal responsibility. The type of legal responsibility, in this case, is usually determined by the cost of the stolen goods. That is, depending on the cost, the buyer is brought to either administrative or criminal liability. In some cases, the type of liability may be influenced by other qualifying circumstances, such as committing theft as part of a group of persons, committing theft in an open manner (robbery), etc.
In the case where the detained «thief» is handed over to law enforcement officers, the effectiveness of this fact includes two components for bringing to justice. Firstly, the stolen goods are seized and returned for sale (in the vast majority of cases), that is, there is a direct prevention of damage in the amount of the cost of the seized goods. Secondly, this is a preventive component. That is, it is assumed that the person brought to legal responsibility, and accordingly having suffered certain negative consequences, including material ones, is unlikely to continue to commit thefts in the future. This especially applies not to «professional» thieves (for them, this is just an unfortunate episode of their constant «work activity»), but to «impulsive» thieves, of whom there are most. In addition, the personnel of the Security Service unit are guided by this person, and during subsequent visits they will pay closer attention to him.
As a rule, an administrative penalty imposed on a buyer who has committed theft has negative consequences associated with the material punishment of the offender, namely, — according to established practice, courts impose a penalty in the form of a fine. At the same time, the injured party, that is, the trading company, does not receive any material compensation. From the point of view of legislation, — (Principles of legal proceedings), — this is logical. However, from the point of view of the injured owner, this can hardly be considered fair.
It should also be noted that despite the work of the Security Service departments aimed at preventing, identifying and stopping thefts, a fairly large part of them is latent in nature, and therefore it is often simply impossible to recover the damage caused from the direct perpetrators.
As a result of the above, it seems that the second method of influencing buyers who have committed theft is also quite justified, which consists in the fact that the offender bears the material costs associated with compensation for damage caused to the Company by thefts committed by other guilty persons. Compensation for damage caused by unidentified persons by a person detained for committing theft acts, firstly, as a preventive measure against the offender, and secondly, as material compensation for moral damage to the owner. The specificity of this method is that although from the point of view of logic it is justified and, to some extent, even necessary, its legal component is somewhat controversial.
The essence of this method is that the person who has committed theft of property of a trading enterprise is offered two options for further developments:
- The police are called, a statement is written against the citizen, and he is subsequently held legally liable in accordance with the law.
- The citizen is explained all the negative legal and social consequences that may follow after he is brought to legal responsibility — imposition of an administrative penalty associated with material costs; legal consequences of bringing to administrative or criminal responsibility; problems with employment and education; negative consequences associated with making this fact public, etc., etc. After which, as an alternative, the citizen is explained the possibility of compensating for the material and moral damage caused to the Company by his actions, without involving representatives of law enforcement agencies, by contributing, as compensation for damage, a certain monetary amount equivalent to the severity of the offense committed.
It is the second method, being more preferable, since its efficiency is higher (compensation of material damage and preventive component), that causes certain difficulties in its direct implementation. These difficulties are caused, first of all, by the fact that, if the offender, as a result of tactically incorrect actions of the senior shift manager or the head of the security service, nevertheless agrees to an alternative option, it is possible that in the future he may contact law enforcement or judicial authorities. As was said above, the legal component of this method is quite controversial, therefore the security officer who worked with this citizen to collect the compensated damage may have difficulties with the law. We are talking specifically about the actions of the security officer, when they directly contradict the law, i.e. are illegal. Such actions should not be allowed under any circumstances! To avoid this, in such cases you should act as competently as possible, using certain tactical and psychological techniques and adhering to the rules listed below.
The first rule. The work should be carried out only by experienced employees in the position of not lower than the shift supervisor or the head of the security service. However, the rank and file of the security units should also clearly understand in which cases the police should be called immediately, and in which cases they should wait for the shift supervisor to arrive.
The second rule. Work on collecting compensation damages can only be carried out in cases where the theft is obvious. That is, when a buyer suspected of committing theft is asked to present unpaid goods, if any, and he voluntarily takes out the hidden stolen goods. Even if there is certainty that a person has committed theft, but he does not voluntarily present the unpaid goods, the police should be immediately called to carry out and procedurally secure the procedure for personal inspection of the citizen.
Third rule. This work is usually carried out in cases where the amount of the stolen goods does not allow bringing the buyer convicted of theft to criminal liability. (Although in practice, options are possible). If the value of the stolen goods is significant, allowing bringing the guilty party or guilty parties to criminal liability, law enforcement officers should be called immediately.
Fourth rule. It is preferable to carry out work on collecting compensation damages in cases where one offender is detained. If it is established that the theft was committed by several people, or that there were other people or relatives with the person who committed the theft, the possibility of carrying out work on collecting compensation damages should be considered very carefully, and only if the person carrying out this work has the necessary experience.
Rule five. The amount of the recovered compensation must be adequate to the severity of the offense committed, i.e. the value of the stolen property. At the same time, in pursuit of compensation for damages, one must not stoop to collecting amounts that are insignificant from a preventive point of view. It seems that the optimal threshold from which work on compensation for damages by the person guilty of theft can begin should be an amount of at least 500 rubles.
The adequacy of the recovered compensation implies not only its minimum size. When determining the size, it is also necessary to be guided by the principles of «reasonableness, fairness and sufficiency». The practice of work in this area shows that in a number of cases the minimum amount of compensation is not observed, but there are cases when, on the contrary, with a small amount of damage caused by a committed petty theft, significant amounts are recovered, which creates a potential threat for citizens to appeal to regulatory authorities, which should be avoided if possible. Based on the above, when determining the amount of compensated damage, it is recommended to be guided by the following criteria:
Amount of damage caused Amount of damage compensated
Up to 50 rubles 500 rubles
Up to 100 rubles From 500 to 750 rubles
From 100 to 250 rubles From 600 to 1000 rubles
From 250 to 600 rubles From 800 to 2000 rubles
From 600 to 1001 rubles From 2000 to 2500 rubles
More than 1001 rubles Criminal liability.
If there is a proposal from the offender to make amends for the damage caused, within the framework of reconciliation of the parties, the amount of compensation for damage is determined by the head of the security service
It is necessary to take into account that the lower limit of the specified criteria is recommended to be extended to citizens who have committed so-called «impulsive» petty thefts. The specific amount of the amount to be collected, within the framework of the specified criteria, is determined taking into account the social profile of the thief, the availability of the necessary amount of money and other objective circumstances.
Rule six. It is preferable for the offender to propose an option for resolving the situation without involving law enforcement agencies. In no case should you try to convince, much less insist on the option of compensating for damage caused by unidentified persons. The psychological «processing» of the detainee should lead to the offender himself choosing and proposing the second option for the development of events as his preferred one, that is, without involving law enforcement officers.
Tactical techniques:
As follows from the last rule, the security officer (shift supervisor or head of the security service), working with the person who committed theft, must lead the latter to the idea that it is preferable for him to compensate for the material and moral damage to the trading enterprise directly on the spot, without involving law enforcement agencies and public attention. To do this, during the conversation, it should be explained to the citizen that if the police are called, he will be brought to administrative responsibility, with the mandatory imposition of an administrative penalty associated with material losses. When talking with the offender in this direction, it is necessary to take into account the socio-psychological portrait of the latter, based on which the work tactics should be developed.
Often, a serious psychological impact on offenders is exerted not so much by the fact that they were caught stealing, but by the fact that this fact may become public knowledge. To strengthen the detainee in this opinion, the following methods can be used: — taking a photo of the offender, while simultaneously informing him that this photo will be placed on the stand «They take someone else's»; — informing the detainee that the management of the retail enterprise will inform about this fact at the place of work, study, residence; — informing that the administration of the shopping center practices informing the public about the facts of theft through the media; — in other ways to convey to the offender that this fact will definitely be made public.
Along with the above methods, the employee must instill and convey to the offender the idea that in any case he will suffer punishment associated with material costs (at least, — a «fine» imposed by a court decision). That is, making this fact public will not save the offender from other negative consequences.
It is necessary to explain to the offender that in addition to material punishment and public resonance, the very fact of officially bringing the offender to administrative responsibility will have negative consequences. In particular, it should be explained to the latter that checking for bringing a citizen to legal responsibility is carried out by various bodies quite often. This is done by employers, when checking a candidate for employment; employees of banking structures, when making a decision on issuing a loan or credit; this fact can become an indirect aggravating circumstance if the citizen commits another offense; other state and public organizations also check for bringing a citizen to responsibility. In each of the above cases, the fact of bringing a citizen to administrative responsibility, especially under such a «shameful» article, will play a negative role when the competent authorities make a decision regarding this citizen.
In parallel with the conversation, you can use various psychological techniques to influence the offender. For example, demonstratively call or simulate a call to the operator with a request to prepare a certificate of the cost of the stolen goods, emphasizing that it is necessary for submission to the internal affairs agencies. In the room where the conversation with the offender is conducted, you should have a prepared set of packages from the disassembled and stolen goods, to which you need to draw the attention of the offender. The main task of the employee working with the offender is to ensure maximum discomfort for him, so that he feels the entire negative component of the situation in which he found himself, having committed theft.
After the security officer has carried out the above work on psychological «processing» of the offender, he should be offered an option on how to avoid all the above-mentioned troubles. In particular, it is necessary to explain to the citizen who committed the theft the provisions of Art. 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which reconciliation of the parties is allowed if the damage caused is compensated, and the injured party has no claims (in this case, material) to the person who committed the offense. In order to document the fact of voluntary material compensation for the damage caused, a receipt should be taken from the person who committed the theft stating that, in order to reconcile with the injured party (with the trading enterprise), this citizen himself offers to voluntarily compensate for moral and material damage.
Procedure for recovery of compensated damage.
The basic rule of the procedure for collecting compensation for damages, which must be strictly observed, is that the circulation of cash between the person who committed the theft and the security service employee who worked with the detainee must be categorically excluded. Practice has developed the most acceptable option, which consists in the fact that the citizen himself, in the amount determined by the agreements reached, pays through the cash register for the goods previously stolen, damaged or disassembled by unidentified persons. In order to ensure payment for such goods, the security service must keep a journal of «accounting for stolen, damaged and disassembled goods». In this case, a cash receipt for payment is not issued to the offender, but remains in the hands of the employee who carried out the above work with the citizen who committed the theft.
I can confidently assume that these recommendations will have many opponents, citing the fact that «only a court can find someone guilty», «reconciliation of the parties is only permissible within the framework of criminal proceedings», etc. And I can also agree with them in advance that, indeed, work on collecting compensation for damages, from the point of view of legislation, can be considered as contradicting some of its procedural provisions. However, I am sure that since it does not contradict logic and common sense, with an established system it can and should be carried out. But at the same time, I would like to note once again that the work in question should be carried out very carefully, tactically competently, by trained and experienced employees. It is impossible to foresee all cases and opportunities that can be used in working with detained offenders, since this is a purely individual work based on the specific personal characteristics of the person who committed the theft.
Well, the decision whether to develop this area of work at all is, of course, up to the relevant managers. I can only say that by organizing work in the direction of collecting compensated damages, it is possible to achieve very significant results in reducing the overall array of losses of a trading enterprise.
Belov Viktor Nikolaevich.
E-mail: vik1969_10@mail.ru