Summary

Although the concept of forest theft is unknown in the Estonian criminal law and, in legal terms, such category is not possible, the concept is widely used in ordinary speech. We can speak about a theft of a forest if the forest is regarded as an essential part of a plot of land and if we claim that a theft of an essential part of an immovable is possible by making the immovable or its part movable.
While the concept of a thing in civil law does not encompass its value, in criminal law the concept of the value of a thing is relevant. With respect to a forest, two categories of value should be distinguished, the value of the forest as specified by its owner and the value of the forest as a natural resource.
The treatment of a forest theft as a criminal offence depends, first and foremost, on the legal status of the subject with respect to a felled forest. A forest-related crime may be committed by both a person who has no rights with respect to the forest, the owner of the forest or, based on Estonian laws, the entitled subject of ownership reform. The latter has rights with respect to the forest but is not its owner yet.