The domestic legislator improves the criminal law norms based on, among other things, foreign experience. In this regard, the author considers the approaches of foreign countries to the definition of the subject of property crimes in general and its «digital variants» in particular. The approaches of some foreign countries (Great Britain, USA, Germany, Austria, Spain, France, Poland) to the establishment of criminal liability for the theft of non-cash funds and digital currency are analyzed. Based on the analysis, the author concludes that in the legislation of foreign states of the Anglo-Saxon and Romano-Germanic systems, the subject of property crimes is defined through the category of «property». In England and the USA, property in general (including non-cash funds and cryptocurrency) can be the subject of any property crimes. In the countries of the continental system (in particular, in the Federal Republic of Germany, Austria, France), within this group of crimes, a subgroup of criminal acts that encroach only on things (for example, theft) is distinguished. It seems that in the domestic criminal law it is also necessary to single out a group of property crimes, which will include crimes against property. Accordingly, in order to solve the problem of the inconsistency of the title of Chapter 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with its content, since the norms of this chapter protect not only objects of property rights (in particular, property rights), but also property rights (claim rights, etc.) that make up the content of obligations relations . It is proposed to clarify the title of Chapter 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, heading it «Property Crimes» (taking into account the studied foreign experience). Thus, non-cash funds, which are not things and which are subject to the civil law regime of property rights, are more logical to recognize as the subject of 2property crimes», and not crimes against property.