Functions of enforcement officers
In Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the phrase “bodies of the Federal Bailiff Service” was replaced with “compulsory enforcement authorities of the Russian Federation.” Part 4 has been added to the article with the following content:
In the compulsory enforcement authorities of the Russian Federation, the powers of the head of the inquiry body are exercised by the chief bailiff of the Russian Federation, the chief bailiffs of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, their deputies, and senior bailiffs.
Article 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation now states that the arrest is carried out by the bodies of inquiry on the basis of a decision of the inquirer, investigator, as well as by employees of the compulsory enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation on the basis of a court order.
The new version of Article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation establishes that measures to ensure the execution of punishment in the form of a fine, to secure a civil claim and possible confiscation of property by court order are carried out by the compulsory enforcement authorities of the Russian Federation.
Article 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation establishes that:
An employee of the compulsory enforcement authorities of the Russian Federation ensures the order of the court hearing and carries out the orders of the presiding judge. The requirements of an employee of the compulsory enforcement authorities of the Russian Federation are mandatory for persons present in the courtroom.
The new version of Article 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation states that measures of influence for violation of order in a court hearing are provided by employees of compulsory enforcement agencies. It is determined that:
An employee of the compulsory enforcement authorities of the Russian Federation takes measures to ensure that witnesses and persons in respect of whom criminal cases have been separated into separate proceedings in connection with the conclusion of a pre-trial cooperation agreement not interrogated by the court do not communicate with the interrogated witnesses, as well as with other persons, present in the courtroom.
Terms and concepts
In the articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the concept of “crimes committed in the field of entrepreneurial activity” is replaced by “crimes committed by an individual entrepreneur in connection with the implementation of entrepreneurial activities and (or) management of property belonging to him, used for the purposes of entrepreneurial activity, or if these crimes are committed by a member of the body management of a commercial organization in connection with the exercise of its powers to manage the organization or in connection with the implementation by a commercial organization of entrepreneurial or other economic activities.”
The provisions of Article 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation on preventing the unreasonable use of measures that may lead to the suspension of the legitimate activities of legal entities or individual entrepreneurs, including the unjustified seizure of electronic storage media, during investigative actions are extended to criminal cases of crimes provided for in Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Abuse of Power” "
Objects and documents, including electronic media, seized during pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases for crimes under Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are recognized as material evidence and are added to the materials of the criminal case. Article 81.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation clarifies the procedure for recognizing tools, equipment or other means of committing a crime as material evidence when committing a crime:
- an individual entrepreneur in connection with his business activities and (or) management of his property used for business purposes;
- a member of the management body of a commercial organization in connection with the exercise of powers by him to manage the organization or in connection with the implementation of entrepreneurial or other economic activities by a commercial organization.
Commentary to Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The object of theft is property relations. As with kidnappings, theft requires trespassing. This crime is very similar to theft (theft, robbery and robbery). Its difference from theft lies in the absence of the intention to permanently turn the thing into one’s favor, to appropriate it. When stealing, the intent is aimed at the temporary illegal use of someone else's property. A thief takes possession of a vehicle in order to travel somewhere or simply enjoy driving it (for a ride).
The subject of the theft is a car or other vehicle. The legislator refused to define the characteristics of the subject of this crime in the law. Practice has followed the path of a broad understanding of the subject of theft. “Other vehicles” include not only motor vehicles (in the sense that this term is meant by the Road Traffic Rules), but also any other vehicles, for example boats. In a specific case, even a horse was classified as another vehicle, and the court paid special attention to the fact that the animal was used specifically as a vehicle and not for other purposes. Theft of bicycles, mopeds, etc. in practice, rarely qualified under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As a rule, acts of this kind were considered insignificant (Part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), especially taking into account the fact that responsibility for theft is provided for from the age of fourteen.
Clarification on this issue was made by Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 9, 2008 No. 25 “On judicial practice in cases of crimes related to violation of traffic rules and operation of vehicles, as well as their unlawful taking without the purpose of theft.” Paragraph 21 of this Resolution states that for other vehicles, theft of which without the intent of theft is subject to criminal liability under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, one should understand mechanical vehicles (trolleybuses, tractors, motorcycles, other self-propelled vehicles with an internal combustion engine or an electric motor, boats, motor boats). Mopeds, bicycles, rowing boats, horse-drawn vehicles, etc. are not the subject of this crime. .
———————————
Russian newspaper. 2008. 26 Dec.
Thus, the subject of the crime provided for in Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, there can be any vehicle with the exception of an air or water transport vessel, as well as railway rolling stock, liability for the theft of which is provided for in Art. 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The objective side of theft is expressed in the action - unlawful taking of a vehicle.
Wrongful taking of a vehicle without the purpose of theft (Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) means taking possession of someone else's car or other vehicle (theft) and driving it without the intention of appropriating it in whole or in parts.
Taking possession of a vehicle should be considered unlawful if it was committed against the will of the owner (owner, other legal owner, authorized person). Simply driving a car without a power of attorney does not entail liability for theft if the act was committed with the consent of the owner. In practice, there are cases when teenagers steal the cars of their parents or other relatives without permission. Sometimes relatives, friends, co-workers, etc. use someone else's car without asking, while having reason to believe that due to family or other relationships, the owner will not object to this. In such situations, criminal prosecution is not carried out without the consent of the owner of the vehicle.
Possession is understood quite narrowly. It is necessary not only to seize a vehicle, but also to violate the owner’s possession. For example, seizing a car without setting it in motion (for example, a person went to sleep in someone else’s car), moving a car a short distance to make it possible for another vehicle to pass, etc. are not considered theft.
At the same time, theft will occur if the culprit forces the driver (for example, under threat of murder) to start driving and move as directed by the culprit. Moreover, the fact that in case of unlawful seizure of a car driven by the victim, the latter remains behind the wheel, does not in any way affect the existence of the crime, since in these conditions the victim is deprived of freedom of movement against his will.
The corpus delicti is formal. Wrongful seizure of a vehicle without the purpose of theft is a completed crime from the moment of departure or movement of the vehicle from the place where it was located.
The actions of a person who tried to break the locks and security alarm systems, start the engine, or start driving for the purpose of theft should be considered as an attempted theft of a vehicle without the intent of theft, if the actions of this person were stopped or due to other circumstances beyond his control he was unable to realize his criminal intent to use a vehicle for personal interests without the purpose of theft.
If a person who steals a vehicle without the purpose of stealing also steals the property located in it, the act is subject to qualification under Art. 166 and the relevant articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing for liability for theft.
Taking possession of a vehicle for the purpose of subsequent dismantling and appropriation of its parts or using the vehicle for one’s own benefit or for the benefit of other persons is subject to classification as theft.
Wrongful seizure of a car or other vehicle without the purpose of theft and its subsequent intentional destruction or damage are subject to classification under the set of crimes provided for in the relevant part of Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and if there are grounds for this, Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if these acts caused significant damage to the owner of the vehicle, and the actions of the guilty person are not qualified as theft of a vehicle without the purpose of theft on the basis of causing particularly large damage to the victim.
In cases where a person unlawfully took possession of a car or other vehicle, intending to subsequently return it to the owner for a reward, his actions should be qualified under the relevant article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for liability for theft.
The subjective side of theft is characterized only by direct intent. The very direction of intent during theft can be called selfish: the thief realizes that he is illegally temporarily using someone else’s thing, and this is a property benefit (renting a car costs money). Therefore, theft can be classified as a selfish crime.
The motives for theft can be very different; as a general rule, they do not affect its qualification (except for extreme necessity and other similar situations).
Wrongful seizure of a vehicle in order to facilitate the commission of another crime, if the person did not have the goal of turning the vehicle into his own benefit or for the benefit of another person, must be qualified under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and, in aggregate, under the relevant articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provide for liability for committing other crimes.
The general subject of the crime is a sane person who has reached the age of fourteen years.
Qualifying characteristics: a group of persons by prior conspiracy; the use of violence that is not dangerous to life or health, or the threat of using such violence (Part 2 of Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); organized group; causing particularly large damage; the use of violence dangerous to life or health, or the threat of using such violence (Part 3 of Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
A group of persons by prior conspiracy and an organized group are understood in the same way as in the case of theft (see commentary to Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, a group of persons by prior conspiracy can occur when at least two persons performed at least part of the objective side of the crime. If, for example, one person got behind the wheel, started the engine and drove a stolen vehicle, and another person did not assist in the theft and was in the stolen car only as a passenger, this qualifying feature is absent, since there is no corpus delicti in the actions of the second person , provided for in Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In case of unlawful seizure of a vehicle without the purpose of theft by several persons by prior conspiracy, the actions of each should be considered as complicity in a crime, i.e. as co-perpetrator (Part 2 of Article 34 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), qualifying what they did under paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation without reference to Art. 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, regardless of which member of the criminal group actually drove the vehicle.
Violence that is not dangerous to life or health during theft (clause “c” of Part 2 of Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) should be understood as intentional beatings or the commission of other violent actions associated with causing physical pain to the victim or restricting his freedom ( tying hands, using handcuffs, etc.). Violence dangerous to life or health, or the threat of using such violence during theft (Part 4 of Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) should be understood as intentional actions that entailed the infliction of grave or moderate harm to the health of the victim, as well as minor harm to health that caused short-term distress health or minor permanent loss of general ability to work and the threat of committing the listed actions.
In case of a hijacking committed with the specified qualifying characteristics, additional qualification of the person’s actions under the relevant articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on crimes against life and health is not required, except in cases where the death of the victim occurred as a result of the violence used during the hijacking.
If, as a result of the intentional use of violence dangerous to life or health during the unlawful seizure of a vehicle, the death of the victim occurred due to negligence, the act should be qualified depending on the specific circumstances of the case under Part 4 of Art. 166 and part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Particularly large damage (more than one million rubles) can be caused either intentionally or through negligence. This damage is not determined by the value of the stolen car, which is only temporarily removed from the owner’s possession. It is usually caused by damage to the vehicle or its destruction.
When qualifying the actions of a person who has committed unlawful seizure of a vehicle without the purpose of theft, under Part 3 of Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of causing particularly large damage, one should proceed from the expenses actually incurred by the owner associated with the repair of the found car if it was damaged during the theft.
If a stolen vehicle has received technical damage that precludes the possibility of its restoration and further operation, the amount of damage caused should be calculated based on its actual value on the day the crime was committed.
In these cases, additional qualification of a person’s actions under Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not required.
If the thief leaves the car in good condition, unattended and in an unsafe place, and other persons take advantage of this to steal, destroy or damage the car, the courts, as a rule, do not see in such situations a causal connection and the thief’s guilt in terms of causing particularly large damage.
