Car theft and car theft. Criminal legal absurdity

Hello, dear readers!

Since then, as soon as I experienced car theft and car theft in practice, I have always been amazed at the difference between the punishment for these types of crimes. I’m sure I’m not the only one, but all criminal lawyers too! For non-lawyers these concepts are identical! For them there is only one thing: “The car was stolen!” And the lawyer will immediately ask the question: “So! Stop! What do you mean stolen? I will explain, dear readers, what the difference is between them in simple language that everyone can understand.

How does the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation qualify the theft of vehicles?

In accordance with the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, theft is defined as the unlawful taking of someone else's vehicle without the purpose of stealing it. Different sanctions may apply depending on the severity of the offense.

By law, vehicles include motorized vehicles that are driven by an engine. These are motorcycles, cars of all models, tractors, city transport. When committing illegal actions with bicycles or horse-drawn vehicles, they are classified as theft.

If your moped is stolen

If a moped is stolen, you must:

• contact the police immediately. Before the squad arrives, it is worth finding witnesses who were close to the scene of the theft and could see what was happening. If there are eyewitnesses, you need to talk to them and get their contact numbers. Even if passers-by did not see the moment of the theft, they could see the thief passing by and remember his signs. A broken cable can also serve as material evidence, so it should not be thrown away;
• try to determine the hijacker's route. To do this, you should walk along every possible path of movement and look around. Perhaps the thief was recorded by a video recorder. Video recordings from external surveillance cameras, which could be located not only near the place where the moped was stolen, but also near the road along which the thief drove, can also help. There may be cameras on many buildings, but poor quality footage can make it difficult to make out details.

Police officers carry out the following activities:

• the time and place of the theft is recorded;
• a conversation is held with the security service;
• video from external surveillance cameras is requested (if available). The owner should also make a copy of the video from these cameras.

Note!

You should not rely on the efficiency of police officers, since they, as a rule, fulfill the minimum requirements prescribed in the instructions. Therefore, to return your property, it is better to consult with a lawyer who will tell you what actions should be taken in this case.

Punishment

When determining the degree of responsibility, the identity of the offender is taken into account - his age and characteristics. For committing such crimes, responsibility is provided for from the age of 14.

The following factors are taken into account by the judicial authority:

• frequency of committing crimes, regardless of their type;
• gravity of the act;
• the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Note!

If violence was used during the theft of a vehicle, causing harm to the health of the victim, then the penalty is 12 years in prison.

For the hijacking of air and water transport, punishment is determined in accordance with Art. 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

For theft of a car with the purpose of stealing it, punishment is provided under Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the form of a fine (not more than 80 thousand rubles), imprisonment for a period of not more than 2 years.

If significant damage was caused as a result of the theft (when determining the amount of such damage, the financial situation of the victim is taken into account, but not less than 5,000 rubles), then the following types of punishment may be applied to the perpetrator:

• penalties in the amount of up to 200 thousand rubles;
• compulsory work no more than 480 hours;
• imprisonment for a period of 5 years.

If a theft is committed on a large scale (more than 250 thousand rubles), a fine of up to 500 thousand rubles may be imposed, as well as arrest for up to 6 years. For committing theft on an especially large scale (more than 1 million rubles), punishment is provided in the form of imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years and a fine of up to 1 million rubles.

What to do if your motorcycle is stolen?

If your motorcycle is stolen, you must take the following steps to recover your property:

• conduct an inspection of the scene of the incident. Perhaps, not far from him there could be an external surveillance camera, which recorded the moment of the theft or the presence of a person near the motorcycle on the day of its disappearance;
• to call the police. Even if there are doubts about the effectiveness of the law enforcement search, it is worth writing a statement, because otherwise, if your property is discovered, it will be difficult to return it.

License plate stolen from a motorcycle

The theft of a license plate from a vehicle registered with the traffic police is usually associated with the following reasons:

• ransom demand;
• hooligan actions;
• concealing another crime.

If you discover that there is no license plate on a motorcycle, you need to pay attention to the presence of possible evidence to determine the purpose of the theft. If the crime is associated with a ransom demand or hooliganism, then the state sign is most likely located near the place of the theft. To search, you need to pay attention to the presence of a video camera and try to find witnesses.

Note!

If a motorcycle is stolen, you must file a police report in any case.

If it was not possible to return the number, you can contact the Interdistrict Registration and Examination Department (MREO) and the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate to produce a duplicate or a new state sign. When making a duplicate, there is a high probability of installing a stolen license plate on a stolen motorcycle. Then, if traffic rules are violated by persons who use a stolen sign, fines will go to its previous owner, who has not committed any violations.

Better get a new number. This procedure does not take much time.

If the crime is committed by a group of people

When a vehicle is stolen by a group of persons (two or more people) by prior conspiracy, stricter measures are provided under all articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. For the theft of a car for the purpose of selling it (Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), which was committed by a group of persons, the following types of punishment are established:

• a fine of 200 thousand rubles;
• imprisonment for up to 5 years.

When a crime is committed by a group of people, it does not matter which of the offenders was driving the car, since each member of the group is found guilty. In this case, the punishment is determined individually.

For unlawful taking of a car, according to Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, punishment may be applied in the form of a fine in the amount of no more than 200 thousand rubles. or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years. A group of people who commit an offense is subject to a more severe punishment than when a car is stolen by one criminal. The period is increased to seven years.

If your car has been stolen, do not waste time; we recommend that you immediately contact our lawyers, who will provide the necessary assistance to return the car to the owner as quickly as possible, which will avoid significant costs.

Without the purpose of theft and proof: why Article 166 of the Criminal Code needs to be repealed

Author: Ivan Soloviev, Doctor of Law. Sc., Professor, Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation

Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation Ivan Solovyov told Pravo.ru readers about his position on Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (theft is a punishment ranging from a fine to 12 years in prison) and why it differentiates criminal liability not in the interests of the victim, but in the interests of the criminal.

When we were still schoolchildren, one boarding school student stole a cap that was dear to him from my friend. Later, at the police station, the district detective wearily asked my friend: “Did he ask you to wear it?” And when he honestly answered that no, the operator turned to the boarding school student and said: “You see, he didn’t give you the thing. You took her without asking. Which means you just stole it.” These words stayed with me forever and came to mind in connection with another discussion of the question of what is the difference between car theft and theft.

Stole is not stolen

Currently, Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for the unlawful taking of a car or other vehicle without the purpose of theft - that is, for theft in itself. However, many lawyers and victims of such thefts ask the question why theft - that is, an encroachment on a citizen's property - is not subject to legal assessment on an equal basis with other selfish attacks on other property?

Indeed, the article of criminal liability on hijacking in its current version seems to have been written specifically for hijackers, so that they would not be imprisoned for a longer period as thieves or robbers. It clearly distinguishes between vehicle theft and theft. Fundamentally, vehicle theft differs from the latter in that the perpetrator does not have a selfish motivation, that is, the goal of using the stolen vehicle for his own benefit or for the benefit of others. This legal assessment of thefts has taken root in judicial and investigative practice. Therefore, all thieves who are caught red-handed with a stolen car unanimously repeat that they took the car for a ride or to take a friend to the hospital - and their intention was not to appropriate the car, but simply to “rent” it.

In this case, differentiation of criminal liability is laid down in the law not in the interests of the victim, but in the interests of the person who committed the crime. Moreover, the criminal legal qualification of the crime depends mainly on the testimony of... the offender. And numerous appeals from citizens to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia with complaints about the imperfection of the norms of the Criminal Code that define the signs of the crimes we are considering, the difficulties in distinguishing between thefts and thefts of vehicles that occur in investigative and judicial practice indicate that the existing structure requires adjustment.

Any unlawful gratuitous seizure of someone else’s property in favor of the perpetrator or other persons, regardless of its purpose and duration, should be considered as theft, since this act violates the legally protected right of ownership. And in the Russian Federation, in accordance with Article 8 of the Constitution, private, state, municipal and other forms of property are equally recognized and protected.

When cars were rare

Illegal seizure of any thing of the victim, stopped until the moment when the perpetrator has the opportunity to freely dispose of it, is qualified as attempted theft, and there is no need to establish the purpose of its commission. Thus, the legislator established clear liability for the hijacking of an aircraft. He uses the same criteria to consider the theft of a horse or cow.

But an equivalent crime that encroaches on a car requires establishing the purpose of the seizure and, if it is impossible to prove selfish motivation, is qualified as theft.

This norm of liability for vehicle theft has existed in criminal law since the times when a car was a luxury and a rarity, and has long been outdated: today almost every family owns a car, and the criminal business associated with their thefts is focused not only on the seizure of the car itself for its further operation, but also for disassembly for spare parts, as well as for committing other crimes.

However, when assigning punishment to persons convicted under Article 166 of the Criminal Code, as a rule, a liberal approach is chosen. This is also shown by judicial statistics: for example, in 2013, out of 17,886 convicts, only 31.6% received a sentence of imprisonment, and 44.7% received a suspended sentence to imprisonment. In the first six months of 2014, out of 7,762 convicts, 18.2% of those convicted were given imprisonment as a punishment, and 41.2% were given a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

It should be noted that the sanctions of the norms provided for in Article 166 of the Criminal Code are relatively comparable in severity to the sanctions of other norms of the Criminal Code on theft. Thus, for the theft of a car in the absence of qualifying signs, a punishment may be imposed in the form of imprisonment for a term of up to five years, and for a particularly qualified theft (with the use of violence dangerous to life or health, or with the threat of such violence) - up to 12 years .

Thus, Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not only outdated, but also redundant: in order to effectively prevent criminal attacks on vehicles, it is more expedient to qualify the acts that are covered by Article 166 of the Criminal Code today according to the relevant standards establishing criminal liability, in particular for theft, robbery, robbery or fraud.

To immediately anticipate the objections of fans of force majeure situations: to regulate them, Article 39 of the Criminal Code “Extreme Necessity” is sufficient - theft of a vehicle (formally containing all the elements of a crime) cannot entail criminal liability, for example, in order to deliver a seriously ill or injured person to the nearest hospital or to eliminate other dangers that cannot be eliminated by other means.

Hijackers and kidnappers are “birds of a feather”

It should be recognized that there is another problem that has not yet been resolved. Now a person who, in accordance with criminal law, did not steal a car, but only “drove” it, is not obliged to compensate for material damage to the owner. However, in April 2015, the Constitutional Court, in its ruling on a complaint from Astrakhan resident Vladimir Kryazhev, declared the provisions of the Civil Code and the Criminal Code inconsistent with the Constitution as not allowing the recovery of property damage from a car thief if he did not have the purpose of theft. Thus, the Constitutional Court confirmed that hijackers and kidnappers are “birds of a feather” and must bear financial responsibility for their actions.

It seemed that this was a good opportunity to exclude Article 166 from the Criminal Code. However, a different path was chosen: in October of this year, in pursuance of the said resolution of the Constitutional Court, the Government of the Russian Federation introduced to the State Duma a bill on the recovery of damages from a car thief in cases where a stolen and abandoned vehicle is stolen or damaged by an unknown person.

An amendment that allows victims to recover damages caused by a chain of different and formally unrelated crimes is proposed to supplement Article 1080 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “Liability for jointly caused harm.” A car thief who only drove a car “without the purpose of stealing,” or any person who unlawfully took possession of someone else’s property, which was then stolen or damaged by a criminal unrelated to the first person, will be required to compensate for the damage unless they prove the absence of their guilt in causing it. The hijacker will then be able to recover the paid amount of damage by “recourse” from the tortfeasor, if he can be found.

In the proposed version, the draft does not fully resolve the issue and looks like a half-measure. If only because it leaves the hijacker the opportunity to prove that the harm was caused through no fault of his own. If everything remains as it is, then such patching of holes in the worn-out legislative fabric will not only not solve a long-overdue issue, but will look like a mockery of citizens - owners of property who have lost it due to unlawful actions, be it theft or theft.

Editorial opinion may not reflect the views of the author

• Legal community, Courts and judges
• Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

if the motorcycle cost less than 2,000 rubles

The assistance of a professional lawyer significantly increases the likelihood of a positive outcome of the case.

if the motorcycle cost less than 2,000 rubles, then such an act can be recognized not as theft, but as petty theft, and then it falls under the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which does not entail a criminal record.

In this case, the decisive factor is whether related actions were committed that entail criminal liability, regardless of the value of the motorcycle. For a list of such actions, see this link.

Administrative liability for motorcycle theft

For the theft of a motorcycle worth up to 1,000 rubles, the following liability is provided:

• a fine in the amount of up to five times the value of the stolen property, but not less than one thousand rubles;
• or administrative arrest for up to fifteen days;
• or compulsory work for up to fifty hours.

For the theft of a motorcycle worth from 1000 to 2000 rubles, the following liability is provided:

• a fine in the amount of up to five times the value of the stolen property, but not less than three thousand rubles;
• or administrative arrest for a period of ten to fifteen days;
• or compulsory work for a period of up to one hundred and twenty hours.

Legislative regulation

Article 7.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, petty theft (version current for 2021)

1. Petty theft of someone else’s property, the value of which does not exceed one thousand rubles, by theft, fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement in the absence of signs of crimes provided for in parts two, three and four of Article 158, Article 158.1, parts two, three and four of Article 159, parts two, three and four of Article 159.1, parts two, three and four of Article 159.2, parts two, three and four of Article 159.3, parts two, three and four of Article 159.5, parts two, three and four of Article 159.6 and parts of the second and third of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, with the exception of cases provided for in Article 14.15.3 of this Code - (as amended by Federal Law dated 02/05/2018 N 13-FZ)

punishment: entails the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of up to five times the value of the stolen property, but not less than one thousand rubles, or administrative arrest for up to fifteen days, or compulsory labor for up to fifty hours.

2. Petty theft of someone else’s property worth more than one thousand rubles, but not more than two thousand five hundred rubles through theft, fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement in the absence of signs of crimes provided for in parts two, three and four of Article 158, Article 158.1, parts two, three and fourth article 159, parts two, third and fourth of article 159.1, parts second, third and fourth of article 159.2, parts second, third and fourth of article 159.3, parts second, third and fourth of article 159.5, parts second, third and fourth of article 159.6 and parts the second and third articles 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, with the exception of cases provided for in Article 14.15.3 of this Code - (as amended by Federal Law dated 02/05/2018 N 13-FZ)

punishment: entails the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of up to five times the value of the stolen property, but not less than three thousand rubles, or administrative arrest for a period of ten to fifteen days, or compulsory labor for a period of up to one hundred and twenty hours.