Problems of determining the end of any property crime committed with illegal breaking into a home, premises or other storage

The present article deals with the problem of establishing the end of any property crime committed with illegal entry into a home, premises or other repository. Analyzing the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2002 no. 29 "On judicial practice in cases of theft, open non-violent stealing and robbery", the author concludes that the end of the property crimes should be determined by establishing two main points: seizure of property and obtaining real possibility to use or dispose of stolen property. The determination of the end of the property crimes with illegal entry into a home, premises or other repository has specific features. While seizure of property is present, the ownership ceases. Applying the provisions of the civil law, the author concludes that the termination of ownership takes place only after the offender leaves a house (room, storage) with stolen property, the power over the property stops at this very moment. However, even if the offender crosses the limits of a lodging, this does not mean a finished crime, because it is necessary for him / her to get a possibility to use or dispose of stolen goods at his / her own discretion. Analysis of judicial practice shows that law enforcement bodies often overly postpone the end of property crimes, replacing the concept of "real possibility of use or disposal of stolen property" by the actual disposal of the property (for example, in some cases, the criminal action was classified as an attempted crime, even after leaving the building at a considerable distance). Basing on the proposed arguments, the author outlines situations demonstrating the moment of criminal seizure of property, of the real possibility to use or dispose of stolen goods, and testifying the completion of the property crime. It should be noted that in the above study the author formulates rules that can be used to determine the end of a theft committed within such a kind of a protected area that can not be attributed to dwelling, premises, or any other storage such as, for example, a territory of an enterprise fenced and equipped with alarm, as well as to answer the question whether the transformation from one form of property crime into another has taken place.

Keywords

Authors

References