The content of the article:
- Cheaper to kidnap than hijack
- Once I rode, I stole it anyway
- Theft will be divided into categories
The terminology regarding theft and seizure without a selfish purpose has been controversial among judges, prosecutors, investigators and officials for several years. Too similar crimes raise doubts when sentencing, often milder than it should be. What initiative did the Federation Council take and what should the attackers fear?
Cheaper to kidnap than hijack
The legislation defines theft as unlawful seizure of a car without selfish intent. That is, the car is "taken" for its direct purpose - to drive. After that, it can be returned to the same place, left nearby, most often intact, less often with minor damage. Such an offense is most often committed by adolescents who do it for the sake of entertainment, or persons without a fixed abode in order to sleep in it or warm up.
Theft is regarded as a more serious crime, since it implies a benefit for the thief or other persons - the sale of the car as a whole or after being dismantled for parts.
A criminal caught for theft can be punished with a fine of up to 120,000 rubles or 5 years in custody. If there was a whole criminal group that used violence against the owner, the term of imprisonment is already 7 years. Finally, if a car is stolen for more than a million dollars, the thief will be punished for 10 years, with violent actions - for 12 years.
When "calculating" the punishment for embezzlement, the court takes into account a number of accompanying factors:
- the age of the attacker;
- the presence of other convictions;
- the cost of the stolen vehicle or its parts;
- other aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
If a criminal has stolen property worth less than 250,000 rubles, then the law provides for reconciliation between the parties without judicial consequences when compensating for damage. The presence of aggravating circumstances will lead to imprisonment for up to 6 years, and in case of a group crime, the term of imprisonment increases to 10 years.
A similar punishment is imposed for more than a million damage to the car owner.
Judicial practice shows that embezzlement rarely entails severe consequences, limited to fines. If the attacker can convincingly prove that his only goal was to ride, he effectively absolves himself of the blame.
This very fact, which saves the criminal from legal punishment, is a stumbling block among officials. Moreover, questions are raised by the possibility of avoiding responsibility for theft, and the discrepancy between the severity of the punishment for the actions committed.
After the hijacking, the car is returned to the owner, and often without any damage, and the hijacker can get a serious sentence. Whereas as a result of theft, the rightful owner may lose property, and the author will only get off with a fine.
Once I rode, I stole it anyway
In March 2018, State Duma deputy Oleg Nilov already proposed to completely exclude article 166 - theft from the Criminal Code. The initiative was not to completely get rid of car crimes, but rather to toughen the punishment to expose the criminals.
Nilov gives an illustrative example: the offender does not have time to sell the stolen car and is convicted under Art. 166, which does not take into account selfish intentions. Whereas the more successful attackers, who disposed of the stolen property in a timely manner, will already pass under Art. 158. Two similar offenses, only the presence of fortune on the side of one or another intruder.
Opponents of the idea remembered that it had arisen several years ago and then was really relevant. Now the difference in punishment for these crimes cannot be called significant. In addition, the hijacking investigation considers too many related factors, and not just the fact of the sale of the property. For example, how exactly the car was opened - whether by special technical means, by parsing the dashboard or using other methods.
Such an autopsy indicates a clear readiness of the car thief and a conscious intention to take possession of the car. Teenagers, without further ado, will choose the simplest model, break a window or use lost / stolen family keys.
Another argument against the abolition of the theft article is the cases when a whole group acts, in which one opens the car, another drives it, the third disassembles or sells. Thus, when the ferryman is caught, it will be almost impossible to accuse him of embezzlement. He can refer to the fact that he borrowed it from a friend to ride without his knowledge, and avoid responsibility. It is for such situations that the notorious article on theft should exist.
In 2017, the Ministry of Internal Affairs registered 43,000 car thefts, in which 21,000 were carried out under Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It should be noted that the owners do not always immediately discover the loss, so the investigators start a theft case. However, if in the course of the investigation the car is found together with other stolen property in special sedimentation tanks, then the case will be re-qualified under the article “Theft”.
Such differentiation of the offense causes a number of complaints and numerous appeals from citizens precisely in connection with the "protection" of the interests of the offender, and not the victim. In addition, the criminal classification will be directly determined depending on the testimony of the offender again. Therefore, the imperfection of the legislation, the dual norms of the Criminal Code, the difficulties in classifying theft and embezzlement in this other category of severity indicate the need to amend the legislation, in the opinion of the senators.
Theft will be divided into categories
Before the development of clarifications on judicial practice in cases of car theft, officials received the consent of 17 regions of Russia to toughen the responsibility, another 18 regions consider it necessary to separate car theft into a separate category of crimes.
The initiators of the innovations propose to specify the types of offenses according to the following types:
- Hijacking while intoxicated. Drunk driving is itself an aggravating circumstance that increases the level of public danger. But according to the current legislation, the use of administrative measures for violation of traffic rules is permissible only in the absence of a criminal offense (Article 12.8 of the Administrative Code).
If the hijacking of a car by a drunken citizen has led to the infliction of serious injury to other people or to death, even through negligence, then the court will summarize the violations and will consider them as a whole.
- Car theft with people in it. If there are people in the car during the theft, then the offender falls under two criminal articles at once: illegal imprisonment and kidnapping. In the first case, the actions of the hijacker can be committed for hooligan purposes or for the purpose of "self-defense", when passengers interfere with the theft. In the second case, abduction will be considered the intentional and violent restraint of one or more people.
- Theft with entry into a garage or other vehicle storage area. This is a more serious crime, as it is accompanied by aggravating circumstances - illegal entry into a particular room.
At the same time, officials recommend taking into account the specifics of each offense:
- qualification of theft or theft;
- duration of using someone else's car;
- method of entry and theft;
- transfer of the stolen property for use to other persons;
- changing the appearance of the vehicle;
- change of state number.
Finally, as a separate item, the Federation Council committee proposes to introduce responsibility for the sale of license plates from a stolen car. The proposal has already caused bewilderment and doubts among auto experts and lawyers who do not see the point in this tightening. If we are talking about fake numbers, then in this direction the legislative framework has already been worked out and is very clearly spelled out in the Criminal Code. If illegal trade is meant, then what to punish - for issuing a license plate bypassing the traffic police or for a “nice” number given for a “fee”?
Will the opponents of the initiative, confident in the sufficiency of the available measures against the hijackers? Or ardent advocates who consider the article "Hijacking" long obsolete and even vicious? Motorists are watching developments with hope, hoping that the new amendments will protect them from both car thieves and thieves.
