We are publishing the verdict for robbery with a knife. This is simply an incredible result for such a serious crime as robbery, part two. The law provides for up to ten years of imprisonment under this article and part.
The prosecutor asked for five years in prison, but we got a year in prison. This is a uniquely lenient sentence for robbery with a knife.
What we have? Fable of the case
We have a young man, very young (an adult), who committed a robbery using an ordinary household knife, he was accused under Part 2. Art. 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Our lawyer entered into this criminal case of robbery with a knife in the middle of the preliminary investigation. Before this, the young man had a free lawyer from the state.
A free lawyer, as befits all government lawyers from investigative bodies, persuaded the young man to sign three confession protocols. Therefore, given that part of the confession protocols specifically for robbery was already in the criminal case, there was not a single percent chance of reclassification from robbery to arbitrariness or robbery to robbery.
These confessional protocols canceled out all possible attempts and chances for a more lenient article. A free lawyer is worse than a prosecutor! He managed to persuade the young man to confess to one of the most serious charges. After the young man was arrested and had been in custody for almost two months in a pre-trial detention center, the young man’s parents contacted our Moscow Specialized College of Criminal Lawyers. After reading the materials of the criminal case, we immediately warned that it was not possible to reclassify the article and the main task was to In this case of robbery, there can only be one: to achieve the application of Article 64 (below the lowest limit. This would ensure that the punishment, taking into account recidivism, would be less than the period specified in the article. If the parents of the young man had hired a lawyer even before the first interrogation, Article It could have been easier. But alas, the main mistake people make is that people hire a lawyer after a person has been interrogated and arrested, which naturally reduces the chances of a more favorable result and lighter charges.
Sentence for robbery with a knife
We post the original sentence for robbery with a knife:
The verdict for robbery with a knife was provided by our lawyer D.V. Kuvshinov.
The cassation overturned the conviction in the robbery case, passed without interrogating the victim
As “AG” learned, the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction issued a cassation ruling to overturn the conviction of two men previously convicted of robbery.
Circumstances of the criminal case
According to investigators, L. and I. at night in the center of Moscow attacked a Ukrainian citizen R., unknown to them, who was passing by them on a scooter, and beat him. Next, I. tore the Apple Watch 3 from the victim’s hand, however, seeing that it was faulty, he put it in R’s sock. Then L. took out pliers and put them to the victim’s face, threatening to disfigure him, while his partner searched R’s pockets. The men were detained on the spot by police officers.
As a result of the incident, R. received injuries, some of which were subsequently assessed as harm to health of moderate severity. Thus, according to law enforcement officers, I. and L. committed robbery, i.e. assault for the purpose of stealing someone else's property with the use of violence dangerous to health, and with the threat of violence dangerous to health, by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, with the use of an object used as a weapon. The actions of the accused were qualified under Part 2 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, both men were in custody during the investigation.
Conviction without interrogation of the victim
The criminal case was heard in the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. During the trial, the defendants denied their guilt in the acts accused of them. According to them, they were sitting in the courtyard of the house and saw an unfamiliar man drive in on a scooter and begin to behave suspiciously - looking for something under the benches, window sills and near the drainpipe.
According to I., he suspected that the stranger was looking for a stash of drugs and called out to him. After this, according to the accused, the victim began to move on the scooter towards him, then I. put his hand forward, as a result of which he fell from his vehicle, and the watch fell from his hand. After the fall, the victim screamed, I. approached him, began to calm him down and put the watch in his sock.
In turn, L. insisted that he did not have any pliers and that they were planted in his pocket at the police department. According to him, he did not make any threats to the victim and did not take his property.
The court also heard testimony from one of the police officers, Ch., who detained the accused after the incident. According to him, that night the police department received information that cries for help could be heard in one of the Moscow courtyards. Arriving at the scene, the police found R. lying on the asphalt, on which I. was sitting, and L. standing next to him with pliers. According to the policeman, both defendants stated that R. owed them 10 thousand rubles. He also indicated that the victim, while in the ambulance, told him that the accused attacked him, beat him and threatened him, and also tried to tear off his earlobe with pliers and steal his watch, wallet with money and a mobile phone.
The court also examined the statement of the victim, who asked to bring the men who attacked him to criminal responsibility, protocols of personal searches of detainees, protocols of inspection of objects, expert opinions on the nature of the injuries received by R. The court was unable to interrogate the victim himself, since, according to the investigation, he was already left Russia. Nevertheless, the court found that the totality of the evidence examined allows us to come to the conclusion that the defendants were proven guilty of committing a robbery, during which they tried to steal property worth 77.5 thousand rubles from the victim.
At the meeting, the state prosecutor asked to exclude from the charges brought against L. and I. one of the elements of the qualifying feature of the crime - “with the use of violence dangerous to life, and with the threat of violence dangerous to life” as excessively imputed. The court satisfied this request.
In turn, the defense insisted that in reality there was no robbery. But the court rejected such arguments with reference to their inconsistency: “The defense’s arguments that the involvement of I. and L. in the commission of the crime has not been proven are completely refuted by the testimony of the witness and the written materials of the case,” it was noted in the verdict by which L. was sentenced sentenced to five years' imprisonment, and I. - four years.
Next, I. and the defense of both convicted citizens filed appeals to the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Moscow City Court. According to L.’s lawyers, the court’s conclusions were based only on the testimony of a police officer who was not a direct eyewitness to the alleged crime; no other witnesses were mentioned in the verdict. I.’s defense attorneys also pointed out that there was no evidence in the case file that their client had attacked the victim.
Nevertheless, the appellate court actually upheld the verdict of the first instance, only counting the period spent in the pre-trial detention center into the term of serving the sentence by the convicts. In his opinion, none of the evidence underlying the conviction contains any contradictions and does not raise any doubts about its reliability in the second instance.
Contents of cassation appeals and presentations
Next, L.’s defender, lawyer of the MRCA “Advocate Consultation No. 63” Arkady Amasyants, filed a cassation appeal (the “AG” has it) to the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction. In particular, he indicated that the conclusion of the first instance about the amount of theft of the victim’s property in the total amount of 77.5 thousand rubles. is not based on evidence that was directly examined in court: “In the absence of information about the price, the value of the stolen property can be established on the basis of expert opinions. Meanwhile, these requirements of the law were not fulfilled by the court of first instance.”
The complaint also stated that the conclusions of the first instance, stated when describing L.’s use of violence against the victim that was dangerous to health, and the threat of using such violence, were not confirmed by the evidence examined during the trial. “The court of first instance, when determining the type and amount of L.’s punishment, limited itself to only listing the circumstances, without indicating which of them were taken into account as mitigating ones. In violation of the requirements of Art. 389.28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the arguments of my complaint were not actually considered by the appellate court <…>. It should also be noted that in the descriptive and motivational part of the ruling by the court of appeal the following names are given: M., K., A <…>. At the same time, these persons are not participants in criminal proceedings in this criminal case. This indicates a clearly formal approach of the appellate court to verifying the legality and validity of the appealed sentence,” Arkady Amasyants pointed out.
After the defense filed a cassation appeal, a representative of the prosecutor’s office also filed a cassation motion (the editors have it). In it, he also indicated that the lower courts unreasonably came to the conclusion that the defendants committed a robbery against R., and the amount of material damage amounted to 77.5 thousand rubles.
The cassation returned the case for a new trial
The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction noted that the court of first instance based its verdict on the testimony of a witness - police officer Ch., to whom the victim told about the circumstances of the robbery. At the same time, R. himself did not appear at the court hearing, his testimony was not read out. “According to the meaning of the law, the testimony of a police officer cannot be used as evidence regarding information that he became aware of from conversations or during the interrogation of a victim, whose testimony was not examined during the trial,” the cassation emphasized.
Why is a suspended sentence not possible in this situation?
A suspended sentence is possible under this article, but in this situation the young man was convicted and was on probation under a previous verdict of the Kuzminsky District Court of Moscow. According to the law, if a person commits a crime during the probationary period, then the punishment under the verdict of the previous court is replaced from a suspended sentence to a real term of imprisonment. According to the previous sentence, the young man received a suspended sentence, but he commits a crime again and this suspended sentence is automatically replaced with actual imprisonment.
Therefore, we did not even have a question about a suspended sentence, since he was obliged to serve a term of imprisonment under a previous sentence. The main task facing the lawyers was to keep the term as short as possible. And given that the boy had a serious relapse, the punishment foreshadowed a very large one.
The prosecutor asked for five years in prison, but the court sentenced our boy to just a year. Congratulations to lawyer Denis Vyacheslavovich Kuvshinov on the successful completion of the case.
Position of the defense on charges of robbery (Article 162.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
Position of the defense on the charge under Article 162.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
in accordance with Part 2 of Article 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation
On May 29, 2015, the Savelovsky District Court received materials from the case accusing the defendant of committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The defendant is charged with robbery, namely that on December 1, 2014, she, in complicity with an unidentified person, in the Golden Babylon shopping center, no later than 20:08, attacked the seller, and, threatening her with an object similar to a knife, stole she has money in the amount of 200,000 rubles.
We believe that the defendant’s commission of a crime under Part 2 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was not proven by the prosecution, was not confirmed during the trial, and was not established by the circumstances of the case.
According to paragraph 1.2, part 1, article 73. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in criminal proceedings requires proof of:
- crime event (time, place, method and other circumstances of the crime);
- the guilt of a person in committing a crime, the form of his guilt and motives.
According to Part 1 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a crime is recognized as a socially dangerous act committed guilty of guilt, prohibited by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation under threat of punishment.
According to Article 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the basis for criminal liability is the commission of an act containing all the elements of a crime provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1) From the objective side, robbery is expressed as an attack with the aim of stealing someone else’s property, committed with the use of violence dangerous to life and health, or with the threat of such violence. The main elements of the disposition of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code are:
- attack;
- associated with violence dangerous to life and health or with the threat of its use;
- for the purpose of stealing someone else's property.
By virtue of Article 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, during the proceedings, it must be proven that the defendant committed precisely the specified actions.
However, as follows from the indictment, the defendant’s actions consisted of the fact that she “arrived at the shopping center... entered the premises of the shopping pavilion... received money from the victim in the amount of 200,000 rubles,” after which she left the shopping pavilion. This is exactly how the objective side of the defendant’s actions is described both in the decision to bring her as an accused, and in the decision to bring charges and in the indictment.
During the trial, the prosecution never presented evidence that the defendant attacked Biryukova using violence or threatening to use it.
Moreover, the fact that Artemova did not threaten the victim is indicated by the victim herself, who, during interrogation on June 24, 2015, stated that the defendant did not use violence against her, did not threaten her in any way, and she handed over the money to her with her own hand and voluntarily.
The testimony of the victim, given at the court hearing on June 24, 2015, about the threats of violence made against her did not concern the defendant, but a certain man, allegedly her accomplice, who, however, was not identified by the investigation. According to her, it was he who, being alone with Biryukova, expressed to her the threat “it won’t seem like much” and at the moment when he said this, Biryukova saw an object similar to a knife in the inner pocket of his jacket.
At the same time, the only source of information about both the threats to the victim from the man and about the presence of a knife in his possession is the testimony of the victim herself. These statements are not supported by any other evidence.
However, is it possible to completely trust the testimony of the victim, who states that during the events taking place she was in an unconscious state, acted, in her words, “as if in a fog,” and “did not understand anything”? Based on this, can it be reliably stated that the victim actually saw “an object similar to a knife” in the inside pocket of the man’s jacket? Moreover, the victim describes this object itself in completely different ways: in her initial testimony, this object has the shape of a kitchen knife, but later, in a confrontation with the defendant, she claims that this object looks like a stationery knife!
Thus, we believe that from the objective side, the defendant’s actions towards the victim, expressed in the fact that she accepted money from her and gave her microchips in return, cannot be qualified as an assault under Part 2 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
2) Based on the above, we believe that the prosecution has not proven that the defendant is guilty of committing a robbery . From the subjective side, robbery is characterized by guilt in the form of direct intent: the perpetrator realizes that he is committing an attack coupled with violence dangerous to the life or health of the victim, or with the threat of such violence, and wants to commit such an attack.
The materials of the case do not establish that the defendant had the intent to commit a robbery. Moreover, the prosecution does not provide any evidence of any criminal intent on the part of the defendant.
The parties to the trial have no disagreement about whether Artyomova’s actions themselves took place at the specified time in the specified place: both the defendant and the victim unequivocally claim that their meeting took place and that the victim gave money to the defendant, and she gave her microchips in return.
However, why did they perform these actions? What goal did both the victim and the defendant pursue? – this has not been established by the prosecution.
There are two opposing versions of this in the case materials.
According to the defendant, the only purpose of her meeting with the victim and giving her the microcircuits was to fulfill her acquaintance Igor, for which he promised her a reward in the amount of 5,000 rubles.
According to the prosecution, the defendant’s goal was to forcibly steal other people’s property. However, the prosecution did not provide evidence of this, and therefore this version remained only a hypothesis until the end of the judicial investigation.
3) The same hypothesis of the prosecution is the information about the existence of a criminal conspiracy to commit a robbery between the defendant and the unidentified man under investigation. This hypothesis is not supported by any evidence.
The fact that the unidentified man was an acquaintance of the defendant is confirmed by both herself and her neighbor. in the testimony given by him during interrogation on June 6, 2015. However, there is not a single piece of evidence indicating that the defendant, together with this or any other man, conspired to commit a robbery in the shopping center.
Moreover, the defendant herself characterizes her intentions completely differently, explaining that she was carrying out the instructions of a man who offered her to give the victim microcircuits for a fee.
It is worth noting that while carrying out the assignment, the defendant has nothing to do with the plan that the man is implementing. She does not know why and under what conditions the victim purchases the microchips. She performs exclusively the role of a courier, transferring an item from one owner to another.
In this regard, no matter what goals the man who gave her the assignment pursues, and no matter how he implements them, the defendant, not knowing about them, cannot be held responsible for them.
Thus, we believe that, in violation of the requirements of Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the charges have not been proven:
- the event of a robbery committed by Artemova against Biryukova;
- the presence of a criminal conspiracy between Artemova and an unidentified man under investigation to commit a robbery;
- Artemova’s guilt in committing a robbery against Biryukova.
Testimony of the defendant, according to which she, performing for a reward of 5,000 rubles. on the instructions of her friend Igor, on December 7, 2014, in the shopping center “Golden Babylon”, no later than August 20, she transferred microcircuits to Biryukova, receiving 62,000 rubles for transfer to Igor, the accusations were not refuted. The prosecution has not presented evidence to the contrary
By virtue of the presumption of innocence , set out in Article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the burden of proving the charge and refuting the arguments brought in defense of the accused lies on the prosecution. All doubts about the guilt of the accused, which cannot be eliminated in the manner established by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, are interpreted in favor of the accused.
Based on the above, guided by Article 8, paragraphs 2,3, Part 1, Art. 299, part 2 art. 302 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation,
ASK:
Find the defendant, accused under Part 2 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, innocent due to the absence of corpus delicti in her actions and render an acquittal.
What is unique about this sentence?
The uniqueness of this sentence is that it is almost impossible to receive such a short sentence for robbery, and even if the crimes are repeated, but our lawyer succeeded, although the prosecutor asked for at least 5 years in prison. But the court met us halfway and removed the recurrence of the crime and did not include it in the robbery sentence as an aggravating circumstance.
The task of obtaining the minimum possible sentence was successfully completed by our lawyer! And to the people and readers of our site, for the future! Hire a lawyer as soon as your loved one is detained or summoned for questioning to avoid a situation where the investigator and the government lawyer together persuade a person who is poorly versed in law to sign a confession on serious charges.
Learn more about our robbery lawyers
The moment of the end of the robbery
According to the Criminal Code, robbery is considered completed from the moment the criminal attacks the victim for the purpose of stealing property using violence dangerous to health and life or with the threat of its use.
In the legal literature there are authors who consider the robbery to be over at the moment of the assassination attempt. Those. in fact, they exclude the possibility of classifying the crime as attempted robbery.
Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 6 of the Supreme Court Resolution allow us to conclude that robbery is a crime, the end of which is the fact of a criminal attack.
This is due to the high social danger of this crime. In this case, the very possibility of using violence is considered a completed crime. It does not matter whether the criminal achieved his ultimate goal of taking possession of the property.
According to some authors, if the subject only threatened violence and causing serious harm to another person or group of people, then his actions can be qualified as an attempt. Lawyers also believe that if the value of the stolen property is objectively small or such theft is practically of little value to the victim, then the act can be assessed as attempted robbery.
SOME ISSUES IN JUDICIAL PRACTICE
IN CASES OF THEFT, ROBBERY AND ROBBERY
Since the beginning of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the courts have had a number of questions when qualifying the actions of persons guilty of committing thefts, robberies and assaults.
The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly addressed this problem, giving the courts the necessary clarifications on the application of criminal legislation on liability for attacks on other people's property.
Thus, on March 22, 1966, Resolution No. 31 “On judicial practice in cases of robbery and robbery” was adopted (it was amended and supplemented by Resolutions of the Plenum of May 4, 1990 No. 2, of December 21, 1993 No. 11 and dated December 25, 1996 No. 10), April 25, 1995 - Resolution No. 5 “On some issues of the application by courts of legislation on liability for crimes against property.”
In recent years, trespass to property has been the most common crime.
About thefts. In 1997, according to Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, 465,090 people were convicted, and in 2001 - already 540,828, i.e. 16.3% more. During this period, the number of persons convicted under part one of this article increased significantly, from 61,626 to 83,759 people, or by 35.9%. The number of persons prosecuted for aggravated theft increased from 393,930 to 429,450 people (+9%). The number of people convicted of thefts committed under especially aggravating circumstances increased significantly, from 9,534 people to 27,619, or by 189.7%.
In 2001, persons convicted only of thefts made up 43.5% of all those convicted, and 75.0% of those convicted of crimes against property. Moreover, this ratio remained approximately at the same level during the period under review. But compared to 2000, there was a slight decrease in convictions for theft (by 9.6%).
About robberies. In 1997, 57,187 people were convicted of committing this crime, in 2001 - 67,878, i.e. 18.7% more. The largest number of robberies, as well as thefts, were committed under aggravating circumstances (Part 2 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and their growth is observed: from 47,986 convicted in 1997 to 56,978 convicted in 2001, or by 18.7%. The number of convictions for robberies committed under particularly aggravating circumstances has almost doubled (from 1,284 people to 3,810 people). Although, as noted, the number of people convicted of robbery has increased, however, in relation to the number of all convicted people, it has remained virtually unchanged (5.6%, 5.5%).
About robbery attacks. During the period under review, the number of people convicted under Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation tended to increase (from 3.5% to 4.2%). In 1997, 21,209 people were convicted, in 2001 - 30,068, or 9.3% more (due to an increase in the number of people convicted of robbery under aggravating circumstances (by 31.7%) and especially aggravating circumstances (by 190.9%). ) As for those convicted who committed robbery without aggravating features, their number decreased by 24.0%.
Statistics in a separate line take into account the number of persons who committed these crimes in combination with other crimes. In 2001, in combination with other crimes committed, 25,730 people were convicted for thefts, 5,115 for robberies, 3,300 for assaults. If we sum up these data, then in 2001, in total, 566,560 people were convicted of thefts, 72,993 people were convicted of robberies, and for robbery - 33,370 people. Thus, 672,923 people were convicted for these crimes, or 54.1% of all those convicted, i.e. more than half, and of the number of those convicted for crimes against property (Chapter 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) - 87.9%.
In the first half of 2002, the number of those convicted of theft decreased by 33.3%. Moreover, under Part 1 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - by 35.2%, according to Part 2 - by 34% and according to Part 3 of this article - by 17.3%. The number of persons convicted of theft also decreased; they amounted to 36.6% of all those convicted.
The reduction in the number of people convicted of theft occurred mainly due to the adoption of the new Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, which established administrative liability for petty theft (Article 7.27). As local generalizations of the practice of applying this rule have shown, the courts did not have any unclear legal issues. At the same time, a number of courts drew attention to the fact that this novelty in a number of cases did not protect the interests of victims, especially pensioners and people with low incomes. Persons who committed theft of someone else's property worth no more than 5 times the minimum wage actually remained unpunished. As a rule, material damage caused to the victim was not compensated. Amendments made to Art. 7.27 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses made it possible to correct the current situation.
In the first half of 2002, convictions for robbery and assault decreased by 3.5% and 4.8%, respectively.
The practice of sentencing by courts to those convicted of theft, robbery and assault is characterized by the following data.
In the first half of 2002, 33.1% of convicts were sentenced to imprisonment for theft, correctional labor - 2.2%, fines - 2.0%; 58.5% of persons were sentenced to probation.
For theft without aggravating circumstances, 6.8% of people were sentenced to imprisonment; in relation to them, the courts mainly chose a suspended sentence (72.1%). At the same time, the courts more often imposed imprisonment on persons who committed theft under aggravating circumstances - 34.1%, and under especially aggravating circumstances - 83.1%.
The courts strictly punished convicts who committed robbery, especially those who were found guilty of committing robbery under especially aggravating circumstances - 90.5%. Convicted under Part 1 of Art. 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation mainly imposed suspended sentences - on 67.7%, imprisonment - on 18.4%, correctional labor - on 7.3% of persons.
The courts sentenced the vast majority of those convicted of robbery to imprisonment - 84.9%. Conditional sentences were applied mainly to those convicted who were found guilty under Part 1 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - 42.1%. There were isolated cases of courts imposing correctional labor - 0.1%.
In the first half of 2002, the composition of those convicted for these crimes did not change. Thus, the number of women convicted for theft was 8.3%, for robbery - 8.0% and for robbery - 5.0%. The vast majority of crimes are committed by persons permanently residing in the area. More than half of those convicted of crimes are able-bodied persons without specific occupations. 29.3% of those convicted of theft had unexpunged and outstanding convictions, 28.2% of those convicted of robbery, and 36.4% of those convicted of robbery. These figures are higher than recidivism for all crimes committed in general (23.2%).
The generalization showed that in law enforcement practice the courts had many unclear and controversial issues related to the qualification of the actions of persons encroaching on other people's property. Serious mistakes were also made that resulted in illegal conviction of citizens.
Thus, the Nazarovsky City Court convicted Boyko of attempted robbery, who tried to steal property from his mother’s house, where he lived, but was caught by her while collecting things. He tried to escape, but was detained. As can be seen from the case, fifteen-year-old Boyko, after a quarrel with his mother, decided to leave home and for this purpose began to collect things to which he believed he had the right. The court did not give an appropriate assessment of these circumstances, including the defendant’s arguments about his lack of selfish motive. The cassation instance of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court rightfully overturned the verdict and sent the case for a new trial.
On December 27, 2002, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adopted the Resolution “On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and robbery,” which retained some of the clarifications contained in previously issued decisions. In the new Resolution of the Plenum, clarifications on the application of the law in cases of these categories are aimed at eliminating existing errors in the legal assessment of the actions of persons guilty of theft of other people's property, especially in the assessment of evidence indicating aggravating circumstances. As noted, there are frequent cases of unfounded conviction of citizens. For example, in six months of 2002, the cassation court overturned convictions against 9,299 people and acquittals against 652 people. The sentences of 8,211 convicts were changed, including changes in the qualifications of the offense - for 3,718 people.
As the study of cases has shown, despite the fact that several years have passed since the adoption of the new Criminal Code, some courts still misinterpret and understand the note to Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, paragraph 1 of the Resolution sets out an important provision of the law on what should be understood by the theft of someone else’s property, which has universal significance for this type of crime against property, in particular the secret theft of someone else’s property. It should be noted that the previous Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 22, 1966 “On judicial practice in cases of robbery and robbery” did not address this issue.
In the Resolution of December 27, 2002, the Plenum explained that when deciding whether an encroachment on someone else’s property is secret or not, one should proceed from the subjective side of the actions of the perpetrator. If he believes that during the illegal seizure of property he acts secretly, although outsiders saw his illegal actions, but did nothing to stop the crime, then we cannot talk about robbery (clause 2).
The discrepancy in judicial practice was also caused by the fact that the Resolution of March 22, 1966 contained a vaguely formulated concept of open theft of someone else's property. Many courts also asked questions about who should be classified as “outsiders”, which were discussed in paragraph 3 of this Resolution, and how to understand the explanation: “the person committing theft is aware that the persons present understand the nature of his actions , but they ignore this circumstance.”
In judicial practice, there are many cases when a crime is committed in the presence of relatives of the perpetrator and his accomplices. And the culprit, acting openly, is not afraid that they will take any measures to stop the encroachment. They sometimes approve of his actions.
Thus, the Solombalsky District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region changed the qualification of the actions of the defendant Nemanov from paragraph “d” of Part 2 of Art. 161 on part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Nemanov was accused of openly stealing a shopping bag with property in it worth 5,855 rubles from a citizen of Zhitnik on May 19, 2001, at a bus stop in the presence of three witnesses. The court indicated in the verdict that those present during the abduction were friends of the defendant and he did not perceive them as strangers, therefore his actions should be qualified as secret theft of someone else's property.
Another example. The Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court, having considered the criminal case against Shmelkov, convicted by the Budennovsky City Court under Part 1 of Art. 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the sentence was changed, reclassifying his actions to Part 1 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The court found that on November 19, 2000, Shmelkov, while in the Okhotnik - Fisher store and taking advantage of the seller’s absence from the sales floor, in the presence of M., put his hand under the glass of the counter, from where he stole a gas pistol.
Changing the verdict, the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court noted that the district court’s indication that M.’s legal position was as an outsider (as stated in paragraph 3 of the current Plenum Resolution) in relation to the fact of Shmelkov’s theft of other people’s property is not based on the law. Shmelkov explained at the court hearing that he went into the store with his friend M. Having bought everything he needed, he saw a pistol under the glass of the display case and decided to steal it. He offered to do this to M., but he refused. Taking advantage of the seller’s absence, he stole a pistol and, together with M., left the store, in which there was no one except them. As can be seen from the materials of the criminal case, M. is a friend of Shmelkov, and their parents are acquaintances.
However, not all courts followed this practice. As noted in the reviews, if the culprit is aware that those around him understand the nature of his actions, then the seizure of property cannot be secret, regardless of whether it occurs in the presence of relatives, acquaintances or strangers. Such an interpretation can lead to judicial errors, especially if we consider this problem through the prism of establishing administrative liability for petty theft: the line between administrative and criminal liability is sometimes subtle, and the person who committed petty theft may be illegally convicted of robbery.
In such cases, when qualifying the crime, it is necessary to take into account all the circumstances of the case in their entirety, to find out how the persons who did not participate in the theft reacted to the illegal actions of the thief, and whether they took any measures to stop the unlawful attack. The attention of the courts was specifically drawn to this in paragraph 4 of the Resolution.
Paragraph 6 of the Resolution explains in what cases robbery and robbery are considered completed crimes. No questions arose regarding the crime of robbery, since judicial practice had long been established. As for robbery, according to the explanation contained in paragraph 16 of the previously effective Resolution of the Plenum of March 22, 1966, this crime is considered completed from the “moment of taking possession of property.” The courts drew attention to the fact that such an explanation is now inconsistent with the current criminal legislation, in particular with the note to Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
For example. The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia changed the verdict of the Segezha District Court against Stepanov, who openly stole a children's cotton blanket from the Vityaz store in the city of Segezha, but was detained not far from the store by employees who ran out after him. Reclassifying Stepanov's actions, the judicial panel rightfully noted that under the specified circumstances, what Stepanov did should be qualified as an attempt at open theft of someone else's property, since the convicted person did not have the opportunity to dispose of the stolen property.
Taking into account the fact that judicial practice was contradictory and this gave rise to errors in the qualification of the crime, the Plenum emphasized that robbery will be considered a completed crime only in cases where the perpetrator has a real opportunity to use or dispose of the stolen property at his own discretion. For example, to turn such property to one’s own benefit or to the benefit of other persons, to dispose of it for selfish purposes in another way.
Questions arose about how to qualify the actions of persons who seized property for the purpose of temporary use or its destruction, damage, etc. A study of judicial practice showed that many courts did not recognize as robbery open actions aimed at taking possession of someone else's property with the purpose of destroying it, committed for hooligan reasons, or for the purpose of temporary use, or in connection with an actual or alleged right to this property. However, there were cases of conviction for theft of other people's property of persons who confiscated property not for mercenary reasons.
In order to eliminate such errors, the Plenum in paragraph 7 of the Resolution clarified that if illegal actions aimed at taking possession of someone else’s property were not committed for mercenary purposes, then they do not constitute a crime - theft or robbery. Depending on the circumstances of the case, these actions, if there are grounds for this, are subject to qualification under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (arbitrariness) or other articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Courts do not always know how to qualify, for example, the actions of a perpetrator who, along with damaging or destroying the victims’ property, illegally confiscates it. The Plenum explained that if a person, when seizing property, pursued a selfish goal, the act, depending on the method of taking the property, should be classified in conjunction with another crime (for example, hooliganism, rape).
The courts have problems with the classification of group thefts, robberies and robberies. In particular, at the court hearing it was not always clear whether a preliminary agreement had taken place between the accomplices of the crime they committed, whether roles were assigned in order to carry out the criminal plan, etc. As a result, an incorrect legal assessment was given to the actions of participants in group crimes.
It is characteristic that, in contrast to Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to which significant changes and additions were made, in the disposition of Art. Art. 161 and 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation did not make changes. Therefore, depending on whether or not there was a preliminary agreement between the participants in the group robbery or robbery, their actions should be qualified accordingly: under Part 2 of Art. 161 or part 2 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - if there was such an agreement, and under Part 1 of Art. 161 or part 1 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - if it was not. The law does not provide for the qualifying feature of committing theft of someone else's property through robbery or robbery only by a group of persons without prior conspiracy. In specific cases, we can talk about a group only as a circumstance that aggravates punishment (clause “c” of Part 1 of Article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
The relevance of the explanations contained in the Resolution of the Plenum in cases of group crimes against property is confirmed by the fact that more than half of thefts and robberies and three-quarters of armed attacks are committed in a group.
Paragraph 10 of the Resolution deals with the case when, by prior agreement between the accomplices, the direct seizure of someone else’s property according to the distribution of roles was carried out by one of them, and the other accomplices performed some part of the objective side of the crime (for example, they helped to enter the premises, broke doors, etc.). P.). A clear explanation is given that the actions of such persons should be considered as co-perpetrators of the crime without reference to Art. 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It is based on the fact that, within the meaning of the law, persons who have committed a group theft by prior conspiracy are the actual perpetrators, since each of them participates in the commission of individual specific actions that are directly included in the objective side of the crime, without which it would be impossible to commit it. It is necessary to keep in mind that the institution of co-perpetrator does not exclude the distribution of roles between the participants in the crime.
In para. 2, paragraph 10 of the Plenum Resolution explains how to qualify the actions of a group of persons who did not directly participate in the theft of other people’s property, but assisted in the commission of this crime.
Here is one of the typical examples of the court of first instance incorrectly classifying the actions of the perpetrators of a group theft.
On April 20, 2000, the Pravoberezhny District Court of Lipetsk convicted Bashkatov, who had previously been convicted, under paragraph “c” of Part 3 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. He was found guilty of secret theft of someone else's property, committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, with illegal entry into a home, causing significant damage to a citizen. On October 27, 1999, Bashkatov, Kotomakhin, Borontov, Shmelev and Dolgikh agreed to steal from the apartment. For this purpose, they drove a car driven by Bashkatov to the house in which the desired apartment was located. Bashkatov remained in the car to wait for his accomplices and then transport the stolen property. Borontov, Shmelev, Dolgikh entered the house, Kotomakhin stopped at the entrance to observe the surrounding situation in order to timely warn the accomplices in case of danger. Shmelev went up to the fifth floor landing for the same purpose. Borontov and Dolgikh used a pre-prepared metal plate to break open the door of an apartment located on the fourth floor, entered it, and put things in the bags they brought. Then Kotomakhin and Shmelev helped Borontov and Dolgikh remove the property that belonged to Kozlova. Its cost was 28,960 rubles.
The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Lipetsk Regional Court left the verdict unchanged.
The Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in protest asked to change the verdict and the ruling of the judicial panel: to reclassify Bashkatov’s actions from paragraph “c” of Part 3 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation at Part 5 of Art. 33, paragraph “c”, part 3, art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The Presidium of the Lipetsk Regional Court satisfied the protest, indicating the following. In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a perpetrator is a person who directly participated in its commission together with other persons (co-perpetrators). However, as can be seen from the case materials and reflected in the verdict, Bashkatov did not directly participate in the commission of actions that formed the objective side of the crime provided for in paragraph “c” of Part 3 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as in providing assistance to perpetrators of secret theft of other people’s property by entering a home and seizing property. Knowing the intention of the participants in the theft to take possession of other people's property, he delivered them by car to the place where the crime was planned to be committed, and then took the stolen property. Within the meaning of the criminal law, in the case of a theft with penetration into a home by a group of persons by prior conspiracy in the absence of signs of an organized group, the actions of persons who are aware of the goals of the participants in the theft and assisted them in delivering them to the place of the crime and back, but did not provide assistance in the direct penetration in a home or seizure of property are subject to qualification as complicity in a crime in the form of aiding and abetting.
Taking into account the above actions, Bashkatov was justifiably reclassified under Part 5 of Art. 33, paragraph “c”, part 3, art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In connection with the introduction of Part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of a new criterion: “theft committed by a group of persons” in paragraph 12 of the Resolution it is explained that if theft is committed by several persons without prior conspiracy, their actions should be qualified according to the specified criterion, if two or more perpetrators jointly participated in the commission of this crime, which, by virtue of Art. 19 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are subject to criminal liability for their actions. The attention of the courts is also drawn to the need to be guided by the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in cases where a person committed theft through the use of other persons who are not subject to criminal liability due to age, insanity or other circumstances. In such cases, his actions should be qualified under Part 1 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as the direct perpetrator of the crime.
The Plenum’s recommendations on the legal assessment of the actions of a person who organized a crime or who incited a participant in the crime to commit theft, robbery or robbery are based on the same norm of law (Part 2 of Article 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In such cases, the person must bear responsibility as the perpetrator of the crime. Moreover, if there are grounds, his actions must be additionally qualified under Art. 150 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Most courts, when considering group cases, did not make mistakes when classifying the actions of the perpetrators on the basis of “organized group”. Therefore, the previously given explanation did not raise any questions, and with some editorial clarifications it is included in the new Resolution of the Plenum, paragraph 15 of which states that if the court recognizes these crimes as committed by an organized group, the actions of all accomplices, regardless of their role in the crime, are subject to qualification as co-executor without reference to Art. 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Two paragraphs of the resolution are devoted to the sign of repetition when committing theft, robbery or robbery. The explanations contained therein are given in accordance with paragraph 5 of the note to Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As the study of criminal cases has shown, courts generally correctly apply this rule of law. However, there were facts of different understandings of it. Therefore, paragraph 17 of the Resolution explains the most common examples in judicial practice of repeatedly committed thefts of other people's property. This is an encroachment on property in the same form (several thefts from different owners) or when the perpetrator steals property through theft, robbery, etc. It is explained that in the first case, what was done does not form a set of crimes, since independent thefts were committed in the same form. In the second case, we are talking about committing thefts of other people’s property in various forms, so what was done forms a set of crimes. The second and subsequent episodes of crimes are qualified here on the basis of “repeatedness”.
The courts unequally resolved the issue of whether the actions of a person who committed theft, robbery or robbery contained a sign of illegal entry into a home, premises or other storage facility and did not always clarify the purpose of entry into a home or other premises, which resulted in judicial errors.
For example, changing the verdict of the Rostov Regional Court regarding the conviction of Dyadyushenko under clauses “c”, “d”, part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, excluding from the verdict the conviction of the perpetrator under paragraph “c”, indicated that the court’s conclusion about the commission of theft with penetration into a home contradicts the established circumstances of the case. Dyadyushenko committed the theft of two gold rings after the victim, having been raped by him, broke free and ran away from the apartment. Thus, the entry into the home was committed by the convicted person for purposes other than the purpose of committing theft.
Theft of other people's property is also committed without entering a home or other premises. So, using a specially made hook through an open window, the thief removes, for example, clothes, other things and objects belonging to the residents of the house or apartment. These actions were given different legal assessments. In order to ensure a uniform approach to the qualification of such actions, the Plenum clarified that penetration into the specified buildings or structures can also be carried out when the culprit removes stolen items without entering the relevant premises (clause 18 of the Resolution).
Also, the actions of persons who, having entered, for example, an apartment, deliberately destroyed or damaged the property of the victim were classified differently. Some courts believed that such actions are included in the objective side of theft, since they are associated with overcoming obstacles (damage or destruction of doors, windows, locks, etc.). Other courts additionally qualified similar actions under Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, not always taking into account that the destruction or damage of property was a method of committing theft under aggravating circumstances. The Plenum explained (clause 20 of the Resolution) that if, during the theft of someone else’s property, the victim’s property that was not the subject of the theft (for example, furniture, household appliances and other things) was intentionally destroyed or damaged, the act should be additionally qualified under Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, provided that significant damage has been caused.
Until recently, the courts were not clear in which cases robbery should be classified under paragraph “d” of Part 2 of Art. 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as committed with the use of violence not dangerous to life and health).
The Dmitrovsky District Court of the Kostroma Region found Balin and Glavatsky guilty of tying the victim’s hands during the theft of someone else’s property, wrapping her head with an adhesive plaster and leaving her in this state in a room closed from the outside. The court correctly qualified such actions of the perpetrators as creating a real danger to the life and health of the victim (and therefore not as robbery, but as robbery).
Another example. In accordance with the verdict of the Kostroma District Court, Yartsev A. and Yartsev V. were found guilty of attacking a 75-year-old woman for the purpose of robbery. They tied the victim’s hands behind her back, put a nylon bag on her head, which they wrapped with twine, tied a woolen jacket on top, and left her in this form in an unheated house in the winter. A few days later the woman was found dead. The court erroneously classified these actions of the perpetrators as robbery, citing in the verdict that the bag was put on the victim’s head only so that she would not recognize them.
Taking into account the errors, the Plenum in paragraph 21 clarified that violence that is not dangerous to life and health should, in particular, be understood as tying hands, using handcuffs, placing in a closed room and other similar cases.
Paragraph 23 of the Resolution discusses how to qualify the actions of a person who committed a robbery using a weapon. These clarifications of the Plenum were generally taken into account in judicial practice.
At the same time, the actions of the perpetrator who threatened with an unusable weapon or an imitation weapon were assessed differently. It was previously explained that in such situations the actions of the perpetrator should be qualified under Part 1 of Art. 146 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (now Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In this regard, the courts had a question about how it is possible, by threatening, for example, with a toy pistol or dagger, to actually carry out actions for which liability arises under Part 1 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Based on these considerations in para. 3, paragraph 23, a corresponding clarification was made that, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, what the perpetrator did can also be qualified as robbery.
One more story. It is included in paragraph 23 of the Resolution at the suggestion of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court. This is a question of how to classify the actions of perpetrators who, during a robbery, use dogs or other animals and with their help cause harm to health or suppress the resistance of the victim. Indeed, recently there have been such facts and they are very dangerous for citizens. Taking into account these circumstances, the last paragraph of paragraph 23 explains that the actions of a person who committed an attack for the purpose of stealing someone else’s property using dogs or other animals that pose a danger to human life and health, or with the threat of using such violence, must be qualified taking into account specific circumstances of the case under paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In paragraph 24 of the Resolution in accordance with Note 2 to Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in the new edition) explains what circumstances should be taken into account when deciding on the qualification of the actions of a person guilty of theft of someone else’s property on the basis of causing significant damage to the victim. The recommendations it contains clarify the concept of “property status of a citizen”, since it is of an evaluative nature. A qualifying sign of theft or robbery, respectively, under paragraph “c” of Part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation or according to clause “d”, part 2 of art. 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a perpetrator can be charged only if, as a result of the crime committed, the victim actually suffered damage, which is significant for him.
In this case, it is necessary to take into account circumstances that are of an evaluative nature in order to resolve the issue of whether the victim suffered significant damage or not.
In court practice, there are cases of robbery where significant damage is caused to the victim, and in the dispositions of Parts 2 and 3 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation there is no such qualifying feature and the value of stolen property in such cases cannot be considered large.
In the formulated explanation, the only possible recommendation is given: to qualify the actions of the perpetrator under Part 1 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since in its disposition there is no qualifying feature - robbery causing significant damage to a citizen (clause 25 of the Resolution).
The courts also had a question about how to qualify the actions of a person who committed a robbery, who had the goal of taking possession of property on a large scale, but did not actually take possession of it, or who took possession of property whose value does not exceed five hundred times the minimum wage. In such cases, is it necessary to qualify the actions of such a person also under Part 3 of Art. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (attempted crime)? The Plenum gave a negative answer (paragraph 3 of paragraph 25 of the Resolution), since in paragraph “b” of Part 3 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation speaks of robbery committed “for the purpose of appropriating property on a large scale,” and not about the actual appropriation of property on a large scale.
Vice-chairman
Supreme Court
Russian Federation
A.E.MERKUSHOV
Once the special forces went to work
9K 15 3 min.
The Moscow Garrison Military Court sentenced eight participants in a robbery attack in the summer of 2022 on businessman Alexander Yumaranov at Metallurg Bank, during which 136.5 million rubles were taken from him. The victim wanted to exchange them for dollars. The accused - and among them were both ex-law enforcement officers and current officers of the FSB special forces "Alpha" and "Vympel" - were sentenced to terms of eight to ten years of strict regime, while being stripped of their ranks.
The raiders received from eight to ten years of strict regime
Photo: Irina Bujor, Kommersant
The raiders received from eight to ten years of strict regime
Photo: Irina Bujor, Kommersant
The announcement of the verdict in the Moscow Garrison Military Court took place three months after, in the debate between the parties, state prosecutor Vladimir Grinko asked the court, “taking into account the personalities of the defendants,” to sentence them to terms of eight to twelve years, heavy fines and deprive them of military ranks. In addition, the state prosecutor asked the court to recover 97 million rubles from the defendants in favor of the victim, and also to apply about 15 million rubles seized from them to the civil claim.
The announcement itself took Alexei Deripko, who presided over the trial, seven and a half hours. As follows from the text of the court decision, all defendants were recognized as participants in the robbery. Based on this, Mr. Deripko sentenced Artur Vlasov, a senior lieutenant of the department “K” of the SEB FSB, who partially admitted his guilt, to ten years of strict regime (the prosecutor asked for twelve years for him), former law enforcement officer Dmitry Kazantsev - to nine years and six months (instead of 11 years), captain of department “A” (“Alpha”) of the special purpose center Roman Obolensky and his colleague captain Vladimir Urusov - to nine years each (in the debate they asked for ten years). The court gave the senior warrant officer from the same “Alpha” Khetag Margiev (they asked for nine years) eight years and six months. Fully admitted their guilt to the ex-employee of the department “B” (Vympel) of the Central Security Service of the FSB Dmitry Kapyshkin and the grandson of the head of the department of the FSB Academy Valentin Karelin Alexander Karelin, as well as the former employee of the Federal Tax Service Dmitry Chikvin (the prosecution asked for eight years for two security officers, and for tax officer - nine) - by the age of eight each. In addition, according to the verdict, all military personnel are deprived of their military ranks. It should be noted that Judge Deripko excluded weapons from the sentence, but left “threats dangerous to life and health.”
Persons involved in a criminal case under Part 4 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (robbery committed by an organized group on an especially large scale), the defendants became defendants in June 2022. As it was established during the investigation, Alexander Yumaranov, who was not officially employed anywhere, but worked in a retail store in Lyublino, arrived at the Metallurg Bank located on Ivan Babushkina Street in a Volkswagen Transporter, accompanied by three people, to exchange 136.5 million rubles taken under receipt from entrepreneurs, for US dollars. Businessman Boris Karamatov, with whom he had previously carried out similar operations more than once, promised to help him with the exchange at a favorable rate. Thus, on May 19, 2019, Mr. Yumaranov exchanged rubles for $1 million through Mr. Karamatov. Let us note that Mr. Karamatov himself is known for being wanted in a case of theft (Part 4 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code) of commercial real estate valued at more than $1 billion from the founder of the Party and Domino retail chains, Alexander Mineev, who was shot dead in January 2014 in Korolev near Moscow. Now they are looking for him for both fraud and robbery.
According to investigators, Boris Karamatov, through Akshar Dzutsev (convicted in this case by the Gagarinsky Court of Moscow in July 2022 for nine years) informed the special forces Margiev about the upcoming exchange, who assembled a group of raiders from his acquaintances.
Under the guise of carrying out a special operation, the accomplices, armed with smooth-bore self-loading traumatic pistols of the Grand Power T12-F and MP-353 models of .45 Rubber caliber, arrived at Metallurg in a Mercedes V250 Bluetec and a Mercedes GLK 220 CDI, the license plates of which had been previously removed. On the spot, the raiders received information that part of the money, at least 84.5 million rubles, was in a Volkswagen Transporter, and the rest, 52 million rubles, was on the second floor of the Metallurg bank, where Mr. Karamatov with Mr. Yumaranov’s bodyguard, a certain Ashkashidze.
During the investigation, it was established that the attackers, dividing into two groups, took money both from the car and from the premises under threat of force. Then they fled with the kidnapped person. After the division of funds, Boris Karamatov ended up with the lion's share of the stolen goods - 68 million rubles, former prosecutor Konstantin Zharov (convicted by the Gagarinsky court in July 2020 for eight years and four months) - 19 million rubles, which he kept in a safe deposit box, and when he picked them up, he was detained. The rest had from 2 to 7 million rubles in their hands, depending on the degree of participation in the robbery. According to those who admitted to the raid, they committed the crime because of their difficult financial situation. Allegedly, they were paid very little in the service.
The defense intends to appeal what they believe is a harsh sentence.
Yuri Senatorov
