According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, in 2022, more than 7 thousand crimes under Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation were recorded in Russia. Of course, compared to robbery and theft, robbery is not so common in our country, but the social danger of this property crime is extremely high. This is due to the fact that the act is invariably committed with life-threatening violence or the threat of its use.
To begin with, we will analyze the composition of simple robbery, provided for in Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
- Object: direct – property relations, additional – life, health, bodily integrity of an individual.
- Objective side: an attack on a person with the aim of taking possession of his property using violence that is dangerous to the life or health of the victim (or with the threat of its use). An attack is characterized by a sudden external aggressive influence to neutralize possible resistance. Violence dangerous to life and health means such influence that resulted in the infliction of grave or moderate harm to the victim’s health, or minor harm.
- Subject: a sane individual who has reached the age of fourteen.
- Subjective side: direct intent, selfish goal.
If all of the above elements are present, we can say that the act is robbery.
Now let's look at aggravating circumstances that increase liability for robbery:
- committing an act as part of a group of individuals by prior conspiracy (as well as using weapons or other things as weapons);
- penetration into a residential premises, building, storage facility (as well as a large amount of seized property, the value of which exceeds 250 thousand rubles);
- committing an act as part of an organized group;
- especially large size (the value of the seized property exceeds 1 million rubles);
- causing serious harm to the health of the victim.
In its composition, Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“robbery”) is very similar to Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“robbery”). The difference is that robbery, unlike robbery, is always accompanied by violence (or the threat of its use) that is dangerous for the victim. During robbery, violence is also possible, but it is not dangerous for the victim.
Punishment under Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for robbery
Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains alternative sanctions for committing the act in question:
- Up to five years of forced labor.
- Up to eight years in prison.
As an additional sanction, a fine of up to 500 thousand rubles or in the amount of the earnings of the guilty person for a period of up to 3 years may be applied.
According to the Judicial Department under the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, in 2022, 1,068 people were convicted under Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The vast majority of them (more than 400 people) were sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 3 to 5 years, about 300 people received suspended sentences. It is noteworthy that only 3 people were sent to forced labor, which suggests that the courts almost always choose imprisonment as a punishment.
For aggravated robbery, harsher sanctions are provided. So, for example, if a citizen used a weapon to attack, then he only faces placement in a colony for up to 10 years. If the robbery occurred as part of an organized group, then its participants face a sentence of 8 to 15 years. Additional penalties may include a fine of up to 1 million rubles, as well as restriction of freedom for up to 2 years.
Lawyer's comment:
“It is noteworthy that aggravated robbery is committed much more often. According to the same Judicial Department under the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, in 2022, 6,159 people were convicted under Parts 2-4 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Almost 2,000 citizens received from 3 to 5 years in prison, about 1,400 people - from 5 to 8 years. More than 200 people were placed in a colony for a period of 10 to 15 years.”
Committed by an organized group
Part 3 of Article 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides a definition of a crime committed by an organized group. From this definition we can identify the key features that characterize an organized group:
- Aiming at committing several crimes.
- The presence of a leader, called an organizer or leader.
- Development by participants of a plan to commit one or more crimes.
- Distribution of functions between participants in accordance with the developed plan.
- Sustainability.
Reference.
Sustainable group:
- there is a long period of time
- whose members committed one or more crimes,
- characterized by technical equipment.
If robbery is committed by an organized group, then this is qualified robbery, and liability for its commission is provided for in Part 4 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
When qualifying a crime as committed by an organized group, it is necessary to establish that each member of the group clearly understands:
- he is precisely a member of a stable group,
- They teamed up with other persons to commit crimes.
If a person does not have such an understanding, then his actions should be qualified under the relevant article as robbery committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy.
All accomplices of this crime are co-perpetrators equally, regardless of the role they actually performed in committing the robbery:
- lock picker,
- who struck the victim,
- who seized the property
- other roles.
When qualifying their actions, the court will not need to make an additional reference to Article 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
A reference to Part 4 of Article 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will be required in the following case:
Eugene suggested that Zhanna create an organized group to commit a number of crimes. He explained that it would be easier to carry out a series of robberies with a trained and equipped team, and gave contacts of his former cellmates so that she could contact them.
Zhanna gathered “like-minded people”, together with whom she developed a plan for each attack, and defined roles for each of the participants. After this, the organized group committed a series of robberies.
Will Evgeniy bear criminal liability in this case, provided that he did not directly participate in any of the robberies committed?
— The answer to this question is given by paragraph 15 of PPVS No. 29: Evgeniy will bear criminal liability.
The court should qualify his actions as complicity in the form of incitement, because through persuasion he persuaded Zhanna to create an organized group and commit a series of robberies by this group.
Practice of application of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Each robbery case is unique and contains its own individual characteristics that affect the final sentence. Let's look at some real examples.
A resident of Ulyanovsk committed a robbery at a jewelry store, during which he seized more than 80 jewelry totaling about 250 thousand rubles. To implement his criminal plan, the subject used a hammer as a weapon. The court found the man guilty of committing a crime under Part 3 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentenced him to 8 years in a maximum security colony. In addition, the person at fault must compensate the store for the damage.
Here is a case where the court imposed a suspended sentence:
A 16-year-old resident of the Voronezh region, in a state of alcoholic intoxication, tried to forcefully snatch a bag from his friend, threatening him with an ax. However, the plan could not be accomplished, and the teenager fled the crime scene. The citizen appeared in court only 2 years later. The court sentenced the subject to a suspended sentence of 3 years, taking into account the abundance of mitigating circumstances.
It should be remembered that most often robbery is committed in conjunction with other crimes - rape, illegal possession of firearms, etc., which, naturally, increases the final punishment.
Criminal proceedings
home
Law practice
Criminal cases
Simonovsky District Court of Moscow part 4 art.
291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Mediation in bribery committed on an especially large scale. (punishable by imprisonment from 7 to 12 years) The client was accused of mediation in bribery.
Despite the admission of guilt, the judge, taking into account his state of health, imposed a sentence of imprisonment in a maximum security colony for a period of 4 years and 6 months. The lawyer filed an appeal to the Moscow City Court against the severity of the sentence. In his complaint, the defense attorney indicated that the court, despite the indication in the verdict of the new edition of the article of the criminal law, actually applied to the defendant punishment under the article in the previous edition, the sanction for which was more severe. The judicial panel for criminal cases agreed with the position of the lawyer and changed the sentence, reducing the term of imprisonment by one year, that is, to 3 years 6 months. Basmanny District Court of Moscow Drugs Part 3 Article 30.
Article 228.1 part 4 p.g. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Illegal sale of narcotic drugs committed on a large scale. (punishment in the form of imprisonment from 10 to 20 years) Novoselova was accused of committing an attempted sale of narcotic drugs on a large scale.
So, while she was in a shopping center in Moscow, she handed over to her friend Smirnova, who participated in an operational experiment conducted by the Moscow Federal Drug Control Service, a narcotic substance - amphetamine, the weight of which was in accordance with the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 1, 2012 N 1002 “On approval of significant, large and especially large sizes of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as well as significant, large and especially large sizes for plants containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, or their parts containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, for the purposes of Articles 228, 228.1, 229, 229.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation” corresponded to a large size. During the operational search, Novoselova was detained. She admitted her guilt. The court accepted the noteworthy arguments of the Moscow criminal lawyer. As a result, the Federal Judge of the Basmanny District Court of Moscow sentenced the lawyer’s client to 7 years in prison, applying Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, imposing a punishment below the lower limit. Izmailovsky District Court of Moscow Art. 161 Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - punishment - up to 7 years in prison Robbery committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy
A criminal lawyer defended a citizen during the preliminary investigation in the investigative department of the Department of Internal Affairs for the Izmailovo district of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Eastern Administrative District Moscow, who was accused by the preliminary investigation authorities of having, together with Medvedev, committed a robbery by a group of persons by prior conspiracy.
At the end of the investigation, the criminal case was transferred for subsequent trial to the Izmailovsky District Court of Moscow. Despite the fact that the material damage was fully compensated to the victim and the latter explained to the court during the court hearing that he had no claims against the defendants, the judge of the Izmailovsky District Court of Moscow did not agree with the lawyer’s position and sentenced the client to two years of freedom. Drugs of the Tagansky District Department of Internal Affairs, Art. 228 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: illegal acquisition, possession of narcotic drugs up to 3 years in prison. Citizen Aminov was released from a compulsory psychiatric hospital, where he was based on a court verdict that ordered him to be sent for compulsory treatment in connection with the commission of a crime (Article 228, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and declared insane). A criminal case was again initiated against him under Article 228 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. During the preliminary investigation, the lawyer presented to the investigation evidence of the artificial creation of evidence by operational police officers. Aminov was finally questioned as a witness in the case. As it seems to the defense lawyer, the police officers were afraid of an acquittal and, first of all, the initiation of a criminal case against them, so they “did not allow the criminal case to proceed further.” Taxes Timiryazevsky District Court of Moscow, Art. 199, Part 2, Clause “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. General Director Nikiforov and Chief Accountant Nefedov were accused of evading taxes from the organization by including in accounting documents deliberately distorted data on income and expenses, on a large scale, by a group of persons by prior conspiracy. In May 2002, at the request of a lawyer, the Court returned the criminal case to the prosecutor for an additional investigation in the tax police department for the Northern Administrative District. In June 2002, after an additional investigation, the criminal case was again submitted to the court for consideration. At the court hearing, the lawyer filed a request to conduct a second economic examination, taking into account the second paragraph of paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Federal Law of June 14, 1995 N 88-FZ “On state support for small businesses in the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as Law N 88-FZ). A repeated forensic examination was carried out by experts from the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for Moscow. The unpaid amount of taxes amounted to less than 1000 minimum wages, (not subject to criminal liability) based on the examination, the prosecutor's office rejected the charges and the criminal case was dismissed by the court for lack of corpus delicti. Taxes Tushinsky District Court of Moscow, Part 2 of Article 198 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - evasion of an individual from paying tax on an especially large scale. Petrov S.A. was accused of not paying income tax after selling the apartment. Petrov, in order to improve living conditions, privatized and sold his apartment. On the same day I bought a less expensive apartment. The court imposed a suspended sentence of 2 years in prison. Robbery Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow, Article 162, Part 2, Article 162, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (robbery committed by a group of persons using weapons or objects used as weapons (punishment from 5 to 10 years of imprisonment). Three young the guys were accused of committing two robberies, the lawyer defended the interests of Odinky A.I., who was kept in custody before the trial and, according to the investigation, directly attacked the victims with weapons in his hands, taking away valuables and expensive clothes from them. During several court hearings the lawyer convinced the public prosecutor and the court of the erroneous classification of the client’s actions, the lack of intent to commit these crimes. The presence of elements of Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in his actions - hooliganism. The court pronounced a guilty verdict under Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, imposing a punishment of 1, 5 years of imprisonment. Fraud of the Investigative Department at the Orekhovo-Borisovo Severnoe Department of Internal Affairs, Part 2 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (imprisonment for up to 5 years). Frolov M.A., a resident of the Voronezh region, was accused of committing theft of someone else’s property by deception, causing significant damage. He was detained by the preliminary investigation authorities. Since Frolov was not registered and did not have a permanent place of residence in Moscow, the preliminary investigation authorities petitioned the court to apply a preventive measure to him in the form of detention. The lawyer objected to this measure. The period of detention was extended by the court to 72 hours for additional investigative actions. At the re-trial, the court refused to select a preventive measure in the form of detention. Frolov was accused of using a mobile phone while in a restaurant with the permission of the restaurant administration, leaving without returning it. When considering the criminal case on the merits in the Nagatinsky District Court, the court reclassified Frolov’s actions as part 1 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and imposed a fine of 2 thousand rubles. According to the firm conviction of the defense lawyer, Frolov’s guilt has not been proven, new evidence was received in court confirming his innocence, but he refused to further fight, paid a fine and thanked the lawyer, and went home for his own wedding ceremony. Rape Perovsky District Court of Moscow, Part 1 of Article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, punishment from 3 to 6 years in prison. Dibrov V.Yu., previously repeatedly convicted by the Perovskaya Interdistrict Prosecutor's Office of Moscow. (there was an unserved sentence of 7 months) was accused of committing rape with the use of force of citizen L. (Part 1 of Article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, punishment from 3 to 6 years in prison). Dibrov did not admit his guilt during the investigation or in court. The Perovsky District Court found him guilty of rape that occurred in the victim’s apartment, where he, as a mechanic, was adjusting plumbing equipment. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (lower than the lowest) 2 years 1 month. Fraud Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow, Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In September 2003, the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow convicted the head of the oil company (V), finding him guilty of committing fraud (Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and imposed a sentence of 8 years in prison. The lawyer accepted the assignment to defend the client after the verdict was upheld by the cassation court. Convict Sh. was accused of committing theft by deception and breach of trust of funds in the amount of 6 million US dollars from the Swedish businessman F. Abdelnur (a relative of the UN Chairman). The study of the materials of the criminal case revealed a large number of violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for example: the criminal case was initiated illegally, by an inappropriate person (senior prosecutor of the department of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation), accordingly, all subsequent investigative actions should be declared illegal. The lawyer appealed to the Basmanny District Court the decision to initiate a criminal case. The judge refused to satisfy the complaint, and the basis for the refusal was that the defendant and his former defenders did not file a complaint during the investigation and trial. As a result of the painstaking work of the lawyer (a large number of courts of various instances, opposition from “dark” personalities), the convict, after being in custody for 2 years, was released. Robbery Izmailovsky Court of Moscow Part 2 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (robbery with threat of violence) punishment up to 7 years in prison. Dzhabekov A.A. was accused of open theft of someone else's property - a mobile phone from a civilian M. Being a taxi driver, he delivered the victim to the address indicated to her, when M. paid him, he snatched her mobile phone, threatening to use violence if she reported it to law enforcement agencies . During the preliminary investigation, a preventive measure in the form of detention was applied to Dzhabekov. During the court hearing, Dzhabekov did not admit his guilt. The lawyer proved that there was no qualifying sign of “threat” in his actions, and petitioned for the reclassification of his actions under Part 1 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The court agreed with the defense's arguments, issued a guilty verdict under Part 1 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentenced him to 1 year of suspended imprisonment. In the courtroom, Dzhabekov was released. Dzhabekov, registered in the Arkhangelsk region, was observed by the inspectorate of the Ministry of Justice of the Arkhangelsk region, and left without notifying the inspection to his parents in Azerbaijan. The court, at the request of the inspectorate, canceled the suspended sentence and imposed a real punishment. Premeditated murder Perovsky Court of Moscow, Art. 105 Part 1 (premeditated murder, punishment from 6 to 15 years in prison). Zayavyalova I.P. accused of premeditated murder of her father. The investigative authorities accused Zavyalova of deliberately striking P.A. Zavyalov, who is disabled, with a heavy object in the face and body during a quarrel with the intent to kill. Zayavyalova partially admitted her guilt, citing the fact that she committed the murder in a state of passion. The state prosecutor demanded a sentence of 8 years in prison. The lawyer convinced the court that Zayavyalova was not a danger to society, and that she could be corrected without being isolated from society. The court returned a guilty verdict and imposed a suspended sentence of 6 years in prison. The prosecutor's office appealed the verdict to the Moscow City Court. The panel of judges upheld the verdict, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal. Intentional murder Moscow City Court, Art. 105, Part 2, paragraph “d, g” (intentional murder committed by a group of persons with extreme cruelty) – punishment from 8 to 20 years. The relatives of N.V. Krolikov contacted the lawyer. with a request to defend his son in the Moscow City Court. Defendants Krolikov N.V. and Govorov R.V. were accused of premeditated murder of citizen Rabinovich O.V. by a group of people with particular cruelty. The Moscow City Court convicted Krolikov and sentenced him to 18 years in prison, taking into account the unserved 1 year and 6 months. For a previously committed crime under Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (extortion). The lawyer appealed the verdict to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which overturned the verdict and returned the criminal case to the Moscow City Court for consideration by a different court. At the request of the lawyer, the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases excluded the element of “cruelty” from Krolikov’s actions and imposed a sentence of 13 years in prison. Violence against a police officer Oryol Regional Court Part 2 of Article 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - punishment from 5 to 10 years in prison. The prosecutor's office of the Oryol region brought charges against A.N. Platov. in the use of violence dangerous to life and health against a police officer (Part 2 of Article 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - punishment from 5 to 10 years in prison) Platov A.N. and Nefedov D.D., (who died in an attack on a police officer) was accused of attacking and beating the policeman in response to a police officer’s remark to stop drinking alcohol. Platov himself received a gunshot wound. The court rendered a guilty verdict, imposing a sentence of 5 years of imprisonment in a general regime colony. The lawyer filed a cassation appeal. The regional court reclassified the actions of A.N. Platov. on Part 1 of Article 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, imposing 3 years with departure to a penal colony. Platov, having stayed for four months after the cassation court decision was made. He was released on parole in a penal colony. The defense attorney was convinced that Platov’s guilt had not been proven; the client was offered further appeals against court decisions to higher courts. But often, when clients find themselves in such situations, they refuse to fight, fearing the actions of negligent officials. Robbery of the Investigative Department at the Sokolinaya Gora police station in Moscow, part “g”, part 2 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (from 2 to 7 years in prison). Volkov A.A. was accused of committing open theft of someone else's property, committed with the use of violence not dangerous to life and health. The Izmailovsky District Court of Moscow, at the request of the investigator, chose a preventive measure against Volkov in the form of detention. The defender appealed this decision to the Moscow City Court. The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Moscow City Court overturned the decision of the Izmailovsky District Court, Volkov was released from custody. After the completion of the preliminary investigation and approval of the indictment, the criminal case was submitted to the Izmailovsky District Court of Moscow. The case was accepted for consideration three times by different judges of the district court, and was finally considered by the judge who took Volkov into custody. When considering the criminal case on the merits, the Izmailovsky District Court, at the request of the defense attorney, reclassified the actions of the defendant Volkov to the first part of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and imposed a sentence of one year of suspended imprisonment. Taxes of the State Investigative Directorate at the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate, Part 2, Article 199 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - up to 6 years l/s. The general director was accused of tax evasion on a particularly large scale. The fact is that he concluded “supposedly” fictitious contracts, according to which third parties performed work, although in fact the work was performed and income was received. The criminal case has been discontinued. Arbitrariness Preobrazhensky District Court of Moscow Part 2 Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - punishment up to 5 years l/s. Sosin M.A. was accused of committing arbitrariness with the use of violence. The district court found him guilty under Part 2 of Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and imposed a sentence of 1 year of suspended imprisonment. The lawyer appealed the verdict, the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Moscow City Court upheld the complaint, reclassified Sosin’s actions under Part 1 of Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, imposing a sentence of 6 months. conditionally. Hooliganism by the Investigative Department at the Sokolinaya Gora Department of Internal Affairs, Izmailovsky District Court of Moscow, Part 2 of Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - punishment of up to 7 years in prison. Smirnov's relatives turned to a lawyer for protection. Smirnov and Zavyalov were accused by the investigative authorities of committing hooliganism using objects used as weapons, namely, at night on the street they beat up a previously acquaintance M., causing cut wounds using a broken bottle. The victim was taken to the hospital's intensive care unit. The criminal case was heard in the Izmailovsky District Court. The state prosecution demanded 5 years in prison for the defendants. The victim asked not to punish the defendants, the Court accepted the defense’s arguments about the absence of corpus delicti in the actions provided for in Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and issued an acquittal. The prosecutor's office filed a cassation appeal against the verdict, the Moscow City Court upheld the acquittal of the Izmailovsky District Court. Robbery of the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow Part 2 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (from 2 to 7 years in prison). Alekseev A.I. He was accused of committing an open theft of someone else's property by a group of persons by prior conspiracy using violence not dangerous to life and health. It was charged to him that he and his acquaintance, being in an apartment with his acquaintance, caused bodily injuries and abducted the monetary sketches. At the hearing, it was possible to prove the innocence of Alekseev in the commission of a crime, he was justified. The actions of the second defendant were re -qualified on Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (theft). Dorogomilovsky District Court of Moscow Clause 30 of Article 228.1 h. 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, an attempt to sell narcotic drugs by the Department of the Federal Drug Control Service for Moscow CJSC, a young bangs was detained while trying to transfer a bundle with narcotic substance. The lawyer joined the case after the detention and inspection of the subjects of the suspect. The investigator agreed with the arguments of the lawyer that there was a citizen of mediation in the actions of a citizen, nor as an attempt on sales, since the funds were received in advance from the buyer of drugs, retraining his actions on Article 228 of Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The case with the indictment was sent to the court for consideration on the merits. Given the fact that the decree of the Government of the Russian Federation on narcotic drugs prohibited for circulation in the Russian Federation made changes in the size (quantity) of narcotic drugs, and the amount that was taken from my client ceased to fall under the criminal building, the Dorogomilovsky District Court stopped the criminal case. Sales of narcotic drugs Preobrazhensky District Court of Moscow Article 228-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (from 4 to 8 years in prison). Smirnov S.A. In October 2005, he was sentenced to 4 g. In prison for illegal sale of narcotic drugs. As a supervision, the verdict was canceled in connection with the need for retraining (attempted sales of narcotic drugs). Smirnov was transferred from Nizhny Tagil to Moscow to participate in the consideration of a criminal case. Smirnov's parents turned to a lawyer for protection. The prosecution was supported by the deputy prosecutor of Moscow. The prosecution required a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 4 years. The lawyer convinced the court to apply Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (the appointment of a milder punishment than provided for this crime). As a result, the court sentenced 2 years in prison. Sales of narcotic drugs Lefortovo District Court of Moscow Part 3 of Article 30, part 1 of article 228-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (from 4 to 8 years in prison). Petrova M.S. I was accused of committing an attempt on illegal sales of narcotic drugs. As a result of the work of the defender Petrova M.S. A punishment was sentenced using Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (below the lower limit) in the form of two years in prison. Taxes of the GSU of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate for MoskVV in Article 2 of Article 199 of the Criminal Code of the Criminal Code - evasion of taxes from the organization on an especially large scale, the general director of the company was accused of transferring funds to the settlement accounts of fictitious firms for alleged work. The amount of VAT transferred among the money to the accounts of these companies were assigned by Rodionov as tax deductions. As a result, he did not pay a tax of a total of 5 million 650 thousand rubles. During the criminal investigation by the defender, when familiarizing themselves with the conclusion of the tax forensic examination, discrepancies in the descriptive part of the conclusion of the available conclusions, including arithmetic errors were discovered. At the request of the defender, a re -examination was appointed, in which the position of the lawyer was confirmed, the amount of unpaid tax was 19.02 % of the amounts payable to taxes. The amount of unpaid tax (19.02%) corresponded to a large amount of unpaid taxes and qualified under Part 1 of Article 1999 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the time of the investigation of the criminal case, the statute of limitations (2 years) in terms of the first one expired, the case was terminated according to Clause 3 of Article 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations of criminal prosecution. Robbery, robbery Simonovsky District Court of Moscow part 2 of article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, part 2 of article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation- punishment up to 10 years in prison. Pevtsov I.K. I was accused of a robbery, with a threat of violence that is dangerous to life and health, using an object used as a weapon (knife) and a robbery with a threat of violence that is not dangerous for life and health. As a result of the well -built defense tactics, bringing the arguments about the non -danger of Pevtsov for the company, the court agreed with the arguments of the lawyer to retrace the actions of Pevtsov to Part 1 of Article 161 and part 1 of article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentenced 5 years in prison.
Lawyer under Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Robbery is a serious crime, and therefore the criminal case under Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation cannot be completed even in the case of reconciliation with the victim and complete amends. In addition, very often a suspect or accused of committing robbery is placed in custody during the investigation. For these reasons, a person involved in a crime should not hope that the situation will resolve itself: without a qualified criminal lawyer, the subject is almost guaranteed to receive a real sentence.
Of course, the primary task of a lawyer is to ensure that the criminal case (prosecution) against his client is terminated at the preliminary investigation stage. For example, a lawyer can collect evidence that the client is not involved in the crime, or that there is no crime at all.
If, nevertheless, the case goes to court, the defense attorney can also provide significant assistance to the citizen by achieving one of the following results:
- issuance of an acquittal;
- reclassification of the act to the part of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for a more lenient punishment (for example, from Part 2 to Part 1 of the article in question);
- reclassification of the act to another article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing for a more lenient punishment (for example, Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation);
- imposing a punishment not related to imprisonment (in this case, forced labor);
- assignment of a suspended sentence;
- reduction in the amount of the fine imposed by the court;
- reduction of the amount of compensation in favor of the victim.
An experienced lawyer will use the entire arsenal of powers given to him and will do everything in his power to ensure that his client avoids a real sentence and remains free. Remember: the sooner a defense lawyer gets involved, the more he can do for the suspect or accused. However, if a verdict has already been passed, it would also be useful to contact a specialist, since a lawyer, for example, can appeal a judicial act to a higher authority and achieve the release of his client on parole.
Committed by a group of persons
Responsibility for robbery is provided for in Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (CC RF). Part 2 of this article prohibits the commission of robbery by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, and part 4 - by an organized group.
- What liability in this case is provided for the commission of robbery by a group of persons without prior agreement?
Part 1 of Article 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation states that if two or more co-perpetrators did not have a prior conspiracy to commit a crime, then such a crime is recognized as committed by a group of persons.
A perpetrator is a person who either independently and directly, or together with others (in which case they will be called co-perpetrators) committed a crime.
Example:
If Ivan saw Sergey beating Anatoly, came up and joined in the beating, as a result of which Anatoly suffered a short-term health disorder, then Ivan and Sergey become co-perpetrators of intentional infliction of minor harm to health.
- Another situation: if the person did not directly commit the crime.
If a person did not commit a crime directly, but used other persons not subject to criminal liability (minors, insane) to commit it, then such a person will still be recognized as a perpetrator.
Example:
Victor promises a reward to a twelve-year-old teenager for threatening to stab the victim in the liver, take his bag from him and bring it to the specified person.
Victor realizes that criminal liability for robbery begins at the age of 14, which means, in his opinion, neither the teenager (after all, he is only 12 and is not subject to criminal liability), nor himself (after all, he himself did not threaten the victim and did not strike ) nothing is in danger.
However, the Criminal Code, in Part 2 of Article 33, clearly classifies such persons as perpetrators of a crime.
The same explanations are given by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in paragraph 12 of Resolution No. 29 of December 27, 2002. Indeed, the commission of robbery by a group of persons without prior agreement is not a qualifying feature of this crime. Consequently, for each of the co-perpetrators this act will be qualified under Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Question:
— Is it really impossible for the court to take into account the fact that the robbery was committed not by one person, but by at least two, even if they had no prior agreement?
Answer:
- Of course it can. The Plenum recommends that this fact be considered an aggravating circumstance (clause “c” of Part 2 of Article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
Recommended reading:
Robbery investigation techniques
The difference between robbery and other related compounds
Robbery: analysis of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 29
