Quickly hidden is considered stolen – Newspaper Kommersant No. 7 (7452) dated 17.01.

In itself, a violation of the rules for handling found things – for example, if you found someone else’s phone, but did not rush to find its rightful owner – is not yet a crime, the Constitutional Court explained. But if at the same time you tried to hide what you found or destroy signs that allow you to establish the rightful owner (for example, remove a SIM card from your phone), then this will already be theft, the judges pointed out. Experts say that Russian courts proceed from this logic, and the explanation of the Constitutional Court will ensure greater predictability of their decisions, but will not remove all questions.

The Constitutional Court recognized the norms of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code (theft) and Article 2 27 of the Civil Code (find), which allow citizens to be held criminally liable for violation of the rules for handling found things. The reason for the check was the complaints of Viktor Puzryakov, a resident of Ulyanovsk, and Albina Galimyanova from Bashkiria: both applicants found other people’s mobile phones and appropriated them, without taking any action to return the equipment to their rightful owners. As a result, the courts found both guilty of theft, but the applicants did not agree with such a qualification.

Art. 158 of the Criminal Code does not provide for the possibility of being held liable for appropriation of what was found, Mr. Puzryakov argued in his complaint. In turn, Ms. Galimyanova recalled that the Criminal Code of the RSFSR had a separate composition that provided for liability for appropriation of what was found (Article 148.4), that is, the then legislator saw it as different from theft. And the punishment for this crime was much lower – in particular, this article did not imply imprisonment at all.

However, the Constitutional Court did not agree with the applicants. The current legal regulation provides sufficient legal certainty in this matter, the resolution says. The criminal law, the judges emphasized, refers to the signs of theft not only the seizure, but also the unlawful conversion of someone else’s property in one’s favor.

Another thing is that the very fact of finding, even if the finder did not make active attempts to find the old owner, is not yet a crime. It all depends on whether the person had the intent to appropriate what was found.

That is, you can talk about theft when the finder of the thing tried to hide it, or transfer it to someone, or get rid of the signs that make it possible to confirm the ownership of the property. For example, in the case of a phone, pull out a SIM card, remove a case, etc. Such behavior becomes socially dangerous, indicates unjust enrichment at the expense of someone else’s property and is regarded as theft, the resolution emphasizes. Such an interpretation, the court adds, does not exclude the right of the legislator to specify the elements of crimes, the subject of which are lost things, and to establish separate liability for failure to comply with the rules for handling the find.

Experts say that, in fact, the Constitutional Court confirmed the already established practice, clarifying and systematizing the criteria by which the appropriation of what was found can be qualified as theft.

According to lawyer Maxim Nikonov, the courts used them before, but in different combinations, and there was no single list. Some take into account the concealment or destruction of identifying features, others take into account the presence of control over the room where the phone was lost (it is clear that it is easier to find the former owner at the airport than on the street). And the Constitutional Court has collected and summarized these criteria, which should lead to greater predictability of decisions, the expert notes.

Lawyer, partner of Rustam Kurmaev and Partners, Dmitry Gorbunov, however, doubts that the explanation of the Constitutional Court provides exhaustive answers to all questions that arise when considering such cases. The topic has been relevant since time immemorial, so there are a lot of such questions, he notes. Each time, the courts have to decide for themselves what volume and nature of actions form the corpus delicti, and where there are purely civil law relations. The work of law enforcers would be significantly simplified just by the appearance of a separate composition, but based on the decision of the Constitutional Court, a quick reaction from the legislator should not be expected, the expert suggests.

Anastasia Kornya