The Supreme Court (SC) concluded that the theft of someone else's property is considered completed from the moment actual control over it is established, while reviewing the cassation in a case of large-scale theft of movable property committed by a group of individuals from a store in Valmiera.
According to the Supreme Court, the court overturned the sentence of the Vidzeme District Court regarding the punishment imposed on the defendants and sent the case for a new hearing in the district court.
Two citizens of Romania are accused in the case, one of whom, along with two other individuals, entered the premises of a store with the intent to steal mobile phones and tablets worth approximately 35,000 euros, while the second assisted in the theft by remaining outside and monitoring the situation.
The theft was not completed as the store's alarm went off and security arrived, detaining one of the defendants. The other participants fled the scene.
In considering the case, the Supreme Court needed to answer the question of when a theft is considered completed. The Supreme Court established that there is an ambiguous understanding in judicial practice regarding when the fact of illegal possession of property should be recognized.
Referring to legal doctrines from the interwar period and modern times, as well as the understanding of acquisition of possession of property enshrined in the Civil Code, the Supreme Court recognized that theft is considered completed not at the moment when the person committing the theft has a real opportunity to dispose of the property at their discretion, but only when they have physically obtained actual control over the property and are the sole party able to affect it at will.
The Supreme Court's decision also noted that the acquisition of actual control varies depending on the characteristics of the property, namely its size and the possibility of movement.
As clarified in the decision, actual control over small items is acquired through physical control, for example, by physically seizing the item and placing it in a bag, while actual control over large and difficult-to-move items is acquired gradually — through several sequential actions aimed at achieving this goal.
From the circumstances of the case, it follows that the actions of the defendants indicated a gradual removal of property; however, at the time the theft was interrupted, the defendants had not yet established physical control over this property: some devices were packed into a bag, while others continued to be moved along with the safe in which they were located. In this regard, the Supreme Court recognized that the district court reasonably classified the theft as incomplete.
At the same time, the Supreme Court established that the district court did not justify in its ruling why, in the presence of differing and mutually contradictory testimonies from the defendants, no aggravating circumstance — giving false testimony — was established.
