Mercenary Purpose in Theft: Are There Limits To Broad Interpretation?

The paper deals with the issue of the modern understanding of the mercenary purpose as an element of theft and its forms — fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement. The author closely analyzes the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Resolution No. 48 dated 30 November 2017 "On court practice on cases involving fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement" in view of the discussion of understanding mercenary purpose in litigation. The author polemically sets out the point of view that it is impossible to interpret a mercenary purpose in a broad sense — as the ability to dispose of stolen property at their own discretion, including in favor of other persons, whose circle is unlimited. It is proved that the term "lucre" cannot reveal the content of the purpose of theft, since lucre is inherent not only in theft, but also in other crimes. "Lucre" can only indicate the attitude of a person to the act of his behavior, the method of committing a crime, but does not characterize the purpose of his actions, as a result of which the concept of mercenary purpose can be filled with different content. Mercenary motives should determine the existence of a mercenary purpose, and non-mercenary motives should exclude the qualification of committed acts as theft of someone else’s property. The explanation of a mercenary purpose proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation significantly shifts the scope of the presence of elements of theft and transfers them to an earlier stage. Evening a mercenary purpose with the purpose of gaining (receiving) property benefits is not certain, since property benefits can also be extracted from the illegal use of other people’s property. For the objective classification of theft, the motive of the perpetrator’s behavior and the nature of his actions must be essential. Therefore, from the point of view of subjective elements of theft, its purpose should indicate that such an act is aimed at enriching the perpetrator or other persons, the circle of whom should be limited.

1. Arkhipov A. Korystnaya tsel kak priznak khishcheniya [A mercenary purpose as an element of theft]. Ugolovnoe pravo [Criminal law]. 2016;1:4-8. (In Russ.)

2. Bezverkhov AG. Korystnaya tsel kak subektivnyy priznak khishcheniya chuzhogo imushchestva [A mercenary purpose as a subjective element of stealing someone else’s property]. In: Ugolovnoe pravo, ugolovnyy zakon: teoriya i praktika: sb. nauch. statey [Criminal law, criminal legislation: theory and practice: collection of scientific papers]. Saint Petersburg; 2017. P. 26-32. (In Russ.)

3. Esakov G. Korystnaya tsel v khishchenii i novoe postanovlenie Plenuma o sudebnoy praktike po delam o moshennichestve [Mercenary purpose in theft and the new resolution of the Plenum on judicial practice in cases of fraud]. Ugolovnoe pravo [Criminal law]. 2018;1:47-52. (In Russ.)

4. Kovalev MV. Problemy «korystnoy tseli» pri kvalifikatsii prestupleniy protiv sobstvennosti [Problems of "mercenary purpose" in the classification of crimes against property]. Izvestiya Tulskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: ekonomicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki. 2018;2-3:85-90. (In Russ.)

5. Petrov SA. Korystnaya tsel v khishcheniyakh [A mercenary purpose in theft]. Zakonnost. 2017;9:39-42. (In Russ.)

6. Khilyuta VV. Kontseptualno-teoreticheskie problemy transformatsii ucheniya o khishchenii v doktrine ugolovnogo prava [Conceptual and theoretical problems of transformation of the doctrine of theft in the doctrine of criminal law]. Grodno; 2018. (In Russ.)

7. Khilyuta VV. Mozhno li khishchenie sovershit s kosvennym umyslom? [Can a theft be committed with indirect intent?]. Biblioteka ugolovnogo prava i kriminologii. 2017;6:120-129. (In Russ.)

8. Khilyuta VV. Ponyatie i priznaki khishcheniya v ugolovnom prave [The concept and elements of theft in criminal law]. Moscow; 2016. (In Russ.)

9. Yani PS. Koryst kak priznak khishcheniya [Lucre as an element of theft]. Zakonnost. 2019;2:23-27. 2019;3:2125. (In Russ.)