The subject matter of this legal dispute is the criminal law classification of the actions of two individuals accused of open theft of a mobile phone under martial law (robbery), whom the courts of lower instances acquitted due to the alleged absence of a mercenary motive in their actions.
The Joint Chamber of the Supreme Court clarified that the criminal law does not define a mercenary motive as an essential element of robbery or other crimes against property. The Court emphasized that for the classification of an act as theft, the key element is not the person’s desire to directly enrich themselves, but rather their direct intent to unlawfully and permanently seize another’s property in order to dispose of it at their own discretion. According to the Court, the constitutional protection of property rights cannot depend on the specific motives—whether mercenary, emotional, or even “noble”—that guided the perpetrator in depriving the owner of their property. **** By this decision, the Joint Chamber of the Supreme Court eliminated inconsistencies in judicial practice, effectively departing from the positions of other panels of the Supreme Court, which had previously considered a mercenary motive to be an essential element of the subjective side of robbery. The Court stated that due to an erroneous focus solely on the issue of gain, the lower courts failed to conduct a detailed and comprehensive analysis of all the evidence available in the case. Furthermore, the court of appeal committed significant procedural violations, as it failed to properly address the prosecutor’s arguments and failed to substantiate why the return of the phone to the owner only after police intervention excludes the elements of the crime.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, vacated the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and remanded the case for a new appellate review.
