Article 126 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Kidnapping (Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

Kidnapping (Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Basic composition and qualifying characteristics. Objective and subjective signs. The problem of the moment of the end of the crime. Voluntary refusal in case of kidnapping

Kidnapping (Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Responsibility for kidnapping was first introduced into Russian criminal legislation on April 29, 1993 due to the wide spread of this crime. The Criminal Code of 1996 not only retained the rule on liability for kidnapping, but expanded the scope of this responsibility, including other, along with existing, aggravating circumstances.

A significant novelty is the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which states that a person who voluntarily frees a kidnapped person is exempt from criminal liability if his actions do not contain another crime. Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation consists of three parts.

The immediate object of the crime is the personal freedom of a person. In qualified types of abduction, an additional object may be the life and health of the abducted person.

The victim can be any person, regardless of age, citizenship, social and official position etc. The consent of the victim to his “abduction” in secret from his family and friends excludes the elements of this crime, since the law (Article 126) does not indicate such signs of abduction - “with consent” or “without consent”.

From the objective side, the abduction of a person consists of his capture (taking possession) in any way (secretly, openly, by deception) and the restriction of personal freedom by moving or placing him in some other room (place) for some time, where he is forcibly held. Thus, kidnapping involves a combination of three sequential actions. This is: capture, movement to another place and subsequent forcible detention of the victim there against his will. The kidnapping may be accompanied by the commission of other criminal acts - threats, bullying, physical and mental coercion of the victim to commit actions that are aimed at achieving the goal of the crime (for example, receiving a ransom for release, drawing up documents for a car, dacha, apartment in the name of the subject, etc. .).

The crime in question is constructed by the legislator according to the type of material elements. Therefore, it will not be completed from the moment the person is captured, but only after other actions of this composition are completed: after the abducted person is moved to another place and his freedom of movement is limited. In the literature on this issue, another opinion has been expressed that the elements of kidnapping are formal in nature, but no arguments are given to substantiate this position.

An attempt to capture the victim, i.e. actions directly aimed at taking possession of him for the purpose of subsequent movement to another place and restricting his freedom of movement, which were unsuccessful due to circumstances beyond the control of the perpetrator, should be considered as an attempted kidnapping and qualified under Part 3 of Art. 30 and Art. 126 of the Criminal Code. Judicial practice also adheres to this position.

From the subjective side, the crime in question is committed with direct intent. The perpetrator is aware that he is kidnapping a person, anticipates that as a result he will be deprived of freedom of movement, and desires this. The motives for such actions can be different: self-interest, revenge, performing any other actions, etc. motive and purpose are not mandatory elements of the composition. At the same time, their correct establishment is of fundamental importance, since they can influence both the qualification of the actions of the perpetrator (clause “h” of Part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code) and the assignment of punishment. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation draws attention to this, for example, when the abduction was carried out for the purpose of extortion, sale of minors abroad, involvement in a crime, removal of organs or tissues for transplantation, for hooligan reasons, etc. In all of the above cases, it is necessary to qualify the offense as a set of crimes under Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the corresponding article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code.

The subject of a crime can be any sane person over 14 years of age.

The degree of danger of the crime in question increases significantly in the presence of qualifying circumstances. Part 2 Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation includes kidnapping committed:

• a) by a group of persons by prior conspiracy;
• b) repeatedly;
• c) with the use of violence dangerous to life and health, or with the threat of such violence;
• d) using weapons or objects used as weapons;
• e) in relation to a known minor;
• f) in relation to a woman who is known to the perpetrator to be pregnant;
• g) in relation to two or more persons;
• h) for selfish reasons.

The abduction of a person by a group of persons by prior conspiracy means that two or more persons who agreed in advance about the abduction participated in the commission of this action (Article 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Even in cases where group members performed different roles (for example, some carried out the capture, others - the retention), they are all co-perpetrators of the same crime: kidnapping.

Repeatedness should be understood, according to Art. 16 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the commission of two or more crimes provided for in one article or part of an article of the Code. Point "b" part 2 art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation applies only in cases where the subject had previously committed a kidnapping and his actions were qualified by any part of this article.

Violence dangerous to life and health is violence that can cause serious harm to the health of the victim; harm of moderate severity or light harm, causing short-term health disorder or minor permanent loss of general ability to work.

The use of weapons or objects used as weapons means the use of firearms or bladed weapons, as well as objects specially manufactured or adapted to inflict bodily harm, household items and any other objects used by the perpetrator to inflict life-threatening violence or health.

Kidnapping of a minor involves the capture of a person who has not yet reached the age of 18, provided that the kidnapper knew for certain that he was kidnapping a minor.

To apply clause "e" of Part 2 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation the law puts forward required condition- knowing knowledge of the perpetrator that he is kidnapping a pregnant woman. At the same time, the gestational age does not matter for qualification; reliable knowledge of the subject about this is important.

The kidnapping of two or more persons is qualified under paragraph "g" of Part 2 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code in the case when their abduction occurred simultaneously and was covered by the unity of intent of the perpetrator.

Selfish motives involve the desire to obtain material benefits as a result of kidnapping. The presence of selfish motives is evidenced by the demand from the victim or his relatives for money, property or the right to property, for example, the transfer of documents for an apartment, house, car. Most often, kidnapping is committed for mercenary reasons. Therefore, the qualification of the act is carried out according to the totality of crimes - kidnapping (Article 126) and extortion (Article 163), since the acts encroach on various objects.

The legislator provided in Part 3 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and especially qualifying circumstances, which include the acts provided for in Part 1 and Part 2 of this article, if they were committed by an organized group or negligently resulted in the death of the victim or other grave consequences.

The concept of an organized group is given in Art. 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which such a group is recognized as a stable group of persons who have united in advance to commit one or more crimes.

Other serious consequences of kidnapping include the infliction of serious harm to health through negligence, suicide of the victim, the onset of mental illness, material damage V large size and etc.

Careless causing of death to the victim during his abduction does not require qualification in the aggregate, since it is fully covered by the disposition of Part 3 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. If the death of the victim occurred as a result of causing grievous harm to health, the actions of the perpetrator must be qualified according to the totality of crimes provided for in Part 3 of Art. 126 and part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The murder of a kidnapped person is qualified under paragraph “c” of Part 2 of Art. 105 and part 3 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The totality in these cases is necessary, since the subject encroaches on two objects and performs two completely different legally significant actions.

In the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the legislator indicated that a person who voluntarily released a kidnapped person is exempt from criminal liability if his actions do not contain another crime. The note has a preventive value; it gives the kidnapper the opportunity to come to his senses and free the kidnapped person. In addition, the legislator with this provision helps to deter the criminal from further violent actions against the kidnapped person. From the meaning of this norm, it becomes obvious that the law established the conditions for such release, these are: voluntary release of the kidnapped person and the absence of other elements of the crime in the person’s actions.

Voluntary release should be understood as the actions of the person(s) who committed the crime. The latter is already over, but the perpetrator, on his own initiative, voluntarily released the victim, while having a real opportunity to continue to illegally detain him. The motives for the voluntary release of the victim can be different: repentance, pity for the victim, fear of criminal liability, revenge from the victim’s relatives, and others. Of course, there is no voluntariness if the whereabouts of the kidnapped person became known to his relatives and law enforcement agencies, and in connection with this it becomes possible to take measures to detain the culprit and release the kidnapped person, which the culprit knows about and therefore releases him. Voluntariness is also absent when the perpetrator achieved his goal (for example, received a ransom), and therefore released the victim. Another basis for recognizing the release as voluntary is the absence of other elements of a crime in the person’s actions. If the actions of the perpetrator contain another corpus delicti related to kidnapping, for example, causing harm to the health of the kidnapped person varying degrees gravity, his torture, illegal carrying of weapons, rape of a woman, he is brought to criminal liability under Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and under the corresponding article of the Special Part of the Code, i.e. by totality of crimes. This solution to the issue follows from the meaning of the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which directly indicates a combination of two conditions for the release of a kidnapped person. The note does not contain any time limit for the release of the victim from the moment of abduction. It seems that we can talk about a very short period of time, which can only be calculated in hours, otherwise it is difficult to talk about voluntariness, since harm has already been caused to the person of the abducted person, arising from the fact and conditions of detention, feeding, provision of drink, walks, etc.

Kidnapping should be distinguished from unlawful deprivation of liberty (Article 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), extortion (Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and hostage taking (Article 206 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The main difference between kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment is the method of encroachment on the freedom of the victim; kidnapping is always associated with capture (forced or without it) and his subsequent removal from his place of permanent residence, unlawful movement to another place and keeping him in isolation against his will. The mere holding of the victim in captivity, if this was not preceded by possession (capture), movement, does not constitute kidnapping and is considered as unlawful deprivation of liberty.

As noted above, kidnapping may involve extortion. What is done in such cases is qualified according to the totality of these crimes.

Kidnapping differs from hostage-taking in that the fact of capturing and holding the victim, as well as the demands made by the perpetrators, are not advertised here; the ransom demand addressed to his relatives is carried out secretly, hidden from other persons, as well as authorities state power; As a rule, the place where the stolen property is kept is kept secret; the demands made are always made on the abducted person himself, his relatives, friends, work colleagues, but not on the state or any organization, as is required when taking a hostage.

Criminal codes of many foreign countries provide for liability for kidnapping, although the concept of “kidnapping” (like the Code of the Russian Federation) is not given; it was developed by legal theory.

For example, the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany contains a group of norms aimed at protecting individual freedom, while responsibility is established differentially depending on the characteristics of the victim, the motives and purpose of the kidnapping.

Such norms, first of all, should include: “Kidnapping”, “Kidnapping of minors”, “Kidnapping for the purpose of extortion”. The basic definition of kidnapping indicates the means of committing the kidnapping and the purpose of this act: “who, using deception, threats or force, kidnaps a person in order to place him in a helpless position or slavery, serfdom or deliver him to foreign military or naval services.”

The French Criminal Code identifies ch. 4 “On attacks on the freedom of a person” and establishes strict liability for “the arrest, abduction, detention or illegal detention of a person committed without an order from legitimate authorities and outside the cases provided for by law (Article 224-1). Thus, any form of unlawful deprivation of liberty of any person. Aggravating circumstances of these crimes are the infliction of grave consequences (injury, chronic illness, death), the commission of crimes by an organized gang or against several persons, also against a minor under 15 years of age (Article 224-2-224 -5).For the commission of these crimes, long terms of imprisonment are established (from 20 years of criminal imprisonment to life imprisonment).In the case of active repentance of the perpetrator, a mitigation of punishment is provided.

Liability for “unlawful pursuit, abduction and detention” is established by the Spanish Criminal Code (Articles 163-168). Responsibility is differentiated depending on the duration of detention (for example, three days of imprisonment, more than 15 days); the code also contains aggravating circumstances for these crimes: kidnapping with the requirement to fulfill certain conditions for the release of the kidnapped person; if the unlawful persecution or abduction was committed under the guise of officials or the victim was a minor, incompetent or official in the performance of their duties.

Liability for kidnapping is also provided in the CIS countries, for example, Art. 130 Criminal Code of Tajikistan, Art. 125 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan, Art. 123 of the Criminal Code of Kyrgyzstan. In terms of content, the norms set out in these articles are similar to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

1. The objective side of the crime is expressed in the actions of capturing (taking possession) and moving a person to another place for subsequent detention against his will. These actions can be carried out either secretly or openly, through the use of violence or other means, such as deception. Battering the victim is covered by the elements of kidnapping and does not require additional qualifications under Art. 116 of the Criminal Code.

2. The elements of kidnapping are formal; the crime should be considered completed from the moment of transfer, regardless of the time of detention. An attempt to capture a person, which did not lead to the movement of the victim to another place for his subsequent detention, constitutes an attempt and is subject to qualification under Part 3 of Art. 30 and Art. 126.

3. The movement of a person for the purpose of committing another crime, for example murder or rape, does not require independent qualification under Art. 126. Some other cases do not contain corpus delicti:

• 1) moving a person to another place with his consent, which no one knew about;
• 2) taking possession and moving one’s own child against the will of the other parent (adoptive parent) or other persons with whom he was in custody; legally, provided that the person acts in the interests of the child (Part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code).

4. Kidnapping has significant similarities to hostage-taking (Article 206 of the Criminal Code). In the first case, the person infringes on the personal (physical) freedom of a person, and in the second, on public safety; When a person is kidnapped, the crime is committed against an individually defined person; when captured, as a rule, the identity of the hostage is not of interest to the perpetrators. When taking a hostage, a mandatory feature is the goal - forcing the state, organization or citizen to commit any action or refrain from committing it; For kidnapping a person, such a goal is not necessary.

5. The subjective side of the crime is characterized by direct intent. The motives and purposes of a crime can be different: hatred, envy, revenge, etc. - with the exception of selfish motives; The legislator gives them the meaning of a qualifying attribute (clause “z”, part 2, article 126).

6. The subject of the crime is a sane person who has reached the age of 14 years.

7. When qualifying the kidnapping of a person under clause “a”, part 2 of Art. 126 it is necessary to take into account what is contained in Art. 35 of the Criminal Code defines the concept of a crime committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy. A preliminary conspiracy to kidnap presupposes an agreement expressed in any form between two or more persons that took place before the commencement of actions directly aimed at kidnapping. At the same time, along with co-perpetrators of the crime, other members of the criminal group can act as organizers, instigators or accomplices; their actions must be qualified under the relevant part of Art. 33 of the Criminal Code and clause “a”, part 2 of Art. 126.

8. The use of violence dangerous to life or health (clause “c” of Part 2 of Article 126) involves such violence that resulted in the infliction of grave and moderate harm to the health of the victim, as well as the infliction of minor harm to health, causing short-term health disorder or minor permanent loss of general ability to work. The threat of violence presupposes the externally expressed intention of a person to cause death or harm to health of any degree to the victim. The victim can be either the kidnapped person or third parties who prevent the commission of a crime. The time of use of physical or mental violence does not matter (it can be either the time of abduction or the time of detention).

9. The use of weapons or objects used as weapons (clause "g" of Part 2 of Article 126) means the use of any type of weapon classified as such in accordance with Federal Law of December 13, 1996 N 150-FZ " About weapons"<1>, as well as other items that can cause harm to human health.

The use of unloaded, faulty, unusable weapons (for example, training) or decorative, souvenir weapons, etc. does not provide grounds for qualifying the offense under paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Art. 126, if the perpetrator did not intend to use them to cause harm to the victim.

10. Minors are understood as persons under the age of 18 (clause “d”, part 2, article 126).

11. The abduction of a pregnant woman (clause “e” of Part 2 of Article 126) also presupposes knowledge of the perpetrator about this circumstance.

12. In accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 17 of the Criminal Code, kidnapping of two or more persons, committed simultaneously or in different time, does not form a set of crimes and is subject to qualification only under paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code.

13. According to paragraph "h" of Part 2 of Art. 126 qualifies as kidnapping committed for the purpose of obtaining material benefits for the perpetrator or other persons or getting rid of material costs. If the theft is associated with a demand for the transfer of money or other property, then the act should be qualified under the totality of Art. Art. 126 and 163 of the Criminal Code.

14. On an organized group (clause “a”, part 3, article 126), see commentary to art. 35 of the Criminal Code. When recognizing a kidnapping committed by an organized group, the actions of all participants, regardless of their role in the crime, should be qualified as co-perpetrators without reference to Art. 33 of the Criminal Code.

15. Other grave consequences (clause “c” of Part 3 of Article 126) include the suicide of the victim, his mental disorder, etc.

16. The conditions for exemption from criminal liability for the crime in question are:

• 1) voluntary release of the kidnapped person;
• 2) the absence of any other crime in the actions of the thief.

The duration of the forcible detention of the abducted person cannot serve as an obstacle to the application of the note to the commented article.

Verdict of the Timiryazevsky District Court on points “a, c, d, h” of Part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “kidnapping of a person by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, with the threat of violence dangerous to life and health, with the use of an object used as a weapon , for selfish reasons."

PRI G O V O R

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Timiryazevsky District Court of Moscow, composed of presiding judge A.M.V., with secretary M.Z.M., with the participation of the state prosecutor - assistant Timiryazevsky interdistrict prosecutor of Moscow S.K.A., defendant Z.A. A., defense counsel represented by lawyer L.V.V., who presented certificate “…” and warrant No. 88 dated June 28, 2017, victim “Full name”1, having examined in open court the materials of the criminal case in relation to:

Z.A.A., "...", not convicted,

accused of committing crimes under paragraphs. “a, c, d, h” part 2 art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph “b”, part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

U S T A N O V I L:

Z.A.A. committed a kidnapping of a person by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, with the threat of violence dangerous to life and health, with the use of an object used as a weapon, for mercenary reasons, namely: during the period from March 22, 2016 to September 3, 2016 , an identified person in respect of whom the criminal case was separated into separate proceedings (hereinafter referred to as person No. 1), from a source unidentified during the investigation, received information about a person living alone at the address: "...", "Full name"1, who abuses alcohol, who has due to the death of the mother on March 22, 2016 - “full name”2, the right to inheritance arose according to the law Money, located on the accounts of the latter in PJSC Sberbank of Russia, in the amount of more than 1,000,000 rubles, as well as the pre-emptive right to carry out social rental and subsequent privatization (obtaining ownership rights) of an apartment located at the address: “...”, about which person no. 1 at the same time and place informed him (Z.A.A.), inviting the latter to take possession of the above-mentioned property through extortion, having previously stolen “full name”1.

Thus, Z..A. and person No. 1, during the period from March 22, 2016 to September 3, 2016, being in an unspecified place and under unspecified circumstances on the territory of Moscow, acting jointly and in concert, guided by the motive of illegal personal gain, entered into a preliminary criminal conspiracy to seize the above-mentioned property, which, after performing the necessary legal actions, should have become the property of “Full Name”1 and in order to implement the intended criminal plan, deciding to steal “Full Name”1.

In addition, to participate in the commission of this crime, in the period from September 3, 2016 and no later than October 5, 2016, person No. 1 attracted an identified person in respect of whom the criminal case was separated into separate proceedings (hereinafter person No. 2), informing him about ultimate goal criminal intentions of the accomplices, to which person No. 2 agreed, entering into agreement with Z.A.A. and person No. 1 in a criminal conspiracy aimed at extorting the above property and stealing “full name”1.

To realize the above-described joint criminal goals by accomplices person No. 1 and Z.A.A., under the same circumstances, a step-by-step plan for committing a crime was developed with the distribution of criminal roles between the participants, according to which:

While driving, “Full Name”1 demanded to be released from the car, to which Zaitsev A.A., fulfilling his assigned role, limiting the freedom of movement of “Full Name”1 pointed at the latter an object that had not been identified during the investigation, which had been previously handed over to him by person No. 1, used as a weapon, visually reminiscent of a combat hand pistol of the Makarov system (PM), uttering a death threat to the latter, that is, a threat to use violence dangerous to life and health, in the event of “Full Name”1 resistance.

As a result of these joint and coordinated criminal actions of accomplices Z.A.A. and person No. 1, the will of “Full Name”1 to resist was completely suppressed, after which the latter was illegally moved to an area of ​​the area that was not identified during the investigation, located on the territory of Zelenograd, Moscow, where on September 3, 2016, in the period from 12 hours 00 minutes to 15 hours 00 minutes, acting jointly and in concert, demonstrating “full name”1 of the above-mentioned object not identified during the investigation, used as a weapon, visually resembling a combat hand pistol of the Makarov system (PM), threatening the last murder, that is, the use of violence dangerous to life and health, Zaitsev A.A. and person No. 1 alternately expressed demands to the victim “full name”1 for the transfer of the above property to him, having previously demanded that the latter perform legally significant actions on his behalf to acquire the right to this property (inheritance and privatization, respectively) for its subsequent alienation in the benefit of the accomplices.

Having thus received the consent of “Full Name”1 to fulfill the requirements of Z.A.A. and person No. 1, and having broken his will to resist by the above actions, the latter, in order to ensure the possibility of unhindered performance of legally significant actions with the participation of “Full Name”1 and veiled them as legal, moved the victim against his will and held him for a period of time from September 03, 2016 year until October 27, 2016 in a residential premises previously identified by person No. 1, located at the address: “...”, the investigation has not established a more precise address, and subsequently from October 27, 2016 to November 10, 2016 in an apartment at the address: “... ", locking the latter in the apartment, thus excluding the possibility of leaving this place on his own and reporting to law enforcement agencies.

In turn, person No. 2, acting jointly and in concert with Z.A.A. and person No. 1, realizing the general criminal intent, in accordance with the role assigned to him, during the period from September 03, 2016 to October 27, 2016, temporarily lived together with “Full Name”1 in the apartment at the address: “...”, more precisely the address was not established, and subsequently from October 27, 2016 to November 10, 2016 in the apartment at the address: “...”, to which “Full Name”1 was moved by person No. 1 and person No. 2, where, fulfilling the role assigned to him, he continued to control the latter’s movement, providing “full name”1 with food and alcohol, as well as informing Zaitsev A.A. and person No. 1 about the latter’s behavior, including through telephone communication, thus excluding the possibility of “Full Name”1 to seek help and independently leave the place of detention.

Subsequently, on September 10, 2016, during the period from 10 hours 00 minutes to 12 hours 00 minutes, person No. 1 and Zaitsev A.A. realizing the general criminal intent, for proper documentation the process of acquiring “Full Name”1 the right to the property of his deceased mother, having previously suppressed the will of “Full Name”1 to resist by uttering a death threat against him, they delivered the latter in a car that was not identified by the investigation to the building located at the address: “...”, while controlling the actions “Full Name”1 in order to prevent the latter’s possible request for help, where, taking advantage of the fact that the will to resist “Full Name”1 is suppressed and the latter is completely subordinate to them, they forced the latter to enter into a conclusion with “Full Name”3 and “Full Name”4, who were not aware of the criminal intentions of the accomplices, an agreement for the provision of legal services, namely for the conduct of an inheritance case for registration of inheritance rights to property. Then, on September 10, 2016, after 12:00, in a car that was not identified by the investigation, they proceeded to the premises of a notary office located at the address: Moscow, Zelenograd, Georgievsky Prospekt, building 4, building 1, where the acting notary of Moscow Markina M.V., not aware of the criminal intentions of person No. 1, Zaitseva A.A. and person No. 2, on behalf of “Full Name”1, two powers of attorney were issued, with which the latter authorized “Full Name”3 and “Full Name”4 to conduct an inheritance case to formalize inheritance rights to the property remaining after the death of “Full Name”2 and to carry out legally significant actions to register ownership of the apartment located at the address: “...”.

On November 2, 2016, during the period from 12 hours 00 minutes to 14 hours 00 minutes, person No. 1 and Z.A.A., having previously received a certificate of the right to inheritance according to the law in the name “Full Name”1, suppressing the will of the latter to resistance, uttering a death threat against him, they delivered the latter in an unidentified car, that is, against the will of “Full Name”1, to the branch of PJSC Sberbank of Russia No. 9038/01756 at the address: Moscow, Zelenograd, Savelkinsky proezd, where Having presented the specified documents, we received information about the presence of funds in bank accounts in the name of “full name”2 in the amount of at least 949,996 rubles 24 kopecks and 5,353 US dollars, which is according to the exchange rate of the Central Bank Russian Federation as of November 2, 2016 is 338,309 rubles 60 kopecks, after which, on the basis of the specified document, taking advantage of the fact that the victim will not be able to resist and seek help, they forced “Full Name”1 to cash out funds in the amount of 15,436 rubles 29 kopecks , which person No. 1 turned to his advantage for subsequent division in equal shares between the accomplices.

Further, taking into account the need to cash out the remaining funds in the amount of at least 934,559 rubles 95 kopecks and 5,353 US dollars, which, according to the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation as of November 2, 2016, is 338,309 rubles 60 kopecks, person No. 1, acting jointly and in agreement with Zaitsev A.A., on November 2, 2016, in the period from 14:00 to 18:00, in an unidentified car, he brought “Full Name”1 to the branch of PJSC Sberbank of Russia No. 9038/01295 at the address : Moscow, st. Dubninskaya, house 16, building 1, where, having presented the specified documents, we received information about the presence of funds in bank accounts in the name of “full name”2 in the amount of 934,559 rubles 95 kopecks and 5,353 US dollars, which is according to the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation on 02 November 2016 is 338,309 rubles 60 kopecks, after which, on the basis of the specified document, taking advantage of the fact that the victim’s will to resist was suppressed and “Full Name”1 would not be able to prevent their criminal actions and seek help, they forced “Full Name”1 to cash out funds in the amount of 934,559 rubles 95 kopecks and 5,353 US dollars, which, according to the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation as of November 2, 2016, amounts to 338,309 rubles 60 kopecks, which person No. 1 turned to his benefit for subsequent division in equal shares between the accomplices.

On November 3, 2016, at about 2:00 p.m., person No. 1, acting jointly and in concert with Z.A.A., in a car not identified by the investigation, brought “Full Name”1, whose will to resist was suppressed by the criminal actions described above, to the address: “... ”, where, realizing that “Full Name”1 has a pre-emptive right to formalize the right to privatize an apartment at the address: “...”, they again forced the victim to conclude, on an allegedly voluntary basis, an agreement dated November 3, 2016 with “Full Name”3, who was unaware of the criminal intentions of the accomplices, to provide comprehensive legal services related to the privatization of the specified property worth 6,123,000 rubles, thus taking actions directly aimed at removing this property from the property of “Full Name”1 for the purpose of selling it in the future to third parties on behalf “Full name”1 and circulation of the received funds in favor of accomplices for subsequent division in equal shares between members of the criminal group.

He also committed extortion, that is, a demand for the transfer of someone else’s property, under the threat of violence, by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, in order to obtain property on a particularly large scale, namely: during the period from March 22, 2016 to September 03, 2016, an identified person in respect of whom the criminal case was separated into separate proceedings (hereinafter referred to as person No. 1), from a source unidentified during the investigation, received information about a person living alone at the address: “...”, “Full name”1, who abuses alcohol, who in connection with with the death on March 22, 2016 of the mother - “full name”2, the right to inherit according to the law of funds located in the latter’s accounts in Sberbank of Russia PJSC, in the amount of more than 1,000,000 rubles, arose, as well as the preemptive right to carry out social hiring and subsequent privatization (obtaining ownership rights) of the apartment located at the address: “...”, about which person No. 1 at the same time and place informed him (Z.A.A.), inviting the latter to take possession of the above property through extortion, having previously stolen “ Full name"1.

Thus, Z.A.A. and person No. 1, during the period from March 22, 2016 to September 3, 2016, being in an unspecified place and under unspecified circumstances on the territory of Moscow, acting jointly and in concert, guided by the motive of illegal personal gain, entered into a preliminary criminal conspiracy to seize the above-mentioned property, which, after performing the necessary legal actions, should have become the property of “Full Name”1 and in order to implement the intended criminal plan, deciding to steal “Full Name”1.

In addition, to participate in the commission of this crime, during the period from September 3, 2016 and no later than October 5, 2016, person No. 1 attracted the person in respect of whom the criminal case was separated into separate proceedings (hereinafter person No. 2), informing him about the ultimate goal of the criminal intentions of the accomplices, to which person No. 2 agreed, entering into agreement with Z.A.A. and person No. 1 in a criminal conspiracy aimed at extorting the above property and stealing “full name”1.

To realize the above-described joint criminal goals by accomplices person No. 1 and Z.A.A., under the same circumstances, a step-by-step plan for committing a crime was developed with the distribution of criminal roles between the participants, according to which:

— accomplice person No. 1 was charged with: general organization committing a crime, developing a criminal plan, finding and involving accomplices in the crime and assigning criminal roles to the latter, finding Vehicle, searching for an object that was not identified during the investigation, used as a weapon and visually resembling a combat hand-held pistol of the Makarov system (PM), renting residential premises where “full name”1 will be kept, after the theft and until the accomplices receive funds, including from the sale of an apartment, as well as persons providing legal services who are not aware of the true intentions and goals of the accomplices’ activities, in order to properly formalize the rights to property “Full name”1 under the direct control of the accomplices, financing stages of criminal activity; direct abduction of “full name”1; suppressing his will to resist by uttering death threats, that is, threats to use violence dangerous to life and health, including the use of an object used as a weapon; expressing a demand for the actual transfer of property to accomplices; direct theft of property "Full Name"1, namely: receipt of funds withdrawn by "Full Name"1 in branches of PJSC "Sberbank of Russia" under the control of accomplices, sale of an apartment "Full Name"1 on behalf of the latter in order for the accomplices to obtain material benefits from the crime committed in special on a large scale, that is, in an amount over 1,000,000 rubles, as well as subsequent distribution among accomplices of the stolen property in pre-agreed shares.

- he (Z.A.A.) was entrusted with: acquaintance of the accomplices with “Full Name”1 under a fraudulent pretext; visual inspection apartments; clarification of the grounds for acquiring ownership of property, as well as establishing the amount of funds in the bank accounts of the victim’s mother and subject to inheritance; direct abduction of the victim “full name”1; suppressing his will to resist by uttering death threats, that is, threats to use violence dangerous to life and health, including the use of an object used as a weapon; expressing a demand for the actual transfer of property to accomplices; direct theft of property "Full Name"1, namely: receipt of funds withdrawn by "Full Name"1 in branches of PJSC "Sberbank of Russia" under the control of accomplices, sale of an apartment "Full Name"1 on behalf of the latter in order for the accomplices to obtain material benefits from the crime committed in special on a large scale, that is, in an amount exceeding 1,000,000 rubles.

- from the moment of being involved in committing criminal acts, person No. 2 was entrusted with: temporary residence together with “Full Name”1 in rented apartments during the period of criminal acts committed against the latter; control of the movements of “full name”1, provision of food and alcohol to the victim, as well as informing Z.A.A. and person No. 1 about the latter’s behavior, including through telephone communication, suppression of attempts to contact “Full Name”1 for help; direct theft of property "Full Name"1, namely: receipt of funds withdrawn by "Full Name"1 in branches of PJSC "Sberbank of Russia" under the control of accomplices, sale of an apartment "Full Name"1 on behalf of the latter in order for the accomplices to obtain material benefits from the crime committed in special on a large scale, that is, in an amount exceeding 1,000,000 rubles.

Acting according to the developed plan, in accordance with the assigned roles, on September 3, 2016, at about 12 hours 00 minutes, person No. 1 and Z.A.A. in an unidentified car, they arrived at the place of residence of “Full Name”1 at the address: “...”, after which, implementing a common criminal intent aimed at kidnapping a person for mercenary reasons, acting jointly and in concert, realizing that they would violate his rights to freedom and personal immunity, freedom of movement and choice of place of stay, under a fraudulent pretext, posing as “Full Name”1 as police officers, convinced him of the need to go to the police department, allegedly in connection with complaints received against “Full Name”1 from citizens, took him out of the apartment at the place of residence, placed in the above-mentioned unidentified car, after which they began to drive in the direction of Zelenograd, Moscow.

While driving, “Full Name”1 demanded to be let out of the car, to which Z.A.A., fulfilling his assigned role, limiting the freedom of movement of “Full Name”1, pointed at the latter an object that had not been identified during the investigation, previously given to him by person No. 1 , used as a weapon, visually reminiscent of a combat hand-held pistol of the Makarov system (PM), uttering a death threat to the latter, that is, a threat to use violence dangerous to life and health, in the event of “Full Name”1 resistance, thereby suppressing the will of the victim to resist, after which the latter was illegally moved to an area of ​​the area that was not identified during the investigation, located on the territory of Zelenograd, Moscow.

Being in the indicated place on September 03, 2016, during the period from 12:00 to 15:00, Z.A.A. and person No. 1, implementing a joint criminal intent aimed at stealing someone else’s property through extortion, acting jointly and in concert, demonstrating “full name”1 the above-mentioned item not identified during the investigation, used as a weapon, visually resembling a combat hand pistol of the Makarov system (PM) , threatening the latter with murder, that is, with the use of violence dangerous to life and health, they alternately expressed demands to the victim “full name”1 for the transfer of property to them, namely the funds stored in the accounts of the latter’s mother in PJSC Sberbank of Russia, on which at the time of September 03, 2016 had funds in the amount of more than 1,000,000 rubles, as well as an apartment located at the address: “...”, included at the time of September 03, 2016 in the housing stock of Moscow, market price which amounts to 6,123,000 rubles, having previously demanded that the latter perform legally significant actions on his own behalf to acquire the right to this property (inheritance and privatization, respectively) for its subsequent alienation in favor of the accomplices.

As a result of the joint criminal actions of Z.A.A. and person No. 1, “full name”1, whose will to resist was broken and who had no real opportunity to seek help from law enforcement agencies or third parties, submitted to their demands and agreed with the terms of alienation of property they proposed.

Having thus received the consent of “Full Name”1 to fulfill the requirements of Z.A.A. and person No. 1, and having broken his will to resist, the latter, in order to ensure the possibility of unimpeded performance of legally significant actions with the participation of “Full Name”1 and veiling them as legal, moved the victim against the will of the latter and held him for the period from September 3, 2016 to On October 27, 2016, in a residential premises previously identified by person No. 1, located at the address: “...”, a more precise address was not established by the investigation, and subsequently from October 27, 2016 to November 10, 2016 in an apartment at the address: “...”, locking the latter in the apartment, thus excluding the possibility of leaving this place on his own and reporting to law enforcement agencies.

In addition, while continuing to implement the joint criminal intent, during the period from September 3, 2016 to October 5, 2016, person No. 1, with the knowledge and consent of Z.A.A. in order to ensure control over the actions of the victim “full name”1, the use, if necessary, of physical violence and threats to use it in order to suppress the will of the victim to resist and achieve the criminal goals set by the accomplices, attracted person No. 2 to participate in the commission of joint criminal actions, assigning the latter the specified role and informing him about the ultimate goal of his criminal intentions, to which the latter agreed with his consent, joining with Z.A.A. and person No. 1 into a criminal conspiracy, confirming the intention to fulfill the criminal role assigned to him.

In turn, person No. 2, acting jointly and in concert with Z.A.A. and person No. 1, realizing the general criminal intent, in accordance with the role assigned to him, during the period from September 03, 2016 to October 27, 2016, temporarily lived together with “Full Name”1 in the apartment at the address: “...”, more precisely the address was not established, and subsequently from October 27, 2016 to November 10, 2016 in the apartment at the address: “...”, to which “Full Name”1 was moved by person No. 1 and person No. 2, where, fulfilling the role assigned to him, he continued to control the latter’s movement, providing “Full Name”1 with food and alcohol, as well as informing Z.A.A. and person No. 1 about the latter’s behavior, including through telephone communication, thus excluding the possibility of “Full Name”1 to seek help and independently leave the place of detention.

On September 10, 2016, during the period from 10 hours 00 minutes to 12 hours 00 minutes, person No. 1 and Z.A.A., implementing a common criminal intent aimed at stealing someone else’s property through extortion, for proper documentation of the acquisition process “full name "1 rights to the property of his deceased mother, having previously suppressed the will of "Full Name"1 to resist by uttering a death threat against him, they delivered the latter in a car not identified by the investigation to a building located at the address: "...", while controlling the actions of "Full Name"1 in order to prevent the latter’s possible request for help, where, taking advantage of the fact that the will to resist “Full Name”1 is suppressed and the latter is completely subordinate to them, they forced the latter to enter into an agreement with “Full Name”3 and “Full Name”4, who were not aware of the criminal intentions of the accomplices for the provision of legal services, namely for the conduct of inheritance cases for registration of inheritance rights to property.

After which, on September 10, 2016, after 12 hours 00 minutes, at a time not exactly established by the investigation, in a car not identified by the investigation, they proceeded to the premises of a notary office located at the address: Moscow, Zelenograd, Georgievsky Prospekt, building 4, building 1, where Acting notary of Moscow M.M.V., not aware of the criminal intentions of person No. 1, Z.A.A. and person No. 2, on behalf of “Full Name”1, two powers of attorney were issued, with which the latter authorized “Full Name”3 and “Full Name”4 to conduct an inheritance case to formalize inheritance rights to the property remaining after the death of “Full Name”2 and to carry out legally significant actions to register ownership of the apartment located at the address: “...”.

On November 2, 2016, during the period from 12 hours 00 minutes to 14 hours 00 minutes, person No. 1 and Z.A.A., having previously received a certificate of the right to inheritance under the law in the name “Full Name”1, suppressing the will of “Full Name” "1 to resistance, uttering a death threat against him, they delivered the latter in a car not identified by the investigation, that is, against the will of “Full Name”1, to the branch of PJSC Sberbank of Russia No. 9038/01756 at the address: Moscow, Zelenograd, Savelovsky passage, building 6, where, having presented the specified documents, we received information about the presence of funds in bank accounts in the name of “full name”2 in the amount of 949,996 rubles 24 kopecks and 5,353 US dollars, which is according to the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation as of November 2, 2016 is 338,309 rubles 60 kopecks, after which, on the basis of the specified document, taking advantage of the fact that the victim would not be able to resist them and seek help, they forced “Full Name”1 to cash out funds in the amount of 15,436 rubles 29 kopecks, which person no. 1 turned in his favor for subsequent division in equal shares between the accomplices.

Further, taking into account the need to cash out the remaining funds in the amount of 934,559 rubles 95 kopecks and 5353 US dollars, which, according to the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation as of November 2, 2016, is 338,309 rubles 60 kopecks, person No. 1, acting jointly and in coordination with Zaitsev A.A., on November 2, 2016, in the period from 14:00 to 18:00, in a car not identified by the investigation, they brought “Full Name”1 to the branch of PJSC Sberbank of Russia No. 9038/01295 at the address: Moscow , st. Dubninskaya, house 16, building 1, where, having presented the specified documents, we received information about the presence of funds in bank accounts in the name of “full name”2 in the amount of 934,559 rubles 95 kopecks and 5353 US dollars, which is according to the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation as of November 2 2016 is 338,309 rubles 60 kopecks, after which, on the basis of the specified document, taking advantage of the fact that the victim’s will to resist was suppressed and “Full Name”1 would not be able to prevent their criminal actions and seek help, they forced “Full Name”1 to cash out the money funds in the amount of 934,559 rubles 95 kopecks and 5,353 US dollars, which, according to the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation as of November 2, 2016, amounts to 338,309 rubles 60 kopecks, which person No. 1 turned into his property for subsequent division in equal shares between accomplices.

On November 3, 2016, at about 2:00 p.m., person No. 1, acting jointly and in concert with Z.A.A., in a car not identified by the investigation, brought “Full Name”1, whose will to resist was suppressed by the criminal actions described above, to the address: “... ”, where, realizing that “Full Name”1 has a pre-emptive right to formalize the right to privatize an apartment at the address: “...”, they again forced the victim to conclude, on an allegedly voluntary basis, an agreement dated November 3, 2016 with “Full Name”3, who was unaware of criminal intentions accomplices, for the comprehensive provision of legal services related to the privatization of the specified property worth 6,123,000 rubles, thus taking actions directly aimed at removing this property from the property of “Full Name”1 for the purpose of selling it in the future to third parties on behalf of “ Full name"1 and circulation of the received funds in favor of accomplices for subsequent division in equal shares between members of the criminal group.

Subsequently, on November 10, 2016, at about 20:00, person No. 1, acting jointly and in concert with Z.A.A., in a car not identified by the investigation, brought “full name”1, whose will to resist was suppressed by the above-described criminal actions, at the address: “...”, where the indicated persons were detained by police officers, and “Full Name”1 was released.

Defendant Z.A.A. declared voluntary and conscious consent to the charge brought against him of committing crimes classified as especially grave and, realizing the consequences of passing a sentence without a trial, in connection with the existence of a pre-trial agreement on cooperation, petitioned for it.

At the court hearing, defendant Z.A.A. agreed with the charges brought against him, admitted his guilt in full and petitioned for a sentence to be imposed without a trial, in connection with the conclusion of a pre-trial cooperation agreement.

Petition Z.A.A. declared voluntarily, consciously, after consultation with a criminal lawyer, who supported his client’s request for a special procedure for making a court decision, confirming the legality of the conclusion of a pre-trial cooperation agreement.

The victim “full name”1 and the representative of the victim of the Moscow City Property Department did not object to the consideration of the criminal case in a special manner.

In a submission sent to the court in accordance with Art. 317.5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Timiryazevsky Interdistrict Prosecutor of Moscow proposes to apply a special procedure for holding a court hearing and make a judgment against Z.A.A. in accordance with Art. 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and Chapter 40.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, since Z.A.A. the terms of the pre-trial cooperation agreement concluded with him were met and the obligations stipulated by the agreement were fulfilled.

State Prosecutor S.K.A. at the court hearing, he agreed with the special procedure for making a court decision, confirming the active assistance of Z.A.A. investigation in solving and investigating a crime, exposing and prosecuting identified persons, criminal cases in respect of which are separated into separate proceedings, compensated for the damage caused to the victim.

These circumstances are confirmed by the presented materials of the criminal case.

On March 2, 2017, Timiryazevsky Interdistrict Prosecutor of Moscow S.L.D. at the request of the accused Z.A.A. a pre-trial cooperation agreement was concluded with him, in accordance with the requirements of Articles 317.2, 317.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The obligations assumed by the accused Z.A.A. in accordance with the concluded agreement were fulfilled by him.

During the preliminary investigation Z.A.A. full and detailed testimony was given about the circumstances of the crimes he committed, provided for in paragraphs. “a, c, d, h” part 2 art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph “b”, part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

From the testimony of Z.A.A. The investigator received information about the participation of other persons in the commission of criminal acts, and also obtained evidence incriminating other accomplices.

During the investigation of the criminal case, information about threats to the personal safety of Z.A.A. and his close relatives associated with his cooperation with the investigation have not been received.

Having compared the factual circumstances established by the preliminary investigation authorities with the evidence presented in the case, the court considers that the accusation, which defendant Z.A.A. agreed with, is justified and confirmed by the evidence collected in the case, and therefore there are grounds for a guilty verdict without a trial.

The actions of the defendant Z.A.A. the court qualifies according to paragraphs. “a, c, d, h” part 2 art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as kidnapping by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, with the threat of violence dangerous to life and health, with the use of an object used as a weapon, for selfish reasons.

The actions of the defendant Z.A.A. the court qualifies under paragraph “b” of Part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as extortion, that is, a demand for the transfer of someone else’s property, under the threat of violence, by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, in order to obtain property on an especially large scale.

When appointing Z.A.A. punishment, the court takes into account the nature and degree of public danger crimes committed, the role of the defendant in the commission of crimes, as well as information about the identity of the perpetrator, who has not been convicted, “…”, actively contributed to the detection and investigation of crimes, the exposure and prosecution of accomplices, voluntarily compensated the victim for the damage caused, “…”, admitted his guilt and repented in the crime, apologized to the victim in court, and the court also takes into account the presence, according to the defendant, of threats against him and his relatives at the moment.

During the preliminary investigation against Z.A.A. An outpatient comprehensive forensic psychological and psychiatric examination was carried out, from the conclusions of which it follows that during the period of the incriminated act, Z.A.A. there were no signs of any temporary mental disorder or other painful mental state, so he could fully understand the actual nature and social danger of his actions and direct them. Currently, Z.A.A. there are no signs of any temporary mental disorder or other painful mental state, he can be aware of the actual nature of his actions and direct them, can participate in investigative actions and court proceedings, independently exercise his rights to defend himself in court, can correctly perceive the circumstances that have significance for the criminal case, and testify about them. There are no clinical signs of alcohol and drug dependence syndrome in him (volume 1, pp. 245-247).

The court recognizes the circumstances mitigating the defendant’s punishment in accordance with paragraphs. “and, to” part 1 art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, active assistance in solving and investigating crimes, exposing and prosecuting other accomplices in crimes, voluntary compensation to the victim for damage caused, in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, recognition of one’s guilt and repentance for one’s actions “...”.

Circumstances aggravating the defendant’s punishment, provided for in Art. 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, not established by the court.

At the request of the state prosecutor, at the court hearing the personal testimony of the witness “Full Name”5 was read out, from which it follows that since 2015 she lived in a civil marriage with Z.A.A., and her young children born in 2012 also lived with them and 2013, while she (“Full Name”5) was a housewife, and the main income in the family was provided by Z.A.A., including from this money the children were provided with everything they needed, Z.A.A. himself treated them as his children (vol. 1, pp. 213-215).

The court believes that in accordance with paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as a circumstance mitigating the punishment for the defendant, although not the biological father of young children, but responsible for their upbringing and maintenance, admit the presence of two young children born in 2012 and 2013.

Based on the factual circumstances of the case, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crimes committed, data on the identity of the perpetrator, taking into account the presence of mitigating circumstances and the absence of aggravating circumstances, the court considers that achieving the goals of punishment Z.A.A. – his correction, preventing him from committing new crimes, are possible only in the conditions of actually serving the sentence, without seeing any grounds for applying the provisions of Part 6 of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. When assigning the main type of punishment, the court finds it possible not to impose an additional punishment in the form of restriction of freedom, provided for by the sanction of Part 2 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as in the form of a fine and restriction of freedom provided for by the sanction of Part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

At the same time, taking into account the mitigating circumstances, data on the personality characteristics of the defendant, the court recognizes them as exceptional and in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the court is convinced of the existence of the grounds provided for in Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for imposing a more lenient punishment than provided for by the sanctions of Part 2 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

When determining the amount of punishment, the court is guided by the rules provided for in Part 2 of Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

When determining the type of correctional institution, the court is guided by the requirements of paragraph “c” of Part 1 of Art. 58 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and appoints Z.A.A. serving a sentence in a maximum security penal colony.

Store physical evidence in the case until the issue in the criminal case is resolved “...”.

Based on the above, guided by art. 317.7 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

PRI G O V O R I L:

Recognize Z.A.A. guilty of committing crimes provided for in paragraphs. “a, c, d, h” part 2 art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph “b”, part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and assign him punishment:

- according to paragraphs “a, c, d, h” part 2 art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, using Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the form of imprisonment for a period of 4 (four) years;

- according to paragraph “b” of Part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, using Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the form of imprisonment for a period of 4 (four) years 6 (six) months.

Based on Part 3 of Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the totality of crimes by partial addition of the imposed penalties, finally appoint Z.A.A. punishment in the form of imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years 6 (six) months, to be served in a high-security correctional colony.

Preventive measure Z.A.A. until the sentence enters into legal force, leave it unchanged - detention to ensure execution of the sentence.

Term of serving the sentence Z.A.A. calculated from September 26, 2017. The time spent by Z. A.A. will be counted toward the term of serving the sentence. in custody as a preventive measure, taking into account actual detention, from November 10, 2016 to September 26, 2017 inclusive.

Physical evidence in the case: 3 CDs containing details of telephone connections stored in the materials of the criminal case “...”, leave with the materials of the criminal case until a decision is made in this case; inheritance case “...”, documents received from witness “Full name”3, stored in the evidence storage room of the TMRSO of Moscow, must be stored until the issue in the criminal case “...” is resolved; mobile phone iPhone 5 brand, iPhone 6 brand mobile phone, Lenovo brand mobile phone, two bank cards, Apple Watch watch, a round-shaped rubber object (cartridge tip), two cartridges, a set of 5 keys, stored in the evidence storage room of the TMRSO in Moscow, to be stored until the issue in the criminal case is resolved “...”.

The verdict under Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Kidnapping) can be appealed on appeal to the Moscow City Court within 10 days from the date of its decision, and by the convicted person within the same period from the date of delivery of a copy of the verdict, in compliance with the requirements of Art. 317.7 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

ST 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

1. Kidnapping -
punished forced labor for a term of up to five years or imprisonment for that
same deadline.

2. The same act committed:
a) by a group of persons by prior conspiracy;
b) has become invalid;
c) with the use of violence dangerous to life or health, or with the threat of use
such violence;
d) using weapons or objects used as weapons;
e) in relation to a known minor;
f) in relation to a woman who is known to the perpetrator to be pregnant;
g) in relation to two or more persons;
h) for selfish reasons, -
punishable by imprisonment for a term of five to twelve years with restriction of freedom
for a period of up to two years or without it.

3. Acts provided for in parts one or two of this article, if they:
a) committed by an organized group;
b) has become invalid;
c) caused by negligence the death of the victim or other grave consequences, -
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of six to fifteen years with limitation
freedom for a term of up to two years or without it.

Note. A person who voluntarily frees a kidnapped person is exempt from criminal charges.
responsibility, unless his actions contain another crime.

Commentary to Art. 126 Criminal Code

The objective side of the crime is expressed in the actions of capturing (taking possession) and moving a person to another place for subsequent detention against his will. These actions can be carried out either secretly or openly, through the use of violence or other means, such as deception. Battering the victim is covered by the basic elements of kidnapping and does not require additional qualifications under Art. 116 of the Criminal Code.

2. The elements of kidnapping are formal; the crime should be considered completed from the moment of displacement, regardless of the time of detention.

3. The movement of a person for the purpose of committing another crime, for example murder or rape, does not require independent qualification under Art. 126 of the Criminal Code. Other cases of movement, for example, moving a person to another place with his consent, which no one knew about, also do not contain elements of a crime; taking possession and moving one’s own child against the will of the other parent (adoptive parent) or other persons with whom he was legally located, provided that the person acts in the interests of the child (Part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code).

4. A preliminary conspiracy to kidnap (clause “a” of Part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code) presupposes an agreement expressed in any form between two or more persons, which took place before the commencement of actions directly aimed at kidnapping.

5. The use of violence dangerous to life or health (clause “c” of Part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code) involves such violence that resulted in the infliction of grave, moderate or slight harm to the health of the victim. The threat of violence presupposes the externally expressed intention of a person to cause death or harm to health of any degree to the victim. The victim can be either the kidnapped person or third parties who prevent the commission of a crime. The timing of the use of physical or mental violence does not matter (it can be used both during the abduction and during the detention).

6. The use of weapons or objects used as weapons (clause “d”, part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code) means the use of any type of weapon classified as such in accordance with Federal Law of December 13, 1996 N 150-FZ “On weapons”, as well as other items with the help of which harm is caused or a threat is created to the victim.

7. Minors mean persons under the age of 18; this fact must be covered by the intent of the perpetrator (clause “d”, part 2 of article 126 of the Criminal Code).

8. The abduction of a pregnant woman (clause “e”, part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code) also presupposes knowledge of the perpetrator about this circumstance.

9. In accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 17 of the Criminal Code, the abduction of two or more persons, committed simultaneously or at different times, does not form a set of crimes and is subject to qualification only under paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code.

10. According to clause “z”, part 2, art. 126 of the Criminal Code qualifies as kidnapping committed for the purpose of obtaining material benefits for the perpetrator or other persons or getting rid of material costs. If the theft is associated with a demand for the transfer of money or other property, then the act should be qualified under the totality of Art. 126 and 163 of the Criminal Code.

11. If the kidnapping is recognized as committed by an organized group (clause “a” of Part 3 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code), the actions of all participants, regardless of their role in the crime, should be qualified as co-perpetrator without reference to Art. 33 of the Criminal Code.

12. Other serious consequences include, for example, the victim’s suicide, his mental disorder, etc. If in relation to death the form of guilt can only be careless, then to other grave consequences it can be both intentional and careless (clause “c” of Part 3 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code).

13. According to the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code, the conditions for releasing a guilty person from criminal liability are: a) voluntary release of the kidnapped person; b) the absence of other elements of a crime in the person’s actions.

Second commentary to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. The main direct object of the crime is social relations that ensure a person’s right to freedom of movement and choice of place of stay (residence). In qualified compositions, an additional object is social relations that ensure the inviolability of human life and health.

2. The act represents illegal actions consisting of depriving a person of freedom of movement and moving him in space. The sequence of these actions does not matter. The victim may first be moved in space, for example, under the influence of deception, and then deprived of freedom (resolution of the Presidium Supreme Court RF dated November 2, 2016 No. 124P16).

The crime is considered completed from the moment the victim is captured (imprisoned) and moved in space. The subsequent retention of the abducted person, as well as its duration, do not matter for qualification.

3. The subjective side is characterized by direct intent.

4. The subject of the crime is a person who has reached the age of 14 years.

5. Part 2 of the commented article provides qualifying characteristics.

Clause “a” qualifies as kidnapping committed by prior conspiracy of two or more persons, each of whom took direct part in depriving a person of freedom of movement and (or) in moving him in space.

Clause “c” qualifies the kidnapping of a person with the use of violence, which created a real danger to the life or health of the victim or resulted in the infliction of grave, moderate or minor harm to health, or with the threat of the use of such violence.

Clause “d” qualifies the kidnapping of a person using any type of weapon (firearms, cold steel, gas, throwing and pneumatic) or objects used as weapons (for example, a kitchen knife).

Clause “d” qualifies the kidnapping of a person by a person who reliably knew about the minor age of the victim.

Clause “e” qualifies the kidnapping of a person by a person who reliably knew about the state of the victim’s pregnancy.

Clause “g” qualifies the kidnapping of two or more persons, either simultaneously or at different times, provided that the perpetrator has not previously been convicted of any of these kidnappings.

Clause “h” qualifies as kidnapping committed for the purpose of obtaining material benefits or avoiding material costs.

6. Part 3 of the commented article provides for special qualifying characteristics.

Clause “a” qualifies a kidnapping committed by an organized group ().

Clause “c” qualifies the kidnapping of a person, which through negligence resulted in the death of the victim (for example, the kidnapped person is suffocating in the trunk of a car or due to a gag in the mouth) or other serious consequences (for example, the suicide of the kidnapped person).

7. The note to the commented article provides a special basis for exemption from criminal liability. A person who frees a kidnapped person when there is a real possibility of detaining him is subject to release from criminal liability, unless his actions contain another crime.