Anastusrikoksen kohteesta
Avainsanat:
rikosoikeus, anastus, irtain omaisuus, hallinta, huumausaineetAbstrakti
On the object of stealing offences
In the Finnish Criminal Code, stealing offences, such as theft and robbery, employ the concept of “property”. Since criminal law is considered in principle autonomous, the concept may have a somewhat different meaning in criminal provisions than in private law. The article examines first which entities qualify as objects of theft or robbery although they are hardly considered property in private law. Second, we discuss when an illegal removal of property (in the private law sense) constitutes a crime other than robbery or theft.
In response to the first question, the point of departure is that the private law concept of property can hardly encompass things that are illegal to possess, such as narcotic drugs. Still, the Finnish Supreme Court has recently held that narcotics qualify as objects of robbery. We analyse the judgment and conclude that the criminal law concept of property includes mere factual possession of a thing (irrespective of its legality). The same should apply to other things that are illegal to possess, such as protected wild animals. To be sure, private law is still needed in order to understand criminal law in many contexts.
In response to the second question, an important point is that theft and robbery concern only material (tangible) things. This qualification excludes significant categories of property, such as bank assets, other monetary claimrights, immaterial property, and trade secrets. Breaches of such property interests are criminalised through various provisions, such as means of payment fraud, embezzlement, and business espionage. Since the constituent elements of some provisions overlap, questions on the concurrence of offences emerge.
