Theft crime

Two people stole a mobile phone from a customer's bag in a clothing store in a shopping center . The theft was detected immediately. One of the individuals tried to hide the phone among clothes, but a guard was already watching her and the device was recovered immediately inside the establishment.

The discussion reached the Supreme Court (TS), had the theft been completed or was it still an attempt? Previous rulings had considered that the crime was completed . The convicted individuals, on the other hand, argued that they never had the mobile under their control sufficiently to consider the theft finished.

The difference may seem small, but for the theft to be considered completed it is not necessary for the person who takes the object to use it, sell it, or take it home. It is necessary that, even if only for a very short time, they have a real possibility of disposing from him. It is not enough to have grabbed or hidden it if another person is watching the situation and can recover it immediately.

In this case, the TS understood that the described facts did not allow for a clear assertion that there had been that moment of independent control over the phone. The concealment occurred when the watcher had already noticed what happened , and there was no evidence of an interval in which the authors could have access to the mobile without that close surveillance. That is why he classified the facts as attempted theft completed, they had carried out the action of taking the phone, but it had not been proven that the crime was consummated.

The change in classification also had a consequence for one of the accused, the decision to replace his prison sentence with expulsion was rendered ineffective. In summary, the case shows that, to distinguish between attempt and completed theft, what happened after taking the object matters, whether there was a real opportunity to control it or if it was recovered immediately.