The reported cases are becoming more frequent bicycle thief…electricity. And if there is theft of these increasingly valuable and widespread vehicles, crime will occur receipt This can be confirmed if elements emerge that show the defendant’s awareness of the origin of the illicit goods. For example, ownership of certain items related to vehicles, such as spare key the battery taken by the person being robbed, can be a decisive element. Furthermore, the discovery of property directly owned by the defendant, without reasonable justification, strengthens the assertion of responsibility. An evaluation of these elements, deemed sufficient to warrant a conviction, is often accompanied by an analysis of the defendant’s circumstances and criminal record, which may influence the severity of the crime charged.
Uncertain confession decisions and theses
Article II of the Supreme Court of Cassation with decision 36038 of 2025 states that the cassation petition of the defendant who was found guilty by the High Court for receiving stolen goods cannot be accepted. electric bicycle. The defense appealed to the Court of Cassation, complaining of violations of law and weaknesses in reasoning, supporting the theory of the uncertainty of the claim to the bicycle and the lack of evidence regarding the defendant’s ownership of the bicycle. In addition, it is necessary to apply a mild hypothesis, namely receiving stolen goods. The court considered the possession of a spare key to be decisive drum by the theft victim, refuting the defense’s thesis that all the keys were the same. Furthermore, the Court considered that the connection between the discovery of the bicycle in the defendant’s room and his responsibility was reasonable and sufficient, because it was immediate and because there was no reasonable justification that could exclude such responsibility. Therefore, the appeal is considered general and baseless, simply reproducing the arguments already presented in the appeal without specific criticism of the sentence. Therefore, the Court affirmed the criminal responsibility of the defendant and considered the application for relief to be unenforceable due to the large number of applications criminal record from the defendant. And in the end the applicant was sentenced to pay court costs and based on article 616 of the Criminal Procedure Code, pay a fine, taking into account the profile of his mistake in determining the cause of the incident. inadmissibility of the appeal.
