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

For kidnapping, Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for sanctions and liability up to 15 years LS - imprisonment.

The article contains 3 parts, each of which provides for punishment in accordance with the social danger of the act committed.

Let’s look at each part of the article “piece by piece”.

Kidnapping under Part 1 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: general composition

Part one indicates that the kidnapping of a person may result in liability in the form of:

1. Forced labor for up to 5 years.
2. Imprisonment for up to 5 years.

Kidnapping under Part 2 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the qualifying elements of the crime

Part 2 of the article specifies punishment for socially dangerous acts that are committed:

Criminal liability for kidnapping under Part 2 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for: imprisonment (DP) for 5-12 years with restriction of freedom for up to 2 years or without restriction of freedom.

Particularly qualified personnel under Part 3 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

From this part of the criminal article you will learn the maximum amount given for kidnapping a person. In Part 3 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the legislator points to 2 qualifying criteria:

The punishment for such acts is severe: imprisonment for 6-15 years, with or without restriction of freedom for up to 2 years.

Now you know what the article is for kidnapping, what penalties are provided. Now all that remains is to sort out the elements of the crime.

Kidnapping: corpus delicti under Article 126

Subject of the crime under Article 126	Object of the crime under Article 126	The subjective side of the crime under Article 126	The objective side of the crime under Article 126
A person over the age of 14 (the general age of criminal responsibility has been reduced).	Social relations that ensure the physical freedom of a person. Additionally, the direct object is the life, honor, property, and dignity of the victim; as well as the normal activities of enterprises, public institutions and others.	Exclusively direct intent: the person is aware of the social danger of the act, foresees the occurrence of a public dangerous consequences as a result of an unlawful act + desires their occurrence.	Capture + movement (important in order to distinguish from an assassination attempt!) + retention.

Attempted kidnapping and attempted kidnapping under Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

How do we understand attempted crime? What will be the responsibility for committing such a socially dangerous illegal act?

The objective side of the crime provided for in Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, indicates the presence of 2 active actions:

1. Face capture. Unlawful establishment of power over a subject, often associated with restriction of his physical freedom. To capture, the criminal can use methods of violence (for example, tying hands and feet, pushing into a car, beating, blindfolding and blindfolding), methods of deception (phone call, arranging a meeting, and others). The seizure can be carried out either secretly or in the presence of other people, in front of their eyes.
2. Moving a face to another location. As soon as the criminal was able to move the victim from one place to another (for example, transportation to a dacha/barn/out of town/to a utility room) for further detention, the crime is considered completed.

If the criminal only captured the person, but could not transport him (was detained), then the crime is not over! We need to talk about attempted kidnapping or attempted kidnapping.

What is the punishment for attempted kidnapping?

In Art. 66 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains the specifics of sentencing for an unfinished crime:

1. The court must take into account all the circumstances due to which the criminal was unable to bring his plan to its logical conclusion.
2. Term/amount of punishment for attempted murder – no more than ¾ maximum term or the most severe type of punishment under the article provided for a completed crime.

For example, according to Part 3 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for punishment up to up to 15 years in prison. So, for an attempt to commit such a crime, the punishment imposed is no more than 11 years and 3 months.

Neither life imprisonment nor the death penalty are imposed for attempted murder.

How is kidnapping different from hostage taking?

Criterion for comparing elements of crime	Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (or “Kidnapping”)	Art. 206 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (or “Hostage-taking”)
An object	The criminal encroaches on public relations in the field of physical freedom of a person (an additional object may be	The criminal encroaches on public safety (therefore, the crime is a threat, is often accompanied by destabilization of the situation, and spreads panic and fear).
Subjective side	But the criminal does not have the goal of forcing others to comply with his demands through kidnapping.	The goal of criminals is to force authorities or relevant persons to fulfill certain requirements: provision of vehicles, transfer of money, conclusion of a transaction, refusal decision made and others.
Objective side	Capturing + moving + subsequent holding against the will of the victim	Grab or hold (no movement required).

What is the sentence for kidnapping if the criminal releases the kidnapped person?

In the note to Art. 126 specifies a special basis for exemption from criminal liability. If a person voluntarily releases a kidnapped person, then he will not be held liable under Art. 126.

In the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains exemption from criminal liability only for kidnapping!

For example, if property damage was caused during the crime, the criminal will have to compensate for it. If serious harm to health is caused, liability arises under the relevant article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

If during the abduction a vehicle was stolen, rape or other crimes were committed, then criminal liability will arise in accordance with the articles of the Criminal Code.

The motives for releasing a kidnapped person can be different: repentance, pity, calculation, fear of criminal liability and others (they do not matter for criminal law).

How to understand the voluntary release of a kidnapped person? Is it always possible to avoid criminal liability?

No not always. The law provided that cannot refer to the concept of “voluntary” situations in which:

1. The criminal realized that he would be captured; therefore releases the victim to avoid liability.
2. The criminal cannot physically hold the kidnapped person (for example, there is no room, no people, and so on).
3. The kidnapped person escaped from the criminal.
4. The criminal got what he wanted (for example, he ruined a deal, led to the bankruptcy of an enterprise, etc.), and there is no point in holding the victim anymore.

Release must be carried out in such conditions when the criminal has the opportunity to continue to hold the kidnapped person (the purpose of the criminal wrongful act has not been achieved).

What features do you need to know about the crime of kidnapping under Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation?

Punishment does not apply if the person consented to the “imaginary abduction.”

For example, there is a conspiracy between the “victim” and the “criminal,” and their act would make it possible to obtain a sum of material resources, simulate a kidnapping, and achieve other intended goals.

But liability may arise according to other standards(for example, for causing material damage, for theft of transport means, extortion and others).

Punishment according to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not occur if the abduction was committed for the purpose of murder (this socially dangerous act in this case is covered by the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for murder.

There is no punishment if a legal representative (for example, a parent) “kidnaps” a child from another. The only important thing is that such actions are carried out in favor and in the interests of the child (even if the interests were misunderstood).

Responsibility under Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for kidnapping in this case does not occur.

The motives for committing a crime (as well as the motives for refusing to do so) are outside the scope of the criminal legal field. But it can be hatred, revenge, envy and others.

If additional qualifications are stolen according to the requirements of Art. 127 of the Criminal Code for unlawful deprivation of liberty is not required.

The crime is considered completed from the moment the person is moved. But the actual ending is associated with the release of the kidnapped person and the detention of the criminal.

TOP 7 facts and summary of the material

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 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:

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 latter with murder, that is, use 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 informing 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, in order to properly document 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 not identified by the investigation to a building located at : “...”, 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 was suppressed and the latter was completely subordinate to them, they forced the latter to enter into a conclusion with “Full Name”3 and “Full name”4, 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 attracting accomplices to the crime and assigning criminal roles to the latter, finding vehicles, finding an object that was not identified during the investigation, used as a weapon and visually resembling a combat hand pistol of the Makarov system (PM), rental of residential premises , where the “full name”1 will be kept, after the theft and until the accomplices receive funds, including from the sale of the apartment, as well as persons providing legal services who are not aware of the true intentions and goals of the accomplices, in order to properly formalize the rights to property “full name”1 under the direct control of 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 of the apartment; 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 case of resistance by “Full Name”1, 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 reminiscent of a combat handgun 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, the market value of which is 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 turn to law enforcement agencies or third parties for help, obeyed 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 charge 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 of the 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 of what he had done, apologized to the victim at the court hearing, 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 manage them, can participate in investigative actions and trial, independently exercise his rights to defend himself in court, can correctly perceive the circumstances that are important for the criminal case, and testify about them. There are no clinical signs of alcohol and drug dependence syndrome in him (vol. 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 characteristics of the witness “Full Name”5 were 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. before the sentence enters legal force leave 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; iPhone 5 mobile phone, iPhone 6 mobile phone, Lenovo mobile phone, two bank cards, Apple Watch, round rubber object (cartridge tip), two cartridges, a set of 5 keys , stored in the evidence storage room of the TMRSO in Moscow, shall 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.

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 legally located, 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, 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.

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. Upon recognition of the kidnapping committed 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.

Kidnapping is considered a dangerous crime in Russian criminal law. You can be imprisoned for this for a period of five to fifteen years. The specific type and duration of punishment depends on which particular person was kidnapped and under what accompanying circumstances the villain committed it (alone or with accomplices).

Let us examine how the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation interprets this type of violation of individual rights. Let's study the forensic characteristics of kidnapping, the features of the offense and qualifying features.

Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: content and structure

The text of this article provides a definition of the criminal act called kidnapping. The legislator did not interpret the actions of the criminal, believing that the meaning follows from an unambiguous definition. Kidnapping means forcible deprivation of liberty followed by detention.

The object of the act is personal freedom. Kidnapping directly contradicts the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Article 27 of the latter describes the right of citizens to freedom of movement and choice of place of residence at their own discretion. And the kidnapper, by his actions, interferes with the implementation of a constitutional human right. An additional object (optional) is the health of the abducted person, which is at risk.

Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation includes three parts (clauses) characterizing the nuances of criminal acts. According to the tradition of the code, the first paragraph describes a “simple” crime. This is an act without aggravating (qualifying) factors. It consists of restricting the freedom of the victim.

The second paragraph describes a qualified misdemeanor. Its text lists special circumstances that increase the guilt of the criminal. Among them:

• by agreement;
• use of violence against the victim, including threats of violence;
• the presence of weapons or other objects (substances) that can fulfill his role;
• abduction of a pregnant woman, a child, or several people at the same time;
• selfish intent.

The third paragraph describes particularly qualified personnel. It represents circumstances that further increase the social danger of the offense. The legislator identified two of these:

• death of the victim due to negligence (if a person dies at the request of the kidnapper, then murder is qualified);
• committed by a gang (an organized criminal community that has jointly committed more than one criminal offense).

Hint: the legislator divided the groups into simple and organized. The former act together only when committing a crime under investigation, and the latter - on an ongoing basis.

Corpus delicti

The criminal legislation of the Russian Federation, like all democratic countries, is built on the principle of standardization of crimes. This involves highlighting the features of an act so that judges apply the same article for similar offenses. The technique involves identifying the following main characteristics:

• object (already described above);
• subject (who is punished for a crime);
• subjective factor (what is the motive of the villain);
• objective component (actions of the accused).

Hint: the main characteristics are multivariate. However, they have clear boundaries that make it possible to qualify a particular violation of the law.

Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation describes kidnapping, which can occur under various circumstances. When considering a case, the court highlights the following points:

1. Age of the suspect. Subject by this species acts is a person who has celebrated 14 years of age. The crime is classified as serious, therefore, the age threshold is lowered (the usual one is 16 years). In addition, a sane person is sent to trial. And in relation to minors, the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 20 of the Criminal Code are applied - the level of development not related to diagnosed illnesses is taken into account.
2. The kidnapper's motive. Intentional actions are considered criminal. This means understanding that while detaining a person the law is being violated, the suspect’s awareness of guilt. People are often kidnapped for ransom.
3. Objective characterization consists of clarifying the actions of the suspect during the kidnapping. The act is aimed at restricting the personal freedom of the victim and can be committed various methods. However, the basis is to remove the victim from family and friends, restoring interference with his movement at his own discretion.

For information: the offense is considered completed at the moment when the victim is taken from the location.

For example, divorced spouses cannot agree on a mode of communication with their common son. The mother does her best to prevent the father from meeting his young son. A desperate man takes his son from kindergarten without warning and takes him to his home without informing the mother of the boy’s whereabouts. The court may recognize such behavior as the abduction of a child under certain circumstances (the presence of a determination of the child’s place of residence with his mother, a ban on communication with a minor issued by a court, etc.).

Kidnapping methods vary. A crime can be committed openly or secretly. Attackers use deception trusting relationship, even family ties. Often, criminals take advantage of the victim’s infirm state (temporary or permanent). A person can be kidnapped during sleep (natural or caused by special means). There are cases when criminals use alcohol so that the victim cannot accurately understand what is happening. Other circumstances in which the victim is not aware of the nature of the evildoers' actions are as follows:

• mental illness;
• lack of knowledge of the language (a foreigner is in a foreign country);
• young age and others.

During the abduction, a person is moved (transported, moved, transferred) to another place. This can be secret or open to a certain circle of people. As a rule, the latter include close victims from whom ransom is demanded: money, services, transfer of ownership, etc.

The crime is classified as ongoing. Often the victim is held from several hours to days, months, years.

What punishment is provided by law?

Free legal consultation by phone

Dear readers! Our articles talk about typical ways to resolve legal issues, but each case is unique. If you want to find out how to solve your particular problem, please use the online consultant form on the right or call

Criminal liability for the act is described in Article 126 of the Criminal Code. It depends on the presence/absence of qualifying factors. Thus, for kidnapping (ordinary) there are two types of punishment. The villain may be sentenced to forced labor or imprisoned. The term of both sentences is up to five years.

A qualified criminal offense is punishable more seriously. These are acts that have the characteristics listed in the second and third paragraphs of the article. If weapons were used during the kidnapping, the punishment is provided exclusively in the form of imprisonment. The period for this is determined by the court after examining all the circumstances. The legislation makes it possible to determine the period of imprisonment from five to twelve years. A kidnapper who encroaches on the freedom of a child, several people or a pregnant woman, who uses or threatens violence, or who demands a ransom, is also punishable.

Article 126 provides for the most severe punishment for kidnapping committed by a gang (organized criminal community). The law allows the court to impose imprisonment on criminals for a period of six to fifteen years. At the same time, the role of each gang member in committing a criminal act is clarified.

It is also worth considering how much they give for kidnapping if. The law allows a criminal to be imprisoned for up to fifteen years. The inquest will determine the cause of death of the victim. The perpetrator will only be charged with kidnapping if he did not want the death of the kidnapped person, but if it happened due to negligence. For example, if the person being held suffered from a disease, he needed immediate help, which the kidnapper was unaware of. In a different situation, the villain is accused under two articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: kidnapping and murder.

In addition, the code allows the judge to apply an additional measure to the kidnapper. In the article, for a qualified crime, the main measure is to sentence the kidnapper to restriction of freedom for a period of up to two years. The convicted person serves this sentence after being released from prison. It is assigned due to the particular social danger of the offender. For example, a repeat offender - a person who has kidnapped a child for the second or third time.

Hint: the exact punishment the kidnapper will receive is decided by the court.

During the investigation, it becomes clear whether the suspects have committed other crimes. If such a circumstance occurred, then the punishment is assigned based on the totality of guilt. And if there are mitigating circumstances, the punishment is reduced.

Can a kidnapper escape punishment?

The legislator accompanied the text of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with a comment. It describes a situation in which there is no criminal liability for kidnapping. So, if the villain releases the victim voluntarily, then the law frees him from prosecution. The motive of the perpetrator is not considered. It could be pity or fear of punishment. However, the actions of the criminal offender must still be assessed by the court. Release from prosecution occurs if no other crime is found in the behavior of the accused.