Specific acts must be established to hold a person criminally liable for inducing a minor to commit a crime.
Operative Information Center-OMM reports that the Supreme Court’s Criminal Chamber issued a ruling clarifying judicial practice concerning the involvement of a minor in criminal activity.
According to the circumstances established in the criminal case, a minor invited the victim to a meeting under the pretext of returning a mobile phone he had previously taken. The minor provided information about the victim to an adult accompanying him and suggested taking money from the victim. The two individuals later acted in prior agreement, took the victim to an area near a cafe undergoing renovation, threatened the victim with a knife, used physical force and seized money and other property.
The lower courts found the adult guilty and convicted him of robbery as well as involving a minor in criminal activity. In his cassation appeal, the convicted person argued that he had not involved the minor in criminal activity and that, therefore, his actions did not contain the elements of the crime provided for under Article 170.3 of the Criminal Code.
The Supreme Court, which examined the case, noted that the fact that an adult committed a crime together with a minor does not, by itself, mean that the adult involved the minor in criminal activity. To establish liability for involving a minor in criminal activity, it must be determined that the adult committed specific acts aimed at inducing the minor to commit a crime.
Under the law, such influence may take the form of deception, promises, threats, the use of force or threats to use force. In other words, it must be proven that the adult exerted physical or psychological influence intended to create in the minor the intention and determination to commit a crime. If such influence is not proven, the fact that an adult and a minor committed a crime together is not sufficient to apply Article 170 of the Criminal Code.
After examining the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court determined that the adult had not induced his minor acquaintance to commit a crime. The case did not establish that he had deceived the minor, offered him financial gain or other promises, threatened him, used force against him or threatened to use force. On the contrary, the circumstances established in the case showed that it was the minor who proposed taking money from the victim, invited the victim to a meeting under the pretext of returning the mobile phone and initiated the commission of the robbery.
As it was not confirmed that the convicted person had involved the minor in criminal activity through any of the methods specified by law, the Supreme Court concluded that his actions did not contain the elements of the crime provided for under Article 170.3 of the Criminal Code.
