Stealing a particularly bold is a relic of the penal code with 1967. During the period of application of the former penal code there was no definition of particularly impudent theft, therefore it was the judicial practice and doctrine that determined the marks of the indicated crime. Restoring this institution in a rather vague form can lead to abuse and unjust judgments.
Despite many rulings and positions of doctrine in this area over several decades, which were an attempt to define impudent theft, the provision itself was controversial, so it was decided to waive it in the bill of 6 June 1997 Penal Code. Now this institution is to return by amending the penal code.
In the Act of 13 June 2019 amending the law – Criminal Code and some other laws has been introduced a provision 115 section 9a, which describes a crime called a particularly audacious robbery, and Article 278 and a penal code that determines criminal liability for this crime.
A minor accident does not apply to impudent theft, which causes this crime to be treated worse than burglary, robbery, robbery or extortion.
Marks of impudent theft
The jurisprudence during the time of the theft provision developed the following characteristics: intensity of action, damage to clothing to commit theft, action calculated to intimidate and surprise the environment, use of physical force, risky entry through the roof and window and plundering the apartment in the presence of a sleeper victim, challenging and disrespectful attitude towards the environment, targeting the object or intimidation of the victim, transparency of action, deprivation of the victim's freedom of movement and preventing him from seeking the object, attitude of the perpetrator calculated to surprise or intimidate the victim, combined with the use of speed, skill and cunning, impertinence of conduct, failure of the perpetrator with the presence of the environment (video: Stanisław Łagodziński, Aggressiveness of action of the perpetrator as a constitutive agent with particular imperence with Article 208 k., Palestra 21/11(239), 29-39, 1977).
Stealing boldly in the assumptions of the amendment of the Criminal Code
In a legal act of 13 June 2019 The legislator defined the impudence theft which is (in accordance with the new law):
- „1) theft, the perpetrator of which is disrespectful or challenging to the holder of a thing or other person, or uses violence other than violence against a person in order to control property,
- 2) theft of movable property located directly on or in the clothing carried by the person or in the objects carried by that person."
At this point, it should be stressed that the characteristics of a particularly impudent theft crime are still vague, vague and give a very wide range of possibilities for its application.
The definition of a crime, which is ‘deceptive of the owner of a thing’, can be applied by a court in any case, since the person who commits the theft always shows a disparaging attitude towards the person robbed. Law enforcement authorities will always seek, in the course of proceedings, to demonstrate and conduct proceedings in such a way as to prove that there has been a theft of a brazen, higher-risked penalty than ordinary theft.
In addition, it is important that theft is a split crime, meaning that the theft of movable property does not exceed the value 500 PLN, is qualified as an offence, but above the indicated value it is already an offence. We don't have a border like this in the event of a particularly brazen robbery.
In addition, criminal liability for this crime is considerably higher than that for mere theft, as it would now be within the limits of 6 months to 8 years of imprisonment.
There may therefore be a lot of abuse, as the defendant will have no arguments to show that the theft by him was not particularly brazen. In addition, it should be pointed out that a minor accident does not apply to impudent theft, which makes it worse than burglary, robbery, robbery or extortion.
Therefore, it is incomprehensible to act as a legislator and to restore the institution of impudent theft.