Theft is a philistine concept that has nothing to do with the accepted legal terminology. Theft involves any theft of property. On the contrary, theft and robbery have a clear legal definition, are considered crimes, and are part of the Criminal Code. The definitions of these crimes already contain differences between them.
The types of theft are listed in the Criminal Code, in Articles 158 to 163. This is theft, fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement, robbery, robbery, extortion. All these types of theft are similar in some ways, and in some they have significant differences.
Theft and theft
Theft is a secret theft of property, that is, the person who committed the theft takes property from the owner free of charge, acting in secret from the latter. In the plans of the offender committing theft, in legal terms, his intent is not to be noticed, his goal is to steal property so that the victim does not know about it. An example of theft as secret theft is the theft from an apartment, committed at the time of the absence of the owners in it. Or pickpocketing committed on public transport in conditions not obvious to the victim. The various visible conditions under which this crime is committed are called qualifying signs. Thus, theft can be committed by a group of persons (that is, by more than one person) or by entering a dwelling, causing significant damage, and so on.
Theft is not a legal concept, there is no legal definition of it. This is a common name for any kind of theft, but it is most suitable for theft. Such an understanding is quite understandable, because a person committing a robbery is called a robber, and a robbery is called a robber. A thief is a person who commits theft.
Thus, the difference between theft and theft boils down to the fact that theft is a statutory definition, and theft is a popular definition, not accepted in the professional vocabulary of lawyers.
Robbery and its differences from theft
Robbery is an open theft of property, that is, a person committing a robbery steals openly, for example, pulls a bag out of his hands or rips jewelry off his neck. In this case, the perpetrator has intentions precisely for a daring, open theft, here it is directly implied that the perpetrator knows about the obviousness of his actions for the victim. Robbery can also be simple or skilled, that is, committed under additional conditions, such as, for example, the threat of violence.
Everything seems to be easy and simple, the differences are visible to the naked eye. However, these crimes often make investigators think about qualifications. For example, a thief entered the apartment, thinking that there was no one there, but the owner was in it and watched the actions of the villain furtively.
Or in a similar situation, two thieves entered the apartment in order to commit theft. One was operating in the first room, where he accomplished his plan without being noticed by the owners of the apartment, and the second intruder was noticed by the awakened owner and, so that he did not prevent the thief from fulfilling his plans, the latter hit him.
The question arises: what crime did the two criminals commit, because the first did not know that the second was discovered and used violence? In this case, the first committed theft, and the second robbery. Such a situation is called in the science of criminal law kurtosis of the performer, that is, to commit robbery was a personal decision of the criminal, not included in the plans of his accomplice.