Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 16.02.1982 112/82 AI generated

Court rejects appeal in joint robbery case where accomplice failed to take stolen goods before arrest.

Case Number Vaasan HO 16.02.1982 112/82
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against convictions for serious theft against three accomplices involved in a bank robbery. The defendants had completed their intent to steal by securing all loot in a bag before police arrived, even though they were unable to physically remove the items. The court upheld the convictions because the accomplice's role in guarding the scene did not negate the completed nature of the joint crime.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 10 of the Criminal Code; Section 10 of the Criminal Code: The court established that in a joint crime, the completion of the offense depends on the fulfillment of the intent by all participants, and the physical removal of stolen goods is not a necessary condition for the crime to be considered completed if the intent to steal was fully realized.

Keywords

AI generated
joint crime completion theft intent fulfillment accomplice liability stolen goods removal criminal code section 10

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 10 of the Criminal Code

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1974-II-58
KKO:1974-II-58, KKO:1975-II-70, KKO:1963-II-120
KKO:1975-II-70
KKO:1974-II-58, KKO:1975-II-70, KKO:1963-II-120
KKO:1963-II-120
KKO:1974-II-58, KKO:1975-II-70, KKO:1963-II-120
AI generated
appeal_1977_vaasa__440
Court reduces burglary theft to simple theft due to lack of significant damage or high value.
kko-precedent_2005_144
Supreme Court convicts tax evaders and accomplice for fraud and allows dismissal of official removal request.
appeal_1980_kouvola__773
Court dismisses theft charge when defendant withdrew savings from a bank account without a contract.
kko-precedent_2016_96
Supreme Court quashes murder conviction where suspect confessed without lawyer, violating self-incrimination protection.
kko-precedent_1988_21
Supreme Court of Finland dismisses attempt charge due to low probability of death at the time of arson.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A ja B olivat, C:n ollessa yhteisesti suunnitellun rikoksen työnjakoa koskeneen sopimuksen mukaisesti vartiossa, murtauduttuaan sisälle pankin liikehuoneistoon ja avattuaan polttoleikkaamalla pankkiholvin oven ja pankkiholvissa olleen kassakaapin, siirtäneet kassakaapissa olleet rahat 85.837,15 markkaa ja shekkivihkot mukanaan tuomaansa kassiin. Pian tämän jälkeen tultuaan poliisien yllättämiksi he olivat joutuneet poistumaan pankkiholvista ehtimättä ottaa sanottua omaisuutta mukaansa.

Koska A ja B olivat poliisien tullessa paikalle ehtineet poiskuljettamista varten kerätä kassiin kaiken anastettavaksi tarkoittamansa omaisuuden ja he olivat siten ehtineet ennen yllätetyksi tuloaan täyttää anastamisaikomuksensa ja kun C toimimalla vartiomiehenä oli tekijäkumppanina osallistunut sanottuun rikokseeen, hovioikeus tuomitsi A:n, B:n ja C:n kunkin törkeästä varkaudesta.

Ks. KKO:1974-II-58, KKO:1975-II-70, KKO:1963-II-120

Honkasalo: Erityinen osa I,2, 1964, s. 18

Salovaara: Rikoksen yrityksestä, 1948, s. 190

KKO:n ratkaisu:

Päätös 17.5.1982: ei valituslupaa