Best criminal law firm in Vietnam, Dragon Law Firm is willing to support Clients with best criminal lawyers. Kindly contact to Dragon Law Firm at criminal hotline 1900.599.979.

Plundering property is use force or threaten to use immediate force or commit other acts thus making resistance futile for persons being attacked in order to appropriate property.

A. BASIC SIGNS OF PROPERTY PLUNDER CRIME

1. Signs of Subject on Property Plunder Crime

A person who commits plunder must be a person who is 14 years of age or older and does not involve a mental illness or other disease that deprives him of the capacity to be aware or capable of controlling his or her conduct. Because plundering property in Article 133 of the Penal Code 1999 is a very serious crime and a particularly serious crime committed intentionally and in accordance with Article 12 of the Penal Code, those who is full 14 years old but under 16 years old must be responsible for serious crime due to intention or for particularly serious crimes.

2. Signs of Objects of Property Plunder Crime

For crime of property robbery, the objects of the crime include the relationship of property and personal relationship, or in other words, the crime of robbing property is at the same time infringing on two objects, but the first object is a personal relationship. Through the infringement of the personal identity, the offender violates the property relations (using force to appropriate property). If without infringing on the personal relationship, the offender can not infringe upon the property relationship.

This is also the basic characteristic of robbery, if only one of the two social relationships is not reflected fully the nature of plundering property, this is also a sign to distinguish the plundering property with the other offenses of possession and offenses where offenders commit acts by using force or threatening to use force immediately but not for the purpose of appropriating property.

Because the plundering property at the same time infringes on two objects, in the same case there may be one victim, many victims; victims who violated asset; victims harmed in their lives, health, dignity and honor; victims harmed all in property, life, health, dignity and honor.

3. Signs of Subjective Matter of Property Plunder Crime

a. Acts of force

The act of using force is the act (action) committed by the offender, affecting the victim's body such as: punching, kicking, strangling, tying, shooting, piercing, slashing ... or the act (action) of using material power to appropriate the property. Violent behavior can result in injury, loss of health or death, but also may just cause small injury (no injury).

In general, the offender uses force primarily on the person responsible for the property. However, it is also included that the offender uses force against any person who is believed by the offender that he or she will interfere with the commission of the crime of the offender. Persons responsible for property may be present at the place where the robbery occurred, but may not be present at the place where the robbery occurred, the offender is still subject to criminal liability for robbery.

For robberies involving many persons (complicity), it is not necessarily all participants must use force, but only one or some use force, while others may not use of force or only threat of force, but all participants are considered to be using force.

For example: T, H and D intend to block and rob motorcycle. When K was a motorbike taxi driver come over, H and D came to pretend to ask K, while T was carrying an iron bar fighting K on his head and the bandits rob the motorbike and fled. Although T alone acts by force, H's and D's behaviors are also considered acts of violence. Both T, H, and D are robbers of the same role as the executors. In theory and practice, in this case, many people think that only T is an executor and D, H are just helpers.

b. Act of threat to use force immediately

The immediate threat of force use is the act of using words or actions to threaten the victim if the property is not handed over, the force will be enforced immediately. For example: put the knife in the neck, put a gun in the belly to ask the victim to immediately hand over the property, if not will be pierced, shotted immediately.

The threat to use force is still not to use force, if the offender has both threatened and used force, although the use of force is not strong by force which the offender threatened the victim but is still considered as force use. For example: L meets H on an empty street, L intercepts H and give the knife to H in order to ask H to take off rings given to L. The behavior of L must be regarded as the act of using force rather than the act of threat to use force immediately.

Identifying threat of force use is not difficult as immediate threat of force use. This is a very important sign to distinguish plundering property with property extortion. If threatening to use force but not immediately it is a sign of property extortion. Immediate means immediate, do not hesitate, the probability of occurrence is inevitable if the victim does not hand over property to the offender. This ability does not depend on the words or actions of the offender that it implies in the offender's conduct. Threat of immediate use of force also means that if the victim does not hand over the property or not allow the offender to take the property, force will be made. However, because the force has not yet occurred, the assessment of the offender has made use of force or not in case the victim does not hand over the property is a complex issue.

Normally the offender will never admit to using force immediately if the victim does not hand over the property or not let the offender get the property. Therefore, in order to determine whether the offender threatens to use force immediately, except from the offender's declaration, the procedure-conducting bodies must also base themselves on other details of the case such as space, time, situation at the moment of the incident; tools and means to commit crime ...

c. Other acts make the attacker unable to resist

Other acts causing the victim to fall into an irresistible condition is not the act of using force, nor the threat of immediate use of force but causing the victim in a state of inability to resist. To determine this behavior, first of all, it must be from the victim that he or she is the victim of assault but not subject to attack by force or immediate threat of force. Thus, other behavior that lawmakers define in the composition of crime must first be the act of attacking the victim, the level of attack to the extent that the victim cannot resist.

Example: A pours sleeping pills in a glass of water for B to drink. After drinking water, B sleeps drunk unconsciously, so that A can only capture the property of B. it is necessary to identify the such act as an act that causes the victim to fall into an irresistible condition.

d. Consequences of crime

For plundering property, the consequences are not mandatory signs of crime constituency. The consequences of a crime are just signs of punishment frame or just facts to consider when deciding penalties.

Since the objects of plundering property is two social relationships (property relations and personal relationship), plundering property is called coercion and as a consequences can be a financial offense, however it can also be life, health, honor, dignity. For example: A uses a stab wounded to B in order to steal B's motorbike which leads the consequences for A affect to B are both property (motorbike) and health (B is injured).

If the consequences are loss of life, it is necessary to distinguish two cases: in cases where the offenders committed murder in order to appropriate property, the offenders shall be examined for penal liability for two crimes: murder and property. However, if the offender intends to rob the property but the victim is killed, the offender shall be examined for penal liability for robbery with deadly circumstance. However, if after the robbery the offender has been pursued and the offender committed murder in order to escape, the offender shall also be prosecuted for the crime of murder.

If the consequences are health damage, the offenders shall be examined for penal liability for the robbery of the property with circumstances causing injury or harm to the health of other persons if the victim injury rate is 11% or higher.

If the consequence is damage to honor dignity and the infringing act of the offender has nothing to do with the purpose of seizure, apart from robbery, the offender shall also be prosecuted for other crimes corresponding to acts of infringing on honor and dignity.

4. Signs of Objective Matter of Property Plunder Crime

The offender does not only intentionally commits the crime but also has the intention of appropriating the property is a plundering property. Thus, the sense of appropriation of the offender must be present before the act of using force, threatening to use force immediately or other acts to make the attacker fall into a state of no self-defense.

If an attacking action is committed but not for the purpose of misappropriating the property, but the attacked person flees and leaves the property, the offender takes the property. It is not the plundering property crime, in which depending on the specific case the offense action will be examined the equivalent penal liability, the particular act of misappropriation of the offender may be a criminal offense. Illegally appropriated or illegally seized on a case-by-case basis.

The trial practice shows that most cases when attacking the victim, offenders do not intend to appropriating property but for other purpose motives such as for revenge, but after having committed the offense, the victim attempts to flee to leave the property, the person who commits the offense for the property is subject to criminal prosecution for plundering property. The criminal prosecution of offenders of plunder property in this case is clearly inaccurate.

There are, however, many cases which firstly the offender does not intend to dispose of the property, but in the course of committing the offense, the offender has committed the intent of appropriating and continues to commit acts of using force or threatening to use force immediately to take possession of the property, the act of appropriating property is still considered plundering property. Criminal law is seen as a case of "transforming" crime from this crime to other crime.

Thus, the purpose of retaining the property after it has been appropriated by using force or threatening to use force immediately, or other acts causing the victim to fall into a state of inability to resist is also crime of plundering property. However, the practicality of trial, the distinction between what is the assault to escape with the assault to deliberately retain property in some cases is difficult, as it occurs in a continuous intertwining with each other. Especially in case the property is for lightweight and pocketable.

In cases the offender uses force or threatens to use force both for revenge purposes and for the purpose of appropriating property, they shall still be subject to criminal liability for plundering property. If acts of using force causes damage to the victim's life, the offender shall also be examined for penal liability for murder.

 Dragon Law_famous law firm in crime in vietnam

B. SPECIAL COMMISSION OF PROPERTY PLUNDER CRIME

1. Plundering Property without Punishment Frame Circumstances

Under the Clause 1, Article 133 of the Penal Code 1999, offender who robs property apart from provisions prescribed in Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of Article 133 may be subject to a fine of between three and 10 imprisonment years. Clause 1 of Article 133 constitutes the basis of plundering property, which is a very serious crime.

According to the Point d, Item 3 of the National Assembly's Resolution No. 32/1999/QH10 dated December 21, 1999, no criminal punishment shall be applied to minors aged between full 14 and under 16 for crimes of the maximum penalty frame to seven imprisonment years; if the case is being investigated, prosecuted or tried, it must be suspended; in cases the such persons have been sentenced and serving penalties or are suspended from execution, they shall be exempt from serving the remaining penalties; if the convicted person has not served the sentence or is being suspended from execution, he/she shall be exempt from serving the entire penalty.

At Point b, Item 3 of Resolution No.229/2000/NQ-UBTVQH10 dated January 28, 2000 of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly, stipulated: "Minors aged between full 14 and under 16 commits crime, and the Penal Code 1999 stipulated that the highest penalty for the above minors’ crime is 7 imprisonment years" is to be applied in the case of Point d of the above Resolution No.32/1999/QH10.

When deciding penalties on offenders for plundering property under Clause 1, Article 133 of the Penal Code, the Courts should base themselves on the provisions on penalty decisions in Chapter VII of the Penal Code (from Article 45 to Article 54). If the other circumstances are the same, the penalty for the offender depends on the following factors:

- Offenders using force must be fined more severely than who threatens to use force immediately;

- Offenders committing physical injury or harm to the victim's health with an infirmity rate of less than 11% shall be subject to a higher fine than the offenders who do not cause injury or harm to the victim's health;

- Persons with multiple aggravating factors must be fined more severely than offenders without aggravating circumstances;

- Persons who have no extenuating circumstances must be fined more severely than the offenders with extenuating circumstances;

- The offenders who appropriated the property must be fined more seriously than the offenders have not appropriated the property.

2. Plundering Property in Clause 2, Article 133 of Penal Code

a. Organized property plunder

Organized property plunder is a case, in which many people deliberately coexist, tie together, map out plans to carry out the plunder under the unified control of the leader.

Organized crime is a form of complicity involving close co-operation between the offenders who commit the same crime (Clause 3, Article 20 of the Penal Code). Organized crime is a case, in which many people deliberately co-conspire with each other and plan to commit a crime under the control of a leader.

In organized property plunder cases, as well as in other organized criminal cases, depending on the scale and nature, there may be people who hold different roles such as organizer, executor, instigator, helper.

The organizers are the mastermind, leader, commander of the crime. Organizer may have behaviors such as initiating a crime; planning the execution of the crime as well as the plan of concealing the crime; dragging others to commit crimes; assigning to other accomplices to unify the commission of the offense; control the actions of accomplices; urge, promote other accomplices to commit crimes ...

Executors are people who directly carry out the crime. Direct execution of crimes is directly related to the objective behavior of criminal constituencies such as directly seizing assets, direct bribes … Executors are the decisive factor in the conduct of criminals, as they are directly responsible for the crime. If there is no executors, the crime is limited to the preparation of the offense, the offense is not committed. Then, the material consequences of the crime have not occurred and criminal liability for other accomplices will be considered in accordance with Article 17 of the Penal Code. The criminal liability of other accomplices obviously depends on the behavior of the executors.

Judicial practice shows that executors are not always doing the right thing by other accomplices. In some cases, the executors voluntarily fails to commit the offense or voluntarily halts the crimes. However, in fact many cases the executors voluntarily performs acts beyond the requirements of other accomplices set out. Criminal law is called the second practice is the excessive execution in the complicity cases.

Excessive behavior by executors is the executor arbitrarily commit criminal acts that other accomplices do not desire.

As to the rationale as well as the actual practice of the trial, the excessive behavior of the executor in the case of complicity and the consequence of such excessive behavior causes only the executor to bear criminal responsibility and the other accomplice does not have to bear the "excesses". As such, when studying the status of criminal offenders of other accomplices for the excessive behavior of the executor, we can only consider the content of "excessive" that the executor did in order to determine the criminal liability of the executor of such excessive behavior that excludes criminal liability to other accomplices.

For organized crime cases, the determination of other accomplices to be responsible for the executors' excessive behavior is also complex. Because in the execution of the crime, the executor has a variety of behaviors aimed at achieving the purpose sought by other accomplices, including the actions known and agreed upon by the other accomplices. There are behaviors that are not anticipated by the other accomplices, unwanted consequences of those behaviors, but the attitude of abandonment, the way out. So how do the criminal liability issues for other accomplices determine when the executors have behaviors that cause unintended consequences?

For example, A, B, and C discuss only about coming to the owner to rob property. They carry daggers, ropes, rags and lemons for gagging. When arrival, A and B tied the owner, put lemon in the mouth of the owner, take the tie and give C to guard. Seeing the owner's gag slipped out, C is afraid of the owner called for help, so strangled and harm the owner to be asphyxiated. In this case, it is arguable that the act of C in strangling is excessive behavior, thus C commits murder and robbery and A and B are not responsible for behavior and consequent behavior. Exaggeration of C should refer to criminal property plundering. But the second opinion is that while A, B, and C do not talk to each other about murder, but A and B leave C to do unaware action which leads the consequences of C's behavior. As long as property plunder; C strangling the owner is also aimed at the accomplice of the property plunder that both A and B are desired. Therefore the death of the owner directly caused by C but must force both A and B the same criminal liability.

In our country of practice as well as in some countries admits that if accomplices allow the executor free to act in order to achieve the purpose of the crimes committed by other accomplices. At present, all behaviors of the executors are not considered excessive behavior and other accomplices are responsible for the criminal conduct of the practitioner.

However, when considering the behavior of the executor who is free to act for the purposes of other accomplices, one point must be paid attention that it must be a sign of criminal constituency. The crime was unanimously agreed by other accomplices. Then other new accomplices must bear criminal responsibility.

If the behavior is a sign of another constituent crime, the conduct is considered excessive and other accomplices are not liable for criminal liability. In the case of the example above, assuming C does not strangle the owner and only rape the owner, the act of rape by C is over behavior and A and B are not responsible for criminal charges of rape that C did.

If the other accomplices try to prevent or act positively to prevent the consequences of the excessive action from the executor, the executor still deliberately performs, then the behavior of the executor is a sign of criminal behavior. The other accomplices are also not responsible for criminal.

In summary, the issue of criminal responsibility for other accomplices (not the executor) in the complicity case is not only related to the behavior of the executor but also to the involved person. To many other regulations such as: arbitrarily halfway to stop the crime, the error, the conditions of accomplice and organized crime, etc., but excessive behavior of the executor is directly related To the exclusion of criminal liability to another accomplice, it is possible to say that the behavior of the executor is a condition that excludes criminal responsibility for other accomplices.

The instigator encourages, entices, motivates others to commit crimes. Attempting to incite, seducing, or inducing another person to commit a crime shall only be considered an accomplice in an organized case where the act of instigating is directly related to the entire criminal activity of persons. The other accomplice and the offender before being incited have no intent to commit crimes, since others have instigated and arise to intention of new crimes.

If the instigator is not directly related to the criminal activity of other accomplices and the offender has already committed the offense, then he or she is not the instigator in the accomplice cases (organized crime).

The instigator is an offender hided face. However, if instigating children under the age of 14 who do not have the capacity for criminal responsibility to commit crimes, the act of instigation is regarded as a practical act through the conduct of persons who are not liable for criminal responsibility. In this case, the person who is not liable for criminal liability becomes the means and tools for the instigator to commit the offense. If instigating children from 14 to under 18 years old, the offender must also bear the aggravating element of criminal liability "instigating the juvenile to commit crime" (Point n, Clause 1, Article 48 of the Penal Code).

In cases where the instigator is a person who organizes and commits the offense together, he or she shall become an organizer and, if juvenile offender is incited, he/she shall be subjected to aggravating circumstances "instigating the juvenile to commit crime"

The act of instigating must be specific, that is, the instigator must target specific criminals and offender. If only words that are informative or suggestive in general are not instigators to bear criminal liability for criminal acts.

Example: T was drinking water with some young people. While drinking, T said: "I just went through the bank and found many people come here to save money, who boldly come there they can earn something." Among the young people sitting drinking water are P and V are those who have a lot of criminal records. When heard T said so, they together come to the bank and using a knife to control a woman to appropriate more than 10 million dong. When arrested, P and V declared that because of T’ words. It is true that in this case, T has said some sentences as it seems to induce, but T's statement is not the direct cause of P and V’s plunder. On the other hand, T is not the instigator of P and V’s plunder, nor is P and V promised to divide the money or property if robbed.

Helpers are the ones who create the mental or physical conditions for the execution of the crime. In a complicity case, the role of the helper is very important. If there is no helper, the offender will have difficulty. Helpers can help with advice, instructions; provide means of offense or overcome obstacles to the conduct of the offense; promise to conceal the offender, the means, remove the traces, promise to consume the property that I have ...

Behavior that creates mental conditions is often expressed as promises to hide or promise to give the offender some mental benefits such as promised to be married with their children, promised promotion, increased pay for the offender, the offender will show the offender how to commit the offense such as telling the offender of the victim or going to the offender to rob the victim ...

The act of creating material conditions for the commission of offenses is the act of providing means of offense such as providing knives, guns, wooden cones, motorcycles, cars ... so that the offenders can commit crimes. Whether facilitating the spirit or material for the commission of the offense, such conduct only facilitates the conduct of the offense, but the facilitator does not directly commit the offense.

It should be noted that, once the case has been determined to be conducted in an organized manner, all persons in the case are subject to "organized crime". However, the criminal responsibility for each person depends on their role in the case as analyzed above.

b. Property robbery is professional

Professional crime is offenders who commit crimes as their main source of earnings.

Professional property plunder crime is offenders who plunder the property is their main source of earnings.

The  Penal Code 1999 considers a professional offense to be a circumstance of an aggravating criminal liability, and in some criminals a lawmaker rules a circumstance for punishment frame.

When applying this fact, it should be noted that the concept of profession understood here is not synonymous with the concept of occupation of a person, since it cannot be regarded as a living profession, professional nature of behavior. Offense refers above is that the offense is repeated many times while the offender considers the offense to be a means of making a living. For example: N is a wandering person without occupation, often gathers some people in the same plight to plunder to live.

However, no every repeated offense is considered to be professional, but only acts considered by the offender to be a means of earning a living are professional. For example: D is a 12th grade student, disciplined for expulsion, D has urged C with a sharp knife causing two bike robbery cases in front of the park gate. The behavior of D and C is only considered multiple offenses, not professional offenses.

Committing a crime in professional nature and committing a crime in many times are the same in the point is that the offender commits the offense repeatedly (twice or more), but different in that committing the crime in many times means offenders are not committing offenses as a means of earnings and they commit a crime, but the offense is committed many times. Offenders in professional nature is that the offenders may commit one offense, but may commit multiple offenses at different times and committing offenses is their means of regular living.

c. Dangerous recidivism

Dangerous recidivism is a case where a person has been convicted of a very serious offense, a particularly serious offense which committed intentionally, did not remit the criminal records but still has committed a very serious offense, intentionally serious offense, or relapse, relapse without criminal record remission but intentionally committed (Point a and b, Clause 2, Article 49 of the Penal Code).

Dangerous recidivism under the Penal Code 1999 has the following characteristics:

- Having committed two crimes which is a very serious crime or particularly serious crime, or one of which is a very serious crime or a particularly serious crime due to intention, including one of which has been convicted. Example: sentenced for murder under Clause 2, Article 93, without criminal record remission but again commits robbery crime.

- Relapsed, without criminal record remission but deliberately committed offenses, regardless of whether such offenses are less serious offenses, serious offenses, very serious offenses or particularly serious offenses.

Dangerous recidivism is the circumstance of determining the penalty frame for property plunder or any other offense identical to the dangerous recidivism is the aggravating circumstance specified at Point g, Clause 1, Article 48 of the Penal Code. It is only necessary to determine that such robbery is a dangerous recidivism under the provisions on dangerous recidivism specified at Points a and b, Clause 2, Article 49 of the Penal Code and does need to determine whether the previous offense was a property plunder or not.

d. Use other dangerous weapons, devices or tricks

In property plunder cases, there are cases in which the offender uses force only, threatens to use force immediately or acts otherwise causing the victim to fall into a state of inability to resist to take property without the use of other weapons, means or other dangerous tricks on the victim.

However, trial practice has shown that there are many cases where offenders rob property using weapons, using dangerous means or tricks against the victim in order to appropriate property. The offender's use of weapons, using other means or other dangerous tricks on the victim is regarded as a crime of property plunder with a more serious nature and level than the offender does not use weapons, other means or dangerous tricks against the victims.

Weapons under the Regulation on Management of Weapons, Explosives and Supporting Tools (issued together with Decree No.47/CP dated August 12, 1996 of the Government), including military weapons, sport weapons, hunting guns and rudimentary weapons.

When applying the circumstance of weapons use to property plunder crime should pay attention to:

- If the offender carries a weapon but does not use the weapon while committing acts of violence or threatening to use force immediately, it is not considered to be a weapon of plunder.

- If the offender uses the weapon which has lost features such as gun damage, grenades have removed from detonator ... but the victim did not know the offender is still considered a crime of using weapons. This includes the case where the offender knows that the weapon has lost its effect but still uses it to threaten the victim.

- If the offender uses a fake weapons such as a plastic gun or a wooden gun to threaten the victim in order to appropriate his/her property and the victim believes that a real weapon, then is too scary to hand over the property to the offender. In the case, it is not the property plunder using a weapon, because a fake gun is not considered a weapon. However, the offenders shall still be prosecuted for criminal liability under Point d, Clause 2, Article 133 but in the case of "using other dangerous tricks."

- Offenders use weapons to rob property, apart from being subject to Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code, if such weapons are military weapons, they shall also be subject to criminal responsibility for unauthorized use of the military weapons under Article 232 of the Penal Code.

Dangerous means are things that the offender uses when robbing a property that is likely to cause harm to the victim's life and health such as knives; toxins, inflammables (ether, anesthetics, sleeping pills, acids, radioactive substances ...).

Use of dangerous means is the offender's behavior through objects containing life-threatening health. The assessment of objects likely to endanger human life and health does not depend on how the objects are used, but only by determining the features and effects of the offending objects that the person who commits a crime of property plunder has been examined for penal liability according to Point d, Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code.

The dangerous trick is the offender's use of methods that endanger the life and health of the victim and others such as putting poison into the drinking water tank; using trip to strangle the victim's neck; drowning the victim; use the rope through the road when the victim riding a motorbike entangled in a falling rope to rob a motorcycle; use the key chain, the iron chain to take victims to rob property, etc. The danger of the tricks used by the offender does not depend on the means but depends on the method used, maybe the means does not contain. It cannot cause harm to human life and health but the offender knows how to use such means, thus creating the possibility of harming the life and health of the victim or another person.

dd. Causing injury or harm to health of others with infirmity rate from 11% to 30%

If the offenders commit acts of using force or commit other acts of infringement upon victims with an infirmity rate of between 11% and 30%, they shall be examined for penal liability according to Point d, Clause 2 of Article 133 of the Penal Code.

Injury of the victim or another person including injury due to acts of violence or other acts to appropriate property and injuries caused by assault to escape.

If the offender makes injury on more than one person and the infirmity rate of each person is less than 11%, the total infirmity rate of many will increase from 11% to 30%, the offender also is examined the criminal liability under Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code.

The infirmity rate of the victim or another person must be determined by the Forensic Examination Council. Therefore, the body conducting legal proceedings should request forensic assessment if the victim and other persons are injured or injured in their health as a basis for identifying the offender is on what type of Clause in Article 133 of the Penal Code.

e. Appropriating property valued between fifty million dong to under two hundred million dong

In many cases, the offender commits a violent act, threatens to use force immediately or engages in any other act that causes the victim to fall into a state of inability to resist but still not appropriated the property. However, many cases of robbery, offender have obtained. But whether the offender has obtained the property or not, the property (the property that the offender intended to seize) is valued at between fifty million dong to under two hundred million dong, the offender shall still be prosecuted the criminal liability according to Point f, Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code.

For cases where offenders acquire property, based on the selling prices of such property at localities where crime is committed to determine the value of appropriated property and not on the price of the victims to buy or price that the offenders sell to others. In case of necessity, the procedure-conducting agencies shall have to evaluate to determine the value of the appropriated property, especially the property valued at approximately VND 50,000,000 or 200,000,000 or the property which is not circulated in the market.

For cases where the offenders have not yet obtained the property, the valuation of assets must be distinguished:

- If there are grounds to identify the offender has intended to appropriate a certain property such as robbery of other person’s motorbike, know the victim just took 100 million dong at the bank, then should block the road to rob ... Based on the price of the property which intended to plunder in order to determine the value of the plundering property;

- If there are grounds to determine that the offender does not know how much the property intended to rob, what kind of property intended to rob … should also base on the real value of the property that the offender intended to appropriate in order to determine the price of plundering property.

g. Causing serious consequences

Committing the crime of causing serious consequences in general and committing the crime of property plunder causing serious consequences in particular is the case due to the offense causing serious damage to life, health, dignity and honor of human; serious property damage to agencies, organizations and other non-material serious damage. Of course, these consequences are not the circumstances defining the penalties specified in Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code. But it must also be equivalent to the framing circumstances provided for in Clause 2 of Article 133 of the Penal Code as it is also a circumstance specified in the same penalty frame.

Pursuant to the Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code and through trial reality, the following cases may be regarded as cases of property plunder causing serious consequences:

- Inflicting injury or harm to the health of a person with an infirmity rate of between 11% and 30% is not due to the act of using force, threatening to use immediate force or other act to make the attacker inability to resist (not a consequence of the objective behavior of the offense constitution of property plunder);

- Inflicting injury or harm to the health of many people with an infirmity rate of less than 11%, but the total injury rate of all injured persons is between 11% and 30%;

- Inflicting injury on or causing harm to a person's health with an infirmity rate of under 11% and causing damage to property valued at under VND 50,000,000;

- Causing property damage valued at between VND 50,000,000 and under VND 200,000,000, apart from appropriated property

- In addition to the loss of life, health or property that can be identified as described above, non-material damage also needs to be determined to assess the consequences of property plunder such as adversely affecting the implementation of Party and State policies; adversely affecting the security, social order and safety; causing confusion for many people in a certain area, causing many people to be too scared to drop out of school, leave their jobs, take care of their production, do not go shopping ... etc. Non-material damage is being required by the procedure-conducting agency, the procedure-conducting person to base himself on each specific property plunder, in a particular circumstance, to occur in a particular area, to determine the main verified.

Committing offenses in one of the cases specified at Point a through Point g, Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code, the offenders may be sentenced to between seven and fifteen years of imprisonment. When applying the penalty under Clause 2, Article 133 of the Criminal Code, for offenders the attention should be paid to:

If the other facts of the case are the same:

- If the offender has more than one of the circumstances specified in Clause 2 of Article 133, the penalty shall be higher than the offender having less the circumstances with the penalty frame;

- If the offender has many extenuating circumstances as provided for in Article 46 of the Penal Code, the penalty must be less serious than the offender has no or few extenuating circumstances.

- If the offender has many aggravating circumstances prescribed in Article 48 of the Penal Code, the penalty must be heavier than the person with no or few aggravating circumstances;

- The bigger the damage, the heavier the penalty and vice versa.

In cases where the offender has many extenuating circumstances as provided for in Clause 1, Article 46 of the Penal Code, the Court may impose fines below the lowest level of the penalty frame prescribed in Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code. But It is not under three years imprisonment, because under the Article 47 of the Penal Code, "the Court may decide on a penalty below the lowest level of the penalty frame prescribed by law but within the penalty frame close to lighter penalty"

3. Property Plunder under in Clause 3, Article 133 of Penal Code

a. Causing injury or harm to health of other persons with infirmity rate between 31% and 60%

This crime is similar to the criminal offense defined at Point dd, Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code, except that the infirmity rate of the victim or other persons is between 31% and 60%. This is a very serious injury, so the offender must be examined for penal liability under Clause 3, Article 133 of the Penal Code with a penalty frame higher than Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code.

Similar to the case stipulated in Point dd, Clause 2 of Article 133 of the Penal Code, if the offender causes multiple injuries and the infirmity rate of each person is less than 31%, the total injury rate of many persons who add up from 31% to 60% shall also be prosecuted under Clause 3, Article 133 of the Penal Code.

b. Appropriating property valued between two hundred million and under five hundred million

This case of crime is similar to the case of criminal offense prescribed at Point e, Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code, except that the value of appropriated property is between two hundred million dong and under five hundred million dong. This is a very valuable asset so the offender must be examined for penal liability under Clause 3, Article 133 of the Penal Code with a penalty frame higher than Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code.

c. Causing very serious consequences

The very serious consequences of property plunder are also equivalent to those laid down in Clause 3 of Article 133 of the Penal Code since it is also an circumstance that is defined in the same penalty frame. Pursuant to the Clause 3, Article 133 of the Penal Code, through practical trial, the following cases may be regarded as cases of property plunder causing very serious consequences:

- Inflicting injury or harm to the health of a person with an infirmity rate of between 31% and 60% is not due to the act of using force, threatening to use force immediately or other acts make the attacker inability to resist (not the consequence of the objective behavior of the offense constitution of property plunder);

- Inflicting injury or harm to the health of many people with an infirmity rate of less than 31%, but the total injury rate of all injured persons is between 31% and 60%;

- Inflicting injury on or causing harm to a person's health with an infirmity rate of under 31% and causing damage to property valued at under VND 500,000,000;

- Causing property damage valued at between VND 200,000,000 and under VND 500,000,000, apart from appropriated property;

- In addition to the loss of life, health or property that can be identified as described above, non-material damage also needs to be determined to assess the consequences of property plunder such as badly affecting the implementation of Party and State policies; adversely affecting the security, social order and safety; causing panic for many people in a certain area, causing a lot of people because they are so scared that they have to drop out of school, leave their jobs, do not supervise production, do not operate the business … The non-material damage is being required by the body conducting the proceedings, the person conducting the proceedings who must base on the specific robbery of a particular property, in a particular circumstance, occurring in a particular area, can be determined exactly. The extent of damage in this case must be determined to be very serious, the new offender shall be examined for penal liability under Clause 3, Article 133 of the Penal Code.

Committing offenses in one of the cases specified at Point a through Point c, Clause 3, Article 133 of the Penal Code, the offenders may be sentenced to between twelve and twenty years of imprisonment. When applying the penalty under Clause 2, Article 133 of the Criminal Code, for offenders the attention should be paid to:

If the other facts of the case are the same:

- If the offender has more than one of the circumstances specified in Clause 3 of Article 133, the penalty shall be higher than the offender having less the circumstances with the penalty frame;

- If the offender has many extenuating circumstances as provided for in Article 46 of the Penal Code, the penalty must be less serious than the offender has no or few extenuating circumstances.

- If the offender has many aggravating circumstances prescribed in Article 48 of the Penal Code, the penalty must be heavier than the person with no or few aggravating circumstances;

- The bigger the damage, the heavier the penalty and vice versa.

Similar to the case specified in Clause 2, Article 133 of the Penal Code, where the offender has many extenuating circumstances as provided for in Clause 1, Article 46 of the Penal Code, the Court may impose penalties below the lowest level of the penalty frame specified in Clause 3, Article 133 of the Penal Code, but must not be less than seven imprisonment years.

4. Property Plunder in Clause 4, Article 133 of Penal Code

a. Causing injury or harm to health of other persons with infirmity rate of 61% or higher or causing death

This case of crime is similar to the case of crimes defined at Point dd, Clause 2, and Point a, Clause 3 of Article 133 of the Penal Code, except that the infirmity rate of the victim or other persons is 61 % or more or fatal. This is a particularly serious offense, so the offender must be prosecuted for criminal liability under Clause 4, Article 133 of the Penal Code with imprisonment terms of between eighteen and twenty years, life imprisonment or capital punishment.

Particularly for death cases, it is necessary to distinguish the case of murder for plunder. Murder here is that before committing the act of plunder, the offender has no sense of murder, the offender's offense has not caused death to the victim but during the execution of plundering property or after having plundered property, the offender left the consequences so the victim was death. For example, A, B, and C bound the warehouse guard to rob the property but after they left, because the warehouse was in a remote area, the guard was not opened, so he died of hunger and thirst.

Similar to the cases prescribed at Point dd, Clause 2, and Point a, Clause 3 of Article 133 of the Penal Code, if the offenders inflict injuries on many persons and the infirmity rate of each person is less than 61% but total of infirmity rate is from 61%, the offender is also subject to prosecution under Point a, Clause 4, Article 133 of the Penal Code.

b. Appropriating property valued at five hundred million dong or more

This crime is similar to the criminal offense defined at Point e, Clause 2 and Point b, Clause 3, Article 133 of the Penal Code, except that the value of the appropriated property is VND 500,000,000 or more. This is a property of particularly great value, so the offender must be examined for penal liability according to Clause 4, Article 133 of the Penal Code with imprisonment sentences of between eighteen and twenty  imprisonment years or capital punishment.

c. Causing particularly serious consequences

The particularly serious consequences of property plunder are also equivalent to the framing circumstances provided for in Clause 4 of Article 134 of the Penal Code since it is also an circumstance defined in the same frame. Pursuant to the Clause 4, Article 133 of the Penal Code and through trial practice, the following cases may be regarded as cases of property plunder causing particularly serious consequences:

- Causing injury or harm to the health of a person with an infirmity rate of 61% or higher or causing death, but not by force use or threat of immediately force use or other acts make the attacker inability to resist (not the consequence of the objective behavior of the offense constitution of property plunder);

- Inflicting injury or harm to the health of many people with a personal injury rate of less than 61%, but the total injury rate of all injured persons is 61% or more;

- Inflicting injury or damaging the health of a person with an infirmity rate of under 31% and 60%, and also causing damage to property valued at VND 500,000,000 or more;

- Causing property damage valued at VND 500,000,000 or more, in addition to assets appropriated;

- In addition to the loss of life, health or property that can be identified as described above, non-material damage also needs to be determined to assess the consequences of property plunder such as a particularly bad influence on the implementation of Party and State policies; influence particularly bad on security, social order and safety; causing confusion to many people in a certain area, causing many people to be scared, so they have to drop out of school, leave their jobs, do not take care of production …. Non-material damage requiring the body conducting legal proceedings, the person conducting the proceedings must base on each specific property plunder, in a particular situation, occurs in a particular area to determine exactly. The extent of damage in this case must be determined as particularly serious, the new offender shall be examined for penal liability under Clause 4, Article 133 of the Penal Code.

Committing the crime in one of the cases specified at Point a to Point c, Clause 4, Article 133 of the Penal Code, the offenders may be sentenced to between eighteen and twenty years of imprisonment, life imprisonment or capital punishment. Similar to the case provided for in Clause 3, Article 133 of the Penal Code, when applying the penalty under Clause 4, Article 133 of the Penal Code, for offenders the attention should be paid to:

If the other facts of the case are the same:

- If the offender has more than one circumstances specified in Clause 3 of Article 133, the penalty shall be higher than the offender having less circumstances with framing penalties;

- If the offender has many extenuating circumstances as provided for in Article 46 of the Penal Code, the penalty must be less serious than the offender has no or few extenuating circumstances.

- If the offender has many aggravating circumstances prescribed in Article 48 of the Penal Code, the penalty must be heavier than the person with no or few aggravating circumstances;

- The bigger the damage, the heavier the penalty and vice versa.

Similar to the case specified in Clause 3, Article 133 of the Penal Code, where the offender has many extenuating circumstances as provided for in Clause 1, Article 46 of the Penal Code, the Court may impose penalties below the lowest level of penalty frame specified in Clause 4, Article 133 of the Penal Code, but must not be under eighteen years of imprisonment.

The penalty frame specified in Clause 4 of Article 133 has a minimum of 18 years of imprisonment, and the highest penalty is death penalty. So, in what case does the Court punish the offenders for a term of imprisonment, life imprisonment or capital punishment?

The majority of opinions say that lawmakers have defined criminal cases in each penalty frame as being personalized to the extent necessary for the nature and severity of the offense, while deciding how the penalty is, how much penalty in the penalty frame is entirely within the responsibility of the Trial Panel, based on the provisions of the Penal Code to consider the nature and degree of danger to social security of the offense, personal identity of the offender, extenuating circumstances, and aggravating criminal liability.

Trial practice shows that in cases where only property plunder is committed, the offender is sentenced to death which there is not much, but usually the offender is convicted of capital punishment in cases of plunder accompanied by murder, in which the death penalty for the offender is the penalty of murder. Cases of capital punishment for plunder often happen where the offenders have had many criminal convictions, are masterminds, leading the way in organized cases, operating in large areas or on roads or on vehicles, causing confusion among people ...

5. Additional Penalties for Offenders Who Plunder Property

Under Clause 5, Article 133 of the Penal Code, apart from the principal penalty, the offender may also be subject to a fine of between ten million dong and one hundred million dong, the confiscation of part or whole of property, probation or residence ban for one to five years.

Fine penalty is a new type of punishment for property plunder, a fine ranging from ten million dong to one hundred million dong, which can be said to be a fine for property plunder. Therefore, if the Court imposing the penalty is an additional penalty for the offender, the penalty shall not be more than one hundred million dong, but if the offender has many extenuating circumstances as provided for in Clause 1 Article 46 of the Penal Code may be subject to a fine of less than ten million dong but must not be less than one million dong as under Clause 3, Article 30 of the Penal Code, the fine level must not be less than one million dong.

The confiscation of part or all of the property of the offender must refer to the provisions of Article 40 of the Penal Code on this type of penalties. Only confiscation of property belonging to the offender, is property other than plundered property; do not confiscate the property is the jewelry, souvenirs of the offender. If the property is confiscated, the offender and his / her family must still be able to live.

When applying the penalty for residence ban on offenders, it is necessary to decide on the punishment of the ban on residence in specific localities (which communes, wards, townships, rural districts, urban districts, provincial towns). It should not be banned in general terms as "banning defendants from residing in cities or towns". In general, if the probation penalty has been applied to the offender again because the contents of the probation penalties are mandatory residence, under the control of the local government and people, are not allowed to move out of their place of residence, deprived of some citizenship, and are prohibited from practicing or do certain jobs.

For more support in criminal lawsuits, feel free to contact to best law firm in Hanoi in crime at hotline 1900.599.979.

(Source from Mr. Dinh Van Que)

-----------------------------------------

Dragon Law Firm - Hotline: 1900.599.979

Email: dragonlawfirm@gmail.com    

Website: www.dragonlaw.vn    

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hanoilawfirm/    

HQ: FL14.6, VIMECO Bldg, Lot E9, Pham Hung Str., Trung Hoa Ward, Cau Giay Dist., Hanoi

Office: FL4.6, Khanh Hoi Bldg, Lot 2/3C, Le Hong Phong Str., Ngo Quyen Dist., Hai Phong