Among domestic lovers of instrument search there are many persistent misconceptions and incorrect interpretations of existing legislative norms. One of the most common misconceptions is the assertion and even complete confidence that instrumental search on the beach is legal and does not entail any liability for the digger.
And this is an extremely incorrect and even dangerous understanding of the existing law as undesirable consequences. The fact is that an archaeological site can be identified on any piece of land or under water, regardless of the state of soil integrity. Including on a plowed field and of course on the beach.
I would like to remind you that the retroactive rule applies to archaeological sites. We have already written about what this is in one of our blog posts. If you are interested, follow the link, read, comment, ask.
How can you avoid accidentally getting into an archaeological site and getting a criminal sentence for it?
However, in this post I want to talk about another possibility of being arrested and getting a real criminal sentence for copping with a metal detector on the beach. Namely, you can rattle under Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Theft, that is, the secret theft of someone else's property.
And here, everyone who digs for all sorts of lost things along the beaches with a metal detector will have a question: “Author, act. What kind of theft? This is how we find lost things. Nobody steals anything.”
And I will answer. That's how it is. But that's not true at all. Since the discovery of objects on the beach and in other places of mass recreation for modern people falls under Article 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “Nakhodka”. Not in captivity that the city exists like this, but in the understanding that the law defines the concept of a find, the actions of the loser, the finder, third parties and the police in terms of attitude towards the find itself.
I will not quote the article itself, but will explain briefly. According to the law, a citizen who has found a valuable item, the owner of which can be identified, is obliged to take all possible actions to find the owner and return the found valuable item. If the owner could not be identified independently, then it is necessary to write a statement to the police or local government authority.
I think the logic is clear. So, until recently, searchers for lost jewelry on the beaches did not worry about the article about finds because the Soviet norm for defining the legal term find was still in effect. And, the main feature of the find was the randomness of the event. That is, a find is an object found by chance. This was the case until 2019, until all legislative norms and provisions prescribed under the USSR were abolished. In the current legislation, I could not find an explanation of the concept of finding the term “accidentally”. Yes, and in the judicial practice of the last two years there is no mention that a find is an object found by chance.
Current judicial practice widely uses the following definition:
A find is the discovery of someone else’s property that has left the owner’s possession against his will.
So it turns out that objects, the owner of which can be identified, found not only on the beach but also in any other places fall under the definition of a find. This means that the person who finds these items is obliged to report the find. Otherwise, if there is a statement about the loss of a valuable item and this valuable item is found in the possession of an instrument search enthusiast, the latter may receive up to two years in prison under the article Theft.
What this might look like in practice. There are two options.
First. After a successful dig on the beach, a digger posts photos of his finds on social networks. Suppose, among other semi-rusty coins, there is a rare gold cross or signet with initials. This photo reaches the owner who lost this ring. He goes and writes a statement about the theft to the police, presenting, as proof of ownership of the item, photographs of him with this ring. And then it’s a matter of technique and dexterity of the prosecutor.
Second. For example, a certain lady was sunbathing on the beach and lost one earring there. The next day, following an advertisement, she hired a digger with a metal detector, together they came to the place and the search yielded nothing. We looked around and saw that this place was under surveillance camera surveillance. We requested a recording, and it clearly shows how in the evening at this place a well-known local resident with a metal detector is digging up something. The lady writes a statement about the theft and presents a second earring as proof. And then it’s a matter of technique and dexterity of the prosecutor.
And yet, there are nuances in this case. According to the explanation of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, a find is an item whose place of loss is unknown to the owner. Whereas, theft can be considered the appropriation of an item that was forgotten by the owner and the owner knows the place where he left the lost item.
I repeat for clarity. If the item you found falls within the definition of a find, that is, it was lost by accident, then you, even in the case of misappropriation and concealment of the item, do not bear any responsibility. If the item you found was forgotten by the owner through negligence or, on the contrary, was left in this place intentionally, then the finding and appropriation of such an item entails criminal liability.
A lost item is an item that has no identifying characteristics and is located in a place unknown to the owner or possessor. Thus, the assignment of the find, i.e. lost item does not entail criminal liability.
Look like that's it. If you have any questions, ask, we will figure it out together.