Good mood to you, dear readers of our blog.
This week I became an unwitting witness to an interesting stream on the channel of a top blogger on instrument search. Let me note right away that I always treat my colleagues in the shop with respect, and if there are some disagreements on a topic, then it is better to speak out openly, with the opportunity to also openly discuss.
The topic of the stream was a discussion of legislative subtleties in the field of instrument search. Since this topic is close to me, I want to slightly correct certain points. In particular, the topic of lease agreements for metal detectors.
So, there is a separate opinion that if you draw up a lease agreement, naturally a fake lease agreement, for a metal detector, then in the event of detention and subsequent trial, such a metal detector cannot be confiscated. And, the digger will receive a fine of only up to 2.5 thousand rubles under an administrative article.
This idea has been wandering from forum to forum, from blogger to blogger since that ill-fated year 13. It is logical and captivates many hackers with its simplicity and the confidence of those who promote this idea to the masses.
However, to a direct question: “Do you know of at least one case where in this way, with the help of a fake lease agreement, a convicted digger managed to avoid confiscation of a metal detector???” At best, you can get the answer that such examples are unknown based on the experience of your friends and acquaintances.
And here it is possible, and even necessary, to turn to real judicial practice. The Sudakta base will help us.
Decision No. 12-41/2020 of February 14, 2020 in case No. 12-41/2020 Astrakhan Regional Court (Astrakhan Region) the link is clickable – if you are interested, click on it.
The essence of the matter in brief. A digger from the Astrakhan region was received in a plowed field; he had two metal detectors with him. The citizen’s actions on the field were recorded on photo and video equipment, therefore, together with the testimony of the defendant himself, the court of first instance ruled – Guilty. The punishment is a fine of 2,000 rubles and the confiscation of two metal detectors: GR Garrett 750 and X-Terra 750. I don’t know what GR Garrett 750 is, maybe they described it this way when the pinpointer was confiscated.
The case is unclear, since a certain dirham coin appears as evidence of the defendant’s guilt, which was found during an inspection of the crime scene. The defendant himself stated at the trial that he bought the coin in advance and in general the coin was not found on him. I can assume that the citizen, upon seeing the police, tried to throw away the evidence. But it did not help. So we draw conclusions about another tricky piece of advice on the topic “The main thing is to dispose of finds on time.” Here's an example – it doesn't work.
But, let's return to the main point of the note – the lease agreement for the MD. The defendant provided the court with a lease agreement for the metal detector, thereby stating that the equipment could not be confiscated, which the judge addressed as follows:
Quote: The arguments of KKYu (initials of the accused) that the metal detector does not belong to him cannot be a circumstance that exempts him from imposing an additional punishment, since the metal detector was found at the scene of the incident.
The defendant did not agree with the decision of the court of first instance and filed an appeal to the regional court, where they considered the case and decided to uphold the decision of the district court without changes, including on the confiscation of MD
Quote: The arguments of the complaint that documents on the ownership of metal detectors were not taken into account are untenable, since, as can be seen from the case materials and testimony in the court of second instance, their owner is Kostrov K.Yu.
Let’s draw the right conclusions, dear friends and readers of our blog. And I assure you that similar examples in the SudAct database can already be found in a dozen cases. In absolutely all cases when the accused present documents to “rent” a metal detector, judges ignore these documents. And, as we understand, there is not a single real example where this piece of paper helped to avoid responsibility.
Dear friends and colleagues in the blogging workshop. If I managed to convey to you the absurdity of the advice about having a lease agreement and you feel responsible to your viewers and readers, you can use this material for your note, publication or stream.
I wish everyone a good mood and good spirits.
