Completed Theft Under Police Surveillance: The Cassation Court's Decision No. 17715/2025

The line between attempted and completed theft is a crucial issue, especially when the offender's actions are monitored by law enforcement. The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 17715 of May 9, 2025, has provided a highly significant clarification. Presided over by Dr. M. V. and with Dr. E. M. M. as Rapporteur, this ruling concerned the case of I. I., confirming the conviction for a property crime.

Theft: When is the Crime Considered Completed?

According to Article 624 of the Criminal Code, theft is completed when the thief acquires "full, autonomous, and effective possession" of the good, having taken it from the victim. The dilemma arises when there is surveillance by the judicial police: does observation prevent the completion of the crime, reducing it to a mere attempt (Art. 56 of the Criminal Code)?

Judgment No. 17715/2025: The Cassation Court's Principle

The Supreme Court, with the judgment in question, has responded unequivocally, reaffirming a consolidated orientation. Here is the maxim that summarizes the principle:

The crime of theft in its completed form is constituted by the conduct of someone who, after acquiring full, autonomous, and effective possession of the stolen goods, even if for a short time, is stopped by the judicial police who had been monitoring him, given that such distant observation is not only not carried out by the victim or their representatives, but also does not prevent the attainment of autonomous possession of the good before the arrest in flagrante delicto. (In the reasoning, the Court specified that the distant observation by the police is irrelevant for the configuration of the completed offense, both because it is the result of an occasional initiative and because it constitutes the outcome of a prior investigation already underway against the offender).

This ruling is crucial: theft is considered completed as soon as the offender obtains "full, autonomous, and effective possession" of the good, even for a very brief period. The distinguishing factor is the establishment of autonomous possession. Distant observation by the judicial police does not prevent the completion of the crime, as it is not equivalent to an intervention that obstructs its apprehension. The Court clearly distinguishes this situation from direct surveillance by the victim, which, if effective, could prevent the completion of the crime.

Conclusions: Legal Certainty and Operational Impact

Judgment No. 17715/2025 consolidates an essential jurisprudential orientation. It clarifies that police monitoring does not automatically transform completed theft into attempted theft, provided the offender has acquired autonomous control of the good. This principle strengthens the protection of property and provides a clear interpretative criterion for judges and law enforcement, promoting greater consistency and predictability in criminal law.