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 the Rapporteur, this ruling concerned the case of I. I., confirming the conviction for an offense against property.

Theft: When is the Offense Considered Completed?

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

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

The Supreme Court, with the judgment in question, has responded unequivocally, reaffirming a consolidated stance. 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 only for a short time, is stopped by the judicial police who had been monitoring them, 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 item before the arrest in flagrante delicto. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that distant observation by the police is irrelevant for the configuration of the completed offense, whether it is the result of an occasional initiative or the outcome of prior investigative activity 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 item, even for a very brief period. The distinguishing factor is the establishment of autonomous possession. Distant observation by judicial police does not prevent the completion of the offense, as it does not equate to an intervention that hinders 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 item. 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.