THE UNLAWFUL SEIZURE OF A VEHICLE: DOCTRINAL AND CRIMINAL-LEGAL ANALYSIS

Abstract

The article is devoted to an in-depth examination of specific doctrinal and practical issues concerning the unlawful seizure of a vehicle. The study provides a comprehensive analysis of the manner in which this matter is addressed under the current Criminal Code of Ukraine, with particular attention to the conceptual framework, structural elements, and the system of criminal-law protections applicable to transport-related offenses. The concept of unlawful seizure of a vehicle is elucidated through the prism of contemporary legal doctrine and judicial interpretation. The article delineates the essential features of this criminal offense, as well as its correlation with related offenses possessing adjacent legal characteristics. Instances in which the commission of such an act entails the imposition of an additional sanction, specifically the confiscation of property, are identified and discussed. Furthermore, the paper outlines the defining elements of both the basic and especially qualified types of the offense. Particular emphasis is placed on the role of motive and purpose in the differentiation of socially dangerous acts. It is argued that the principal purpose of unlawful seizure lies in the appropriation or removal of a vehicle from its lawful owner or user, contrary to their will, and for an objective inherently connected with a mercenary or self- serving motive. The study also specifies the generic and immediate objects of the criminal offense. It is established that the generic object comprises the safety of traffic and the operation of transport, while the primary immediate object encompasses property relations. An additional facultative object may include the operational safety of vehicles and, in certain circumstances, the protection of human life and health. The article proceeds to identify and classify the principal methods by which the unlawful seizure of a vehicle may be perpetrated. It is further observed that, in the context of fraudulent acquisition, the unlawfulness of the seizure is not recognized at the moment of transfer – neither by the person delivering the property to the offender nor by third parties. Consequently, in instances of fraud, the acquisition of property cannot be regarded as having occurred against the victim’s will. Similarly, in cases of extortion, the transfer of property ostensibly appears to reflect the victim’s voluntary decision; yet such volition is illusory, being distorted under the influence of coercive factors. This distorted will is a reaction to threats of violence directed at the victim or their relatives, restrictions on their rights or lawful interests, or threats of destruction or disclosure of confidential information. Hence, it is argued that extortion, like fraud, does not involve the direct taking of property contrary to the victim’s will in the physical or coercive sense traditionally inherent to seizure offenses. The paper concludes that certain alternative means of unlawful seizure – such as misappropriation, embezzlement, or seizure through abuse of official position – cannot, by their legal nature, constitute the offense in question. These forms of misappropriation presuppose the existence of a special fiduciary or custodial relationship between the perpetrator and the property. Accordingly, in such cases, the act does not involve seizure contrary to the will of the owner or user, and therefore falls outside the doctrinal scope of unlawful seizure of a vehicle.