The incident at the hotel and a six-figure theft
A guest staying at a hotel experienced a shocking breach of his privacy and safety when intruders entered his room and stole 5.4 million rubles right from his possession. This substantial sum was not only a personal loss but also enabled the immediate purchase of a Mercedes-Benz, which was later transferred to a friend as part of the aftermath of the crime.
The material that follows was produced by an individual who holds status as a foreign agent in the Russian Federation. Law enforcement acted quickly, identifying the criminals and securing a guilty verdict under paragraph b of part 4 of article 158 of the Penal Code, which concerns theft. The defendants were sentenced to imprisonment, and the Mercedes-Benz involved in the case was seized as part of the criminal proceedings.
The victim pursued legal action to recover the stolen 5.4 million rubles, while also seeking additional damages through solidarity with the hotel and the thieves. The plaintiff asked for not only the primary loss but also a fine totaling 2.7 million rubles, compensation for moral damage amounting to 1 million rubles, and the return of the Mercedes-Benz that had been bought with funds obtained through theft.
Three agencies partially granted the claims in favor of the plaintiff by netting 5.4 million rubles from the thieves. The courts concluded that the hotel bore no liability for the loss since it provided services correctly and there was no evidence of wrongdoing in its conduct. The court also held that the plaintiff’s non-property rights were not violated, so moral damage did not arise in the case. Additionally, the automobile did not belong to the criminals, but to a third party, making it untouchable through the theft case.
Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court reached a different conclusion. It noted that moral damage can arise not only from physical harm but also from moral suffering. The breach of the home’s inviolability by the criminals clearly amounted to moral injury, according to the court’s assessment. The fact that the Mercedes-Benz was registered to a third party did not erase the fact that it was purchased with money obtained through theft, the court emphasized.
As a result, the Supreme Court referred the case back for a rehearing to reconsider the denial of compensation for moral damage and to address the potential return of the car to the rightful owner or to a mechanism that would reflect its status in the case.
- “Drive” can be read in Viber
Source: Pravo.ru