Liability for illegal possession of a vehicle accrues to all accomplices of the criminal offense, despite the fact that one of them was driving the vehicle. And the fact that one of the accused did not personally take active actions aimed at moving the car does not indicate that his actions do not constitute a crime, provided for in Part 2 of Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
This is stated in the decision of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court, which rejected the cassation appeals of the defense attorneys against court decisions in the criminal proceedings on the charge of two persons in the illegal possession of a vehicle by prior conspiracy (part 2 of Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
As stated in the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Supreme Court, the defense attorneys' assertions about the absence of a prior conspiracy to commit a crime in the actions of the convicted and non-involvement in the implementation of the committed crime by one of the persons were reasonably recognized by the court as groundless in view of this.
Complicity in a crime is the deliberate joint participation of several persons (subjects of a crime) in the commission of an intentional crime. A crime is recognized to have been committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, if it was jointly committed by several persons (two or more) who agreed in advance, that is, before the crime began, to commit it jointly.
The agreement of a group of persons on the joint commission of a crime is the agreement on the object of the crime, its nature, place, time, method of commission and the content of the performed functions, which can take place in any form – oral, written, with the help of conclusive actions expressed not in in the form of an oral or written offer, but directly through conduct from which such intent can be inferred.
It is clear from the proceedings that the behavior of the persons during the commission of the crime was coordinated, efficient and consistent, and the mutuality of their intent is also confirmed by the conclusive actions of the convicted. Thus, one of the accused, taking advantage of the presence of the key in the ignition lock, immediately after the victim left the car, started the engine and left the stopping place, while the other accused did not prevent him in any way, did not get out of the car before it started moving and later threw it out from the window the owner's documents stored in the car interior.
Therefore, the defense party's reference to the fact that one of the accused is not subject to criminal liability, since he did not participate in the illegal seizure of the vehicle, but only traveled on it as a passenger, is not worthy of attention.
Resolution of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Ukraine in case No. 742/2146/20 (proceedings No. 51-4240km21) – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/101712316 .