Weaning rules: why a drunk driver was left with a car

Confiscation of a car from an intoxicated driver who is not the owner of the vehicle is impossible. This is the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The possibility provided by law to seize a car for drunk driving does not take into account many different nuances, lawyers and experts say. Details in the material "Izvestia".

"I am not me, the car is not mine".

In August 2023, the Moscow traffic police detained Ifanov (surname changed), who drove a car in a drunken state. The police found that earlier the motorist had already been deprived of his license for a similar offense. Therefore, a criminal case was initiated against the driver under part 1 of article 264.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Driving a vehicle in a state of intoxication by a person subjected to administrative punishment or having a criminal record".

According to the verdict of Perovsky district court Ifanov was sentenced to 240 hours of compulsory works with deprivation of driving license for another 2.5 years. In addition, the court, according to part 1 of article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Confiscation of property", decided to seize and return to the state the car, which the driver drove while intoxicated.

Ifanov did not agree with the verdict and challenged it first in the Moscow City Court and then in the Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction. The argument was that at the time of the offense Ifanov was not the owner of the vehicle in question, and therefore the car could not be confiscated. However, the courts did not accept this argument, so the convict appealed to the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of the Russian Federation).

It is impossible to take it away

Having considered the case materials, the judicial board for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation concluded that the trial court had committed a violation of the law, which "is significant, affecting the outcome of the case, distorting the essence of justice and the meaning of the court decision".

The judges of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation found that about a month before the offense Ifanov sold the car involved in the case to a leasing company, and then immediately entered into a leasing agreement with it and continued to drive the car. At the same time, under current law, only property owned by the accused is subject to confiscation, they noted.

"Thus, in order to apply the provisions of para. "e" part 1 of article 104 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation requires the presence of a combination of two circumstances: the belonging of the vehicle to the accused and the use of the vehicle by him in the commission of the crime incriminated in article 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation", - said in the definition of the Supreme Court.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the fact that the accused owned the vehicle, which was used by him in the commission of the crime, "belongs to the subject of proof in a criminal case and must be established by the court on the basis of the evidence examined in court (testimony of witnesses, documents confirming the acquisition of property, etc.)." However, in deciding on confiscation, the court of first instance did not find out whether Ifanov was the owner of the car, they concluded. In turn, the appellate and cassation instances also failed to properly evaluate and study the evidence presented by the motorist and his defense lawyers.

As a result, the Supreme Court decided to overturn the decisions of the lower courts in terms of confiscation of the vehicle. The verdict concerning the driver's punishment in the form of compulsory works and deprivation of license was upheld.

Leasing and credit

The district court, followed by the appellate and cassation instances, actually confiscated the property that does not belong to the driver who repeatedly got behind the wheel while drunk, says Sergei Radko, a lawyer for the Freedom of Choice movement. This is contrary to the law, so the Supreme Court made a fair decision, he believes.

- Under the leasing agreement, the owner of the car is the lessor - the company that leases the car. The lessee, in this case the drunk driver, is no longer the owner. He can only use the car. Thus, there were no grounds for confiscation of the vehicle," the lawyer told Izvestia.

Sergei Radko noted that under the loan agreement, unlike leasing, it is the buyer who owns the car. And if he gets behind the wheel of this car again, it can be confiscated on legal grounds, even though the car purchased with the use of borrowed funds is pledged to the bank.

- In this case, the person will be obliged to repay the loan, even for the car already confiscated from him. In case of refusal to fulfill these obligations, the bank will no longer be able to impose foreclosure on the loaned car - the collateral has already been confiscated. In this case, the bank will have to go to court, seek seizure of the debtor's other property as part of the enforcement [proceedings], and wait for it to be sold at auction," Sergei Radko told Izvestia.

This delays and complicates the procedure of loan repayment by the bank and increases risks for financial organizations, the lawyer notes.

Unequal conditions

According to Igor Morzharetto, a member of the presidium of the public council under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, there are many nuances and pitfalls in the confiscation of cars from drunk drivers. As a result, drivers who have committed the same traffic violation find themselves in unequal conditions before the law, he notes.

- A car that is leased cannot be confiscated. A rental car or a carsharing vehicle cannot be confiscated either. With vehicles that are common property of spouses, there are also issues. As a result, an intoxicated motorist who drives a car that is not his own is in a more favorable position than one who drives his own car," Igor Morzharetto said.