Crimea: a curse-removal pretext used to make a woman reveal where her savings were kept

Proceedings

1. 2020-01-08 · conviction and sentence at first instance

   Sudak City Court, Crimea (Судакский городской суд), a court of the Russian Federation. The defendant, anonymised in the published judgment as ФИО1, was convicted on three counts of theft under п.п. «а, в» ч.2 ст.158, ч.1 ст.158 and п. «в» ч.2 ст.158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Only the first count involved the curse pretext: on 11 June 2018 she and a second woman agreed roles in a car beforehand, approached a household where neither was known, and while the accomplice occupied a person in the yard with an offer to buy feathers, the defendant was invited inside and, under the pretext of removing a curse, made the householder show where her money was kept; when the victim left the room she took 40,000 roubles and 200 US dollars, equivalent to 12,468.62 roubles, a total loss of 52,468.62 roubles. The remaining two counts were opportunistic thefts during visits to other households, of gold earrings weighing 5.83 grams worth 3,498 roubles and of property valued at 6,500 roubles, and did not involve any curse pretext. She received one year eight months, ten months and one year ten months respectively, aggregated by partial addition under ч.2 ст.69 to two years' deprivation of liberty in a general-regime correctional colony, with time in custody from 6 April 2019 counted at one day for one and a half. Civil claims of 6,500 and 3,498 roubles were awarded against her.

2. 2018-10-10 · conviction and sentence of the co-participant at first instance

   Sudak City Court, Crimea (Судакский городской суд), a court of the Russian Federation. In separate proceedings concerning the same offence, the second participant — anonymised as ФИО1 — was convicted of theft by a group acting in prior conspiracy causing significant damage to a citizen under п.«а,в» ч.2 ст.158 of the Criminal Code. The court found that on 11 June 2018 at about 11:00 she travelled by car with a driver known to her and with a third woman, whose case had been severed into separate proceedings because she was being sought; that in the car the latter proposed a conspiracy to commit theft and roles were distributed; that this defendant's assigned role was to distract people under the pretext of buying feathers and mechanical watches; and that the other woman, abusing the householder's trust, entered the house at her invitation and, under the pretext of removing a curse, compelled her to indicate where her money was kept, 52,468.62 roubles then being taken. She was sentenced to two years' deprivation of liberty, suspended under ст.73 with a three-year probationary period and obligations to register monthly and not to change residence without notice, and was ordered to pay compensation to the victim.

Documented coercion mechanisms

• roles agreed in advance in a car before the approach, one participant to distract, the other to enter the house
• a second participant occupying a bystander in the yard with an offer to buy feathers and mechanical watches
• the curse-removal pretext used not to extract a payment but to compel disclosure of the hiding place — the court found she «под предлогом снятия порчи, вынудила последнюю указать место хранения денежных средств»
• the money taken covertly once the victim left the room, so that the loss was discovered only after the participants had gone