Robbery

Legal definiton 

Section 173 of the Criminal Code:

(1) Whoever uses violence or threats of imminent violence against another person with the intent to seize another's property shall be punished by imprisonment for two to ten years.

(2) The perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment for five to twelve years if the act described in paragraph 1 is committed:

a) as a member of an organized group,

b) causing serious bodily harm,

c) causing substantial damage, or

d) with the intent to enable or facilitate the commission of a terrorist criminal offense, the crime of financing terrorism (Section 312d), or the crime of threatening a terrorist offense (Section 312f).

(3) The perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment for eight to fifteen years if the act described in paragraph 1 causes large-scale damage.

(4) The perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment for ten to eighteen years if the act described in paragraph 1 causes death.

(5) Preparation is criminal. 

Subjective aspect - intent

Robbery is an intentional criminal offence. A criminal offence is committed intentionally if the perpetrator wanted to violate or endanger a legally protected interest in the manner specified by the Criminal Code (direct intent), or if the perpetrator knew that his actions could result in such a violation or endangerment and accepted the possibility of it occurring (indirect intent).

If the act can be deemed as mere negligence rather than intent, it does not constitute the described criminal offence. 

Defense

There are various defense strategies available. Given the elements of this crime, the following questions may be relevant:

• How did the perpetrator threaten the aggrieved person?
• Could the aggrieved person perceive the perpetrator's actions as a threat?
• Was a weapon used?
• Did the perpetrator act alone, or were other persons present?
  
• Did the incident occur in a public place?
  
• What was the relationship between the perpetrator and the aggrieved person?
• What was the value of the item the perpetrator sought to seize? Was the value negligible, for example?
  
• Did the perpetrator pursue a legitimate aim? Was the intent to restore a lawful state, albeit through impermissible self-help (e.g., reclaiming a borrowed item)?
  
• Are there any circumstances excluding unlawfulness present (e.g., self-defense)?
• Was the perpetrator sane at the time of the act? Were they under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or mental illness?
• Was the perpetrator's intent directed towards the decisive facts?