Does stealing a detained private car constitute theft?

It is said that a couple driving a "black car" and pulling a "black job" were seized by the urban management. That night, they sneaked into the parking lot with a spare key, tried to drive the car away secretly, and were caught red-handed. Reading is thought-provoking and thought-provoking. The contents of the public prosecution of Haidian District People's Procuratorate: After the vehicle was detained by the urban management, the vehicle was already public property and the ownership was handed over to the urban management department. Therefore, the behavior of the couple driving the car without authorization constitutes theft. Defense lawyers believe that the driver stole the car because he was in a hurry to pick up the children. The defendant subjectively just wanted to escape the punishment of the urban management, and there was no intention to steal the car. If the ownership of the seized vehicle has not been transferred, it should belong to the unauthorized transfer of the seized property, and the nature of the behavior is not theft. The court ruled that the couple secretly stole the property that had been seized by the administrative organ, and the amount was huge, and their behavior constituted theft (attempted). Wei Zhe Law Firm believes that the theft of the detained private car does not necessarily constitute the crime of theft, and the evidence of Haidian Court's judgment is insufficient and the facts are unclear. With the facts of the existing charges, it is difficult for the couple to constitute theft. Try to briefly analyze the following points for discussion and criticism with colleagues in Beijing. Judging from the facts disclosed by the public prosecution opinion of Haidian District Procuratorate, the owner of this "black car" began to "steal the car" as soon as it was seized, and the administrative punishment procedure has just started, and the administrative punishment decision should not have been issued. This node is extremely important for the determination of whether a crime is committed. Because the investigation and evidence collection stage is not in place, it is not clear whether it will be fined or confiscated in the future. The conclusion that "after the vehicle is detained by the urban management, the vehicle belongs to public property and the ownership is transferred to the urban management department" is wrong. In the traditional civil law, there is no administrative seizure in the way of obtaining property rights, and the legal status of possession is not established in the property law. Generally, there is no obstacle for a third party to seriously infringe on property possession, so I need to be cautious. Slightly influenced by the concept of "money in transit, things in transit", managers can be victims, but in fact they lack a theoretical basis. The Haidian District Court held that "the property managed by urban management was stolen and property rights were damaged". Such a judgment is a typical and terrible objective imputation reasoning. Who is responsible for "theft" and "damage to property rights", or are they mutually causal? There must be more than one answer! Similarly, the judge in this case can rule out that the purpose of stealing a car is to pick up the children, but it is difficult to rule out the purpose of evading the punishment of urban management. If the theft is completed, the urban management will ask the husband and wife where the car is, and the two will admit that they stole it, but on the contrary, they will ask the urban management to compensate the car. How to characterize these two opposite situations? Still this verdict, try to analyze one or two from the legislative level. The Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Robbery and Snatching has a judicial interpretation that "the actor only takes the gambling money he lost or the gambling debt he won as the object of robbery, and generally does not convict and punish the crime of robbery". Theft seems different, but it seems that he should not be convicted without direct judicial interpretation. There is a provision in the Administrative Punishment Law that one thing is no longer punished. Because stealing and operating a "black car" is an administrative violation and the other is a criminal violation, there is no problem that things will not be punished again. In other words, the couple not only have to confiscate the stolen car, but also may confiscate the "black car", which objectively becomes the result of double punishment for one thing, and the fallacy can be seen. It is most appropriate for the crime of illegally disposing of the seized property not to apply Article 3 14 of the Criminal Law, which is in line with the principle that the law does not expressly stipulate that it is not applicable. From the analysis of the severity of sentencing and the effect of judgment, if the crime of illegally disposing of seized property is sentenced, the maximum sentence is three years. Considering the degree of harm caused by attempted crime, the disposal of seized property by judicial administrative organs and other different factors, it is far lower than the sentencing range of theft of more than 10 thousand yuan and less than 60 thousand yuan, and the sentence is more than three years and less than ten years. The author believes that the owner's theft of the seized vehicle can only be defined after the urban management administrative organ compels to compensate the vehicle or signs a contract to detain the vehicle and confiscate it.