Receiving stolen bicycles: the robber's spare key is evidence

Increasingly frequent are the cases in the news ofbike thieves... electric bicycles. And in the case of the theft of these increasingly valuable and widespread vehicles, the offence of reception can be confirmed if elements emerge that prove the defendant's awareness of the illicit origin of the goods. For instance, the possession of specific objects related to the vehicle, such as the spare key of the battery by the robber, may constitute a diriment element. Moreover, the finding of the property in the direct possession of the defendant, without plausible justification, strengthens the claim of liability. The assessment of these elements, considered sufficient to confirm the conviction, is often accompanied by an analysis of the defendant's circumstances and criminal record, which may influence the seriousness of the crime charged.

The Second Criminal Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation, in its judgment 36038 of 2025, declared inadmissible the appeal of a defendant convicted by the Court of Appeal for receiving stolen electric bicycle. The defence appealed to the Court of Cassation, complaining of violation of the law and flaws in the motivation, arguing that the bicycle was uncertain and that there was no evidence of possession by the defendant. Moreover, he requested the application of the mild hypothesis of reception. The Court held that the possession of the spare key of the battery by the victim of the theft was decisive, refuting the defence's argument that the keys were all the same. Moreover, it considered reasonable and sufficient the connection between the discovery of the bicycle in the defendant's room and his responsibility, because it was immediate and because there was no plausible justification that could exclude such responsibility. The appeal was therefore found to be generic and unfounded, reproducing arguments already presented in the appeal without a specific criticism of the judgment. The Court therefore confirmed the criminal liability of the defendant and held that the requested mitigating circumstance was not applicable due to the defendant's numerouscriminal history. And in the end, the appellant was ordered to pay the court costs and, pursuant to Article 616 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to pay a sum in favour of the Fine Fund, in consideration of the fault profiles in the determination of the cause of inadmissibility of the appeal.