20+ years of criminal law experience
more than 2000 criminal cases.
more than 2000 criminal cases.
(1) A person who, for the purpose of illegally appropriating it, takes a thing not owned by him away from another person by
a) using violence or direct threat to life or physical integrity against a person, or
b) rendering that person unconscious or incapable of self-defence is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for two to eight years.
(2) The use of violence or direct threat to life or physical integrity by a thief, who is caught in the act, for the purpose of keeping a thing shall also constitute robbery.
(3) The punishment shall be imprisonment for five to ten years if robbery is committed
a) with a weapon,
b) with an instrument capable of causing death,
c) by a group,
d) in a criminal conspiracy,
e) for a significant value,
f) against a public officer, foreign public officer or a person performing public duties in the course of his official procedures or performing his duties,
g) against a person with limited ability to recognise or avert the criminal offence due to his old age or disability.
(4) The punishment shall be imprisonment for five to fifteen years if robbery is committed
a) for a value the extent of which is particularly large or greater,
b) for a significant value in a manner specified in paragraph (3) a) to d),
c) in a manner specified in paragraph (3) a) to d), against a public officer, foreign public officer or a person performing public duties in the course of his official procedures or performing his duties.
(5) A person who commits preparation for robbery is guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be punished by imprisonment for up to two years.
Whoever unlawfully appropriates another person's property by using violence against a person, making a direct threat against life or physical integrity, or rendering someone unconscious or incapable of resistance commits robbery. Robbery also includes cases where a thief caught in the act uses violence or makes a direct threat against life or physical integrity to retain the stolen property.
Robbery, plundering, extortion, and vigilantism belong to the category of violent crimes against property. Their legally protected interest includes both existing ownership and possession rights, as well as the life, physical integrity, and health of the passive subject, as these offenses can only be committed through violence against a person.
The object of the offense is a movable, valuable item belonging to another person. The characteristics of the object are the same as those in theft. Robbery is often referred to as the violent form of theft.
The passive subject of the crime is the person against whom the perpetrator uses violence, makes a qualified threat, or renders unconscious or incapable of resistance to take the item. In cases involving violence or threats, the passive subject and the victim suffering the loss from the taking of the item may be different individuals.
Violence in robbery involves physical force that constitutes an aggressive physical contact with the victim’s body. For the violence to qualify as robbery, it must be strong enough to break the victim’s will, meaning it must have a will-paralyzing effect. Due to its nature, robbery-related violence necessarily involves physical contact with the victim’s body. If the violence results in minor bodily harm, it is not treated as a separate offense due to the will-paralyzing nature of the force used.
Given the degree of violence in robbery, minor bodily harm—resulting in injuries or illnesses that heal within eight days—is considered part of the robbery itself. However, if the injury or illness requires more than eight days to heal, it qualifies as grievous bodily harm and is treated separately from the robbery. The will-paralyzing nature of robbery-related violence does not extend to causing the victim’s death. Therefore, if the perpetrator inflicts severe violence—such as breaking the victim’s arm, tying their hands and feet, gagging them forcefully, and leaving them behind—leading to the victim’s death, and the perpetrator accepts the possible outcome, they commit homicide for financial gain rather than robbery.
In the context of robbery, violence must always be directed against a person. Violence against an object can only qualify as robbery if it transfers to the victim. For example, if the perpetrator knocks over a table or cabinet in such a way that it falls on the victim, preventing them from defending themselves, it constitutes robbery-related violence.
A threat involves the prospect of serious harm, capable of instilling significant fear in the victim. The purpose of the threat is to break the passive subject’s will, thereby enabling the commission of the crime. The threat must be directed against life or physical integrity and must be immediate. In robbery, if violence or a threat against physical integrity is directed at a person emotionally close to the owner of the item, it can effectively prevent the owner from resisting the taking of the item.
Due to the requirement of immediacy, the threat must target a person who is present at the scene or who, through technical means—such as a phone call—can reasonably perceive that the threatened harm is real and its occurrence is imminent. If the threatened harm is expected to occur after a significant delay, such as when the perpetrators give the victim several hours or days to comply with their demands, the offense is not robbery but extortion. The same applies if the perpetrator's threat—regardless of the severity of the harm or the value of the item—targets an object rather than a person, such as threatening to burn down the victim's home immediately. In such cases, the offense committed is extortion rather than robbery.
When assessing will-paralyzing violence and qualified threats, factors such as the perpetrator's and victim's age, physique, physical strength, the number of perpetrators and victims, the location of the offense, and other surrounding circumstances must always be considered. Courts evaluate these factors case by case, meaning that in one situation, even minor physical force may be deemed will-paralyzing violence, while in another, involving different individuals, it may not be sufficient.
For example, if two young, strong men are involved, and one pushes the other onto a bench in the afternoon to steal their wallet, the force used would not be considered will-paralyzing violence. However, if the same young perpetrator applies the same level of force—pushing an elderly, sick, and weak victim onto a bed at night on an isolated farm—the will-paralyzing nature of the violence may be established.
The taking of the item becomes possible due to the use of violence or a qualified threat, but the crime is only considered complete once the taking is successfully executed. The concept of taking is identical to that described in theft; however, it also qualifies as taking if the item is not physically removed by the perpetrator but is handed over by the victim.
Robbery is also committed when the perpetrator does not use violence or a qualified threat but instead renders the victim unconscious or incapable of resistance.
In a state of unconsciousness, the passive subject lacks the ability to recognize or perceive the criminal act taking place against them due to an internal psychological barrier. Inducing unconsciousness may occur through sedation or intoxication. In such cases, it is essential that the victim is unaware that the perpetrator has added a sedative or harmful substance to their drink or that they were forced to consume the drink through violence or threats.
If, however, the victim actively participates in their own intoxication—meaning they voluntarily engage in excessive drinking—and the perpetrator merely encourages them with the intent to create an opportunity for theft, the offense committed is not robbery but the first form of plundering. If the perpetrator had the intent to unlawfully take property before or during the drinking session but did not directly influence the victim’s decision to consume alcohol—merely reinforcing, rather than initiating, the decision—then neither robbery nor plundering is established, and the offense committed is “only” theft.
In a state of incapacity to resist, the victim retains their ability to recognize the crime being committed against them but lacks the ability to act on their will. They are aware of the offense but, due to external physical or biological causes, are unable to prevent it. These causes must be induced by the perpetrator. Examples include locking the victim in a storage compartment, preventing them from leaving the kitchen, or taking away the glasses of a severely visually impaired person.
If the victim is knocked unconscious, beaten, or tied up, and as a result becomes unconscious or incapable of resistance, the perpetrator is convicted not under this form of robbery but based on the use of violence or threats. The perpetrator’s intent in inducing such a state is to enable the taking of the item. Therefore, in this form of robbery, the passive subject and the victim are the same person.
Regardless of which form of commission occurs, the perpetrator of robbery can be anyone except the owner of the property. In the case of co-perpetration, it is not necessary for both perpetrators to engage in all forms of the offense with unified intent. It is sufficient if one perpetrator strikes the victim while the other takes the item. Liability also extends to an accomplice who, while remaining silent, observes and listens as their partner threatens the victim. This visible agreement, combined with the perpetrator’s threatening presence, can effectively overcome the victim’s resistance, as they have no one to seek help from. The perpetrator does not intervene to assist the victim, remaining passive, which aligns them with the threatening party. This makes resistance even more futile, as the victim perceives not one but two attackers.
Robbery involves dual intent, meaning the perpetrator uses violence, a qualified threat, or renders the victim unconscious or incapable of resistance with the purpose of taking an item, and they take the item with the intent of unlawfully appropriating it. If violence or threats are used for another purpose and under different circumstances, robbery is not committed.
For example, if the perpetrator assaults the victim to commit sexual violence and, after the act, notices an expensive gold necklace around the victim's neck—who is still under the effect of the previous violence—and then takes it with the intent of unlawful appropriation, this does not constitute robbery but rather the second form of plundering in conjunction with sexual violence.
However, if the perpetrator notices the necklace during the sexual act and attempts to snatch it from the victim's neck while committing the offense, but fails due to the victim’s resistance—thus escalating the violence not only for the purpose of committing the sexual act but also to facilitate the theft—the perpetrator is liable for both sexual violence and robbery due to the dual intent.
The legal classification changes again if, after committing sexual violence, the perpetrator leaves the scene but later returns and finds the victim still unconscious due to the previous assault. If at that moment, they notice the victim’s gold necklace and take it with the intent of unlawful appropriation, the crime committed is theft rather than robbery or plundering.
Robbery is also committed when a thief caught in the act uses violence or a direct threat against life or physical integrity to retain the stolen item. In this case, the offense is completed with the application of violence or threat.
A thief caught in the act is a specific category of perpetrator. The offense can only be committed by an offender who is discovered during the act of theft, during the taking of the item, or immediately after, while attempting to escape with the stolen property. In practice, this category also includes a perpetrator who is continuously pursued from the crime scene.
A thief caught in the act uses will-paralyzing violence or a qualified threat to retain the stolen item. Intent is a crucial factor in distinguishing this offense. It can be inferred when the perpetrator insists on keeping the item, attempts to hold onto it, and, for this purpose, strikes the victim who caught them in the act. However, if the thief abandons the stolen items and uses violence solely to escape, robbery is not committed; instead, theft is combined with bodily harm as separate offenses.
The nature of the stolen item and its location at the moment of discovery are also relevant in assessing intent. For example, if the perpetrator conceals the stolen item in the inner pocket of their coat and is caught while attempting to leave, merely trying to break free from those restraining them—without retrieving the item from their pocket—does not necessarily indicate an intent to retain the stolen property.
The use of violence or threats may occur at a different time and place from the act of theft. The offense still qualifies as robbery in the following cases:
Robbery is considered more severe if committed:
A robbery is considered armed if the perpetrator carries a deadly weapon to overcome or prevent resistance. The use of the weapon is not required for the aggravated classification.
A robbery is committed with a weapon if the perpetrator carries a firearm, explosive, explosive device, or a device designed to use explosives, or if they commit the offense while threatening with a replica of such items.
A robbery is committed in a criminal conspiracy if two or more perpetrators organize or agree to commit crimes and at least one robbery attempt is made, but no criminal organization is formed. Group commission requires at least three individuals to participate in the crime.
A new aggravating circumstance introduced in the new Criminal Code as of July 1, 2013, applies when robbery is committed against a person who, due to age or disability, is limited in their ability to recognize or prevent the crime. This provision was introduced to ensure stricter legal action against the rising number of violent attacks targeting elderly victims. The law does not specify an exact age for defining an "elderly" person; case law must establish this standard. To qualify as an aggravated case, it must be proven that the elderly or disabled victim's condition significantly limited their ability to resist the crime.
Robbery has no misdemeanor form, meaning that even if committed for a very small value, it is still classified as a criminal offense. However, if the robbery is committed for significant value, particularly high value, or even exceeding this threshold (i.e., above five million or fifty million forints), the crime is classified even more severely.
If multiple aggravating circumstances apply in combination, the robbery is subject to even stricter penalties.
The Criminal Code defines these terms under its interpretative provisions. An official person includes individuals such as the Prime Minister, the President of the Republic, judges, prosecutors, and members of local government bodies. A public service provider includes postal service employees in customer service roles, members of the Hungarian Defence Forces on active duty, certain healthcare workers, teachers, and legal defenders in judicial or other official proceedings. A foreign official is a person performing legislative, judicial, administrative, or law enforcement duties in a foreign state. If robbery is committed against any of these individuals while they are carrying out their official duties or public tasks, the offense qualifies as a more severely punishable crime under the law.
