What Article 239 of the Criminal Code punishes
Article 239 does not define a stand-alone offence; it provides a legal definition of what counts as "false keys" for the purposes of burglary under Article 238(4). False keys are, first, picklocks or similar instruments; second, genuine keys lost by the owner or obtained through conduct that amounts to a criminal offence (for instance, a key that was stolen or obtained by deception); and, as a catch-all, any other key that is not the one intended by the owner to open the lock that was forced by the offender, even if it is a genuine key for a different lock. The provision expressly equates keys with magnetic or punched cards, remote-opening devices and any other technological instrument of similar effectiveness, extending the concept to modern access systems.
How it relates to burglary
Robbery is defined in Article 237 as taking someone else's movable property, for gain, by using force against property or violence or intimidation against people. Article 238 lists the circumstances that amount to "force against property" for this offence: scaling, breaking through a wall, roof or floor, breaking a door or window, breaking into locked furniture, disabling alarm systems and, in item 4, using false keys. Article 239 is therefore an interpretative provision that fills out that circumstance: without it, it would be unclear whether a duplicated or stolen key, or a cloned remote control, amounts to the "force against property" that separates burglary from simple theft.
The penalty for burglary committed with false keys
Article 240 punishes burglary with one to three years' imprisonment, rising to two to five years' imprisonment where one of the circumstances in Article 235 is present (for example, involving essential goods or items of special value). Using false keys under Article 238(4) does not by itself trigger that higher bracket, but it does mean the act is classified as burglary rather than simple theft, with the procedural and sentencing consequences that follow.
Defence strategy
A defence against a "false keys" classification usually disputes whether the instrument used genuinely fits one of the three cases in Article 239 — for instance, whether a key was actually "intended" by the owner for that lock, even if its use was not authorised on that particular occasion, which may shift the matter into the civil sphere or towards simple theft — and whether access by card or electronic remote genuinely functions like the technological instruments the provision equates with keys. The burglary defence service develops these criteria.