| Criminal law |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Element (criminal law) |
| Actus reus · Mens rea Causation · Concurrence |
| Scope of criminal liability |
| Complicity · Corporate · Vicarious |
| Inchoate offenses |
| Attempt · Conspiracy · Solicitation |
| Offence against the person |
|
Assault · Battery |
| Crimes against property |
| Arson · Blackmail · Burglary Embezzlement · Extortion False pretenses · Larceny Possessing stolen property Robbery · Theft |
| Crimes against justice |
| Compounding · Misprision Obstruction · Perjury Malfeasance in office Perverting the course of justice |
| Defenses to liability |
| Defense of self Defence of property Consent · Diminished responsibility Duress · Entrapment Ignorantia juris non excusat Infancy · Insanity Intoxication defense Justification · Mistake (of law) Necessity · Loss of Control (Provocation) |
| Other common law areas |
| Contracts · Evidence · Property Torts · Wills, trusts and estates |
| Portals |
| Criminal justice · Law |
In common usage, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent.[1][2] The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud.[1][2] In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny;[2] in others, theft has replaced larceny. Someone who carries out an act of or makes a career of theft is known as a thief. The act of theft is known by terms such as stealing, thieving, and filching.[2]
Theft is the name of a statutory offense in California, Canada, England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Victoria.
Contents |
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e., because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it (see theft by finding). Note that there may be civil liability for the torts of trespass to chattels or conversion in either eventuality.
Theft is dealt with by Part 9 of the Criminal Code of Canada which is the part that covers property crime. Section 322 in Part 9 creates a general definition of theft, while other sections such as section 326 (which deals with the theft of gas, electricity and telecommunication services) define special kinds of theft. According to the general definition in section 322 a person steals a thing if he or she takes or converts it fraudulently, without colour of right and with intent to deprive the owner of it, either permanently or temporarily. For the purposes of punishment theft is divided into two separate offences by section 334 depending on the value and nature of the goods stolen. If the thing stolen is worth more than $5000 or is a testamentary instrument the offence is commonly referred to as Theft Over $5000 and is an indictable offence with a maximum punishment of 10 years imprisonment. Where the stolen item is not a testamentary instrument and is not worth more than $5000 it is known as Theft Under $5000 and is a hybrid offence, meaning that it can be treated either as an indictable offence or a less serious summary conviction offence, depending on the choice of the prosecutor. If dealt with as an indictable offence Theft Under $5000 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years and, if treated as a summary conviction offence, 6 months imprisonment, a fine of $2000 or both.
Theft is a statutory offence, created by section 4(1) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.
By the Romanian penal code for theft (furt) a person can face a penalty ranging from 1 to 20 years.
Degrees of theft:
A: Theft (one to twelve years)
When a person steals a thing, or uses a vehicle without permission and no aggravating circumstances apply.
B: Qualified theft (basically three to 15 years, but there can be special cases when the penalty range is from four to 18 years and even ten to 20 years)
In England and Wales, theft is a statutory offence, created by section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968, which provides:
This offence replaces the former offences of larceny, embezzlement and fraudulent conversion.[3]
The marginal note to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 describes it as a "basic definition" of theft.
Sections 2 to 6 of the Theft Act 1968 have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of section 1 of that Act. Except as otherwise provided by that Act, sections 2 to 6 of that Act apply only for the purposes of section 1 of that Act.[4]
See dishonesty.
Section 3 provides:
(1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner. (2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.
See R v Hinks and Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
Section 4(1) provides that:
"Property" includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
Edward Griew said that this section could, without changing its meaning, be reduced, by omitting words, to:
"Property" includes ... all ... property.[5]
Sections 4(2) to (4) provide that the following can only be stolen under certain circumstances:
Intangible property
Confidential information[6] and trade secrets[7] are not property within the meaning of section 4.
The words "other intangible property" include export quotas that are transferable for value on a temporary or permanent basis.[8]
Electricity
Electricity cannot be stolen. It is not property within the meaning of section 4 and is not appropriated by switching on a current.[9] Cf. the offence of abstracting electricity under section 13.
Section 5 "belonging to another" requires a distinction to be made between ownership, possession and control:
So if A buys a car for cash, A will be the owner. If A then lends the car to B Ltd (a company), B Ltd will have possession. C, an employee of B Ltd then uses the car and has control. If C uses the car in an unauthorised way, C will steal the car from A and B Ltd. This means that it is possible to steal one's own property.
In R v Turner,[10] the owner removed his car from the forecourt of a garage where it had been left for collection after repair. He intended to avoid paying the bill. There was an appropriation of the car because it had been physically removed but there were two issues to be decided:
Section 6 "with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it" is sufficiently flexible to include situations where the property is later returned. For example, suppose that B, a keen football fan, has bought a ticket for the next home match. T takes the ticket, watches the match and then returns the ticket to B. In this instance, all that T returns is a piece of paper. Its value as a licence to enter the stadium on a particular day has been permanently lost. Hence, T steals the ticket. Similarly, if T takes a valuable antique but later repents and returns the goods, T has committed the actus reus with the mens rea. The fact that T's conscience forces a change of mind is relevant only for sentencing.
Alternative verdict
The offence created by section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (TWOC) is available an alternative verdict on an indictment for theft.[11]
Visiting forces
Theft is an offence against property for the purposes of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952.[12]
Mode of trial and sentence
Theft is triable either way.[13] A person guilty of theft is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years,[14] or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum, or to both.[15]
Aggravated theft
The only offence of aggravated theft is robbery, contrary to section 8 of the Theft Act 1968.[16]
Stolen goods
For the purposes of the provisions of the Theft Act 1968 which relate to stolen goods, goods obtain in England or Wales or elsewhere by blackmail or fraud are regarded as stolen, and the words "steal", "theft" and "thief" are construed accordingly.[17]
Sections 22 to 24 and 26 to 28 of the Theft Act 1968 contain references to stolen goods.
Handling stolen goods
The offence of handling stolen goods, contrary to section 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968, can only be committed "otherwise than in the course of stealing".[18]
Similar or associated offences
According to its title, the Theft Act 1968 revises the law as to theft and similar or associated offences. See also the Theft Act 1978.
In Northern Ireland, theft is a statutory offence, created by section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.
In the U.S., plenary regulation of theft exists only at the state level, in the sense that most thefts by default will be prosecuted by the state in which the theft occurred. The federal government has criminalized certain narrow categories of theft which directly affect federal agencies or interstate commerce.
Although many U.S. states have retained larceny as the primary offense,[19] some have now adopted theft provisions.
In many states, grand theft of a vehicle is charged as "grand theft auto" (see motor vehicle theft for more information).
Repeat offenders who continue to steal may become subject to life imprisonment in certain states.[20]
Sometimes the federal anti-theft-of-government-property law is used to prosecute cases where the Espionage Act would otherwise be involved; the theory being that by retaining sensitive information, the defendant has taken a 'thing of value' from the government. For examples, see the Amerasia case and United States v. Bradley Manning.
The Theft Act of 1927 consolidated a variety of common law crimes into theft. The state now distinguishes between two types of theft, grand theft and petty theft.[21] Grand theft generally consists of the theft of something of value over $1000 (it can be money, labor or property but is lower with respect to various specified property),[22] while petty theft is the default category for all other thefts.[23] Grand theft is punishable by up to a year in jail or prison, and may be charged (depending upon the circumstances) as a misdemeanor or felony.[24] while petty theft is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months in jail or both.[25] As for the older crimes of embezzlement, larceny, and stealing, any preexisting references to them now mean theft instead.[26]
Theft is defined at s.72 of the Crimes Act 1958. The actus reus and mens rea are defined as follows:
Appropriation - defined at s.73(4) of the Crimes Act 1958 as the assumption of any of the owners rights. It does not have be all the owner's rights, as long as at least one right has been assumed(Stein v Henshall). If the owner gave their consent to the appropriation there cannot be an appropriation(Baruday v R). However, if this consent is obtained by deception, this consent is vitiated.
Property - defined at s.71(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 as being both tangible property, including money and intangible property. Information has been held not be property(Oxford v Moss).
Belonging to another - s.73(5) that property belongs to another if that person has ownership, possession, or a proprietary interest in the property. Property can belong to more than one person. s.73(9) & s.73(10) deal with situations where the accused receives property under an obligation or by mistake.
Intention to permanently deprive - defined at s.73(12) as treating property as it belongs to the accused, rather than the owner.
Dishonestly - s.73(2) creates a negative definition of the term 'dishonestly'. The section deems only three circumstances when the accused is deemed to have been acting honestly. These are a belief in a legal claim of right (s.73(2)(a)), a belief that the owner would have consented (s.73(2)(b)), or a belief the owner could not be found(s.73(2)(c))
In the British West Indies, especially Grenada, there have been a spate of large-scale thefts of tons of sand from beaches.[27] Both Grenada and Jamaica are considering increasing fines and jail time for the thefts.[27]
Specific forms of theft and other related offences