Organ theft is the forcible removal of a person's organs to be used as transplants and sold in black market. The pop culture image of organ theft involving a drugged traveller waking up in a bathtub full of ice is an urban legend; in reality, cases of organ theft involve traffickers coercing poor people, war crimes, and thefts in a hospital setting.[1] It is also a commonly used trope in science fiction.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_theft
Egg theft
The first "test tube baby" was facilitated by Robert Edwards in 1978, and he allegedly used eggs without the consent of the women involved.[1]
One of the earliest cases involving egg theft occurred in 1987 in Garden Grove, California, in a clinic run by doctor Ricardo Asch,[5] and his partners doctors Sergio Stone and Jose Balmaceda.[6] Asch took eggs from women undergoing diagnostic procedures and used them in fertility procedures in other women.[5] Asch and his two partners were accused of taking eggs and embryos from patients without their consent, using them to cause pregnancies in other women, and defrauding insurance companies.[7] The eggs of at least 20 women were used,[8] and at least fifteen live births resulted.[9] Thirty-five patients filed legal actions against Asch.[7] An estimated 67 women were victims of egg or embryo theft.[5] Asch and Balmaceda left the country and avoided trial. Stone faced trial in the case and was sentenced to three years probation for mail fraud. He was fined $50,000 by the judge in the case, required to repay more than $14,000 in restitution to insurance companies, and had to wear an electronic monitoring device.[6]
In the "Egg Affair" in Israel in 2000, police investigated two doctors who were accused of intentionally creating extra eggs in patients needing fertility procedures, and then without their patients' knowledge harvesting and selling the eggs to other fertility patients.[10]
In Italy in 2016, famed Italian gynecologist Severino Antinori, known as the "grandmothers' obstetrician" because of his reputation for helping women over 60 to bear children, was arrested on suspicion of stealing eggs by removing them from a patient's ovaries without her consent under the guise of performing a procedure on her to remove an ovarian cyst. Antinori had recently hired a Spanish nurse at his clinic, and then diagnosed her with an ovarian cyst for the sole purpose of harvesting her eggs without her knowledge. Antinori was arrested at a Rome airport, charged with aggravated robbery and causing personal injury, and placed under house arrest.[11][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_fraud#Egg_theft
diw amnestic drug break enter human trafficking ring scheme
abductions shell swaps
brain transplant raid (1970, foreigns, high equity men, wives built, etc.) (draft) (not civilians)
civlian level one light cloak, psychoacoustics, etc.
implant double connect state match drive function consciousness transfer continued consciousness etc. (draft)
disintegration implant, body, etc. (draft)
levitation, etc. (draft)
mass human trafficking, mass-self procreation (inferior genetics), line theft operations (level and extent), etc. (draft)
missing original design family, missing, equities, missing, etc. (draft)
theft of reproductive material of unknowing civilian victims by usa nac dom et al etc. (draft)
theft of reproductive material of unknowing civilian victims by caucaians etc. (draft)
etc.
theft of line, etc.
variety confusants (mimickers doubles half-regrown clones fractional-uncertain polar-cell-tissue-gene-component-scale-etc. clone resemblance semblance likeness personification role-play place-holder twinning-early/late missing-relative-low-grade-equal-var-not-origin-etc. similarity shell-swap-image-implant etc.)
Sperm theft, also known as unauthorized use of sperm, forced fatherhood, spermjacking or spurgling (a portmanteau of sperm and burgling),[1][2] occurs when a man's semen is used, against his will or without his knowledge or consent, to inseminate a woman. It can also include deception by a partner about their ability to get pregnant or use of contraceptives, birth control sabotage, and sexual assaults of males that result in pregnancy.[3] Although the term uses the word "theft", it more closely falls under a state of fraud or breach of contract. Sperm theft is not illegal and is difficult to prove. It usually has no bearing on issues like child support. It is considered an issue in the men's rights movement.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_theft
Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning, which is the reproduction of human cells and tissue. It does not refer to the natural conception and delivery of identical twins. The possibilities of human cloning have raised controversies. These ethical concerns have prompted several nations to pass laws regarding human cloning.
Two commonly discussed types of human cloning are therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning.
Therapeutic cloning would involve cloning cells from a human for use in medicine and transplants. It is an active area of research, but is not in medical practice anywhere in the world, as of 2023. Two common methods of therapeutic cloning that are being researched are somatic-cell nuclear transfer and (more recently) pluripotent stem cell induction.
Reproductive cloning would involve making an entire cloned human, instead of just specific cells or tissues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning
In bioethics and law, gene theft or DNA theft is the act of acquiring the genetic material of another individual, usually from public places, without his or her permission. The DNA may be harvested from a wide variety of common objects such as discarded cigarettes, used coffee cups, and hairbrushes. In addition, a variety of people can be interested on collecting someone's genetic material. This includes the police, political parties, historians, professional sports teams, personal enemies, etc.[1] DNA contains adequate amount of information about someone and it can be used for many purposes such as establishing paternity, proving genealogical connections or even unmasking private medical conditions.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_theft
| Criminal law |
|---|
| Elements |
| Scope of criminal liability |
| Severity of offense |
|
| Inchoate offenses |
| Offences against the person |
| Sexual offenses |
| Crimes against property |
| Crimes against justice |
| Crimes against the public |
| Crimes against animals |
| Crimes against the state |
| Defences to liability |
| Other common-law areas |
| Portals |
Theft is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.[1][2][3] The word theft is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as larceny, robbery,[1] embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, or receiving stolen property.[2] In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny,[4][5] while in others, theft is defined more narrowly.[6] Someone who carries out an act of theft may be described as a "thief" (PL: thieves).[7]
Theft is the name of a statutory offence in California, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong,[8] Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland,[9] and the Australian states of South Australia[10] and Victoria.[11]
Elements
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 the intent to permanently deprive the owner or rightful possessor 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 realizes 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.
By jurisdiction
The following are the countries with the most cases of theft, as well as the respective rates per 100,000 people, according to the United Nations in 2018.[12]
| Country | Count | Rate |
|---|---|---|
 United States
|
5,217,100 | 1,594.97 |
 Brazil
|
2,204,299 | 1,052.33 |
 United Kingdom
|
1,593,128 | 2,694.93 |
 Italy
|
1,001,327 | 1,651.61 |
 Germany
|
1,082,478 | 1,302.24 |
Australia
Actus reus
South Australia
Theft is defined in section 134 of the Criminal Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) as being where a person deals with property dishonestly, without the owner's consent and intending to deprive the owner of their property, or make a serious encroachment on the proprietary rights of the owner.[10]
Under this law, encroachment on proprietary rights means that the property is dealt with in a way that creates a substantial risk that the property will not be returned to the owner, or that the value of the property will be greatly diminished when the owner does get it back. Also, where property is treated as the defendant's own property to dispose of, disregarding the actual property owner's rights.[13]
For a basic offence, a person found guilty of this offence is liable for imprisonment of up to 10 years.
For an aggravated offence, a person found guilty of this offence is liable for imprisonment of up to 15 years.
Victoria
Theft is defined in the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) as when a person "dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.".[14] The actus reus and mens rea are defined as follows: Appropriation is defined in section 73(4) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) as the assumption of any of the owner's rights.[15] It does not have to be all the owner's rights, as long as at least one right has been assumed.[16] If the owner gave their consent to the appropriation there cannot be an appropriation.[17] However, if this consent is obtained by deception, this consent is vitiated.
Property – defined in section 71(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) as being both tangible property, including money and intangible property.[18] Information has been held not be property.[19]
Belonging to another – section 73(5) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) provides 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. sections 73(9) & 73(10) deal with situations where the accused receives property under an obligation or by mistake.[15]
Mens rea
South Australia
Whether a person's conduct is dishonest is a question of fact to be determined by the jury, based on their own knowledge and experience. As with the definition in Victoria, it contains definitions of what is not dishonesty, including a belief in a legal claim of right or a belief the owner could not be found.[20]
Victoria
Intention to permanently deprive – defined at s.73(12) as treating property as it belongs to the accused, rather than the owner.
Dishonestly – section 73(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) 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, a belief that the owner would have consented, or a belief the owner could not be found.[15]
Canada
Section 322(1) of the Criminal Code provides the general definition for theft in Canada:
322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his/her use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
- (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
- (b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;
- (c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
- (d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.[21]
Sections 323 to 333 provide for more specific instances and exclusions:
- theft from oyster beds (s. 323)
- theft by bailee of things under seizure (s. 324)
- exception when agent is pledging goods (s. 325)
- theft of telecommunications service (s. 326)
- possession of device to obtain telecommunication facility or service (s. 327)
- theft by or from person having special property or interest (s. 328)
- theft by person required to account (s. 330)
- theft by person holding power of attorney (s. 331)
- misappropriation of money held under direction (s. 332)
- exception for ore taken for exploration or scientific research (s. 333)
In the general definition above, the Supreme Court of Canada has construed "anything" very broadly, stating that it is not restricted to tangibles, but includes intangibles. To be the subject of theft it must, however:
- be property of some sort;
- be property capable of being
- taken (therefore intangibles are excluded); or
- converted (and may be an intangible);
- taken or converted in a way that deprives the owner of his/her proprietary interest in some way.[22]
Because of this, confidential information cannot be the subject of theft, as it is not capable of being taken as only tangibles can be taken. It cannot be converted, not because it is an intangible, but because, save in very exceptional far‑fetched circumstances, the owner would never be deprived of it.[22] However, the theft of trade secrets in certain circumstances does constitute part of the offence of economic espionage, which can be prosecuted under s. 19 of the Security of Information Act.[23]
For the purposes of punishment, Section 334 divides theft into two separate offences, according to 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 offense or a less serious summary conviction offence, depending on the choice of the prosecutor.
- if dealt with as an indictable offence, it is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, and,
- if treated as a summary conviction offence, it is punishable by 6 months imprisonment, a fine of $2000 or both.
Where a motor vehicle is stolen, Section 333.1 provides for a maximum punishment of 10 years for an indictable offence (and a minimum sentence of six months for a third or subsequent conviction), and a maximum sentence of 18 months on summary conviction.
Hong Kong
Section 2 of the Theft Ordinance provides the general definition of theft in Hong Kong:
(1) A person commits theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and thief and steal shall be construed accordingly. (2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.[8]
The elements of this offence in Hong Kong is almost the same as in England and Wales, because the Theft Ordinance in Hong Kong was drafted based on the Theft Act 1968 (and the Theft Act 1978) in UK. However, the "Ghosh Test" for dishonest in Hong Kong has been replaced by the "Ivey Test" in England and Wales by the Supreme Court. It is the main difference between the offence of theft in these two jurisdictions.
India
Theft is a criminal activity in India with punishments which may lead to jail term. Below are excerpts of laws of Indian penal Code which state definitions and punishments for theft.
- Section 378 – Theft.
- Whoever intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft.
- Explanation 1.—A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
- Explanation 2.—A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
- Explanation 3.—A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
- Explanation 4.—A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
- Explanation 5.—The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.[24]
- Section 379 – Punishment for theft.
- Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.[25]
- Section 380 – Theft in dwelling house, etc.
- Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.[26]
- Section 381 - Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master.
- Whoever, being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.[27]
- Section 382 – Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft.
- Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The Netherlands
Theft is a crime with related articles in the Wetboek van Strafrecht.
- Article 310 prohibits theft (Dutch: diefstal), which is defined as taking away any object that (partly) belongs to someone else, with the intention to appropriate it illegally. Maximum imprisonment is 4 years or a fine of the fifth category.[29][30]
- Article 311 consists of the following:
- Part 1. Punishable with maximum imprisonment of 6 years or a fine of the fourth category[29] is:
- 1. Theft of cattle;
- 2. Theft during certain emergency occasions;
- 3. Theft during night in a residence by someone who is there without knowledge or permission of the owner;
- 4. Theft by 2 or more organized people;
- 5. Theft, where the thief got access by means of violence, climbing in, using false keys or disguise;
- 6. Terroristic theft.
- Part 2. When theft if committed as in 3 with the situation of 4 and 5, the punishment is a maximum imprisonment of 9 years or a fine of the fifth category.[31][32]
- Part 1. Punishable with maximum imprisonment of 6 years or a fine of the fourth category[29] is:
- Article 312 consists of the following:
- Part 1 prohibits robbery (Dutch: beroving), which is defined as taking away any object with violence or with threat of violence. Maximum imprisonment is 9 years or a fine with the fifth category[31]
- Part 2 allows maximum imprisonment of 12 years or a fine of the fifth category[31] when:
- 1. Robbery was committed during night, in a residence, on the public road or moving train;
- 2. Robbery was committed by 2 or more people;
- 3. Robbery was committed by violence, climbing in, false key or disguise;
- 4. Robbery caused severe injury;
- 5. Robbery was terroristic.
- Part 3 allows maximum imprisonment of 15 years instead of 12 when robbery caused death to the victim.[33]
- Article 314 consists of the following:
- Part 1 prohibits poaching (Dutch: stroperij), which is defined as taking away without violence the following: clay, sand, earth, raw wood, fallen vegetables (see the source for a complete list). Maximum imprisonment is one month or a fine of the second category.[34]
- Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to 2 months when the crime is committed again less than 2 years after the first time.[35]
- Article 315 increases the maximum imprisonment and fine category when poaching is done with vehicles and draft animals. Maximum imprisonment is 3 years or a fine of the fourth category.[29][36]
Republic of Ireland
Theft is a statutory offence, created by section 4(1) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.[37]
Romania
According to the Romanian Penal Code a person committing theft (furt) can face a penalty ranging from 1 to 20 years.[38][39]
Degrees of theft:
- Article 208: Theft (1 to 12 years)—When a person steals an object, or uses a vehicle without permission and no aggravating circumstances apply.
- Article 209: Qualified theft (3 to 20 years)
- Aggravating circumstances (3 to 15 years): a) by two or more persons together; b) by a person in possession of a gun or a narcotic substance; c) by a masked or disguised person; d) against a person who cannot defend his or herself; e) in a public place; f) in a public transportation vehicle; g) during nighttime; h) during a natural disaster; i) through burglary, or by using an original or copied key; j) stealing national treasures; k) stealing official identity papers with the intention to make use of them; l) stealing official identity badges with the intention to make use of them.
- Aggravating circumstances (4 to 18 years): a) stealing petrol-based products directly from transportation pipes and vehicles or deposits; b) stealing components from national electrification, telecommunication, irrigation networks or from any type of navigational system; c) stealing a siren; d) stealing a public intervention vehicle or device; e) stealing something which jeopardizes the safety of public transportation.
- Aggravating circumstances (10 to 20 years): when the consequences are extremely grave and affect public institutions or the material stolen is worth over 200,000 RON (approximately US$80,000).[citation needed]
United Kingdom
England and Wales
In England and Wales, theft is a statutory offence, created by section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968. This offence replaces the former offences of larceny, embezzlement and fraudulent conversion.[40]
The marginal note to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 describes it as a "basic definition" of theft. Sections 1(1) and (2) provide:
- 1.-(1) A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.
- (2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.
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.[41]
Appropriates
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.
Property
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 section 4(1) could, without changing its meaning, be reduced, by omitting words, to:
"Property" includes … all … property.[42]
Sections 4(2) to (4) provide that the following can only be stolen under certain circumstances:
- Land or things forming part of land and severed from it (s. 4(2))
- Mushrooms growing wild on any land, or the flowers, fruit or foliage of plants growing wild on any land (s. 4(3))
- Wild creatures or the carcases of wild creatures (s. 4(4))
Intangible property
Confidential information[43] and trade secrets[44] 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.[45]
Electricity
Electricity cannot be stolen. It is not property within the meaning of section 4 and is not appropriated by switching on a current.[46] Cf. the offence of abstracting electricity under section 13.
Belonging to another
Section 5 "belonging to another" requires a distinction to be made between ownership, possession and control:
- ownership is where a person is not legally accountable to anyone else for the use of the property:
- possession is where a person is only accountable to the owner for the use of the property; and
- control is where a person is only accountable to two people for the use of the property.
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 unauthorized 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,[47] 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:
- did the car "belong to another"? The garage had a lien i.e. a "proprietary right or interest" in the car as security for the unpaid bill and this gave the garage a better right than the owner to possess the car at the relevant time.
- what was the relevance of Turner's belief that he could not steal his own property? The defence of mistake of law only applies if the defendant honestly believes that he has a right in law to act in the given way. Generalized and non-specific beliefs about what the law might permit are not a defence.
With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
Section 6 "with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it" is sufficiently flexible to include situations where the property is later returned.[48]
Alternative verdict
The offense created by section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (TWOC) is available an alternative verdict on an indictment for theft.[49]
Visiting forces
Theft is an offence against property for the purposes of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952.[50]
Mode of trial and sentence
Theft is triable either way.[51] A person guilty of theft is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years,[52] 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.[53]
Aggravated theft
The only offence of aggravated theft is robbery, contrary to section 8 of the Theft Act 1968.[54]
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.[55]
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".[56]
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.
Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland, theft is a statutory offence, created by section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.[57]
United States
In the United States, crimes must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which they occurred.[58] Although federal and state jurisdiction may overlap, even when a criminal act violates both state and federal law, in most cases only the most serious offenses are prosecuted at the federal level.[59]
The federal government has criminalized certain narrow categories of theft that directly affect federal agencies or interstate commerce.[60] The Model Penal Code, promulgated by the American Law Institute to help state legislatures update and standardize their laws,[61] includes categories of theft by unlawful taking or by unlawfully disposing of property, theft by deception (fraud), theft by extortion, theft by failure to take measures to return lost or mislaid or mistakenly delivered property, theft by receipt of stolen property, theft by failing to make agreed disposition of received funds, and theft of services.[62]
Although many U.S. states have retained larceny as the primary offense,[63] some have now adopted theft provisions.
Grand theft, also called grand larceny, is a term used throughout the United States designating theft that is large in magnitude or serious in potential penological consequences. Grand theft is contrasted with petty theft, also called petit theft, that is of smaller magnitude or lesser seriousness.
Theft laws, including the distinction between grand theft and petty theft for cases falling within its jurisdiction, vary by state. This distinction is established by statute, as are the penological consequences.[64] Most commonly, statutes establishing the distinction between grand theft and petty theft do so on the basis of the value of the money or property taken by the thief or lost by the victim, with the dollar threshold for grand theft varying from state to state. Most commonly, the penological consequences of the distinction include the significant one that grand theft can be treated as a felony, while petty theft is generally treated as a misdemeanor.
In some states, grand theft of a vehicle may be 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.[65]
Sometimes the federal anti-theft-of-government-property law 18 U.S.C. § 640 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. Manning.
Alabama
When stolen property exceeds the amount of $500 it is a felony offense.[66] If property is less than $500, then it is a Class A misdemeanor.[67] Unlike some other states, shoplifting is not defined by a separate statute but falls under the state's general theft statute.[68]
Alaska
The Alaska State Code does not use the terms grand theft or grand larceny. However, it specifies that theft of property valued at more than $1,000 is a felony whereas thefts of lesser amounts are misdemeanors. The felony categories (class 1 and class 2 theft) also include theft of firearms; property taken from the person of another; vessel or aircraft safety or survival equipment; and of access devices.[69]
Arizona
Felony theft is committed when the value of the stolen property exceeds $1000. Regardless of the value of the item, if it is a firearm or an animal taken for the purpose of animal fighting, then the theft is a Class 6 Felony.[70]
California
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.[71] The older crimes of embezzlement, larceny, and stealing, and any preexisting references to them now fall under the theft statute.[72]
There are a number of criminal statutes in the California Penal Code defining grand theft in different amounts. Grand theft generally consists of the theft of something of value over $950 (including money, labor or property but is lower with respect to various specified property),[73] Theft is also considered grand theft when more than $250 in crops or marine life forms are stolen, “when the property is taken from the person of another,” or when the property stolen is an automobile, farm animal, or firearm.[74]
Petty theft is the default category for all other thefts.[75]
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,[76] while petty theft is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months in jail or both.[77]
Florida
In general, any property taken that carries a value of more than $750 can be considered grand theft in certain circumstances.[78]
Georgia
In Georgia, when a theft offense involves property valued at $500 or less, the crime is punishable as a misdemeanor. Any theft of property determined to be exceeding $500 may be treated as grand theft and charged as a felony.[79]
Hawaii
Theft in the first or second degree is a felony. Theft in the first degree means theft above $20,000 or of a firearm or explosive; or theft over $300 during a declared emergency.[80] Theft in the second degree means theft above $750, theft from the person of another, or agricultural products over $100 or aquacultural products from an enclosed property.[81]
Illinois
Theft is a felony if the value of the property exceeds $300 or the property is stolen from the person of another. Thresholds at $10,000, $100,000, and $500,000 determine how severe the punishment can be. The location from which property was stolen is also a factor in sentencing.[82]
Kentucky
KRS 514.030 states that theft by unlawful taking or disposition is generally a Class A misdemeanor unless the items stolen are a firearm, anhydrous ammonia, a controlled substance valued at less than $10,000 or any other item or combination of items valued $500 or higher and less than $10,000 in which case the theft is a Class D felony. Theft of items valued at $10,000 or higher and less than $1,000,000 is a Class C felony. Theft of items valued at $1,000,000 or more is a Class B felony, as is first offense theft of anhydrous ammonia for the express purpose of manufacturing methamphetamines in violation of KRS 218A.1432. In the latter case, subsequent offenses are a Class A felony.[83]
Massachusetts
In Massachusetts, theft may generally be charged as a felony if the value of stolen property is greater than $250.[84]
Missouri
Stealing is a felony if the value of stolen property exceeds $500. It is also a felony if "The actor physically takes the property appropriated from the person of the victim" or the stolen property is a vehicle, legal document, credit card, firearm, explosive, U.S. flag on display, livestock animal, fish with value exceeding $75, captive wildlife, controlled substance, or anhydrous ammonia.[85] Stealing in excess of $25,000 is usually a class B felony (sentence: 5–15 years),[86] while any other felony stealing (not including the felonies of burglary or robbery) that does not involve chemicals is a class C felony (sentence: up to 7 years). Non-felony stealing is a class A misdemeanor (sentence: up to 1 year).
New York
Grand larceny consists of stealing property with a value exceeding $1000; or stealing a public record, secret scientific material, firearm, credit or debit card, ammonia, telephone with service, or motor vehicle or religious item with value exceeding $100; or stealing from the person of another or by extortion or from an ATM. The degree of grand larceny is increased if the theft was from an ATM, through extortion involving fear, or involved a value exceeding the thresholds of $3,000, $50,000, or $1,000,000.[87]
Vermont
Grand Larceny: Value of goods exceed $900 (13 V.S.A. § 2501)
Virginia
Grand Larceny: Value of goods exceed $1000 (Virginia Code § 18.2-95)
Washington State
Theft of goods valued between $750 and $5000 is second-degree theft, a Class C felony.[88] Theft of goods valued above $5000, of a search-and-rescue dog on duty, of public records from a public office or official, of metal wire from a utility, or of an access device, is a Class B felony,[89] as is theft of a motor vehicle [90] or a firearm.[91]
West Indies
In the British West Indies, especially Grenada, there have been a spate of large-scale thefts of tons of sand from beaches.[92] Both Grenada and Jamaica are considering increasing fines and jail time for the thefts.[92]
Religious views and practices
Islam
In parts of the world which govern with sharia law, the punishment for theft is amputation of the right hand if the thief does not repent. This ruling is derived from surah 5 verse 38 of the Quran which states As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power. This is viewed as being a deterrent.[93][94]
Buddhism
In Buddhism, one of the five precepts prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[95][96] Professions that are seen to violate the precept against theft are working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[97]
Psychology
Possible causes for acts of theft include both economic and non-economic motivations. For example, an act of theft may be a response to the offender's feelings of anger, grief, depression, anxiety, compulsion, boredom, power and control issues, low self-esteem, a sense of entitlement, an effort to conform or fit in with a peer group, or rebellion.[98] Theft from work may be attributed to factors that include greed, perceptions of economic need, support of a drug addiction, a response to or revenge for work-related issues, rationalization that the act is not actually one of stealing, response to opportunistic temptation, or the same emotional issues that may be involved in any other act of theft.[98]: 438 Grotius and Pufendorf upheld the principle that a person in extreme and unavoidable need, who took from the surpluses of property holders, was not guilty of the crime of theft.[99]
The most common reasons for shoplifting include participation in an organized shoplifting ring, opportunistic theft, compulsive acts of theft, thrill-seeking, and theft due to need.[100] Studies focusing on shoplifting by teenagers suggest that minors shoplift for reasons including the novelty of the experience, peer pressure, the desire to obtain goods that a minor cannot legally purchase, and for economic reasons, as well as self-indulgence and rebellion against parents.[101]
See also
- Anti-theft system
- Asset management (corporate theft prevention)
- Confidence trick
- Credit card fraud
- Dishonesty
- Fence (criminal)
- Force-initiation
- Fraud
- Gentleman thief
- Larceny
- Money laundering
- Organized crime
- Pickpocketing
- Package pilferage
- Plagiarism
- Property is theft!
- Secret profit
- Skimming (casinos)
- Taxation as theft
- Theft Act
- Usufruct
- White-collar crime
Specific forms of theft and other related offences
- Art theft
- Attention theft
- Bank robbery
- Bandwidth theft
- Bloody Code
- Brandjacking
- Carjacking
- Computer crime
- Confidence trick
- Economic Espionage Act of 1996
- Embezzlement
- Espionage
- Extortion
- Identity theft
- Kidnapping
- Laptop theft
- Metal theft
- Motor vehicle theft
- Organized retail crime
- Package pilferage
- Phishing
- Piracy
- Plagiarism
- Quackery
- Receipt of stolen property
- Ripoff
- Sperm theft
- Street sign theft
- Tax evasion
- Theft of services
- Theft by finding
- Electricity theft
Notes
...a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
- Prayag, G.; Juwaheer, T.D. (2 February 2019). "Exploring Teenagers Shoplifting Motivations and Perceptions of Deterrence Measures – A Case Study of Mauritius". University of Mauritius Research Journal. 15: 47. Retrieved 17 February 2019.
References
- Allen, Michael. Textbook on Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. (2005) ISBN 0-19-927918-7.
- Criminal Law Revision Committee. 8th Report. Theft and Related Offences. Cmnd. 2977
- Green, Stuart P. Thirteen Ways to Steal a Bicycle: Theft Law in the Information Age. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (2012). ISBN 978-0674047310
- Griew, Edward. Theft Acts 1968 & 1978, Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN 0-421-19960-1
- Ormerod, David. Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, LexisNexis, London. (2005) ISBN 0-406-97730-5
- Maniscalco, Fabio, Theft of Art (in Italian), Naples – Massa (2000) ISBN 88-87835-00-4
- Smith, J. C. Law of Theft, LexisNexis: London. (1997) ISBN 0-406-89545-7.
External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
No comments:
Post a Comment