Chapter 13Chapter 13

Crimes Against PropertyCrimes Against Property

IntroductionIntroduction

Common law developed a number of criminal offenses to punish the wrongful taking of private property.

State statutes have simplified the law by combining various property crimes into a single consolidated theft statute.

Main Types of Property CrimesMain Types of Property Crimes

Larceny

Embezzlement

False pretenses

Receiving stolen property

Forgery & uttering

Robbery

Extortion

Common Law LarcenyCommon Law Larceny

The trespassory taking & carrying away the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive that individual of the possession of the property.

Elements of LarcenyElements of Larceny

TrespassoryTakingAnd carrying away of thePersonal property of another withIntent to permanently deprive that individual ofPossession of the property

Actus ReusActus Reus: Trespassory Taking: Trespassory Taking

Trespassory taking refers to a wrongdoer who removes goods or money from the possession of another without concern.

Possession means physical control over property with the ability to freely use & enjoy the property.

Custody is the temporary & limited right to control property.

Larceny is not limited to business & commerce.Do not confuse ownership with possession.

Larceny: AsportationLarceny: AsportationMust be a taking (caption) & movement (asportation)

of the property.A taking requires asserting “dominion & control” over

the property.The property must then be moved (however much).Larceny may be accomplished through an innocent

person.Every portion of the property must be moved.Various statutes have followed the MPC &

abandoned the requirement of asportation; person is guilty of theft if he/she “unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control” over property.

Larceny: Property of AnotherLarceny: Property of Another

Concerned with the taking of property from an individual who has a superior right to possess the object.

At common law—only tangible propertyUnder modern statutes all varieties of property

are subject to larceny; these statutes have expanded larceny to cover every conceivable variety of property.

Larceny: Larceny: Mens ReaMens Rea

The mens rea requirement of larceny is the intent to permanently deprive another of the property.

There must be concurrence between the intent & the act.

Abandoned property is not subject to larceny (it has no owner).

Grades of LarcenyGrades of Larceny

Common law distinguished between grand larceny & petit larceny.

Grand larceny: stealing of goods worth more than 12 pence; death penalty applied.

State statutes also distinguish between categories of larceny but do so by specifying a dollar amount. Property more than the certain amount is grand larceny (felony), less than that amount is petit larceny (misdemeanor).

Value of the property is not the only basis for distinguishing between grand & petit larceny; also based on theft of particular items, theft from a home, theft from the “person of another.”

13.1. You Decide: Alamo13.1. You Decide: Alamo

Would you convict the defendant based on New York’s larceny statute? Why or why not?

Could/would you charge the defendant with another type of criminal offense? If so, given the circumstances what charge(s) might apply?

EmbezzlementEmbezzlement The law of embezzlement has slowly evolved &

there is no uniform definition.The core of embezzlement is the unlawful

conversion of the property of another by an individual in the possession of the property.

Central elements include: fraudulent conversion of the property of another who is in unlawful possession of the property.

Today, embezzlement is a misdemeanor or felony based on the value of the property.State v. Robinson (2004)

13.2. You Decide: Redondo13.2. You Decide: Redondo

Discuss the legal issues & circumstances related to Redondo’s convictions for embezzlement & misdemeanor theft.

Under the California statute, are Redondo’s convictions appropriate? Why or why not?

False PretensesFalse PretensesThe obtaining of possession of another through

misrepresentation or deceit is called larceny by trick.

Statutes differ in defining false pretenses but the essence of the offense is that one is guilty of false pretenses who:obtains title & possession of property of another bya knowingly false representation ofa present or past material fact withthe intent to defraud thatcauses an individual to pass title to his/her property.

False Pretenses: False Pretenses: Actus ReusActus Reus

The actus reus of this offense is a false representation of a fact.

The false representation must be of a past or present fact (not future—failure to fulfill a promise).

The misrepresentation must be material & must cause an individual to transfer title.

Silence does not constitute false pretenses.

False Pretenses: False Pretenses: Mens ReaMens Rea

Mens rea requires the false representation of an existing or past fact that is made “knowingly & designedly” with the “intent to defraud.”

“Recklessness” or representations without information are typically sufficient.

False Pretenses: False Pretenses: Mens Rea Mens Rea (cont.)(cont.) Requirement satisfied by knowledge that a

representation is untrue; an uncertainty whether a representation is true or untrue; or an awareness that a defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to determine whether a representation is true or untrue.

While larceny requires a taking & carrying away of the property, false pretenses only requires a transfer of title & possession.

False pretenses also includes wider variety of property than larceny.

State v. Henry (2003)

13.3. You Decide: Reske13.3. You Decide: Reske

Do you think that Reske was guilty of false pretenses in this case? Why or why not?

Would you agree or disagree that Reske was guilty of larceny by trick? Why?

Do you think any of the “blame” should be placed on Nellon for repeatedly returning to Reske’s car dealership? If so, why & how much of the blame? If not, why not?

TheftTheft

Many states have consolidated larceny, embezzlement, & false pretenses into a single theft statute.

All three offenses are directed against wrongdoers who unlawfully interfere with the property interest of others.

Consolidated theft statutes typically grade the severity of these offenses in a uniform fashion based on value of property, whether stolen property is a firearm or car, & other factors such as occurrence during looting of a disaster area.

Identity TheftIdentity Theft

Identity theft is the theft of your name & identifying information which can lead to economic damage (crime of the 21st century).

Theft of intangible property such as credit card or SSN number may lead to great financial harm.

In 1998, Congress passed the Identity Theft & Assumption Deterrence Act creating the “new offense” of identity theft.

City of Liberal, Kansas v. Vargas (2001)

13.4. You Decide: Ramirez13.4. You Decide: Ramirez

Did Ramirez obtain “anything of value?” If so, what valuable thing(s) did he obtain?

Discuss the arguments surrounding Ramirez’s claim that this is an ex post facto prosecution because the statute did not take effect until April 27, 1999 & he obtained & used the victim’s social security number in 1997 to get his job & get paid. Do you think Ramirez’s argument is valid? Why or why not

Computer CrimeComputer CrimePrimary property offenses committed in

cyberspace:Unauthorized computer access to programs &

databasesUnlawfully obtaining personal information through

trickery & deceit

State statutes punish a variety of computer-related activities.

But, does law enforcement possess the expertise & resources to track sophisticated cybercriminals?State v. Schwartz (1999)

Receiving Stolen PropertyReceiving Stolen Property

No offense under common law.Offense developed in England & included in

state criminal codes.Receiving stolen property requires that an

individual:receive property,knowing the property to be stolen,with the intent to permanently deprive the owner

of the property.

Receiving Stolen Property: Receiving Stolen Property: Actus ReusActus Reus

Requires that an individual control the stolen property, however briefly.

Individual may either take actual possession of the property or constructive possession (by arranging delivery to another person or specific location.

The property must actually be stolen.

Receiving Stolen Property: Receiving Stolen Property: Mens ReaMens Rea

Some statutes typically require actual knowledge that the goods are stolen; others provide it is sufficient an individual believes that the goods are stolen.

Courts: sufficient if a reasonable person would possess awareness of the property’s stolen nature.

Recipient of stolen property must also have the mens rea to permanently deprive the owner of possession & this must concur with the receipt of the property.

Hurston v. State (1991)People v. Land (1994)

13.5. You Decide: Lee 13.5. You Decide: Lee

Do you agree or disagree with Lee’s conviction for charges of receiving stolen firearms? Why?

Do you agree or disagree with the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold Lee’s conviction?

Given the circumstances do you think that Lee had control over the stolen firearms?

Was there evidence of the required criminal intent? If so, what was it?

Forgery & UtteringForgery & UtteringForgery is creating a false legal document or

the material modification of an existing legal instrument with the intent to deceive or defraud others—complete upon drafting the document.

Uttering is a separate & distinct offense that involves the actus reus of circulating or using a forged document.

Typically limited to documents of “legal significance;” MPC extends these offenses to all varieties of documents.

Elements of Forgery:Elements of Forgery:A false document or material modification of an

existing document that iswritten with the intent to defraud, and if genuine, would have legal significance.

Elements of Uttering:Elements of Uttering:Offering a forged instrument that isknown to be false and ispresented as authenticwith the intent to defraud or deceive

Forgery: Forgery: Actus ReusActus Reus

Falsely making or materially altering an existing document.

Examples of “falsely making”:Making a false id for a friendCreating false passportsFabricating tickets to concert/sporting event

An example of “materially altering” might involve stealing a check, signing the name of the owner of the account without authorization, & making it payable to yourself.

Forgery: Forgery: Mens ReaMens Rea

Forgery requires an intent to defraud, need not be directed at any specific individual.

Uttering & SimulationUttering & Simulation

Uttering is offering a document as genuine that is known to be false with the intent to deceive.

Distinct from the offense of forgery.Simulation is a crime (in the MPC) that punishes

the creation with the purpose to defraud of false objects (e.g., antiques, jewelry, paintings).

The offense of simulation requires proof of a purpose to defraud or proof that an individual knows that he/she is “facilitating a fraud.” United States v. Cunningham (2004)

13.6. You Decide: McGovern13.6. You Decide: McGovern

Do you agree that Scull’s impersonation of McGovern constituted forgery? Why or why not?

Why isn’t Scull being held criminally liable in this case? Isn’t he just as blameworthy as McGovern?

Would it be appropriate to charge & convict McGovern for forgery & charge & convict Scull for uttering? Why or why not?

RobberyRobbery

Typically described as aggravated larcenyRobbery is the trespassory taking & carrying

away of the personal property of another with the intent to steal.

Distinguished from larceny by the additional elements that:The personal property must be taken from a victim’s

person or presence.The taking of the personal property must be

achieved by violence or the threat of violence.

Robbery: Robbery: Actus ReusActus Reus

The property must be taken from the person or presence of the victim.

The property must be taken by violence or intimidation.

Property may also be seized as a result of intimidation or the fear of the immediate infliction of violence.

A threat may be implied.

Robbery: Robbery: Mens ReaMens Rea

The assailant must possess the intent to permanently deprive an individual of the property.

Robbery: ConcurrenceRobbery: Concurrence

The intent to steal & the application of force or intimidation must coincide (occur at the same time).

Violence or intimidation must be employed for the purpose of taking.

The Model Penal Code & some states allows for force or intimidation to occur “in the course of committing a theft” (during or fleeing from).

Grading RobberyGrading Robbery

Today’s statutes distinguish between simple & aggravated robbery—based on degree of dangerousness of defendant’s acts, fear & apprehension of victim, not on property value.

Aggravating factors may include:Robber armed with dangerous weapon Robber used a dangerous instrumentRobber inflicted serious bodily injuryRobber carried out theft with accomplice

Messina v. State (1999)

13.7. You Decide: Scherz13.7. You Decide: Scherz

Do you agree with Scherz’s conviction or would you overturn it? Why?

How important is the bank teller’s testimony to your judgment?

Would your opinion differ if Scherz actually had a grenade in his pocket? Why or why not?

Should Scherz be held liable for first-degree robbery if the teller realized he was threatening her with toenail clippers? What about with a toy grenade?

CarjackingCarjacking

Newly recognized form of property crimeTypically defined as a form of robbery & punishes

the taking of a motor vehicle “in the possession of another, from his/her person or immediate presence…against his/her will.”

Must be accomplished by force or fearNo requirement to permanently steal the carTrend is to find defendants guilty when a car is

seized & not to require movement of the carPeople v. Montero (1996)

ExtortionExtortion Common law extortion punished the unlawful

collection of money by a government official as a misdemeanor.

Statutes expanded this offense & elements include:The taking of property from another bya present threat of future violence or threat to circulate

secret, embarrassing, or harmful information or threat of criminal charges or threat to take or withhold official government action or threat to inflict economic harm & other harms listed in the state statute, with

a specific intent to deprive a lawful possessor of money or property.

Extortion (cont.)Extortion (cont.) Entails a threat of future violence or other harmsThe threat to disclose secret or embarrassing

information is commonly referred to as blackmail.Majority of states provide that extortion is complete

when the threat is made; others require handing over of money, property, etc.

The object of extortion may be money, property, or “anything of value.”

Bribery, on the other hand, occurs when money or a valuable benefit is offered or provided to a public official in return for an official’s action or inaction.

Key Property CrimesKey Property Crimes

Larceny

Embezzlement

False Pretenses

Theft

Identity Theft

Key Property Crimes (cont.)Key Property Crimes (cont.)

Computer Crime

Receiving Stolen Property

Forgery & Uttering

Robbery

Carjacking

Extortion