1. Chapter 13 Crimes Against Property

2. Introduction
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.

3. Main Types of Property Crimes
Larceny
Embezzlement
False pretenses
Receiving stolen property
Forgery & uttering
Robbery
Extortion

4. Common 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.

5. Elements of Larceny Trespassory Taking And carrying away of the
Personal property of another with
Intent to permanently deprive that individual of
Possession of the property

6. Actus Reus: 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.

7. Larceny: Asportation
Must 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.

8. Larceny: 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 property
Under modern statutes all varieties of property are subject to larceny; these statutes have expanded larceny to cover every conceivable variety of property.

9. Larceny: Mens 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).

10. Grades 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.”

12. 13.1. 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?

13. Embezzlement
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)

16. 13.2. 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?

17. False Pretenses
The 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 by
a knowingly false representation of
a present or past material fact with
the intent to defraud that
causes an individual to pass title to his/her property.

18. False Pretenses: Actus 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.

19. False Pretenses: Mens 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.

20. False Pretenses: Mens Rea (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)

23. 13.3. 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?

24. Theft
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.

26. Identity 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)

27. 13.4. 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

28. Computer Crime Primary property offenses committed in cyberspace:
Unauthorized computer access to programs & databases
Unlawfully 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)

29. Receiving 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.

30. Receiving Stolen Property: Actus 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.

31. Receiving Stolen Property: Mens 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)

34. 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?

35. Forgery & Uttering
Forgery 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.

36. Elements of Forgery: Elements of Uttering:
A false document or material modification of an existing document that is
written with the intent to defraud, and
if genuine, would have legal significance.
Elements of Uttering:
Offering a
forged instrument that is
known to be false and is
presented as authentic
with the intent to defraud or deceive

37. Forgery: Actus Reus
Falsely making or materially altering an existing document.
Examples of “falsely making”:
Making a false id for a friend
Creating false passports
Fabricating 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.

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

39. Uttering & 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)

42. 13.6. 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?

43. Robbery Typically described as aggravated larceny
Robbery 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.

44. Robbery: Actus 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.

45. Robbery: Mens Rea
The assailant must possess the intent to permanently deprive an individual of the property.

46. Robbery: 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).

47. Grading 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 instrument
Robber inflicted serious bodily injury
Robber carried out theft with accomplice
Messina v. State (1999)

50. 13.7. 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?

51. Carjacking Newly recognized form of property crime
Typically 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 fear
No requirement to permanently steal the car
Trend is to find defendants guilty when a car is seized & not to require movement of the car
People v. Montero (1996)

53. Extortion
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 by
a 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.

54. Extortion (cont.) Entails a threat of future violence or other harms
The 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.

55. Key Property Crimes Larceny Embezzlement False Pretenses Theft
Identity Theft

56. Key Property Crimes (cont.)
Computer Crime
Receiving Stolen Property
Forgery & Uttering
Robbery
Carjacking
Extortion