In many jurisdictions, if an individual has accepted possession of goods (or property) and knew they were stolen, then the individual may be charged with a crime, depending on the value of the stolen goods, and the goods are returned to the original owner. If the individual did not know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted. However, it can be difficult to prove or disprove a suspect's knowledge that the goods were stolen.
Possession of property obtained by crime (s. 354)[1]
Trafficking in property obtained by crime (ss. 355.2)[2]
Possession of property obtained by crime for the purposes of trafficking (ss. 355.4)[2]
The basic definition for the possession offence (which is almost identical in wording for the trafficking offences) is as follows:
354. (1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from
(a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or
(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.
If the value of the property is greater than $5,000, the maximum punishment on indictment is 10 years for possession only, and 14 years if related to trafficking. Otherwise, the maximum on indictment is two years and five years respectively, or alternatively punishment by summary conviction. (ss. 355 and 355.5)
United Kingdom
Handling stolen goods is the name of a statutory offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It takes place after a theft or other dishonest acquisition is completed and may be committed by a fence or other person who helps the thief to realise the value of the stolen goods. (This replaces the offence of "receiving stolen goods" under section 33 of the Larceny Act 1916.)
England and Wales
This offence is created by section 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968, which provides:
A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of stealing), knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.[3]
Stolen goods: This term means property stolen anywhere, as long as the theft amounted to an offence where committed.[3] It includes any proceeds of that property, including money for which it has been sold, and anything bought with those proceeds.[4] However, property which has been returned to the original owner, or otherwise lawful custody, is no longer regarded as stolen, by section 24(3). This may create difficulties, as in Haughton v Smith.[clarification needed] It is not necessary that the property be "stolen" in a limited sense; section 24(4) of the Act specifically extends the scope to property obtained by fraud or blackmail. However, it is also implicit in the definition of offences such as burglary or robbery that handling may apply to the proceeds of these offences.
Dealing: The offence of handling is drafted widely enough to criminalise any dishonest dealing with property that has been come by dishonestly; for example, the original thief may also be convicted of a subsequent handling if the thief later arranges its sale.[5] A codification of the methods of dealing has been suggested as
receiving stolen goods,
arranging to receive them,
undertaking the keeping, removing, disposing of, or realisation of stolen goods by or for the benefit of another person, or helping with any of those things, or
This makes the actus reus of handling very wide. For example, in R v Kanwar,[6] a man had brought stolen goods into the marital home, and his wife, the defendant, had lied to the police; it was held that this constituted "assisting in the retention" of those goods.
Knowledge or belief: The accused's knowledge or belief as to the nature of the goods is crucial, but has been a constant source of interpretive problems. Either may be based on what the thief says or some other positive information, but belief is less than knowledge and more than mere suspicion. In R v Hall [1985] 81 Cr App R 260, it was held that, per Boreham, J.,
Belief... is something short of knowledge. It may be said to be the state of mind of a person who says to himself, "I cannot say I know for certain that these goods are stolen, but there can be no other reasonable conclusion in the light of all the circumstances, in the light of all that I have heard and seen."
He went on to distinguish the case where a defendant has said
"I suspect that these goods may be stolen, but it may be on the other hand that they are not"
The situation is further complicated by the concept of recklessness or wilful blindness to the circumstances; either will be treated as a belief that the goods are stolen. Thus, suspicion will be converted into belief when the facts are so obvious that belief may safely be imputed. So if the defendant bought goods in a pub or a dark alley for a fraction of their true value and it is clear that identification marks or serial numbers have been erased, denial of belief by the defendant would not be credible.[citation needed]
There was at one time an issue of impossibility in that defendants may be dishonest and intend to handle goods (which they believe to be stolen) but which are not in fact stolen. The House of Lords ruled in Haughton v. Smith (1973) that where goods previously stolen have been reduced into lawful possession, not only can they not be "handled", but there can be no attempt to handle them. However, since then, section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 confirms that such a defendant can be convicted.
Laundering is an offence under ss. 327/9 and 340(3)(b) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the distinction between this and handling depends on whether the defendant's intention was to launder the proceeds of crime or merely to assist a thief. Laundering covers large amounts of money in a series of transactions over time when the defendant knows or suspects that the assets which he has concealed, acquired, used, possessed, or in respect of which they have entered into an arrangement which they know or suspect facilitates the acquisition, retention, use, or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person, are the proceeds of criminal conduct (compare money laundering).[citation needed]
Section 23[8] of the 1968 Act creates an offence of "advertising rewards for the return of stolen goods".[3] This prohibits public advertising for the return of such goods that state that "no questions will be asked", or that offer immunity from prosecution to the returner, or that state that monies paid for the goods will be reimbursed. This is a summary offence but is rarely prosecuted.[citation needed]
Handling stolen goods is triable either way.[9] A person guilty of handling stolen goods is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years,[10] 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.[11]
The wording of Section 22 actually creates eighteen ways in which "handling" may be committed,[5] This may create a problem for prosecutors in that Rule 7 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005,[12] and Rule 7 of the Indictments Rules 1971, provide that only a single offence may be charged in one information (in the Magistrates' Court) or in one count of an indictment (in the Crown Court). It can also be difficult to determine the meaning of "otherwise than in the course of stealing"; it was decided in R v Hale[13] that the "appropriation" in theft may be a continuing act, so it may be difficult to determine whether a theft has been completed.
Apart from the apparent difficulties of specifying a charge that does not offend against the rule against duplicity, it has been said that "in practice almost anything a person does with stolen goods may be classified as a handling".[5]
Section 27(3) of the Theft Act 1968 introduces a rare exception to the rule against admissibility of previous criminal conduct in the case of this offence. Evidence may be adduced (but only if handling is the only charge faced by the defendant) that the defendant (a) has been involved in similar conduct within the previous twelve months, and (b) has a previous conviction for handling within five years.[3] This is to counter repeated defences of "innocent dealing" as may be put forward by dishonest pawnbrokers. If the defendant is facing other charges, evidence of previous bad character may be admissible under Section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.[14]
In the United States, receipt of stolen property is a federal crime under 18U.S.C.§2315, and is defined as knowingly receiving, concealing, or disposing of stolen property with a value of at least $5,000 such that it also constitutes interstate commerce (i.e., has been transported across state lines).
A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proven:
The person received or concealed or stored or disposed of items of stolen property.
The items were moving as, or constituted a part of, interstate commerce.
The items had a value in excess of $5,000.
The person acted knowingly and willfully.
The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person either received, concealed, stored, sold, or disposed of the stolen property.
To be guilty of the offense, a person must know that the property had been stolen, but he need not know that it was moving as, or constituted a part of, interstate commerce. The term "interstate commerce" merely refers to the movement of property from one U.S. state into another; and it is sufficient if the property has recently moved interstate as a result of a transaction or a series of related transactions that have not been fully completed or consummated at the time of the person's acts as alleged.
All U.S. states also have laws regarding receipt of stolen property. There is no minimum dollar amount in many jurisdictions, and in the case of state laws the requirement from Federal law regarding interstate commerce does not apply. In many states (Ohio, for example), the burden to prove criminal intent is not as stringent or is nonexistent.[17] This means that one can be charged with the crime—usually a minor degree of felony—even if one did not know the item in question was stolen. In the Ohio case of State v. Awad, the goods did not need to actually be stolen, just represented as such.[18]
Receiving stolen property and possession of stolen property are treated as separate offenses in some jurisdictions. What distinguishes the offenses is when the person became aware that the property was stolen. If the person knew that the property was stolen at the time he received it, the crime is receiving stolen property. If the person did not know the property was stolen at the time she received it but found out after receiving possession, the crime is possession of stolen property.
The state must prove that the defendant received or possessed the property for a dishonest purpose. If, for example, the person acquired possession for the purpose of returning the property to its lawful owner, no crime has been committed.
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. The word theft is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as larceny, robbery, embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, or receiving stolen property. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, while in others, theft is defined more narrowly. A person who engages in theft is known as a thief.
Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take anything of value by force, threat of force, or by use of fear. According to common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear; that is, it is a larceny or theft accomplished by an assault. Precise definitions of the offence may vary between jurisdictions. Robbery is differentiated from other forms of theft by its inherently violent nature ; whereas many lesser forms of theft are punished as misdemeanors, robbery is always a felony in jurisdictions that distinguish between the two. Under English law, most forms of theft are triable either way, whereas robbery is triable only on indictment. The word "rob" came via French from Late Latin words of Germanic origin, from Common Germanic raub "theft".
Larceny is a crime involving the unlawful taking or theft of the personal property of another person or business. It was an offence under the common law of England and became an offence in jurisdictions which incorporated the common law of England into their own law, where in many cases it remains in force.
Embezzlement is a term commonly used for a type of financial crime, usually involving theft of money from a business or employer. It often involves a trusted individual taking advantage of their position to steal funds or assets, most commonly over a period of time.
In criminal law, property is obtained by false pretenses when the acquisition results from the intentional misrepresentation of a past or existing fact.
The Theft Act 1968 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales.
Dishonesty is acting without honesty. The term describes cheating, deficient probity, lying, deliberate withholding of information, being deliberately deceptive, or showing knavishness, perfidiousness, corruption, treachery, or deficient integrity.
A fence, also known as a receiver, mover, or moving man, is an individual who knowingly buys stolen goods in order to later resell them for profit. The fence acts as a middleman between thieves and the eventual buyers of stolen goods who may not be aware that the goods are stolen.
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which provides for the confiscation or civil recovery of the proceeds from crime and contains the principal money laundering legislation in the UK.
The Theft Act 1978 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It supplemented the earlier deception offences contained in sections 15 and 16 of the Theft Act 1968 by reforming some aspects of those offences and adding new provisions. See also the Fraud Act 2006.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland taking without owner's consent (TWOC), also referred to as unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle (UTMV) describes any unauthorised use of a car or other conveyance that does not constitute theft. A similar offence, known as taking and driving away, exists in Scotland.
Property crime is a category of crime, usually involving private property, that includes, among other crimes, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, shoplifting, and vandalism. Property crime is a crime to obtain money, property, or some other benefit. This may involve force, or the threat of force, in cases like robbery or extortion. Since these crimes are committed in order to enrich the perpetrator they are considered property crimes. Crimes against property are divided into two groups: destroyed property and stolen property. When property is destroyed, it could be called arson or vandalism. Examples of the act of stealing property is robbery or embezzlement.
The Fraud Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which affects England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It was given royal assent on 8 November 2006, and came into effect on 15 January 2007.
Criminal damage in English law was originally a common law offence. The offence was largely concerned with the protection of dwellings and the food supply, and few sanctions were imposed for damaging personal property. Liability was originally restricted to the payment of damages by way of compensation.
Making off without payment is a statutory offence in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Hong Kong. It was first introduced on the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and is intended to protect legitimate business concerns and applies where goods are supplied or a service is performed on the basis that payment will be made there and then. A taxi passenger who runs off without paying the fare at the end of the journey; and a motorist who fills up with petrol at a garage and drives off when the attendant is distracted. For these purposes, it must be proved that the defendant knew that payment on the spot was required or expected, and made off dishonestly with intent to avoid payment of the amount due.
Obtaining property by deception was formerly a statutory offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
Burglary is a statutory offence in England and Wales.
Lawrence v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1972] AC 262 is an English criminal law case establishing that the appropriation of property — under the meaning of the Theft Act 1968 — can be consented to. The House of Lords here ruled that an appropriation of property can occur even with the consent of the owner. To this end, they commented that the drafter's intentions in leaving out consent from the offence was to relieve the prosecution of establishing a lack of consent.
Furtum was a delict of Roman law comparable to the modern offence of theft despite being a civil and not criminal wrong. In the classical law and later, it denoted the contrectatio ("handling") of most types of property with a particular sort of intention – fraud and in the later law, a view to gain. It is unclear whether a view to gain was always required or added later, and, if the latter, when. This meant that the owner did not consent, although Justinian broadened this in at least one case. The law of furtum protected a variety of property interests, but not land, things without an owner, or types of state or religious things. An owner could commit theft by taking his things back in certain circumstances, as could a borrower or similar user through misuse.
The Penal Code is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Malaysia. Its official long title is "An Act relating to criminal offences" [Throughout Malaysia—31 March 1976, Act A327; P.U. (B) 139/1976]. The sole jurisdiction of Parliament of Malaysia is established over criminal law in Malaysia.
References
Look up handling in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
↑ Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, Section 51, Reset, retrieved 16 April 2009{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
↑ Lying to the police about the location of known stolen goods has been sufficient to be prosecuted for reset, as it aids the criminal in retaining the goods.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
