The Cunning Thief by Paul-Charles Chocarne-Moreau, depicting a thief about to steal a baked good|thumb|upright=1.2
Theft (, cognate to ) 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, while in others, theft is defined more narrowly. A person who engages in theft is known as a thief ( thieves).
Theft is the name of a statutory offence in California, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and the Australian states of South Australia and Victoria.
Elements
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised 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 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.
Psychology
thumb|Securing construction equipment against thieves
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. 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, rationalisation 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.
The most common reasons for shoplifting include participation in an organised shoplifting ring, opportunistic theft, compulsive acts of theft, thrill-seeking, and theft due to need. 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.
Romani people were forced to commit theft in Europe primarily for survival. Envious European craft guilds, aiming to preserve local monopolies, attempted to restrict traditional nomadic Romani trades such as metalworking and basket manufacturing. Consequently, due to these limitations, Romani individuals increasingly turned to begging, pickpocketing and stealing in order to survive poverty, thereby reinforcing the stereotype that Romani people are thieves that had followed them since their arrival in Europe.
Religious views
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. 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.
Hinduism
The Manusmriti and the Dharmashastras deal with theft, coveting wealth, and punishment for these.
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.
Judaism and Christianity
In the Hebrew Bible, two of the Ten Commandments relate to theft: "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet". The Christian New Testament describes Jesus affirming these in his teachings.
By jurisdiction
Australia
Actus reus
thumb|left|The Robbers Stone, [[West Lavington, Wiltshire. This memorial warns against thieving by recording the fate of several who attempted highway robbery on the spot in 1839.]]
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.
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.". 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. It does not have to be all the owner's rights, as long as at least one right has been assumed. If the owner gave their consent to the appropriation there cannot be an appropriation. 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. Information has been held not be property.
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.
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.
|
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.
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.
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: