Criminal Law Theft and Fraud
Criminal Law, 26/04/11, Dr.Filletti
Theft
No definition of the offence of theft; Carrara gives us a definition which has been taken up by our courts, “The malicious taking of an object belonging to others without the owner’s consent with the intent to make gain.” This is the definition which our court uses, our law simply creates one distinction for these offences. The law creates two types of theft: Simple Theft and Aggravated Theft.
Simple Theft:
First element is “contrectazio” this is the taking away, this element has 3 schools of thought: 1. Carrara: Says amozio (movement), as soon as you have movement of the object, or as soon as the offender lays his hands on the object and simply moves it the offence of theft is complete. Carrara amended this to the moment of thought. 2. Pessina: Amozio not enough but you have to move it from one sphere of control to another sphere of control of the thief. The movement has to be such that it removes control over the object. 3. Impallomeni : Not only must you move the object and take it to the sphere of control and take it to the desired destination.
Pessina’s theory was used by the Italian code in 1889, this created problems in trial but Carrara’s has been best because it is the simplest. Pulizija vs Carmelo Felice, (Mamo Notes).
In criminal law there is no distinction between owner, possessor or the detentor, the criminal law does not care.
Second element dolosa, “malicious taking,” you cannot commit the act of theft involuntarily. Police vs John Portelli 1981, Portelli claimed that he was acting under mistake of fact but the court disagreed and said he was acting maliciously and thus he was liable to theft.
Third element di uno cosa, if we introduce the element of taking away the object has to be a moveable, it must be tangible and corporeal. The only exception is in water, gas and electricity but that is a specific exception laid down by the law.
The object must have a value, what value do we give an
Theft
No definition of the offence of theft; Carrara gives us a definition which has been taken up by our courts, “The malicious taking of an object belonging to others without the owner’s consent with the intent to make gain.” This is the definition which our court uses, our law simply creates one distinction for these offences. The law creates two types of theft: Simple Theft and Aggravated Theft.
Simple Theft:
First element is “contrectazio” this is the taking away, this element has 3 schools of thought: 1. Carrara: Says amozio (movement), as soon as you have movement of the object, or as soon as the offender lays his hands on the object and simply moves it the offence of theft is complete. Carrara amended this to the moment of thought. 2. Pessina: Amozio not enough but you have to move it from one sphere of control to another sphere of control of the thief. The movement has to be such that it removes control over the object. 3. Impallomeni : Not only must you move the object and take it to the sphere of control and take it to the desired destination.
Pessina’s theory was used by the Italian code in 1889, this created problems in trial but Carrara’s has been best because it is the simplest. Pulizija vs Carmelo Felice, (Mamo Notes).
In criminal law there is no distinction between owner, possessor or the detentor, the criminal law does not care.
Second element dolosa, “malicious taking,” you cannot commit the act of theft involuntarily. Police vs John Portelli 1981, Portelli claimed that he was acting under mistake of fact but the court disagreed and said he was acting maliciously and thus he was liable to theft.
Third element di uno cosa, if we introduce the element of taking away the object has to be a moveable, it must be tangible and corporeal. The only exception is in water, gas and electricity but that is a specific exception laid down by the law.
The object must have a value, what value do we give an