larceny - Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch. Stichwörter und Wendungen sowie Übersetzungen. Übersetzung für 'larceny' im kostenlosen Englisch-Deutsch Wörterbuch von LANGENSCHEIDT – mit Beispielen, Synonymen und Aussprache. Übersetzungen für larceny im Englisch» Deutsch-Wörterbuch von PONS Online: larceny, grand larceny.
If a person picks up a package of steaks intending to steal them then changes her or his mind and puts the steak back in the meat counter, the crime of larceny has been committed but the state will have a difficult time proving it.
However, if the thief conceals the steaks by sticking them inside clothing, his or her intent is rather clear.
Of course, there could still be an innocent if bizarre explanation. That said, the asportation requirement is not universally required. Alamo , for example, the New York Court of Appeals eliminated the asportation requirement.
In that case the defendant entered a stranger's car and turned on the car's lights and engine. Turning it on suffices to establish that the thief has taken possession and control.
Additionally, the Model Penal Code eliminates the asportation requirement and instead requires that the defendant "exercise unlawful control".
From its creation  the subject matter of larceny has been tangible personal property,  with a physical existence: This limitation means that acts of common-law larceny cannot be committed against land  or items attached to or forming part of land, such as buildings, trees or shrubbery , crops growing in the field, or minerals.
For example, if a person stole the Coca-Cola formula , the crime would be larceny but the grade of the offense would be determined by the value of the paper on which the formula was recorded not the value of the recipe.
Theft of trade secrets would be a different offense. Services and labor, as well as intangible personal property incorporeal rights  such as contract rights and choses in action ,  wills , codicils , or other testamentary documents; wild animals  and items having no economic value  cannot be the subjects of acts of common-law larceny.
Most states have enacted statutes to expand the coverage of larceny to include most if not all of the items mentioned above. The restriction of the scope of larceny to personal property may have practical consequences.
For example, a person may "steal" a central air conditioning unit by cutting the connections to the house, removing the unit from its concrete pad and hauling the disconnected unit away in a truck.
In most jurisdictions, a central air conditioning unit changes from personal property to real property a fixture once it is attached to a building.
Modernly, severance of a fixture from the realty would convert the fixture from real property back to personal property.
However, the common law stated that if the severance and carrying away of a fixture were one continuous act, no larceny would occur.
The defendant's actions in this example would thus merely constitute damage to real property, and would further not result in possession of stolen property since no larceny had taken place.
The property taken must be "of another". Thus wild animals cannot be stolen. Nor can co-owners be guilty of larceny.
Therefore, it is possible for the person who has title to the property to steal the property from a person who had lawful possession. For example, states provide that a person who repairs a car had a lien on the car to secure payment for the work.
The lien is a possessory lien meaning the repair person has the lien as long as he maintains possession of the car. If the title owner were to take the car from the lienholder this action could be prosecuted as larceny in some jurisdictions.
The taking must be trespassory; that is, it must be without the consent of the owner. This means that the taking must have been accomplished by stealth, force, threat of force, or deceit.
If the offender obtained possession lawfully then a subsequent misappropriation is not larceny. The offender must have taken the property with the intent to steal it.
Traditionally intent to steal is defined as the intent to deprive the owner of the possession of the property permanently.
However, intent to steal includes other states of mind such as the intent to recklessly deprive the owner of the property permanently. A person who takes property of another under the mistaken belief that the property belongs to him does not have the requisite intent to steal.
Nor does a person "intend to steal" property when he takes property intending to make temporary use of it and then return the property to the owner within a reasonable time.
Larceny protects the possession of goods — objects that have economic value. A good has economic value if it has a price; that is, the property can be sold in a market.
Thus, if the property taken has no economic value, it is not subject to larceny statutes. Under contemporary larceny laws, it is normally sufficient to support a larceny charge if the item has any value to the owner, even if its market value would be negligible.
Grand larceny is typically defined as larceny of a more significant amount of property. Grand larceny is often classified as a felony with the concomitant possibility of a harsher sentence.
The classification of larceny as grand or petit larceny originated in an English statute passed in However, the punishment for grand larceny was death while the punishment for petit larceny was forfeiture of property to the crown and whipping.
The classification was based on the value of the property taken. The offense was grand larceny if the value of the property taken was greater than twelve pence, approximately the value of a sheep in the thirteenth century.
Most jurisdictions also make certain larcenies felonies regardless of the value of the property taken. For example, North Carolina General Statutes Section 14 - 72 b 1 makes the crime of larceny a felony "without regard to value" if the larceny is 1 from the person 2 committed pursuant to certain types of breaking or enterings 3 of any explosive or incendiary device or 4 of any firearm.
Some states may also charge certain types of larceny as "robbery", "burglary", "theft", "shoplifting", "conversion", and other terms.
However, one of the remarkable qualities of property is its shiftiness; its ability to change its character often and quickly, from real to personal and from personal to real.
The principal methods of achieving this transformation are attachment and severance. If personal property is attached to land, it becomes real property.
And if real property is severed from the land rendered unattached it becomes personal property. A person buys a furnace.
The furnace company dispatches a technician to deliver and install the heating system. Before installation the heating system is personal property.
It has corporeal presence and it can be moved around as witnessed by the fact that the technician picked it up at the warehouse, loaded it into his truck, drove it to the house, unloaded it, placed it in the basement and hooked it up to the house.
The attachment to the house has to be more than casual for personal property to become real property.
For example, a table lamp that is plugged into a wall socket is not real property. A window air conditioning unit is not real property.
Embezzlement differs from larceny in two ways. First, in embezzlement, an actual conversion must occur; second, the original taking must not be trespassory.
Conversion requires that the secretion interferes with the property, rather than just relocate it. As in larceny, the measure is not the gain to the embezzler, but the loss to the asset stakeholders.
An example of conversion is when a person logs checks in a check register or transaction log as being used for one specific purpose and then explicitly uses the funds from the checking account for another and completely different purpose.
It is important to make clear that embezzlement is not always a form of theft or an act of stealing, since those definitions specifically deal with taking something that does not belong to the perpetrator s.
Instead, embezzlement is, more generically, an act of deceitfully secreting assets by one or more persons that have been entrusted with such assets.
The person s entrusted with such assets may or may not have an ownership stake in such assets. In the case where it is a form of theft, distinguishing between embezzlement and larceny can be tricky.
To prove embezzlement, the state must show that the employee had possession of the goods "by virtue of her employment"; that is, that the employee had the authority to exercise substantial control over the goods.
Typically, in determining whether the employee had sufficient control the courts will look at factors such as the job title, job description and the particular employment practices.
For example, the manager of a shoe department at a store would likely have sufficient control over the shoes that if she converted the goods to her own use she would be guilty of embezzlement.
On the other hand, if the same employee were to steal cosmetics from the cosmetic counter, so long as they did not convert the product, the crime would not be embezzlement but larceny.
For a case that exemplifies the difficulty of distinguishing larceny and embezzlement see State v. Using confidence tricks deception to get possession of property is larceny.
Larceny by trick is descriptive of the method used to obtain possession. The chief impediment to conviction was the doctrine of possessorial immunity which said that a person who had acquired possession lawfully, that is with the consent of the owner, could not be prosecuted for larceny.
Clearly the owner of the horse had given the defendant possession of the animal — he had agreed that the defendant could borrow the horse to ride to Surrey.
The court held that consent induced by fraud was not consent in the eyes of the law. This concept of consent broadened the scope of larceny.
Before, consent meant the voluntary relinquishment of possession and thus property was wrongfully taken only if the defendant acquired possession by stealth, force or threat of force.
An employee is generally presumed to have custody rather than possession of property of his employer used during his employment.
Thus the misappropriation would be larceny. Determining whether an employee has custody or possession can be difficult. If a third party transfers possession of property to an employee for delivery to his employer, the employee has possession of the property and his conversion of the property would be embezzlement rather than larceny.
However, once the teller transfers possession of the money to his employer, by placing the money in the till for example, the subsequent taking would be larceny rather than embezzlement.
This rule does not apply if the teller intending to steal the property places the money in the till merely as a temporary repository or to hide his peculation.
Thievery may well involve many items of personal property stolen from multiple victims. Questions arise as to whether such situations are to be treated as one large theft or multiple small ones.
Forum discussions containing the search term larency - Diebstahl Last post 19 Jul 05, Was soll das bedeuten xD?
Kennt jmd den unterschied? Last post 04 Feb 09, In need of language advice? Get help from other users in our forums. Beliebte Suchbegriffe to provide consider approach issue durch trotzdem Termin.
In some cases cookies from third parties are also used.Traditionally, a thief must not only gain dominion over the property, but also must move it from its original position. Thus, if the property taken has no economic value, it is not subject to larceny statutes. You Beste Spielothek in Geneschen Eins finden search the forum without needing to register. Was soll das bedeuten xD? Felony Misdemeanour Arrestable offence. Nor can co-owners be guilty of larceny. Determining whether an employee has custody or possession larceny deutsch be difficult. The court held that the Reef Run™ Slot Machine Game to Play Free in Yggdrasil Gamings Online Casinos control over the property, although momentary, was sufficient to constitute a taking. Questions arise as to whether such situations are to be treated as one large theft or multiple small ones. Casino.com | Per iniziare need to be logged in fußballergebnisse live use the vocabulary trainer. Beste Spielothek in Donstorf finden page was last edited on 20 Septemberat Kennt jmd den unterschied? For a case that exemplifies the difficulty of distinguishing larceny and embezzlement see State v. Retrieved 30 October This section needs additional citations for verification.