Sure. He stole $100. He will get arrested, charged, convicted (hopefully) on the $100, not on the $70 item. There is a possibility that the $70 item will be confiscated as profits from a criminal act (multiply these numbers by 1000 - thief steals $100,000 and buys a $70,000 car with it - yeah, they’re going to impound the car), but the crime is still $100.
Well, yes. That is exactly correct. He stole a $100 bill. He didn’t steal any merchandise.
Suppose the two acts are a day apart. Surely you would agree he stole a hundred bucks but not the item?
Are you saying it’s materially different if the thief stole $30 and a $70 item, versus stealing $100 and then using $70 to purchase the item? How? The only differences are where the theft is recorded - at the tiller and from the stock list, versus only at the tiller.
Well, look at it this way; what’s worse, someone stealing $70 from the till, or stealing the item? Or are they the same?
If you’re a store owner, those are NOT the same. The loss of cash is different, and it’s worse.
Stealing $70 from the till is worse, since the store presumably wants to sell the item at a profit.
But you haven’t answered the question I posed to SciFiSam. How is the end result different for the store, other than how the thefts are recorded?
Exactly! That’s our point. And the net result of the thief’s wrongful acts are a deficit of $30 and an item priced at $70 no longer on the shelf.
That may be a loss of $100 or it may be less, but at most the store is out $100. Had the thief just stolen a $100 bill, the store would be out exactly $100.
The question doesn’t ask how your accountant would view it. The question asks about loss.
Like you, I can’t understand why you view it the way you do. Take the two scenarios:
1: The thief walks to the shelf and takes the item priced at $70. The thief walks to the till and takes $30 in cash. He leaves.
- The thief walks to the till and takes $100 in cash. The thief walks to the shelf and takes the item priced at $70. He returns to the till and replaces the $100 and takes $30. He leaves.
Your argument says that these two scenarios are materially different when a mathematical formula would show that the taking and replacing of the $100 cancels each other out making them identical.
Ultravires, if a thief steals $100 from Baxter’s Bookstore, then spends $70 in Sam’s Shoe Shop, how much did Sam lose?
Sam lost nothing. Perhaps he profited from the sale.
I’m not sure how that is related to the question presented.
So buying something with stolen money isn’t a loss to the store?
Assuming we aren’t getting into a legal restitution situation where Sam is divested of his profits…no, it is not a loss to the store if you give them Dave’s money. As far as the store is concerned, it is money it did not have, but now has. If you steal the money from the store itself and give it right back then surely, surely you can see how that is qualitatively different.
It isn’t different.
If a thief steals $100 from Sam, and then spends $70 in Sam’s shop, then Sam has lost $100 cash. The sale is not relevant. It neither increases nor decreases the loss
You can clearly see that Sam has lost $30…plus something else…what is that something else?
No. He lost $100 cash. As already established, selling an item isn’t a loss, even if bought with stolen money.
Does it change if the thief takes the item, walks to the cash register, picks up $70 out of the register and immediately replaces the $70?
That is in fact what the thief stole.
I have literally no idea what point yu think you are making here.
Does WHAT change? Which of the many scenarios discussed are you changing?
I’m making the point that this is exactly what the thief did!
No he didn’t.
No, I’m not the one saying that, Ultravires is.
It really isn’t, though.