As well as fraud?
When I was 14 or 15, a friend of mine was arrested for “theft by deception”. I don’t remember the exact details, but I think he had bought a something, a lower model stereo, then he went into another store (of the same chain), and bought a higher model. Then he took the lower model, but it in the higher model’s box, and tried to return it, and got busted. Had he gotten away with it, he would have had a higher model while paying for a lower model, or “Theft by deception”.
Also, I believe that switching price tags on items falls under this category.
are you asking legally or morally?
Legally, there MIGHT be a small bit of difference. different charge although the punishments may be the same. YMMV. Different jurisdictions etc.
The intent is the same. However, in the stealing case, the theif is not paying anything for the item. in the other case, they may be paying some but certainly not all for the item.
Is it different morally? not to me.
Does that help at all?
Nah, I mean legally what’s the difference, but thanks for your input.
ok. let me point out however, that YMMV.
In general. If a thief can think up a way to get something w/o paying for it, the legislators have, too.
So. Charges that (in my state) may happen depending on how the crime occurred include (and examples used are not a definaitive list, nor may they be the only charge possible):
Larceny by conversion (I illegally convert your property to mine, by for example, forging a sales slip, or failing to return your money in an escrow account).
Retail Fraud (switching price tags, returning stolen merchandise for refund)
Fraud would include selling an item as genuine while knowing it was a less expensive copy for example.
using a fraudulent method of payment to gain the goods would likely be charged under something like Forgery (check), “uttering and publishing” (check), Illegal use of credit card or financial device (credit card), etc.
each has similar punishments in my state. As an aside that many folks do NOT seem to know, at least in the state of Michigan, for a shoplifting to be a felony, the item does NOT need to be over a certain threashold of expense. I’ve seen it prosecuted for a $1 item. (not that stealing any item ISN’T wrong)
[mommy hat on] Now. before you embark on an action based on this stuff, please let me point out that intent is a material issue in any crime, and if your intent is to somehow financially gain over some other person or entity through deceptive means, it is likely that those actions would be considered criminal in nature. and also let me assure you, getting into the “receiving” end of the Criminal Justice system is to be avioded whenever possible. mmmmkay? [mommy hat off]
Fraud doesn’t have to be stealing. Certainly you can say “I own this land, wanna buy it?” If you don’t own the land and he does buy it, that’s fraud. It’s also a form of stealing. In this case you’re stealing from two parties, the one who gives you money and the actual land owner.
It’s also fraud to claim to be a doctor and practice medicine when you’re not one. You’re not actually stealing anything (except when you screw up and steal a life) but it’s fraud nonetheless.
I think “deceptively stealing goods” fits under fraud, but not the other way around. Sort of like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t a square.
YMMV?
What does that mean?
You Mileage May Vary - used in this sense to mean that laws in your area may be different.
The difference is archaic legalism.
The original common law offense of larceny required “the taking and asportation of personal property in the possession of another accomplished against the will of the other and by means of a trespass with the intent to permanently deprive the other of his interests in the property.” Dix and Sharlot, Criminal Law (4th ed.) p. 5. Because this doesn’t begin to cover all the ways in which someone can steal something (it doesn’t even cover the case of a houseguest stealing the ashtrays), the law has been expanded by both the courts and by Parliament (remember, this is English common law we’re talking about) to cover new and interesting ways to deprive people of their property that are socially unredeeming. These include things like “larceny by trick” (renting property without intending to return it), “embezzlement” (appropriating property held for the benefit of another to one’s own use), “cheating by false tokens” (using counterfeit coin or currency to purchase property), “obtaining property by false pretenses” (causing the owner of property to transfer ownership by making a materially false representation with the knowledge that it is false), “blackmail” (using the threat to disclose a secret to obtain property), and “extortion” (using the threat of violence or of other harm to obtain property).
While most states have now codified all of these offenses under a blanket “theft” statute, the archaic origins of the offenses persist.
Can you give me a reference on that? ie. a link?
I don’t know of one offhand. The source for these comments is principally a casebook on criminal law: George Dix and M. Michael Sharlot, Criminal Law (4th ed.) (West, 1996). This material is not, as far as I know, webbed, although it might potentially be available online if you have Westlaw access.
From a layman’s point of view, without getting into legal fine points, crime seems to be viewed with an eye on the potential for violence.
The authorities and the public would recognize a clear difference between the following crimes:
- Stealing a car by going up to it at a red light and jamming a gun in the driver’s face.
- Sneaking into somebody’s attached garage at night and stealing their car out of their home.
- Stealing a car off the street or out of the dealer’s lot.
- Paying for a car with a cheque that bounces.
If the crime creates risk of a potentially violent confrontation it is seen to be more serious. Even shoplifting is treated seriously partly because of the potential for violence. I notice that crimes with little potential for violence, such as employee fraud and theft and other white collar crimes, are treated seriously but leniently because there is almost no chance of a violent encounter. On the other hand, thieves who risk a confrontation during the commission of their crime are treated as potentially more violent.
When you hear some political loony ranting that “a kid holds up a corner store for $50 and gets years in jail while a businessman who steals millions gets off with probation…” that person does not have an accurate perception of the nature of crime. It ain’t the amount of money, it’s how you do it.
Although I might add - There was a very rich man here in Alberta about twenty years ago who ran a trust company with its own mutual funds. He had his whole family on the payroll. His daughter, a university student, was paid $250,000 a year to study leaf sediment patterns in lake bottoms and compare these to economic cycles. His salesmen dishonestly flogged unprotected investments to customers and thousands of people lost their life savings. Quite a few senior citizens died very quickly after they found out they had lost everything. A man I know got cancer and was dead less than a year after he got cheated of everything. The rich guy and his family got a little slap on the wrist, no jail time, and moved to the USA. I noticed they set up a new financial institution (with the same name!) in Arizona. I’m sure they made out like bandits during Reagan’s savings and loan fiasco. This sort of violence is a little too sophisticated for judges and politicians who tend to suck up and socialize with this type of thief.