Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
18 U.S.C. § 1028A, the federal aggravated identity theft statute, states: Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated [elsewhere in the statute], knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
Since theft is the unlawful taking of another person's property, an essential element of the actus reus of theft is absent. [2] The finder of lost property acquires a possessory right by taking physical control of the property, but does not necessarily have ownership of the property. The finder must take reasonable steps to locate the owner. [1]
The Supreme Court will decide a property rights dispute on whether government entities violate the Constitution when they seize homes for failure to pay taxes.
4. Theft by 2 or more organised people; 5. Theft, where the thief got access by means of violence, climbing in, using false keys or disguise; 6. Terroristic theft. Part 2. When theft if committed as in 3 with the situation of 4 and 5, the punishment is a maximum imprisonment of 9 years or a fine of the fifth category. [39] [40]
Force used after the theft is complete will not turn the theft into a robbery. The words "or immediately after" that appeared in section 23(1)(b) of the Larceny Act 1916 were deliberately omitted from section 8(1). [11] The book Archbold said that the facts in R v Harman, [12] which did not amount to robbery in 1620, would not amount to robbery ...
Korean automakers Hyundai Motor and Kia Corp on Tuesday asked a U.S. judge to reject lawsuits filed by 17 cities for failing to install anti-theft technology in millions of their vehicles.
In a split decision, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a 65-year prison sentence given to a woman who stole items from nursing home residents.
Section 16(2)(b) covers the situation in Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Charles [8] (which is described in the article Deception (criminal law)) where writing the cheque backed by a card obtains an unauthorised overdraft even though the deception operates on the mind of the person accepting the cheque and not on the mind of a bank officer ...