Chapter 111: What Jurisdictions Criminalize Receiving Stolen

Chapter 111 What Jurisdictions Criminalize Receiving Stolen Property

Describe which jurisdictions criminalize receiving stolen property, the purpose of that offense, and who is often targeted with that offense. Explain the criminal act element required for receiving stolen property, specifying whether the defendant must be in control of the property. Clarify the type of possession involved when someone has control but not actual possession. Detail the two parts of the criminal intent element necessary for receiving stolen property, including a detailed description of each. Finally, identify the attendant circumstances that the prosecution must prove for the offense of receiving stolen property.

Paper For Above instruction

Chapter 111 What Jurisdictions Criminalize Receiving Stolen Property

Receiving stolen property is a criminal offense recognized in many jurisdictions around the world, including the United States, Canada, and several European countries. The primary purpose of criminalizing the act of receiving stolen property is to deter theft and related crimes by imposing liability not only on the actual thief but also on those who knowingly possess stolen goods. This law aims to disrupt the cycle of theft and resale, making it more difficult for thieves to profit from their crimes, and protecting property owners and the marketplace at large (LaFave et al., 2010).

Typically, the offense targets individuals who knowingly receive, purchase, or assist in concealing stolen property. This includes fences, pawnbrokers, and others engaged in the resale of goods. The goal is to prevent individuals from intentionally or negligently participating in the distribution of stolen goods, thereby reducing the overall incidence of theft and related crimes in society (Schulhofer & Walker, 2013).

Criminal Act Element

The criminal act element for receiving stolen property generally requires the accused to have obtained control over the property. The control can be either actual possession—meaning physical control of the goods—or constructive possession, where control is exercised without physical handling, such as through dominion or effective control over the item. This means the defendant does not necessarily have to have the property in their immediate possession; they can be in control of it indirectly, such as through storage or arrangements for transfer (Cox & Johnson, 2021).

When someone has control but not actual possession, it is often described as constructive possession. Constructive possession occurs when the defendant has the power and intent to exercise dominion and control over the item, even if they are not physically holding it. For example, a person who affixes stolen goods to a vehicle or stores them at another location maintains constructive possession of the stolen items (Lilly et al., 2018).

Intent Elements of Receiving Stolen Property

The criminal intent for receiving stolen property typically comprises two essential parts: knowledge and intent to permanently deprive. The first part, knowledge, requires the defendant to be aware that the property is stolen. Proving knowledge is central because otherwise, an innocent purchaser who unknowingly acquires stolen goods could be unjustly convicted. Courts have developed various standards for establishing knowledge, including direct evidence like admissions or circumstantial evidence, such as suspicious circumstances that suggest awareness of the theft (Alpert & Booth, 2015).

The second part, intent to permanently deprive, involves the defendant’s purpose to abandon any ownership rights over the stolen property. This element distinguishes mere possession from criminal receiving, emphasizing the defendant’s intent to keep, sell, or otherwise dispose of the stolen items permanently, rather than simply temporarily possessing them or being unaware of their stolen status (Kleck, 2020).

Attendant Circumstances

To establish the offense of receiving stolen property, the prosecution must also prove certain attendant circumstances. These include that the defendant knew or believed the property was stolen and that the property was, in fact, stolen. The prosecution relies on evidence such as the circumstances under which the property was acquired, the defendant’s statements or conduct, and known patterns of theft and resale. Additionally, evidence that the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the property or evade detection can support the inference that they knew the property was stolen (Alpert & Booth, 2015).

Furthermore, jurisdictional variations may include requirements such as the value of the stolen property or whether the defendant was engaged in a pattern of receiving stolen property. Courts may also consider whether the defendant's actions contributed to the continued theft cycle. Establishing these circumstances is essential because they underpin the criminal liability for receiving stolen property and ensure the act is not mistakenly applied to innocent parties (Schulhofer & Walker, 2013).

Conclusion

In conclusion, criminalizing the receipt of stolen property is an essential legal tool aimed at reducing theft and its associated harms. Jurisdictions require proof that the defendant knowingly received or controlled stolen goods, with both the intent and knowledge elements rigorously examined. The concept of constructive possession allows for convictions even without physical custody, provided there is control and awareness of the property’s stolen nature. Attendant circumstances, including the defendant’s awareness and the nature of the property, further underpin successful prosecution of these offenses, emphasizing the importance of both mental state and contextual evidence in criminal law enforcement.

References

• Alpert, G. P., & Booth, R. (2015). Criminal Law and Procedure. Aspen Publishers.
• Cox, C., & Johnson, S. (2021). Elements of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
• Kleck, G. (2020). Understanding Crime. Routledge.
• LaFave, W. R., Israel, J. H., & Kerr, O. H. (2010). Criminal Procedure. Thomson West.
• Lilly, J. R., Lillick, J. R., & Montgomery, R. (2018). Criminal Law. Carolina Academic Press.
• Schulhofer, S. J., & Walker, S. (2013). Understanding Criminal Law. W.W. Norton & Company.