October 16 Notes and Briefs

October 16 Notes and Briefs - October 16, 2008 Embezzlement...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
October 16, 2008 Embezzlement Rex v. Bazeley Central Criminal Court, 1799 Law: A breach of trust cannot, the rules of the common law, be converted into a felonious taking. Facts: Bazeley is the principle teller at the bank. B’s duty was to receive and pay money, notes and bills at the counter. In January 1799, he received bank notes and cash for deposit from W through his servant. B credited W’s account but placed a bank note in his pocket, which eh later appropriated to his own use. He did not have constructive possession of the bank note. Reasoning: It was never in their custody or under the control of the bank. If, at the very time he received the note, he had no intent to steal it, it is no felony. Issue: Whether the possession of the servant was, under the circumstances of this case, the possession of the master. Procedure: Holding: Pardon Notes from the Case: B has possession of the cash when he takes the money from the customer, but when he puts it in the cash drawer, he has custody of the money. D has lawful possession of property and then converts it for his own use. Implied possession: False Pretences People v. Ingram California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 1998 Law: Larceny: trespass in the taking Larceny by trick: When D obtains possession of, but not title to, another’s poerptery by fraud or trickery; fraud vitiates consent and take the place of trespass. False Pretences: Through false representations and with the intent to steal, obtains both possession and title to property. Issue: Is it larceny by trick or false pretences? Notes from the Case: People v. Whight California Court of Appeal, 3 rd District, 1995 Law: False pretences: Gaining possession and title by fraud. Facts: ATM card could still connect to his checking account that was cancelled because he had an overdraft of $6.17. SW customers could use their ATM bank cards to make purchases. WF would verify the cards and if it didn’t, they would send them a code so SW could verify the purchase. There was an error in WF’s system because it did not notify SW that there was a problem with D’s card. D was able to use his card at 4 different SW stores and received over $19,000. D says he didn’t commit
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
the crime because SW verified his card and relied on the WF’s verification not his verification of the card, therefore he did not show false pretence. Reasoning: There was a glitch in WF’s system, so SW did not rely on their computer system, they
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 5

October 16 Notes and Briefs - October 16, 2008 Embezzlement...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online