Theft and Property Offenses 1

Bell v. United States

Notes
On October 13, 1978, a Cincinnati man wrote a check for $10,000 drawn on a
Cincinnati bank. He endorsed the check for deposit to his account at Dade Federal
Savings & Loan of Miami and mailed the check to an agent there. The agent never
received the check. On October 17, petitioner Nelson Bell open an account at a Dade
Federal branch and deposited $50- the minimum amount necessary for new accounts.
He used his own name, but gave a false address, birth date, and social security name.
Later that day, at another branch, he deposited the Cincinnati man's $10,000 check
into his new account. The endorsement had been altered to show Bell's account
number. Dade Federal accepted the deposit, but put a 20-day hold o the funds. On
November 7th, as soon as the hold had expired, Bell returned to the branch at which
he had opened the account. The total balance, with accrued interest, was then slightly
over $10,080. Bell closed the account and was paid to the total balance in cash.
Issues
#1. Whether 18 USC 2113(B) proscribes the crime of false pretenses, or whether the
statute is instead limited to common-law larceny.
Reasoning
The Defendant cites the rule of statutory construction that when a federal
criminal statute uses a common-law term without defining it, Congress is presumed to
intend the common law meaning.
Two other aspects of 2113(B) show an intention to go beyond the commonlaw definition of larceny. First, common-law larceny was limited to the thefts of
tangible personal property. Second, and of particular relevance to the distinction at
issue here, common-law larceny required a theft from the possession of the owner.
But, in sum, the statutory language does not suggest that it covers only
common-law larceny. Although 2113(B) does not apply to a case of false pretenses in
which there is not taking and carrying away, it proscribes Bell's conduct here. The
evidence is clear that he "took" and carried away, with intent to steal or purloin [over
$10,000 that was] in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of" Dade
Federal Savings & Loan.
The congressional goal of protecting bank assets is entirely independent of the
traditional distinction on which Bell relies. To the extent that a bank needs protection
against larceny by trick, it also needs protection from false pretenses. We cannot
believe that Congress wished to limit the scope of the amended Act's coverage, and
thus limit its remedial purpose, on the basis of an arcane and artificial distinction
more suited to the social conditions of the 18the century England than the needs of the
20th century America.
Holding
We conclude that 18 USC 2113 (B) is not limited to common-law larceny.
Although 2113(b) may not cover the full range of theft offenses, it covers Belt's
conduct here. His conviction therefore was proper.
People v. Shannon
Notes
The case arose when Shannon went into a department store, took clothes from
a rack, hid them in a bag, and took them to a cashier. Falsely claiming ownership of
the clothes, Shannon asked to exchange them for a cash refund.
Store personnel had seen Shannon hide the clothes and knew he had stolen
them from the rack. Nonetheless, the cashier completed the exchanges as part of the

Theft and Property Offenses 2

store's plan to catch Shannon. Security agents arrested Shannon after he had left the
store with the money.
In defense, Yamileth Santos, Shannon's fiance, said that on July 11, 1996, she
asked him to return some items for her at the store. Santo had bought these items
including two skirts and a sweater, earlier.
Issue
#1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that as a matter of law, he committed
and only attempted, not completed, theft or whether Shannon intended to permanently
deprive the store of the "stolen items".
Reasoning
As the jury was instructed, theft requires the specific intent to permanently
deprive the owner of its property. However, the intent to later restore or make
restitution for the property is no defense. The fact that a thief is prevented by an
officer from getting away with the property, or that he may change his mind and
return the property to escape prosecution for the crime, does not relieve him from the
consequences of the theft.
Thus, the fact that Shannon apparently did not intend to keep the clothes, but
to steal its monetary value by exchanging the clothes while falsely claiming to own
them, does not alter our conclusion hat the theft was complete when he put the clothes
in his bag with the described intent.
Shannon, of course, did not intend to return the store's property
unconditionally. Instead, he intended to sell the store's own property, which he took
with wrongful intent, back to it, falsely claiming to be the rightful owner. Thus,
Shannon neither lacked wrongful intent nor intended to return the clothes
unconditionally and cannot benefit from this defense.
Holding
On this basis, the evidence supports Shannon's larceny conviction.
Case Problem #32
Defense: People put up reward signs for lost phones all the time. This was the least he
could do, considering this valuable information was worth so much money. I don't
think I did anything wrong. The police arrested me even before I was going to hand
over the phone.
Prosecutor: This is larceny by trick.