What is theft when not permanent

Question

I was looking into the definition of theft in the UK and found (emphasis mine):

Theft is defined by section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it

I also found this answer which explains:

In other words, a thief may say 'I only wished to borrow it', but that won't necessarily amount to a defence under English law. It depends on how long (s)he borrows it for, and how (s)he treats it while borrowing it.

In addition, the case law clarifies what is meant by 'his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights'. This has been held to mean:

Selling, Bargaining with. R v Cahill, R v Lloyd
Rendering Useless. DPP v J
Dealing with in a manner which risks its loss. R v Fernandes, R v Marshall
Borrowing in certain circumstances. R v Lloyd
Pawning. s6(2) Theft Act 1968
Not enough to just deal with it. R v Mitchell

Which makes sense to be but seems to still leave a gap. Based on my understanding of that people can still take your belongings without your permission and as long as they return it promptly, don't pawn it or damage it they have not committed theft. Is that true? Could they be convicted of some other crime then?

Additionally I don't see the use word permanently used in any US reference I've found but it does seem to appear in general definitions of the crime so I'm also curious if the US has any "permanently deprive" criteria as well.

Answer 1

The Theft Act 1968 elaborates on the permanent-deprivation element as follows:

A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

In other words, "permanent" doesn't necessarily mean permanent; it just means that you're taking the property in a way that suggests you're the actual owner.

I'd say this leaves a certain amount of wiggle room for juries to decide what does and does not amount to a permanent deprivation, but there are probably also some cases that remain pretty clear.

Imagine that it unexpectedly starts to rain while Dan is at a restaurant. He sees Victor's raincoat hanging unattended by the front door. On the one hand, it seems clear that he does not commit a theft if he picks up the coat, stares wistfully at it, and then places it back on the coatrack. At the same time, it's clear he does commit a theft if he walks home with it and then throws it in the trash, sincerely hoping that some bizarre coincidence causes Victor to reunite with it.

But there are lots of possible scenarios in the middle:

• If Dan throws the coat on to retrieve his wallet from the car, and then returns it to the coat rack, did he intend to permanently deprive Victor of the coat? Seems unlikely.
• If Dan hides the coat underneath a bunch of other coats also hanging by the door, did he intend to permanently deprive Victor of the coat? Again, I think it seems unlikely.
• If Dan walks home with the coat, sincerely intending to then immediately drive it back to the restaurant, but then forgets to take it back, did he intend to permanently deprive Victor of the coat? That's trickier.
• If Dan wears the coat home, puts it in a box, and then hands it off to Western Union to deliver to Victor in 70 years, did he intend to permanently deprive Victor of the coat? I'd say this is close enough.

Of course, even if you take property without violating the statute, that does not necessarily mean you have not committed any violation of the law. It remains possible that you are subject to criminal liability for some other offense (Removal of articles from places open to the public, Taking motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority), or that the owner could pursue you civilly for conversion, trespass to chattels, or some other tort.

Answer 2

united-states

One term for this is criminal conversion

Criminal conversion is a crime, limited to parts of common law systems outside England and Wales, of exerting unauthorized use or control of someone else's property, at a minimum personal property, but in some jurisdictions also applying to types of real property, such as land (to squatting or holding over) or to patents, design rights and trademarks. It differs from theft in that it does not include the element of intending to deprive the owner of permanent possession of that property.

Answer 3

What is theft when not permanent? Theft

new-south-wales

118 Intent to return property no defence

Where, on the trial of a person for larceny, it appears that the accused appropriated the property in question to the accused’s own use, or for the accused’s own benefit, or that of another, but intended eventually to restore the same, or in the case of money to return an equivalent amount, such person shall not by reason only thereof be entitled to acquittal.

So I can take property with the intent to return it if I don’t also have the intention that I or others will benefit from it. For example, if I find a wallet, I can take it with the intention of identifying the owner and contacting them, or handing it in to the owner of the premises or the police; that’s not theft. But if I take it to benefit from it, that’s theft.