Someone ('A') has emails and a couple of text messages from another person ('B') that authorize the removal of scrap metal and a few other items. B gives the A the code to the gate at the address.
A goes to the designated address, types in the code, the gate opens and they remove the items they are told to get.
Subsequently, the owner of the property ('C') states that no-one was supposed to authorize such a thing.
Has A committed a crime?
The definition of "theft" covers this scenario, under RCW 9a.56.020, that "it shall be a sufficient defense that: (a) The property or service was appropriated openly and avowedly under a claim of title made in good faith, even though the claim be untenable". Burglary requires an intent to commit a crime, such as taking good without permission. This is not even criminal trespass, which has a good faith defense that "The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain", as manifested in having been told to pick up the material and having been given the code. The owner could however sue for the return of the scrap.
Person 'A' entered the property in good faith and took goods that they thought they had permission to take. Under the circumstances, neither would appear to be a crime and certainly neither would be prosecuted since A could simply offer that as their defence and be relatively certain of a jury acquittal.
As regards the property itself, A has a legal obligation to return it to Person C, the rightful owner. Failing to do so would be a crime, per the Theft Act (1968).
Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds.
Even if you paid money for property that turned out to be stolen, your beef isn't with the rightful owner, it's with Person B, who tricked you into paying for those goods falsely.
If no money changed hands, then probably the police would decline to investigate entirely since 'A' and 'C' have only been slightly inconvenienced by the whole affair.
