Robin Hood steals and bundle of cheques from the Sherriff. He then distributes those cheques by mail to everybody he can think of. One of the people who receive a cheque is Angela. Angela has never met Robin Hood, and does not know that Robin Hood is a thief. The cheque makes no mention of Robin Hood; but bears the name Sherriff. Angela has never had any dealings with the Sherriff, and though suspicious goes to a Bank and cashes the cheque. She takes the $100,000.00 given to her and spends it.

The police find out about Robin Hood and his mischeivous plan. They trace the cheques and find that Angela received one. They approach Angela about the cheque and she tells the police that she's cashed it and spent the money. The police arrest Angela for theft.

In your mind, should Angela be convicted?


I was doing some legal research recently to see if my initial impression of this scenario was correct. The facts of this case are very similar to the case I was working on. I asked Mush to research it for me, sort of as a double-check, but he never got back to me. I'm now wondering what y'all think is the correct answer. You do not have to have a legal background, or refer to law. Just trying to understand your position.

If you do know anything about the legal situation, you are free to mention it.

I think it goes either way.. In tha eyes of tha law she is guilty, but who wouldnt spend it..But then again she should have researched about it before cashing and spending it .. Right there she knows she was doing wrong, so yea she should be..

She could also be innocent , thinkin the check was for her SINCE it was sent to her, but still she should have checked it all out before doin anything with it..

Curious question: How do you know that in the eyes of the law she's guilty?

At least in a number of jurisdictions where I practice, the issue is not that clear cut. I'm interested in your extended opinion on this.

No, she shouldn't be guilty. It sucks cuz now those 100,000 dollars can't get payed back, but that loophole does more good than harm.


It's like getting arrested for using counterfeit money that was proven to be manufactured by someone else that you have no relations with. You won't get arrested, but everyone that was involved with the funny money loses money in the process.

I know nothing about the law relating to it but in my opinion, she is not guilty IF the check was made out to her. She knew nothing about the origions of the money and therefore from her point of view, it could have been an anomynous gift or suchlike. Though the scenario changes if the Sherriff is in fact a little old lady with no money in the world.

How would the scenario change, in your mind, dependant upon who seems to be the payer on the cheque?

I would like to know if the check WAS made out to her. Right, it would change because, a large multinational company would not be majorly effected by the "theft" of the money and therefore the women is not commiting a crime. My view on law (even though it is clearly wrong), is that something is not illegal if it does not effect another person. Therefore it is morally wrong if the woman does make no effect to re-pay the frail old lady

I KNOW IF YOU STEAL, AT SOME POINT IN TIME YOU WILL GET STOLE
FROM TOO...

Curious question: How do you know that in the eyes of the law she's guilty?

At least in a number of jurisdictions where I practice, the issue is not that clear cut. I'm interested in your extended opinion on this.


She is guilty b/c she was arrested, right.. OK

its supposed to INnocent until proven guilty, but its the other way around in real life..It never mentioned the chck was made out to her.. She could have done that herself.. As I said she should have made an effort to find out why she was recievin tha check. Although mostly anyone would have dne what she did, in tha court, or tha law she should have done what mans law says is tha right thang to do

As a matter of fact, you're not exactly wrong. Crimes must affect people and civil matters must do the same. The degree in which they harm others is dependant upon the nature of law you're dealing with; but I can think of no law, off the top of my head, that doesn't operate on a basis of harm.

All boils down to Intention, some crimescan only be imposed if the jury is satisfied that the defendant intended a certain consequence providing there was an absense of Novus Actus Interveniens.

Intention should not be confused with motive. The motive for committing the crime in question may be a good one but if the intention is present, the mens rea will have been established and 'Robin Hood' will have to hope that his motive is taken into accunt at the sentencing process.

A person's motive may not be bad, as in this case 'I steal from the rich to give the poor', However this does not mean you are not guilty of the crime, motive is irrelevant.

For Angela, a reasonable person would have foreseen that the specified amount of money isnt given away for no reason and therefore it is for the Jury, the reasonable people, to decide. If i was one of the jurors i would choose to convict her.

I intended to steal eye drops from kroger. My dry eyes posessed me.

To Mush:

This is not the easiest of legal questions because it incorporates a number of areas of legal knowledge. For instance, you have to understand what a cheque actually is. Lawyers are characterized by their ability to deconstruct areas of a question that laypersons would normally not consider. So this is what I propose you do, so that you may come to whatever conclusion on the facts you choose. Keep in mind though, that there is no real right or wrong answer. The layman's view, expressed in a lot of people post in this thread alone, is somewhat correct, but too simplistic all the same.

I take your point about mens rea and it makes absolute sense. But you should always start with the substantive elements of an offense. For instance, I asked if she should be guilty of theft. That would mean you would need to evaluate what "theft is". Here is the definition provided by the Theft Act 1968 in England and Wales:

1 Basic definition of theft
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'theft' and 'steal' shall be constued accordingly.
(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit.
(3) The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).

Then the following sections in the Theft Act 1968 describe what is essentially the defintions of the actus reus and mens rea elements of the offence of theft.

I believe the mens rea is neither here no there; but rather that you should take a closer look at the actus reus. I think this would be a good exercise for you, Mush, so I'm trying to be a little distant. In particular look at s. 5(3) of the Theft Act 1968. Further you would need to understand what a cheque is exactly. Is it property? What kind of property is it? Is it a chose in action (thing in action) or not? It is a valuable security? It is simply a piece of paper? When is a cheque a cheque and not just a piece of paper?

The above questions must be answered. You would see that s. 5(3) deals with when property belongs to another. Take some time, give it some thought and tell me if the cheque in the above circumstance belongs to another and thus is capable of being stolen. There are also a number of cases you can read on the point, but that would be a waste until you get past the initial hurdles I've identified above. The cases are though:

Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1985] Q.B. 182
R v Gilks [1972] 3 All E.R. 280
R v Shadrokh-Cigari [1988] Crim. L.R. 465
R v Middleton (1873) L.R. 2 C.C.R. 38
R v Ashwell (1885) 16 Q.B.D. 190
Moynes v Coopper [1956] 1 Q.B. 439
Lacis v Cashmarts [1969] 2 Q.B. 400

Also consult s. 5(4) Theft Act 1968. This is an enormous amount of work off the bat, I know, and you dont have to do it. But to answer the question you have to look at the Theft Act and you have to understand the nature of cheques.

Clue: cheques are Bills of Exchange under the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

Have fun ... after you reply again, whenever you do, I'll lead you in the correct direct again.

it may not be stealing but its definetly fishy
if not one crime then another, like tax fraud for recieving 100 000 and not reporting it


you dont just get 100 000 from a stranger that has another stranger's name on it
cash it, and spend it

you may be totally obliviant to any wrongdoing but thats a lack of using common sense
and should be found guilty

Well in some occassions having a lack of common sense means you lack all mens rea required for the crime, and therefore, you cannot be criminally liable. Criminal liability is about culpability. Without it, society would be punishing innocent people.

On the issue of tax fraud, I dont know exactly where you're going with that. The particular tax crime didn't even cross my mind, as the facts don't seem to indicate that you have to report cashing and spending money immediately. Why would you have to pay tax for such spending. Wouldn't the tax come through the spending itself?

Either way, I take all of your points, and I'm looking to read more. Very interesting.

What would you do if a cheque for $100,000.00 appeared in an envelope with your address on it, your name on it, as well as appearing to be written for your benefit by a person you dont know and have never met?

The particular tax crime didn't even cross my mind, as the facts don't seem to indicate that you have to report cashing and spending money immediately.


but you would have to eventually report that money
and the most logical thing would be to report it before you spend it

Why would you have to pay tax for such spending. Wouldn't the tax come through the spending itself?

sales tax for spending yes but Im talking about tax for recieving that money
there is a defined line of what is money that you just got as a birthday present or whatever and what is money that would count against your income
getting 20 bucks for ya birthday and getting a 100 000 cheque is two different things
even as a wedding present or if its a lottery win because of the amount you would have to report it......there may be loop holes in the system where you avoid paying tax but you would still have to go through the system with it

Well in some occassions having a lack of common sense means you lack all mens rea required for the crime, and therefore, you cannot be criminally liable.

your thinking like a lawyer.


the accused would get off because of a technicality such as lack of mens rea
but in all actuality ya know he's guilty



What would you do if a cheque for $100,000.00 appeared in an envelope with your address on it, your name on it, as well as appearing to be written for your benefit by a person you dont know and have never met?

attempt to find and reach the source, then know their intention of giving me all that money

if I cant find them after a while (2 months lets say)
then contact a lawyer and make sure I can spend the money at will
without any later consenquences.....or do what I gotta do so the whole
thing is legit







greed might tempt some men, even though knowing what the logical thing to do is, decide to play stupid, cash the cheque and hope no one cares to notice


but thats wishful thinking

The lawyer would have no choice but to tell you yay nor nay based on the law. He doesn't make up law nor do anything than you can. If it is not stealing, it is never stealing. Lack of mens rea is not a technicality in the least!

Lack of mens rea is not a technicality in the least!

I beg to differ

I know its not in the least the same as a violation of rights by the cops or judge
or the same as a court error and thus the trial gets tossed

but it is a technicality on the grounds its a defined concept
and something that has to be established each and every time
if not......then boom, no case

much like, if a cop dont read your rights or tells ya for what ya arrested then its no case

if mens rea cannot be proven then its no case either




mens rea doesnt mean the crime was not commited
all it does is make the 'law definition' of what a crime is not acceptable by the courts


its like I kill someone but in court its proved there was a lack of mens rea
and Im let go........but I still killed a person, i broke a crime, murder




plus........law is all about fancy wording

so I will offer my own, noting I studied it two years :)



mens rea can be established if you can show the accused showed 'willful blindness'





if Im a judge and some dude got a cheque for 100 000 grand from a stranger
and just went out and spend it without any regard why he got it or from who

then thats willful blindness





che

interesting how you've mixed "willful blindness", which is somewhat outdated a concept in civil law, with mens rea in criminal law. Theft requires intention to permanently deprive and dishonesty. Everything needs definition lest it be applied willy-nilly. Random application of law is unjust, it does not have the certainty required.

It's nice to know that you studied law for two years. It would mean that you understand certain concepts that others do not. You would also know that just because a person is killed, it does not necessarily mean that it's murder or manslaughter. There is a thing called accident. And nobody should be penalized for a mistake, no matter if that mistake led to the taking of someone's life.

These are not technicality we are speaking of. We are speaking of what a crime "actually is". And just for completeness: "The law should allow the acquital of 1000 (the number is actually countless) guilty men before convicting 1 innocent man." That's the premise upon which I think of technicalities.

Regardless of my own feelings on the situation, she'd be arrested without question. Handling stolen goods, if the police have reason to suspect that the woman knew the cheque accquired dishonestly she'd get sent down.