To take the many variations into account, the court focuses on what is gained by the swindler rather than on what is lost by the victim. There is now only the single crime of theft which is complete when a man takes property not his own with the intent to take it and deprive the owner thereof. A defendant may be convicted of theft upon proof of facts establishing either embezzlement, larceny, receiving stolen property, or obtaining property by false pretense. Defendant counters that the evidence at the preliminary examination establishes that the value of the property obtained by the Smiths exceeded the amount of the check. Thus, defendant argues no theft was shown.
Defendant is charged with theft by deception or obtaining property by false pretenses.
174 Kan. at 165. The court, as did the courts in Aurgemma and La Moyne , held that the offense is completed at the moment the victim is fraudulently induced to part with his or her property. The theft occurred at the moment the Smiths were fraudulently induced to part with that check. The degree of a theft crime is determined by the value of the stolen property. The value of what the Smiths received or the extent of their loss is immaterial in determining the degree of the theft.