Source: http://andrewberman.com/practice-areas/criminal-defense/theft-crimes/
Timestamp: 2017-06-27 10:35:52
Document Index: 725318554

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 37', '§40', '§ 37', '§ 37', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 20', '§ 25', '§ 60', '§ 30', '§ 37']

| THEFT CRIMES Criminal Defense and Civil Litigation
Larceny by Check (G.L. c. 266, § 37)
In short, Larceny by Check involves obtaining goods or services by writing a check with knowledge of insufficient funds and with intent to defraud. In order to prove the defendant guilty of Larceny by Check, the Commonwealth must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant (wrote) (cashed)(passed) or (delivered) a check drawn upon an account held at a particular Bank;
Second: That by doing so the defendant obtained money, property or services;
Third: That when the defendant (wrote) (cashed) (passed) (delivered) the check, he (she) knew that there was not sufficient funds or credit at the bank on which the check was drawn to cover the check; and
Fourth: That the defendant did so with the intent to defraud the bank or someone who received the check.
The punishment increases if the amount stolen is over $250.
Value of Stolen Property More than $250
Value of Stolen Property Less than $250
Sentencing: Up to 1 year in the House of Corrections
ELDERLY OR DISABLED VICTIM
The punishment increases further if the victim is 60 years of age or older, or is disabled.
In addition to the criminal penalties, G.L. c. 93, §40A permits a civil suit for the amount of the bounced check, plus an additional $100-$500 in damages if a specified form of written demand goes unanswered for 30 days.
If the defendant failed to make good on a check within two days after being notified that it had bounced, this “shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud and of knowledge of insufficient funds.” G.L. c. 266, § 37. G.L. c. 266, § 37 permits conviction of attempted larceny if no money, property or services are obtained.
Larceny by Embezzlement (G.L. c. 266, § 30)
In short, Embezzlement is the stealing of another’s property by a person to whom it was entrusted, such as an employee stealing from his (her) employer. In order to prove the defendant guilty of Embezzlement, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
“Property of another” is not limited to money, but can include things such as personal property, apartment security deposits, electronically processed or stored data (either tangible or intangible) and domesticated animals.
Larceny by False Pretenses (G.L. c. 266, § 30)
In short, obtaining property by False Pretenses is a form of larceny which consists in knowingly making false representations of fact, with the intent that another person will rely on those false representations, and by means of which the personal property of another is obtained. In order to prove the defendant guilty of Larceny by False Pretenses, the Commonwealth must prove five things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant made a false statement of fact;
Second: That the defendant knew or believed that the statement was false when he (she) made it;
Third: That the defendant made the statement with the intent that the person to whom it was made should rely on it as true; and
Fourth: That such person did in fact rely on the defendant’s statement as true; and
Fifth: That such person parted with personal property as a result.
Although most larceny offenses require an intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property, larceny by false pretenses does not.
A defendant’s intent to repay his victims, or even actual repayment, is not a defense to the crime of larceny by false pretenses.
Larceny by Stealing (G.L. c. 266, § 30)
Stealing is the wrongful taking of the personal property of another person, with the intent to deprive that person of such property permanently. In order to prove the defendant guilty of Larceny by Stealing, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant took and carried away property;
Second: That the property was owned or possessed by someone other than the defendant;
Third: That the defendant did so with the intent to deprive that person of the property permanently.
“Taking and carrying away” is accomplished if the defendant physically transfers the property from the other person’s control to his (her) own. It does not matter if the transfer involved only slight movement, or if it lasted only for a short time.
Larceny by Stealing in a Building (G.L. c. 266, § 20)
This charge is the same as Larceny by Stealing, but involving property kept for safekeeping in a building, such as a storage facility. In order to prove the defendant guilty of Larceny by Stealing in a Building, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
Second: That at the time the property was being kept safe by virtue of being in a building;
Third: That the property was owned or possessed by someone other than the defendant; and
Fourth: That the defendant did so with the intent to deprive that person of the property permanently.
The punishment for this felony does not depend on the value of the property stolen.
Sentencing: Up to 2 years in the House of Corrections or up to 5 years in State Prison
The Commonwealth must prove that the property was being protected and kept safe “by virtue of being in the building” rather than being under the
watchful eye or personal care of someone in the building.
Larceny from the Person (G.L. c. 266, § 25(b))
Larceny from the person is the wrongful taking of personal property from the person of another, or from the immediate area of control of another, with the intent to deprive that person of such property permanently. In order to prove the defendant guilty of Larceny from the Person, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
Second: That the property was owned or possessed by someone other than the defendant; and
Third: That the defendant took the property from the person of someone who owned or possessed it or from such a person’s area of control in his or her presence; and
Victim 65 years or older. If a Defendant is convicted twice of Larceny from the Person of a victim 65 years or older, he faces up to 2 years in State Prison, with one year minimum mandatory.
Receiving Stolen Property (G.L. c. 266, § 60)
In order to prove the defendant guilty of Receiving Stolen Property, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the property in question was stolen;
Second: That the defendant knew that the property had been stolen; and
Third: That the defendant knowingly (had the stolen property in his [her] possession) (bought the stolen property) (aided in concealing the stolen property).
A jury may infer that the defendant knew that the goods were stolen if the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (possessed) (bought) (helped to conceal) recently stolen goods without explanation.
Shoplifting (G.L. c. 266, § 30A)
Shoplifting includes not only stealing merchandise, but also switching pricetags and placing items in different containers. In order to prove the defendant guilty of Shoplifting, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant intentionally (took possession of, carried away, or transferred) (or) (caused to be carried away or transferred) retail merchandise;
Second: That the merchandise was owned or possessed by someone other than the defendant; and
Third: That the defendant (took possession of, carried away, or transferred) (or) (caused to be carried away or transferred) that merchandise and did so (with an intent to deprive the merchant of its possession, use or benefit) (or) (with an intent to convert it to his [her] own use without having paid full value for it).
The punishment increases if the amount stolen is over $100.
Value of Stolen Property Less than $100 (First Offense)
Value of Stolen Property Less than $100 (Second Offense)
Value of Stolen Property Less than $100 (Third and Subsequent Offense)
Sentencing: Up to 2 years in the House of Corrections
Value of Stolen Property More than $100
If the retail value of the goods obtained is less than one hundred dollars, this section shall apply to the exclusion of section thirty (Larceny by Stealing).
The statement of a merchant that a person has violated a provision of this section shall constitute probable cause for arrest by law enforcement.
Identity Theft (G.L. c. 266, § 37E)
Identity Theft is essentially pretending to be another and using their personal identifying information to obtain anything of value, or with the intent to harass them. In order to prove the defendant guilty of Identity Theft, the Commonwealth must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt:
Second: That the defendant did so without that person’s express authorization;
Third: That the defendant used that person’s identifying information (to obtain or attempt to obtain [money] [credit] [goods] [services] [some other thing of value] [an identification card or other evidence of such person’s identity]) (to harass another person); and
Fourth: That the defendant did so with the intent to defraud.
Massachusetts Theft Crimes Criminal Defense Lawyer
If you are facing robbery, embezzlement, larceny, fraud or any other type of theft charges, whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony, you know that the stakes are high. Penalties for a conviction of a theft crime can result in serious and often life-long consequences that can -depending on the severity of the offense- impact your wallet, your personal and professional reputation, your future employment, your driving privileges and fundamental rights including your freedom. Every case is unique, but in every case – at every stage of the proceedings- both the facts and law must be scoured to identify issues that will maximize your chances of success both prior to and during a trial.
A crime is, by definition, “any act or omission (of an act) in violation of a local, state or federal law forbidding or commanding it.” The “elements” of these crimes are defined by statute and the government needs to have had ‘probable cause’ to arrest, and produce evidence ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to convict, as to each individual element of the offense. So, for example, while a Larceny case can be won for lack of evidence that the alleged “victim’ actually owned or possessed the property alleged to have been taken, it can also be won if the government can’t prove that the defendant intended to ‘permanently deprive’ the victim of the property. This principle applies equally to any criminal charge, from embezzlement charges to robbery charges. It is crucial to identify and request all of the evidence to which a defendant is entitled, and work to exclude as much of it as possible with well-crafted motions specific to your case. It is also not sufficient to accept the government’s evidence at face value, as an independent investigation may develop additional evidence that can undermine the government’s case against you. Often, experts can be used to further your cause. Everything that is done during the case is with the singular purpose of attacking the elements of the offense to obtain either an outright dismissal or a “Not Guilty” verdict at trial. If the decision is made to accept a plea bargain, it is always better to negotiate from a position of strength.
Criminal cases have constitutional dimensions, in particular the Bill of Rights. The Constitution, and the case law interpreting it, limits what the government can do and requires them – the police, the prosecution and the court- to do it in a certain way. A motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause is based on the 4th Amendment, as are motions to suppress evidence seized without a warrant (or with a defective one). A motion to suppress statements a defendant may have given to the police can be based on the 5th Amendment right against Self-Incrimination or the 6th Amendment right to an attorney. You have the right to cross-examine witnesses at trial because of the 6th Amendment’s Confrontation Clause and the right to bail before trial because of the 8th Amendment … and so on. The Bill of Rights was, by design, broadly written and a creative attorney can use the law interpreting it to challenge the probable cause to arrest you or to exclude key pieces of evidence against you, both prior to and during trial. The Massachusetts Constitution, which often provides more protection than the Bill of Rights, must be considered as well. Constitutional issues are common with embezzlement charges, larceny charges and many other types of theft charges. If constitutional issues are not preserved during the course of your case – either because your criminal defense attorney didn’t identify the issue or didn’t assert it properly- they are, with some exception, waived for the purposes of appeal.
If your case does go to trial, you want an experienced criminal trial attorney who has worked from the outset to know the law and facts of your case better than anyone else in the courtroom. It is a matter of preparation, communication, experience and an ability to think on your feet in the midst of a fluid, stressful and often acrimonious setting. Evidence that may have passed constitutional muster can still be excluded under the Rules of Evidence, Criminal Procedure or statutes applicable to its admissibility and it is crucial for your attorney to have an intimate knowledge of the appropriate objections, which often need to be formulated and asserted in a split second. The failure to object will result in evidence being used against you that could have been excluded, and the failure to preserve the issue will destroy your chances of a successful appeal. To the extent evidence can’t be excluded, it must be attacked at every opportunity. An experienced trial attorney will often be able to decimate the credibility of government witnesses on cross-examination and, if appropriate and necessary, offer counter-evidence in support of your innocence. All of this must be done in a way that lends credibility to you and your defense in front of the jury that will ultimately decide your fate.
Contact a Massachusetts Theft Crimes Attorney
If you are under investigation or have been charged with robbery, embezzlement, larceny, fraud or any other type of theft crime, the attorney you choose is the single most important decision you will make. I have been dealing with criminal cases at both the trial and appellate level for 18 years, as a Prosecutor, a Criminal Defense attorney and as a Special Prosecutor. I am happy to meet with you and discuss your case at no cost to you. Please call at 617.723.4163 or fill out the Contact Form to schedule an appointment at your convenience.