theft
Is it theft if you take money (with out permission) but return it the next day?
<p>Supposed that a person A used another person's credit card (B) to buy a $1 item (without permission) while A was doing B's shopping but A returned the money.  Has A committed theft?</p>

<h2>Depends where you are</h2>
<p>At common law, theft (or more generally, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larceny" rel="nofollow noreferrer">larceny</a>) requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession.</p>
<p>However, many jurisdictions have removed this element from the crime. For example, <a href="http://www6.austlii.edu.au/au//legis//nsw//consol_act//ca190082/s118.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">s118</a> of the <a href="/questions/tagged/new-south-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;" rel="tag">new-south-wales</a> <em>Crimes Act</em> 1900 says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>118 Intent to return property no defence</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In Germany, the situation is similar to the one under Common Law (as explained in
Dale M's answer):</p>

<p>Theft (<em>Diebstahl</em> in the <em>Strafgesetzbuch</em>, the German criminal code) is defined in <a href="https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/242.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§242 Strafgesetzbuch</a> as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>§242</p>
  
  <p>Wer eine fremde bewegliche Sache einem anderen in der Absicht
  wegnimmt, die Sache sich oder einem Dritten rechtswidrig zuzueignen, [...]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Translated:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Whoever takes movable property belonging to another away from another
  with the intention of unlawfully appropriating it for themselves or a third party
  [...]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, just as under Common Law, the crucial question is whether you <em>intended to return the money all along</em>. If yes, then the definition of theft is not fulfilled.</p>

<p>However, if you originally did not intend to return the money, but did so anyway after you found it, it would still be theft. That would be for a judge to decide. A judge would probably look a the circumstances, such as whether you returned the money after you were found out, or before.</p>

<p>Yes, you purchased something without her permission or authorization. </p>

<p>Whether 1 dollar or 1000, if someone did that to you, right away you're going to be weary the next time.</p>

<p>Justifying an unauthorized purchase, no matter how small, will lead you to keep doing these kinds of things.</p>

<p>It's probably better to mention it beforehand, most of the time, people are willing to help.</p>

<p>When &quot;theft of money&quot; was a property theft, involving the taking of actual physical bank notes, which could be proven by records of the serial numbers of the actual bank notes involved, there were separate crimes of</p>
<p>'conversion' (knowing or intentional exertion of unauthorized control over property of another person)</p>
<p>and of</p>
<p>'embezzlement' (theft or misappropriation of funds placed in one's trust),</p>
<p>and you could have been charged with 'exerting unauthorized control' of $1, or 'misappropriation of&quot; $1.</p>
<p>Depending on your location, one or both of those crimes may have been included in a statutory re-definition of &quot;theft&quot;.</p>
<p>But -- in my jurisdiction, if you thought that it wasn't theft, and you intended to return it ... then it wasn't theft. Here, the &quot;criminal intent&quot; of common law hasn't been removed, just replaced with a more restricted version that requires ignorance of legal technicalities as well as lack of criminal intent. That means you can get away with it here, maybe, but certainly not after you've been warned.</p>
<p>As it happens, there isn't any reasonable way for me to report an incidental embezzlement. I'd have to know what the actual legislation is, and who to report it to, because that information is not published by the police force here, nor known to the desk officers here, who only deal in intentional crimes. And after reporting an amount of $1, to the correct department, on the correct form, it would not be investigated, because the fraud office classifies crimes as &quot;important&quot; or not.</p>
<p>On the other hand, they got Al Capone on Tax Evasion. If they are looking for a crime to nail on you, a $1 embezzlement is a crime in a lot of places, and could cost you your job in a lot of places. Using somebody else's credit card without explicit permission is a very bad idea.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/washington" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;washington&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;washington&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="washington-container">washington</a></p>
<p>I focus the question by pointing to the law in Washington that pertains to theft, <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.56&amp;full=true" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RCW 9a.56</a>. As you describe it, the person acquired the credit card lawfully – with permission – and used it in a manner not explicitly endorsed by the credit card owner. Under no stretch of the imagination has there been &quot;theft of money&quot;. There was no intent to deprive the card owner of the card. Although 9A.56.060 is in the general chapter containing &quot;theft&quot;, deliberately writing a rubber check is deemed to be &quot;unlawful issuance of bank check&quot;, not &quot;theft&quot; (and clearly this has nothing to do with checks – but under a plain reading of the theft statute, this simply is not <em>theft</em>). RCW 9A.56.220 somewhat stretches the definition of theft in defining a crime &quot;theft of subscription television services&quot; (the provider is not deprived of the thing that was &quot;taken&quot;), but again this form of theft doesn't relate to what happens in the above scenario.</p>
<p>RCW 9A.56.290 becomes more relevant since it relates to credit cards inter alia, but it is specifically limited to &quot;unlawful factoring of transactions&quot;, which is using skimmers etc to get credit card information or to present to a bank something unlawfully purporting to be a transaction between merchant and card owner. Finally, RCW 9A.56.320 defines a set of crimes like &quot;unlawful production of payment instruments&quot; (pertaining to checks and the like), which includes &quot;unlawful possession of a personal identification device&quot;, where credit cards are included in the set of such devices. The crime is if one &quot;possesses a personal identification device with intent to use such device to commit theft, forgery, or identity theft&quot;. Well, the intent is to buy some product, and the card is not being used to commit a crime&quot;.</p>
<p>What happened is that in using the card to purchase goods not requested by the card holder (who gave you permission to make purchases with the card) is that you caused her financial damage. You are legally liable for that damage, and she can sue you to recover her loss. But this is not a crime, in Washington.</p>
