00:00:06
for financial crimes
00:00:10
Financial Crimes their crimes that are
00:00:12
committed to enable the perpetrator to
00:00:14
convert money or property for his own
00:00:16
use and personal gain financial crimes
00:00:19
include theft robbery burglary and
00:00:21
forgery sometimes financial crimes also
00:00:24
involve additional crimes such as
00:00:26
computer crimes or even violent crimes
00:00:31
theft crimes theft is the unlawful
00:00:34
taking of the property of another the
00:00:37
model Penal Code provides several
00:00:38
categories of theft including theft by
00:00:41
taking theft by deception theft by
00:00:43
extortion and receiving stolen property
00:00:45
state laws vary widely in how they
00:00:48
define and punish theft crimes Georgia
00:00:51
for example defines theft by taking as
00:00:54
the unlawful taking possession or
00:00:56
appropriation of the property of another
00:00:57
with the intent of depriving him of the
00:01:00
property it's not enough to take the
00:01:02
property of another a defendant must
00:01:03
have intent to take that property and
00:01:05
deprive the owner of it as theft is a
00:01:07
specific intent crime for example the
00:01:10
person steals a car that contains a
00:01:12
hidden bag of money the person has
00:01:13
stolen the car but has not committed
00:01:15
theft with regards to the bag of money
00:01:17
because he did not know of its existence
00:01:18
if he later finds the bag of money and
00:01:21
keeps it that's a new and separate act
00:01:23
of theft main defines theft by deception
00:01:26
as obtaining or exercising control over
00:01:30
the property of another as a result of
00:01:32
deception and with intent to deprive the
00:01:34
other of that property thus in order to
00:01:37
obtain a conviction of theft by
00:01:38
deception the prosecution must prove one
00:01:41
the defendant obtained the property to
00:01:43
the defendant made false statements 3
00:01:45
the victim relied on those false
00:01:47
statements and for the defendant acted
00:01:49
with intent to deprive the owner of the
00:01:51
property if the victim does not rely on
00:01:54
the false statements theft by deception
00:01:56
has not occurred for example in a 1985
00:02:00
Alabama case ex parte de an undercover
00:02:03
FBI agent purchased a purported 1.3
00:02:06
carat diamond for $3,300 from the
00:02:09
defendant the diamond was later
00:02:11
determined to be a zirconia stone the
00:02:13
defendant was convicted of theft by
00:02:14
deception the Supreme Court of Alabama
00:02:16
reversed the conviction because the
00:02:19
agent was not actually deceived and did
00:02:21
not purchase the stone because she
00:02:22
relied on the defendants false promise
00:02:24
the court noted that the more
00:02:26
appropriate charge would have been
00:02:27
attempted theft by deception
00:02:29
theft by extortion occurs when someone
00:02:32
compels a victim to deliver property or
00:02:34
services by installing fear through
00:02:37
threats of physical injury property
00:02:38
damage engaging in other criminal acts
00:02:41
or otherwise causing financial
00:02:43
reputational league
00:02:44
or physical harm the threatened action
00:02:47
does not necessarily need to be illegal
00:02:49
but does need to be immoral or wrongful
00:02:52
in some way for example demanding money
00:02:54
for silence about a marital affair is
00:02:56
classic criminal extortion even though
00:02:58
disclosing the affair is not inherently
00:03:00
illegal but it's self-evident that
00:03:02
threatening to leave a job unless one
00:03:04
receives a raise is not extortion or
00:03:06
illegal for extortion to apply the fear
00:03:09
of the defendant's threats does not need
00:03:11
to be the sole motivating force but it
00:03:14
must be a motivating factor in the
00:03:16
victims decision to turn over the money
00:03:17
property or services for example in an
00:03:21
Idaho case state vs. or the defendant
00:03:24
was in jail when he and a fellow inmate
00:03:26
instructed a woman on the outside to
00:03:28
deliver a threatening letter to a third
00:03:30
party who owed the inmate several
00:03:32
thousand dollars
00:03:33
the woman delivered the letter the
00:03:35
victim contacted the police and the
00:03:37
police provided surveillance while the
00:03:38
money was delivered the woman and the
00:03:41
defendant were arrested charged with
00:03:42
theft by extortion and found guilty at
00:03:45
trial on appeal the defendant argued
00:03:47
that his threat was not a compelling
00:03:49
force behind the delivery of the money
00:03:51
he claimed that the informant delivered
00:03:53
the money only because the police
00:03:54
conducting the surveillance instructed
00:03:56
her to do so not because of the
00:03:57
defendants threats the court upheld the
00:04:00
conviction ruling that extortion only
00:04:02
requires that fear be a motivating force
00:04:05
it does not require that fear be the
00:04:07
primary or sole force behind the victims
00:04:10
delivery of the property theft by
00:04:12
receiving stolen property occurs when
00:04:14
someone receives the property of another
00:04:16
and knows the property has been stolen
00:04:18
or believes the property has probably
00:04:20
been stolen unless of course he receives
00:04:22
it with the intent to restore it to the
00:04:23
owner it is not necessary to prove from
00:04:26
whom the defendant received the stolen
00:04:28
property only that he received so for
00:04:31
example if someone runs a Chop Shop
00:04:32
recycling stolen car parts he can be
00:04:35
guilty of receiving stolen property even
00:04:37
if he knows almost nothing about how or
00:04:39
when or where the cars were stolen
00:04:44
robbery robbery is the crime of taking
00:04:48
the property of another from his
00:04:49
immediate vicinity by means of force or
00:04:52
threat of force in this way it's a
00:04:54
combination of theft and assault the
00:04:57
model Penal Code defines robbery as a
00:04:59
theft that occurs by inflicting serious
00:05:02
bodily injury or subjects the victim to
00:05:04
a threat of such injury states generally
00:05:07
define robbery similarly but usually
00:05:10
also divide robbery into degrees based
00:05:12
on factors such as degree of force used
00:05:14
weapon usage and amount taken Missouri
00:05:18
for example distinguishes between first
00:05:20
and second degree robbery in that state
00:05:22
a person commits first-degree robbery if
00:05:24
he forcibly steals property and causes
00:05:26
serious physical injury is armed with a
00:05:28
deadly weapon uses or threatens the
00:05:31
immediate use of a dangerous instrument
00:05:32
or displays or threatens the use of what
00:05:35
appears to be a deadly weapon or
00:05:37
dangerous instrument second degree
00:05:39
robbery is any other forcible theft that
00:05:42
causes physical injury other states such
00:05:45
as Arkansas distinguish between robbery
00:05:47
and aggravated robbery there a robbery
00:05:50
occurs when someone employs or threatens
00:05:52
to immediately employ a physical force
00:05:54
with the purpose of committing a theft
00:05:56
the crime is aggravated if the defendant
00:05:59
was armed with a deadly weapon
00:06:00
represents that he's armed or inflicts
00:06:03
or attempts to inflict serious physical
00:06:05
injury as in the case of theft crimes
00:06:08
robbery is a specific intent crime
00:06:10
requiring intent to deprive the owner of
00:06:13
the property less a negligent or
00:06:15
reckless mental state is insufficient
00:06:18
carjacking and mugging are classic
00:06:21
examples of robbery and are typically
00:06:23
punished as first-degree robbery or
00:06:25
aggravated robbery when guns are used in
00:06:27
the process the crime of robbery is
00:06:30
distinct from theft and usually punished
00:06:32
more severely because the property is
00:06:34
taken from the owners person or her
00:06:36
immediate presence which escalates the
00:06:38
danger to the victim the property must
00:06:40
be close enough to the victim that he
00:06:42
could have prevented the defendant from
00:06:43
taking it but for the use of force or
00:06:46
the threat of force robbery is
00:06:48
considered a continuing offense because
00:06:50
it does not end until the perpetrator
00:06:52
has reached a place of safety thus if
00:06:54
the force or threat does not occur when
00:06:56
the property is taken but
00:06:58
Kurzweil the perpetrator is transporting
00:07:00
the property to another location a
00:07:02
robbery has still occurred for example
00:07:04
in the California case people versus
00:07:07
estie's after a Sears department store
00:07:09
security guard confronted a suspected
00:07:11
shoplifter the suspect pulled a knife on
00:07:14
the guard and threatened to kill him on
00:07:16
appeal the defendant argued that he
00:07:18
could not be guilty of robbery because
00:07:19
the assault was not contemporaneous with
00:07:21
the taking of the merchandise from the
00:07:23
store the court disagreed and held that
00:07:26
robbery is a continuing offense that
00:07:28
lasts from the time of the original
00:07:30
taking until the robber reaches a place
00:07:32
of relative safety the fact that the
00:07:34
defendant used force to prevent the
00:07:36
guard from retaking the property and to
00:07:38
facilitate his escape was sufficient for
00:07:41
a conviction related to the idea that
00:07:44
robbery is a continuous offense is the
00:07:46
idea that robbery is not complete until
00:07:48
the property is actually carried away
00:07:51
this element is known as asportation
00:07:53
however the evidence required to prove
00:07:56
asportation need only show that the item
00:07:58
was moved a slight distance for example
00:08:01
asportation will be proven if a
00:08:03
defendant drags a victim into the
00:08:05
backseat of an automobile grabs her
00:08:06
purse and rummages through the purse
00:08:08
before dropping the purse and making his
00:08:10
getaway the fact that the defendant left
00:08:12
the purse behind was irrelevant because
00:08:14
he possessed the property for a short
00:08:16
time considerable litigation has
00:08:20
centered on the question of how much
00:08:21
force is necessary to constitute a
00:08:24
robbery for example in the Claddagh case
00:08:27
owens versus state a jury convicted the
00:08:29
defendant of robbery after he came up
00:08:31
behind a victim and pulled her purse
00:08:33
from her shoulder the victim testified
00:08:35
that it hurt when the defendant snatched
00:08:37
her purse and left a mark on her
00:08:39
shoulder but the defendant did not
00:08:40
threaten her or attempt to injure her
00:08:43
the defendant argued that the charge
00:08:45
should be reduced to theft because he
00:08:47
did not use the amount of force required
00:08:48
the court agreed and overturned the
00:08:51
defendants conviction however the court
00:08:54
noted that there may be circumstances in
00:08:56
which snatching does constitute
00:08:58
sufficient force such as when the victim
00:09:01
resists the snatching and only lets go
00:09:03
after being pushed to the ground
00:09:07
burglary a person commits the offense of
00:09:10
burglary when without authority and with
00:09:13
the intent to commit a felony or theft
00:09:15
he enters the structure building or
00:09:17
dwelling house of another the purpose of
00:09:20
entering is usually to commit a theft
00:09:21
but in most states the intent to commit
00:09:23
any felony will suffice
00:09:25
thus a crucial element of burglary is
00:09:28
that the defendant intended to commit a
00:09:30
theft or a felony for example in
00:09:32
Commonwealth vs. will a mouse key the
00:09:34
defendant kicked in a garage door but
00:09:36
the crime was stopped before anything
00:09:38
was stolen the defendant argued that the
00:09:40
evidence was insufficient to establish
00:09:42
that he intended to commit a crime
00:09:43
inside the structure the court reasoned
00:09:46
that intent may be inferred from
00:09:48
circumstantial evidence but a forced
00:09:50
opening standing alone is not sufficient
00:09:53
for a finding of intent the defendants
00:09:55
conviction for attempted burglary was
00:09:57
reversed burglary is often referred to
00:10:00
as breaking and entering and confusion
00:10:03
has arisen over whether a mere entry
00:10:05
constitutes a breaking a Pennsylvania
00:10:08
Court ruled that breaking could be
00:10:09
constructive if permission for entry is
00:10:12
gained by deceiving the homeowner in
00:10:14
their case the defendant rang the
00:10:16
doorbell and told the owner that he was
00:10:18
there to read a utility meter in the
00:10:20
basement the homeowner granted
00:10:22
permission and the defendant entered the
00:10:23
home the defendant took a bucket of
00:10:25
pennies and exited the home the court
00:10:27
affirmed the burglary conviction and
00:10:29
found the defendants deception vitiated
00:10:31
'add any consent that the homeowner gave
00:10:33
him to enter thus the defendant was not
00:10:36
privileged to enter and a constructive
00:10:38
breakin had occurred litigation has also
00:10:41
addressed what constitutes an entry for
00:10:44
burglary purposes Massachusetts courts
00:10:47
have held that intrusion by any part of
00:10:49
the defendants body is sufficient to
00:10:51
establish entry when only an instrument
00:10:54
crosses the threshold of a structure no
00:10:56
entry has been established if the
00:10:58
instrument was only used to accomplish
00:11:00
the breaking however if the instrument
00:11:03
was used to commit the felony the entry
00:11:05
of the instrument will suffice to
00:11:07
establish the element of breaking for
00:11:09
example if someone breaks a victim's
00:11:11
window and throws a bottle filled with
00:11:12
gasoline inside and starts a fire even
00:11:15
though the defendant did not use the
00:11:17
bottle to break the window entry
00:11:18
occurred when the bottle
00:11:20
the threshold of the structure the law
00:11:23
provides greater penalties for burglary
00:11:25
of a home than for burglary of other
00:11:27
structures for example Alaska defines
00:11:30
first-degree burglary as entering or
00:11:32
remaining in the building with intent to
00:11:34
commit a crime in the building if the
00:11:37
building is a dwelling which means a
00:11:39
building used as a person's permanent or
00:11:41
temporary home in an Alaska case that
00:11:45
tested that definition Schumacher versus
00:11:47
State the defendant was convicted of
00:11:49
first degree burglary after he boarded a
00:11:51
fishing boat and gained entry into the
00:11:53
cabin by sawing a door lock the
00:11:56
defendant lived aboard the boat for
00:11:57
approximately a month before he was
00:11:59
arrested the defendant argued that the
00:12:02
boat was not a dwelling or a building
00:12:04
because no one was living in it or
00:12:05
planning to live it at the time that he
00:12:07
took possession the court held that
00:12:09
because the boat was designed to sleep
00:12:11
two crew members contained a galley two
00:12:14
bunks and an indoor head the boat was
00:12:16
considered a dwelling
00:12:21
forgery
00:12:23
forgery occurs when someone with the
00:12:25
intent to defraud knowingly alters a
00:12:28
written document without permission
00:12:29
forgery is often committed by the use of
00:12:32
a fraudulent check but it includes other
00:12:34
types of writings as well
00:12:35
many states distinguish between degrees
00:12:37
of forgery and assign greater penalties
00:12:39
and sentences depending on the amount of
00:12:41
the loss the purpose of forgery is
00:12:44
usually pecuniary gain but consider the
00:12:46
following Colorado case where the
00:12:48
defendants purpose was to avoid criminal
00:12:50
charges the defendants ex-wife filed a
00:12:54
complaint against the defendant alleging
00:12:55
domestic assault the defendant contacted
00:12:58
his ex-wife and requested that she
00:13:00
recant he sent her a prepared letter and
00:13:02
asked her to sign it and send it to the
00:13:04
prosecutor but she refused the defendant
00:13:07
signed the ex-wife's name without her
00:13:09
permission and mailed it to the
00:13:10
prosecutor the defendant was charged and
00:13:13
convicted of forgery the Supreme Court
00:13:16
of Colorado sustained the conviction
00:13:18
ruling that forgery is not limited to
00:13:20
forgery of writings affecting financial
00:13:22
interests but also includes forgery of
00:13:24
writings having other legal effects
00:13:26
forgery requires that the defendant
00:13:28
commit the act of forgery it's not
00:13:30
enough of the defendant conspired to
00:13:32
profit after an act of forgery for
00:13:35
example in an Oklahoma case van versus
00:13:38
state multiple people conspired to have
00:13:40
a girl impersonate another girl who was
00:13:42
supposed to receive a plot of land so
00:13:44
that they could control the land instead
00:13:46
the agent overseeing the transfer became
00:13:49
suspicious of the impersonator and asked
00:13:51
the defendant to identify her the
00:13:53
defendant falsely told the agent that
00:13:55
the impersonator was the person who was
00:13:57
supposed to receive the property there
00:13:59
was also evidence that the defendant was
00:14:01
paid for his fraudulent identification
00:14:03
the defendant was convicted of forgery
00:14:06
however the Oklahoma Court of Appeals
00:14:08
reversed his conviction because there
00:14:10
was no evidence that the defendant
00:14:12
joined in the act of forgery or
00:14:13
conspired to perpetrate the forgery his
00:14:16
later participation and the fact that he
00:14:18
profited from the forgery did not make
00:14:21
him guilty of the original offense a
00:14:23
forgery has not occurred if someone
00:14:25
signs another signature with permission
00:14:28
for example if someone receives
00:14:29
permission to sign a loan document
00:14:31
secured by a mortgage in another's name
00:14:32
and does so there has been no forgery
00:14:35
because one
00:14:36
received permission and acted within
00:14:38
that permission and two there was no
00:14:40
intent to defraud
00:14:42
in our final module we will look at a
00:14:44
series of possible defenses against
00:14:46
criminal charges and discuss how they
00:14:48
are applied
![The Soviet Bomber That Was Utterly Bonkers | Tupolev TB-3 [Historical Deep-Dive]](https://ruhnrawpgxrzdrgaohnf.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/images/video/b0g8HiAbNAE/thumbnail.jpg)
