The TA 1968, s 5(3) does not prevent the defendant having legal ownership, but it provides that, for the purposes of the Act, the property also belongs to another. Under these circumstances, the prosecution would still have to prove that there was a dishonest appropriation, and that a defendant intended to permanently deprive. The TA 1968, s 5(3) only deals with one element of theft – 'belonging to another'.'[B]y virtue of section 5(3), the appellant was plainly under an obligation to retain, if not the actual notes and coins, at least their proceeds, that is to say the money credited in the bank account which he opened for the trust with the actual property. When he took the money credited to that account and moved it over to his own bank account, it was still the proceeds of the notes and coins donated which he proceeded to use for his own purposes, thereby appropriating them.'
status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
last reprioritisation on | suggested re-reading day | |||
started reading on | finished reading on |