R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299 FACTS: The defendant had borrowed money from his employer's safe, even though he knew this was against company rules. He said he intended to repay it on the following day after a debt had been repaid to him. HELD: It was held by the Court of Appeal that intending to return coins of an equivalent value is not the same as intending to return the identical ones that were taken. Therefore, although such an intention may be relevant to the issue of dishonesty, it does not negative the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the original notes and coins.