PastPaperHero | Other crimes - Theft and receiving stolen goods

Learning Outcomes

This article explains theft and receiving stolen goods, including:

Identifying and articulating the elements of larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, larceny by trick, and receiving stolen property in bar-exam style language.
Distinguishing how possession, custody, and title move in each offense, and using those movements to classify fact patterns under common law labels.
Applying claim-of-right, mistake, “continuing trespass,” and “property no longer stolen” doctrines to determine when criminal liability is cut off.
Comparing theft offenses with related crimes such as robbery, burglary, and extortion so you can recognize when a question is really testing an underlying theft concept.
Recognizing how modern consolidated theft statutes reorganize traditional offenses while preserving core mental-state and property-movement issues tested on the MBE.
Spotting common exam traps involving timing of intent, misdelivery, lost or mislaid property, worthlessness of checks, and law-enforcement sting operations.
Evaluating multiple-choice options efficiently by mapping each answer choice to the required movement of property and mental state, then eliminating offenses with missing elements.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand property crimes involving theft and the handling of stolen goods, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

Common law theft offenses: larceny, larceny by trick, embezzlement, false pretenses.
Modern statutory theft schemes that consolidate traditional offenses.
Receiving stolen property: knowledge, “stolen” status, and intent.
Mental states for theft-related crimes and how they differ from general-intent offenses.
Overlaps and distinctions between theft crimes and robbery, burglary, and fraud.
Typical defenses and limitations (claim of right, mistake of fact, impossibility).

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

Which of the following is NOT an element of larceny?
1. Taking and carrying away property of another
2. Intent to permanently deprive the owner
3. Obtaining title to the property by deception
4. Trespassory taking
A bank teller lawfully receives a customer's deposit, then transfers the funds to her own account. What crime has the teller committed?
1. Larceny
2. Embezzlement
3. False pretenses
4. Robbery
To be guilty of receiving stolen property, the defendant must:
1. Personally steal the property
2. Knowingly possess property known to be stolen
3. Obtain title to the property by fraud
4. Use force to acquire the property
Which crime involves obtaining both possession and title to property by a material misrepresentation?
1. Larceny
2. Embezzlement
3. False pretenses
4. Receiving stolen property

Introduction

Theft and the handling of stolen goods are among the most frequently tested property crimes on the MBE. These offenses share similarities but are distinguished by specific elements—especially how the defendant acquires the property (custody, possession, or title) and the defendant’s mental state. Many questions turn on small factual changes, such as whether the owner intended to pass title, or whether the defendant already had lawful possession. Being exact about the elements is essential.

At common law, the theft offenses were sharply divided:

Larceny punished trespassory interfering with possession.
Embezzlement punished betrayal of trust by someone already in lawful possession.
False pretenses targeted acquisition of title by fraud.
Larceny by trick filled the gap where custody or possession was obtained by deception rather than by force or stealth.
Receiving stolen property targeted the fence or downstream purchaser of stolen goods.

Modern statutes often collapse these categories into a broad crime of “theft,” but MBE questions still expect you to apply the traditional labels to pick the right answer.

Key Term: Larceny
The trespassory taking and carrying away of tangible personal property of another, with intent to permanently deprive the owner.

Key Term: Embezzlement
The fraudulent conversion of property by a person who is already in lawful possession of it due to a position of trust.

Key Term: False Pretenses
Acquiring both title and possession of property from another by knowingly making a false statement of material fact with intent to defraud, on which the victim actually relies.

Key Term: Receiving Stolen Property
Knowingly receiving, possessing, concealing, or controlling property known to be stolen, with intent to permanently deprive the owner.

Key Term: Theft (Statutory)
A broad statutory offense encompassing larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, larceny by trick, receiving stolen property, and related property crimes.

Several cross-cutting concepts appear in almost every theft fact pattern.

Key Term: Custody vs Possession
“Custody” is limited control over property for a narrow purpose (for example, a low‑level employee briefly holding goods); “possession” is broader control and discretion over the use and handling of the property.

Key Term: Larceny by Trick
A form of larceny where possession (but not title) is obtained by a fraudulent misrepresentation, so that the owner’s apparent consent is vitiated and the taking is trespassory.

Key Term: Continuing Trespass
When a defendant wrongfully takes property without intent to steal, but later forms intent to steal while still wrongfully possessing it, the original trespass “continues,” and larceny is completed when the intent is formed.

Key Term: Claim of Right
A good‑faith belief—reasonable or not—that one owns the property or has a right to it. This belief can negate the intent to steal.

With these definitions in mind, we can look more closely at each offense and the way the MBE tests their distinctions.

Larceny

Larceny is the classic common law theft offense: a trespassory taking and carrying away (asportation) of the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive.

Elements Restated

For larceny, the prosecution must show:

Trespassory taking:
- The initial acquisition of control is without the owner’s consent or beyond the scope of consent.
- Consent induced by fraud where the owner intends to part only with custody or possession (not title) counts as trespass (larceny by trick).
Carrying away (asportation):
- Any movement, however slight, is enough. Lifting a wallet an inch out of a pocket satisfies asportation.
Personal property of another:
- Someone other than the defendant has a superior possessory interest.
- At common law, the property had to be tangible personal property (chattels), but documentary embodiments of intangible rights (e.g., a stock certificate) also counted. Modern statutes typically extend theft to intangibles and services.
Intent to permanently deprive:
- Specific intent to steal, existing at the time of the trespassory taking, or supplied later by the continuing trespass doctrine.

Larceny is a specific‑intent crime: the defendant must intend both (1) to take property that is not theirs and (2) to permanently deprive the owner of it (or create a substantial risk of permanent loss).

“Trespassory” means a violation of the possessor’s rights. This can occur in several ways:

Pure trespass: taking in the face of no consent (picking up a stranger’s phone from a table and walking away).
Exceeding scope of consent: owner allows limited use, but defendant goes beyond that (borrowing a car for one errand, then driving it cross‑country).
Consent vitiated by fraud:
- If the victim is tricked into handing over possession only, the taking is trespassory (larceny by trick).
- If the victim intends to transfer title, the offense is false pretenses, not larceny.

The custody–possession distinction is critical. A person with mere custody can still trespass against the owner’s possession. For example:

Low‑level employee: A cashier given money only to ring it through and place it in the till usually has custody; if the cashier pockets the money, the taking is trespassory larceny.
Bailee: A warehouse operator given goods for storage has possession, not mere custody. Misappropriation is more likely embezzlement.

Property of Another

“For another” means anyone with a superior possessory interest. Key points:

A co‑owner typically cannot commit larceny of jointly owned property, because each co‑owner has a right to possession. But where one co‑owner has given exclusive possessory rights to another (for example, leasing the entire item), taking may be larceny against the lessee’s possessory interest.
An agent or bailee can commit larceny against the principal if the principal retains possession and the agent has only custody (for example, store clerk with goods on the shelf).
Wild animals and abandoned property generally cannot be the subject of larceny until someone acquires a possessory interest.

Asportation

Movement of the property, however slight, completes asportation. It is not necessary that:

The property leave the premises,
The defendant keep the property for any length of time.

Picking up an item and then dropping it immediately after noticing a camera is still asportation.

Intent to Permanently Deprive

The defendant must intend to permanently deprive the owner or to take property in a way that creates a high risk of permanent loss (for example, throwing a watch into the ocean for amusement, intending to retrieve it only if convenient).

Common variations:

Borrowing:
- Genuine intent to return property in substantially the same condition, at the time of taking, normally negates larceny.
- However, borrowing can count as larceny if:
  - The property will be returned in a materially different condition, or
  - Return depends on a contingency that is unlikely to occur (for example, “I’ll return your car if I win the race and the engine does not blow.”).
Destroying property:
- If the defendant intends to destroy or abandon the property so that the owner is unlikely to recover it, that satisfies intent to permanently deprive.
Continuing trespass:
- If the original taking is trespassory—even if the defendant had no intent to steal at that moment—later formation of intent to steal while still in wrongful possession turns the conduct into larceny.

Worked Example 1.1

A student mistakenly grabs another student’s identical laptop, believing it is his. When he gets home, he realizes it is not his but decides to keep it.

Answer:
This is larceny under the continuing trespass rule. The original taking was trespassory (because it was someone else’s laptop), and when he later formed the intent to permanently deprive while still in wrongful possession, larceny was completed.

Lost, Mislaid, and Misdelivered Property

Taking lost or mislaid property can be larceny if:

At the time of taking, the defendant knows or has reason to know the owner can be identified or located, and
The defendant intends not to return it.

Examples:

Finding a wallet with ID inside and pocketing it: larceny.
Picking up a single bill on a windy sidewalk with no indication of owner: generally not larceny.

Misdelivery scenarios are MBE favorites:

If a clerk mistakenly hands a customer too much change and the customer realizes the error and keeps the excess, that is larceny—not embezzlement—because the customer had no lawful possessory right to the extra funds and simply took advantage of the clerk’s mistake.

Claim of Right and Mistake

An honest claim of right is a complete defense to larceny and other specific‑intent theft crimes, even if the belief is unreasonable. It negates the intent to steal.

Taking back your own property from someone you (mistakenly) think is wrongfully withholding it can be non‑criminal, even if your self‑help method is improper.
However, a supposed “right” to collect a debt in cash generally does not allow you to take particular items as payment by force; that moves into robbery/extortion territory and many jurisdictions limit the claim‑of‑right defense in that context.

Honest mistake of fact about whose property it is has the same effect: no intent to steal.

Embezzlement

Embezzlement punishes the fraudulent conversion of property by a person who already has lawful possession of that property because of a position of trust or agency.

Elements

Lawful possession:
- The defendant originally received the property with the owner’s consent and with sufficient authority and discretion to amount to possession, not mere custody.
Conversion:
- A serious interference with the owner’s rights, such as selling, consuming, pledging, giving away, or substantially altering the property.
Fraudulent intent:
- Intent to treat the property as one’s own in violation of the owner’s rights. The conversion must be wrongful; an honest mistake or inadvertent misplacement is not enough.

Embezzlement is also a specific‑intent crime. The defendant must intend to deal with the property in a way that is inconsistent with the owner’s rights. It is not necessary that the defendant personally gain.

Lawful Possession vs Custody

The key distinction from larceny is how the defendant came into control of the property.

Typical embezzlement scenarios:

A bank manager authorized to access and allocate funds.
A corporate officer with control over company accounts.
A warehouse supervisor responsible for inventory.

Typical non‑embezzlement (larceny instead):

A cashier given money just long enough to put it in the register.
A delivery driver who is supposed to transport sealed boxes from the warehouse to the store, and opens them to remove goods.

In the latter situations the employees have only custody. Their misappropriation is a trespass against the owner’s possession and constitutes larceny.

Conversion

“Conversion” is more than trivial misuse but less than complete destruction. Examples:

Selling or pawning the property.
Using entrusted funds for personal expenses, even if intending to pay back.
Permanently depriving the owner of part of the property (for example, siphoning off small amounts from an account over time).

Returning the property or paying it back later does not undo embezzlement once conversion has occurred. Later restitution may mitigate punishment but does not negate liability.

Exam Traps

Mistaken delivery: If a store clerk mistakenly gives a customer property (e.g., too much change) and the customer then keeps the excess, the offense is larceny, not embezzlement. The customer was not in a position of trust with lawful possession of the extra funds.
Property of another: Some questions involve the defendant diverting funds they believe belong to them (for example, disputed partnership profits). A genuine dispute can undermine the “fraudulent” element.

False Pretenses

False pretenses involves acquiring both possession and title to property by a material misrepresentation of present or past fact, made with intent to defraud, on which the victim actually relies.

Elements (False Pretenses)

Obtaining title:
- The victim intends to pass ownership (not merely possession) because of the defendant’s misrepresentation.
Material misrepresentation of present or past fact:
- The statement must relate to an existing or past fact, not simply an unkept promise of future conduct under the traditional rule.
- Exceptions: A misrepresentation of a present intent to perform in the future is treated as a present fact (“I currently intend to repay you tomorrow” when the defendant knows they do not).
Knowledge of falsity and intent to defraud:
- The defendant must know the statement is false or act with reckless disregard and intend the victim to rely on it.
Actual reliance by the victim:
- The misrepresentation must induce the transfer of title.

The property obtained can include:

Money or goods.
Intangible rights, such as a chose in action (for example, getting a creditor to sign a release of debt).
Promissory notes or checks.

Worthless Check Cases

A classic MBE pattern: the defendant uses a check drawn on a closed or empty account to purchase an item.

By writing and delivering the check, the defendant implicitly represents that sufficient funds are available in the account.
If the seller, relying on that implicit representation, transfers both possession and title to the goods, the offense is false pretenses.

If the seller does not intend to transfer title—for example, if they allow the defendant to take goods “on approval” or “for inspection only”—the same conduct might be larceny by trick rather than false pretenses.

Misrepresentation vs Puffing

Vague “puffing” (“This is the best car in town”) is generally not actionable for false pretenses.
Concrete false assertions about quality, identity, or legal status (“This car has never been in an accident,” “This painting is a genuine Picasso”) can support false pretenses.

Larceny by Trick

Larceny by trick sits conceptually between larceny and false pretenses. It is essentially larceny where possession is gained by fraud.

Key Term: Larceny by Trick
Larceny where possession (but not title) is obtained by a fraudulent misrepresentation, so that the owner’s consent is invalid and the taking is trespassory.

The critical question is the victim’s intent:

If the victim intends to transfer only possession, keeping title (for example, lending property), and the defendant uses fraud to obtain that possession, the offense is larceny by trick.
If the victim intends to transfer both title and possession (for example, a sale), the offense is false pretenses.

The defendant’s state of mind is the same in both: knowing misrepresentation with intent to defraud.

Common larceny‑by‑trick patterns:

Borrowing a car based on a false story (“I need it to drive to the hospital”) with intent never to return it.
Renting an expensive item using false identification for the purpose of keeping it.

Worked Example 1.2

A defendant borrows a friend’s car after falsely saying he needs it to drive to a job interview. In reality, he intends to drive it to another state and never return it. The friend intends only to lend the car, not to transfer ownership.

Answer:
This is larceny by trick. The friend intended to transfer only possession, not title, and the defendant obtained possession by fraud with intent to permanently deprive.

Receiving Stolen Property

Receiving stolen property targets those who deal in already stolen goods—the “fences” and knowing purchasers.

Elements (Receiving Stolen Property)

Property is stolen:
- The property was obtained by larceny, robbery, or another theft offense and has not yet been recovered by the owner or law enforcement at the time the defendant received it.
Receiving, possession, or control:
- Actual physical possession (holding the item) or constructive possession (dominion or control through others or over a place where the property is stored) is sufficient.
Knowledge or belief that the property is stolen:
- The defendant must know, or at least believe, the property is stolen. Willful blindness—deliberately avoiding learning the truth—can satisfy this requirement.
Intent to permanently deprive:
- The defendant must intend to keep, dispose of, or otherwise deprive the owner of the property.

What Counts as “Stolen”

At common law, property ceased to be “stolen” once it was recovered by the true owner or by law enforcement acting for the owner. Under that traditional view:

If the police recover stolen property and then, in a sting, deliver it to a suspect, the property is no longer “stolen,” and the strict common law version of receiving stolen property is not satisfied.
Many modern statutes override this result and expressly cover receiving property that is stolen or represented as stolen in law enforcement stings.

On the MBE, unless a modern statute is specified, assume common law rules:

Property recovered by police and then re‑used in a sting is no longer “stolen.”
A thief cannot be convicted of receiving the same property he stole (one cannot receive from oneself). Some statutes alter this, but the traditional common law rule is the default.

Knowledge Requirement

Knowledge that property is “stolen” is a frequent exam issue. Points to remember:

Direct admission (“I know this is stolen”) is rare.
Knowledge can be inferred from circumstances, such as:
- Extremely low price for valuable goods.
- Serial numbers filed off.
- Transactions in back alleys or at odd hours.
- Seller’s inability to provide any plausible story of ownership.
Mere suspicion is not enough; but deliberate avoidance (“don’t tell me where you got it”) can amount to willful blindness.

If the defendant believes the property is stolen but it is not in fact stolen, most jurisdictions would find attempt to receive stolen property.

Worked Example 1.3

A person buys a laptop from a friend in a parking lot for a fraction of its retail value, knowing the friend stole it from a local store. What crime?

Answer:
Receiving stolen property. The buyer knowingly acquired property known to be stolen, with intent to keep it.

Common Law Sting Scenario

Worked Example 1.4

Police recover a stolen painting and, in a sting operation, ask a suspect if he would like to “buy this stolen painting cheap.” The suspect agrees, pays money, and takes it, clearly believing it to be stolen. Under traditional common law rules, what result?

Answer:
He is not guilty of receiving stolen property because the painting, having been recovered by police, is no longer “stolen.” A modern statute might reach a different result, but strictly under common law, an element is missing. He may, however, be guilty of attempt if the jurisdiction so provides.

Modern Statutory Theft

Many jurisdictions have consolidated larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, larceny by trick, and receiving stolen property into a single offense of “theft” or “theft by unlawful taking.”

These statutes often:

Define theft broadly as unlawfully obtaining or exercising control over another’s property with intent to deprive.
Include separate subsections for theft by:
- Taking (traditional larceny),
- Deception (false pretenses/larceny by trick),
- Conversion (embezzlement‑type conduct),
- Receiving stolen property,
- Services and intangibles.

Under such statutes, classification questions (larceny vs embezzlement vs false pretenses) are less important for guilt but still useful for understanding elements and for exam questions framed in common law language.

On the MBE:

If told that a jurisdiction has a consolidated theft statute, focus on:
- Did the defendant obtain or exercise control over property of another?
- Did the defendant have the required intent to deprive or appropriate?
More often, the question will invite you to choose among traditional labels in the answer choices, so the common law distinctions remain important.

Elements and Distinctions

The MBE frequently tests the fine lines between these offenses. The distinctions largely turn on how the defendant acquires the property and what the victim meant to transfer.

How Property Moves: Custody, Possession, Title

A useful way to organize the offenses:

Larceny:
- Trespassory taking of property.
- Defendant ends with possession.
- Victim did not consent to transfer of possession (or consent was vitiated by fraud where only possession was intended to pass).
Larceny by Trick:
- Victim consents to transfer of possession only, due to fraud.
- Title stays with the victim.
Embezzlement:
- Victim voluntarily gave the defendant possession (not just custody) before the crime.
- Defendant later converts the property.
False Pretenses:
- Victim intends to transfer both possession and title because of defendant’s misrepresentation.
Receiving Stolen Property:
- Property is already stolen by someone else.
- Defendant later acquires possession or control knowing it is stolen.

Larceny (Elements Revisited)

Trespassory taking (without consent, beyond the scope of consent, or by trick where only possession was intended to pass).
Only possession (not title) passes to the defendant.
Intent to permanently deprive must exist at the time of the taking, unless the continuing trespass doctrine applies.
Property must be tangible personal property at common law (modern statutes often expand this).

Additional exam points:

Borrowing with intent to return is not larceny unless:
- The property will be returned in a materially different condition, or
- Return depends on an unlikely contingency.
Taking property in satisfaction of a genuine debt believed to be owed (claim of right) is not larceny.
Mistake as to ownership, if honest, negates intent even if unreasonable.

Embezzlement (Elements Revisited)

Defendant has lawful possession (not mere custody) due to trust, employment, or agency.
Fraudulent conversion (serious interference inconsistent with the owner’s rights) is required; minor misuse is not enough.
Intent to defraud must be present at the time of conversion; initial innocent possession may become embezzlement when the defendant decides to misappropriate.

Exam nuances:

Misappropriation of mistakenly delivered property is usually larceny, not embezzlement, because the defendant did not receive possession pursuant to a position of trust.
Return of the property or intent to return it at some later time does not erase embezzlement once conversion has occurred.

False Pretenses (Elements Revisited)

Defendant obtains both possession and title.
Acquisition is by a material misrepresentation of present or past fact (not just a promise), made with intent to defraud.
Victim must actually be deceived and rely on the misrepresentation in transferring title.
Intent to defraud is required.

Exam nuances:

Statements of opinion or “puffing” are generally insufficient.
False statements about a presently existing intent (for example, promising to perform while secretly intending not to) can qualify.
Obtaining cancellation of a debt or a security interest by fraud is false pretenses.

Receiving Stolen Property (Elements Revisited)

Property must be “stolen” at the time of receipt (not yet recovered).
Defendant must know or believe the property is stolen (willful blindness can suffice under many statutes).
Possession or control is required; constructive possession is enough.
Intent to permanently deprive the owner is necessary.

Worked Examples

The following examples illustrate how the distinctions play out in typical exam fact patterns.

Worked Example 1.5

A warehouse employee is entrusted with the keys to the warehouse and is authorized to move goods as needed. One night, she loads several boxes onto her own truck and sells them. What crime has she committed?

Answer:
Embezzlement. She had lawful possession of the goods due to her employment and then fraudulently converted them for her own use.

Worked Example 1.6

A man tricks a jeweler into handing over a diamond ring by claiming he is a famous actor and will pay later. The jeweler, believing the story, gives him the ring and intends to transfer title.

Answer:
False pretenses. The man obtained both possession and title by a material misrepresentation on which the jeweler relied.

Worked Example 1.7

Believing a neighbor’s lawnmower is actually his own that went missing earlier, a defendant takes it from the neighbor’s shed intending to keep it.

Answer:
No theft offense. The defendant has a claim of right: a good‑faith belief that the property is his own, which negates the intent to steal, even though he is factually mistaken.

Worked Example 1.8

A defendant takes a jacket from a restaurant coat rack intending to use it for the night and return it. After leaving, he decides to keep the jacket permanently.

Answer:
Larceny under the continuing trespass doctrine. The original taking was trespassory; when he later formed the intent to permanently deprive while still in wrongful possession, larceny was completed.

Worked Example 1.9

During a cash sale totaling $27, a cashier mistakenly hands a customer$ 23 in change instead of $13. The customer notices the error but quietly keeps the extra$ 10.

Answer:
Larceny. The customer obtained extra money by taking advantage of the clerk’s mistake; the customer never had lawful entitlement to that $10, and keeping it with knowledge of the mistake is a trespassory taking with intent to permanently deprive. This is not embezzlement because the customer was not in a position of trust with lawful possession of the extra money.

Worked Example 1.10

A buyer pays for a used car with a check drawn on an account he knows is closed. The seller, believing the check is good, signs over title and hands over the keys. The buyer immediately resells the car.

Answer:
False pretenses. The buyer obtained both title and possession by implying the check was backed by funds, a material misrepresentation on which the seller relied. The fact that the buyer later resold the car confirms the intent to defraud but is not necessary for the offense.

Exam Warning

On the MBE, be careful to distinguish:

Larceny by trick (only possession passes) from false pretenses (both possession and title pass). The victim’s intent regarding title is the key difference.
Larceny from embezzlement by asking whether the defendant already had lawful possession (embezzlement) or only custody/no consent (larceny).
Receiving stolen property from attempt to receive stolen property when the goods are not in fact “stolen” at the time of receipt.
When larceny merges into another offense: larceny is a lesser‑included offense of robbery (robbery = larceny + force or intimidation). A defendant cannot be convicted of both larceny and robbery for the same taking.

Also pay close attention to:

The timing of the defendant’s intent to steal (initially vs later continuing trespass).
Whether law enforcement has already recovered the property before a sting operation.
Whether the defendant’s belief that property is his is genuine (claim of right).

Defenses and Modern Consolidation

Several recurring defenses and limitations are tested with theft crimes.

Mistake and Claim of Right

An honest belief that the property belongs to the defendant or that the defendant has a right to it (for example, a lien) negates the specific intent to steal.
The belief need not be reasonable; it must simply be genuine.
Similarly, a good‑faith belief that the owner would consent to the taking, or that the property is abandoned, can negate intent.

However, some jurisdictions limit the claim‑of‑right defense when the taking is accomplished by violence or intimidation (robbery), reasoning that private debt collection by force is not protected.

Lack of “Stolen” Status

For receiving stolen property:

If goods have been recovered by the true owner or law enforcement before receipt, they are no longer “stolen” under common law.
A defendant who believes property is stolen but it is not may be guilty of attempt to receive stolen property, provided other attempt requirements are met (substantial step, specific intent).

No Intent to Permanently Deprive

Taking property solely to use it briefly and return it, with no substantial risk of loss, is not larceny—even if unauthorized—though it may be trespass or another offense.
However, using property in a way that creates a serious risk that it will be lost or destroyed (for example, using another’s car in a dangerous race) can satisfy the intent‑to‑deprive element.

Impossibility and Attempt

Theft‑related questions sometimes involve attempt and impossibility:

Factual impossibility (for example, reaching into an empty pocket believing a wallet is there) is not a defense to attempt; the defendant may be guilty of attempted larceny.
Legal impossibility (for example, taking property that, unknown to the defendant, belongs to them) is a defense because the completed act would not be a crime.

Modern Theft Statutes

Where a consolidated theft statute applies:

Focus less on traditional labels and more on whether the defendant:
- Wrongfully obtained or exercised control over property or services of another, and
- Did so with intent to deprive or appropriate.
Statutes often explicitly cover:
- Theft of services (for example, leaving a restaurant without paying).
- Theft of utilities (for example, bypassing a meter).
- Theft by deception or extortion.

Nonetheless, the MBE will usually frame the answer choices using common law terms, so understanding those distinctions remains important.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

Larceny involves a trespassory taking and carrying away of tangible personal property of another, with intent to permanently deprive; only possession passes, not title.
Larceny is a specific‑intent crime; the intent to steal must exist at the time of the trespassory taking, but the continuing trespass doctrine allows later‑formed intent to complete larceny.
Embezzlement requires prior lawful possession (not mere custody) and fraudulent conversion by someone in a position of trust; initial innocent possession can become embezzlement when the decision to misappropriate is made.
False pretenses arises when the defendant obtains both title and possession through a material misrepresentation of present or past fact, with intent to defraud and actual reliance by the victim.
Larceny by trick applies when the defendant obtains possession (but not title) through fraud; the victim means to transfer only custody or possession.
Receiving stolen property punishes those who knowingly receive, possess, or control property that is “stolen” at the time of receipt, with intent to permanently deprive the owner; knowledge can be inferred from suspicious circumstances.
Under traditional rules, property recovered by the owner or police is no longer “stolen” for purposes of receiving stolen property; a thief ordinarily cannot also be convicted of receiving the same property he stole.
Claim of right and honest mistake of ownership or authority to take the property negate the specific intent required for theft‑related crimes.
Modern statutory theft provisions often consolidate larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, larceny by trick, and receiving stolen property; the MBE still expects you to understand the traditional distinctions to resolve multiple‑choice options.
Many theft crimes are lesser‑included offenses of more serious crimes (for example, larceny within robbery), so merger and double‑jeopardy principles limit multiple convictions arising from the same taking.

Key Terms and Concepts

Larceny
Embezzlement
False Pretenses
Receiving Stolen Property
Theft (Statutory)
Custody vs Possession
Larceny by Trick
Continuing Trespass
Claim of Right

Other crimes - Theft and receiving stolen goods