Business Crime - Christies Ltd - Essay Example

Business Crime--Christies Ltd Business Crime – Christies Ltd in APA Style Harvard Referencing Business Crime--Christies Ltd 2 This study focuses on the Theft Act 1968 and analyzes the meaning of the word dishonesty. Due to the broadness of the definition, dishonesty to one person can mean something else to another. We all can justify something in order to make it no longer fit under the category of being dishonest. Therefore, a legal definition of the term must be set, which was the intention of Theft Act 1968. The word theft is obviously defined under the Theft Act 1968 and this document analyzes the phrase, “intention to permanently deprive”. The study goes through each accusation and then through each section of the Theft Act 1968 to determine whether or not the named individual is guilty of theft and dishonesty. Business Crime--Christies Ltd 3 Before proceeding to the topic of Christies Ltd. and business crime, it is important to understand how and why the Theft Act 1968 came into existence. This Act was original for it was the first British legislation, which the dealings of criminal law accessible to all citizens and not just limited to attorneys. An article from bbc.co.uk (2001) tells this history: Before 1968, theft and other, similar, offences were governed by a mass of conflicting legislation and common law and was over-complex. Before 1968, if ownership passed by means of deception, the offence was obtaining by false pretences. If possession was passed, the offence was larcency by a trick. Other offences existed, including larcency by a servant, fraudulent conversion and embezzlement. It had reached the point where it was harder to discover which crime the accused may have committed rather than whether or not the accused was guilty. The 1968 Theft Act, as well as the 1971 Criminal Damage Act, did much to overcome this problem. All previous theft legislation and common law were overruled, resulting in the creation of the first codified definition of law in England and Wales. Understanding the history of the Act allows one to understand why it was and still is needed. Now we shall begin the discussion of Christies Ltd. The situations at hand and the topic of this piece of writing are now presented: Business Crime--Christies Ltd 4 Phil Jackson has approached David asking for a higher salary, as he believes he is underpaid. David refuses. Phil then decides to augment his salary in a number of ways: (A) Phil decides to open a flower stall at the weekend. He obtains a large selection of daffodils and tulips from the roadside and aims to sell these at Ј2 per bunch. (B) Phil decides to go for a drive through the countryside. He sees an unattended pick up truck loaded with live wild pheasants. Phil decides to put these into his own vehicle, intending to sell them to a local butcher. (C) Phil decides to enter the safe of Christies Ltd and look at the plans for a new “HyperScoop”. He draws the design of the scoop and offers it for sale to Scooperman Ltd, a direct competitor of Christies Ltd. The Theft Act 1968 lists the basic definition of the word theft. According to this Act, a person is guilty of theft if “he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal shall be construed accordingly”. Let us look at the term “permanently depriving” more closely in order to gain a better understanding of theft and dishonesty. Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary (1984) defines the word permanently as “lasting indefinitely, enduring”. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000) states that the meaning of the word deprive is “to take something away from, to keep from possessing or enjoying; deny”. Business Crime--Christies Ltd 5 Having learned the definitions of the two words, “permanently depriving” means to indefinitely take something away from someone and to indefinitely deny them the ownership and enjoyment of such property”. Be as it may, even if he did not mean for the owners to permanently lose the property, or possession, it must be assumed that his intention was to permanently deprive the other individuals as his intention was to make the objects his very own. This is in violation of Section 6 in the Theft Act 1968 in the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia (2005). The Theft Act 1968 defines the word dishonesty. The following ways that a person acquires another’s possessions is considered to be dishonest: 1) if he/she BELIEVES, that according to the law, he has the right to take another person’s belongings and make these possessions his own or the property of a third party 2) if he/she BELIEVES that the owner of the possessions would approve if he/she knew of the reason/situation for the theft 3) if he/she BELIEVES that the property cannot be found/discovered without taking the necessary steps to do so (this does not apply to property that has been legally trusted, or willed, or property that he/she has been designated a personal representative of) According to the Theft Act 1968, Phil Jackson faces the liability, or the state of being legally obliged and responsible (WordNet ® 2.0. 2003), for augmenting his salary in various illegal and unethical ways. Due to the fact that “it is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit” (Theft Act 1968), he has dishonestly acquired a large amount of flowers “from the roadside”, which obviously is land that is owned by another person with the Business Crime--Christies Ltd 6 intention of selling them in order to subsidize his the income that he believes he deserves for one reason or another. Then it is reported that Phil Jackson steals a truckload of wild pheasants with the intention of selling them to a butcher and making money from property/possessions that are not his. Lastly, it is mentioned that Phil Jackson enters the safe of Christies, Ltd. and copies,or draws, the design of the new “Hyperscoop”, which apparently is confidential material. Then it is reported that he offers to sell it to Scooperman Ltd, a direct competitor of Christies Ltd. Section 20:3 of the Act addresses this action: For the purpose of this section ‘deception’ has the same meaning as in section 15 of this Act, and ‘valuable security’ means any document creating, transferring, surrendering or releasing any right to, in or over property, or authorizing the payment of money or delivery of any property, or evidencing the creation, transfer, surrender or release of any such right, or the payment of money or delivery of any property, or the satisfaction of any obligation. If Phil Jackson did take such actions, as there is no concrete evidence and proof mentioned in the information that is given, then he is indeed guilty of the offense of theft and dishonesty according to the Theft Act 1968. Let us say that there is substantial proof and evidence that he did perform the actions that were stated, then Phil Jackson falls under Section 1 of the Theft Act (Using Rizer, n.d.) “’A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”. Business Crime--Christies Ltd 7 Since Phil was denied a raise, perhaps he believes that he should provide additional income on his own by taking these actions. However, these actions do fall under the definition of dishonesty as listed in the Theft Act 1968 below: 1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to Regarded as dishonest- (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in the law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or (b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropri- ation and the circumstances of it; or (c) (except when the property came to him as a trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps. Keep in mind that when the words possessions, or property, are mentioned the Theft Act 1968 includes in the definition of property as “money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property”. The Theft Act 1968 explains even further that it is not illegal to pick plants and flowers that are growing wild on someone’s land UNLESS one does it for commercial use/sale. Section 4:3 of the Theft Act 1968 states, “A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or anyone who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in the possession of any Business Crime--Christies Ltd 8 land ) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or for other commercial purpose”. Section 5:1 of the Act is concerning the property belonging to a corporation. It specifically states that “property of a corporation sole shall be regarded as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation”. Hence, if indeed Phil Jackson did commit these crimes and performed the acts that has been stated at the beginning of this piece and there is substantial proof and evidence, then he is guilty of breaking the laws that are written in the Theft Act 1968. Section 7 declares “a person guilty of theft shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years”. In conclusion, most of us can say there are times in our lives where we feel that we deserve something better. Perhaps we do. Perhaps we don’t. However, it is not worth the risk and consequences of doing things illegally and in a hasty manner in order to augment, or compensate for what we feel we need, want, or deserve. There many words of wisdom, or some may call them clichés out there, which, if one chooses to apply them into daily lives can save one from a world of consequences. Some of these words of wisdom include The Golden Rule taken from the Dictionary of Business Ethics (n.d.a.), which says to “treat others the way you want to be treated. To apply the golden rule adequately, we need knowledge and imagination. We need to know what effect our actions have on the lives of others. And we need to be able to imagine ourselves, vividly and accurately, in the other persons place on the receiving end of the action”. Golden Rule or no Golden Rule, words of wisdom or none, under the circumstances, it appears that Phil Jackson is indeed guilty. If this is the case, the best thing to do is face the consequences and learn from the situation. References Bluebottle. Bbc.co.uk. Edited Guide Entry. (2001). Retrieved December 10, 2005, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A580312 Rizer. Theft Act 1968. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from http://www.rizer.co.uk/access/default.asp?pg=info&art=The%20Law&id=718. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.).(2000). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Theft Act 1968. Retrieved December 10, 2005, from http://www.lawteacher.net/Criminal/Property%20Offences/TA%201968.pdf. The Golden Rule. Retrieved December 11, 2005 from http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm. Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary (2nd ed.).(1984). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2005). Lexington Publishing Group. Retrieved December 10, 2005, from http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Theft_Act_1968. WordNet ® 2.0 (2003). Retrieved December 10, 2005, from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liability. Read More