Theft by Servant
Ever had that
temptation to appropriate your employer’s funds? Ever heard that temptation to
convert official money so as to buy that gigantic smart phone?
Well hope you resisted it because you would have committed an aggravated form of theft[1].Section 281 of the Penal Code[2] succinctly states that if the offender is a clerk or servant, and the thing stolen is the property of his employer, or came into the possession of the offender on account of his employer, he is liable to imprisonment for seven years. From this we can deduce that the ingredients are;
Well hope you resisted it because you would have committed an aggravated form of theft[1].Section 281 of the Penal Code[2] succinctly states that if the offender is a clerk or servant, and the thing stolen is the property of his employer, or came into the possession of the offender on account of his employer, he is liable to imprisonment for seven years. From this we can deduce that the ingredients are;
1.
Offenders of this offence must be either
clerks or servants( employees)
2.
Things capable of being stolen
3.
Fraudulent
4.
Stolen matter is employers property/or
came into offenders possession by virtue of employer
This normally occurs
when a master has entrusted goods to his servant and servant is known to have
custody of the goods but not ownership. If money is received on someone’s
behalf then it is the property of the person on whose behalf it has been
received.
Jurisprudence in this
area states that;
1.
To determine whether someone is a
servant we look at whether he/she is bound to obey his orders as to what work
he should do and how he should do it[3]. Even
conductors who take fare but give the employer a lesser sum are liable for
theft by servant[4]
as this money is gotten by virtue of his employer entrusting him this position.
2.
Things capable of being stolen[5]
3.
Fraudulent Taking/ Conversion:
Fraudulent taking is the used in a manner that would be rejected by the
employer. Thus it would not be theft if money given by employer was used in
circumstances that would not be objected to by the owner[6] as
this would negate the element of fraudulent taking. Conversion on the other
hand is the using of something in such a way that is inconsistent with the
owner’s rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment