- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Fritschy (1985) CA
Appropriation
I. Case Summary:
Appropriation
I. Case Summary:
- Citation: Fritschy (1985) CA
- Area of Law: Appropriation (Theft Act)
- The Defendant (D) was convicted of theft of Krugerrands (gold coins).
- D worked for a Dutch coin company.
- D purchased 70 Krugerrands for $49,000, intended to be held in Holland and then transferred to a Swiss bank.
- D instructed H to remove the coins from the Dutch company due to concerns about its financial stability.
- D, following H's instructions, collected the funds in England but did not deposit them in H's Swiss bank account.
- Did the Defendant's actions in England constitute an "appropriation" of the funds for the purposes of theft?
- No. The Court held that there was no evidence of any act by the Defendant in England that was not expressly authorized by H.
- Lack of Unauthorized Act: The core of the decision is that the Defendant's actions in England (collecting the money) were specifically authorized by H.
- Appropriation Requires Unauthorized Action: For appropriation to occur, the defendant must do something that is not sanctioned by the owner or person with a right to possession.
- Authorized Handling is Not Appropriation: This case highlights that simply handling property, even if it deviates from the original intended plan, does not constitute appropriation if the actions taken were explicitly authorized by the person with ownership or control of the property.
- Focus on Authorization: The crucial factor in determining appropriation is whether the defendant's actions were authorized or unauthorized by the relevant party.
0 Comments