Theft crimes are part of the broader “property crimes” category outlined in M.G.L. c. 266. Below is a list of the common theft crimes our office handles. If you have been charged with a theft crime in Boston, or in Suffolk, Plymouth, Essex, Middlesex or surrounding counties, you need an experienced defense attorney to protect your rights and your record! Call Bob today to discuss your case! (617)-419-7101.
SHOPLIFTING — G.L. c. 266, § 30A
Shoplifting can be defined with multiple types of prohibited conduct including: shoplifting by concealing merchandise, shoplifting by switching a price tag, shoplifting by switching containers, shoplifting by ringing up a false price, and shoplifting by removing a shopping cart.
In order to prove the defendant guilty of shoplifting, the Commonwealth must prove the following three things beyond a reasonable doubt.
First: That the defendant intentionally took possession of, carried away, or transferred (or caused to be carried away or transferred) retail merchandise;
Second: That the merchandise was owned or possessed by someone other than the defendant; and
Third: That the defendant took possession of, carried away, or transferred (or caused to be carried away or transferred) that merchandise and did so with an intent to deprive the merchant of its possession, use or benefit or with an intent to convert it to [their] own use without having paid full value for it.
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY — G.L. c. 266, § 60
In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove the following three things beyond a reasonable doubt.
First: That the property in question was stolen;
Second: That the defendant knew that the property had been stolen; and
Third: That the defendant knowingly either had the stolen property in their possession, bought the stolen property, or aided in concealing the stolen property (as applicable).
To prove the first element, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was stolen—that is, that someone had taken and carried it away without right and without the consent of the own-er, while intending to deprive the owner of it permanently. The Commonwealth is not required to prove who it was who stole the property.
The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant knew or believed that the property was stolen. This is a question of the defendant’s actual knowledge or belief at the time. Even if the jury finds that, under the circumstances, a prudent person would have known or believed that the property was stolen, the defendant can-not be found guilty unless the Commonwealth has proved that the defendant actually knew that the property was stolen, or at least believed that it was stolen.
Even if the defendant did not know that the property was stolen at the time they received it, the defendant is still guilty of receiving stolen property if they subsequently learned that the property had been stolen, and at that point decided to keep it and to deprive the owner of its use.
LARCENY FROM THE PERSON — G.L. c. 266 § 25(b)
Larceny from the person is the wrongful taking of personal property from the person of another, or from the immediate area of control of another, with the intent to deprive that person of such property permanently. In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant took and carried away property;
Second: That the property was owned or possessed by someone other than the defendant;
Third: That the defendant took the property from the person of someone who owned or possessed it
If relevant: or from such a person’s area of control in his or her presence;
and Fourth: That the defendant did so with the intent to deprive that person of the property permanently.
LARCENY BY STEALING — G.L. c. 266, § 30
In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove the following three things beyond a reasonable doubt.
First: That the defendant took and carried away property;
Second: That the property was owned or possessed by someone other than the defendant; and
Third: That the defendant did so with the intent to deprive that person of the property permanently.
The term “property” includes: money, movable items of personal property, bank notes, public records, anything that is part of or attached to real estate, apartment security deposits, electronically processed or stored data, either tangible or intangible, domesticated animals, including dogs, birds and other animals ordinarily kept in confinement.
LARCENY BY STEALING IN A BUILDING — G.L. c. 266 § 20
In order to prove the defendant guilty of stealing in a building, the Commonwealth must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant took and carried away property;
Second: That at the time the property was being kept safe by virtue of being in a building;
Third: That the property belonged to someone other than the defendant; and
Fourth: That the defendant took the property with the intent to deprive the owner of it permanently.
The Commonwealth must prove that the property was being protected and kept safe by virtue of being in the building rather than being under the watchful eye or personal care of someone in the building.
The Commonwealth must prove that the property was owned or possessed by a person other than the defendant. This can be proved by direct evidence that someone else owned or possessed the property. Or, in some cases, it may be reasonable to infer this from the surrounding circumstances. The Commonwealth is not required to prove who owned or held the property, as long as it proves that the defendant did not.
LARCENY OF LEASED OR RENTED PERSONAL PROPERTY —
G.L. c. 266, § 87
In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove the following three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant leased or rented some personal property;
Second: That the defendant either: concealed some or all of that property, aided or abetted in concealing some or all of that property, failed or refused to return such property to its owner within 10 days after the lease or rental agreement had expired, (or, sold, conveyed or pledged some or all of that property without the written consent of its owner); and
Third: That the defendant did so with the intention to place such property beyond the control of its owner.
LARCENY BY FALSE PRETENSES — G.L. c. 266, § 30
property by false pretenses is a form of larceny which consists of knowingly making false representations of fact, with the intent that another per-son will rely on those false representations, and by means of which the personal property of another is obtained.
In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove the following five things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant made a false statement of fact;
Second: That the defendant knew or believed that the statement was false when he (she) made it;
Third: That the defendant made the statement with the intent that the person to whom it was made should rely on it as true;
Fourth: That such person did in fact rely on the defendant’s statement as true; and
Fifth: That such person parted with personal property as a result.
LARCENY BY EMBEZZLEMENT — G.L. c. 266, § 30
In order to prove the defendant guilty of embezzlement, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant, while in a position of trust or confidence, was entrusted with possession of personal property belonging to another person or entity;
Second: That the defendant took that property, or hid it, or converted it to his (her) own use, without the con-sent of the owner; and
Third: That the defendant did so with the intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently.
LARCENY BY CHECK — G.L. c. 266, § 37
order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove the following four things beyond a reasonable doubt.
First: That the defendant (wrote a check) (cashed a check drawn) (passed a check drawn) (delivered a check drawn) upon an account at the _____ Bank;
Second: That by doing so the defendant obtained money, property or services;
Third: That when the defendant (wrote) (cashed) (passed) (delivered) the check, they knew that they (or the person who wrote the check) did not have sufficient funds or credit at the bank on which the check was drawn to cover the check; and
Fourth: That the defendant did so with the intent to defraud the bank or someone who received the check.
IDENTITY FRAUD BY OBTAINING PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION — G.L. c. 266, § 37E (c)
In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant obtained personal identifying information about another person with the intent (to pose as that person) (or) (to assist someone else to pose as that person);
Second: That the defendant did so without the ex-press authorization of that person; and
Third: That the defendant did so with the specific intent (to obtain [money] [credit] [goods] [services] [some-thing of value] [an identification card or other evidence
of that person’s identity]) (or) (to harass another person).
To prove the offense, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to falsely represent themselves directly or indirectly, as another person or persons (or to assist some-one else to falsely represent themself as another person or persons).
To prove the offense, the Commonwealth must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant obtained another person’s personal identifying information. Personal identifying information includes any name or number that may be used, alone or with any other information, to assume the identity of an individual or to harass an individual.
IDENTITY FRAUD BY POSING AS ANOTHER — G.L. c. 266, § 37E (b)
The Commonwealth must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant posed as another person;
Second: That the defendant did so without that person’s express authorization;
Third: That the defendant used that person’s identifying information to obtain or attempt to obtain [money] [credit] [goods] [services] [some other thing of value] [an identification card or other evidence of such per-son’s identity] (to harass another person); and
Fourth: That the defendant did so with the intent to defraud.
FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIM — G.L. c. 266, § 111A
In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant (presented to an insurance company) (aided in presenting to an insurance company) (procured the presentation to an insurance company of) a notice, statement, proof of loss, or other written document in connection with or in support of a claim under an insurance policy;
Second: That such written document contained a false statement about a matter that was significant to that claim;
Third: That the defendant knew that the statement was false; and
Fourth: That the defendant intended to injure, defraud or deceive the insurance company.
General Laws c. 266, § 111B covers misrepresentations made in connection with claims under a motor vehicle, theft, or comprehensive insurance policy, whereas § 111A covers fraudulent claims for all types of insurance. While § 111B also covers situations involving fraudulent applications for the specified types of insurance, § 111A covers only fraudulent claims.