lawbreaker snatch fraud essay

Category: Culture,
Words: 3296 | Published: 02.17.20 | Views: 578 | Download now


Grab theft is now a serious concern nowadays. During the months of June and July 2004, the local media, especially the press, have been crammed with reports of criminal offenses and physical violence in Malaysia. There have been a large number of reports of snatch thefts which has presented a great effects to the society. Police stats on these kinds of crimes reveal that they are increasing. Therefore , there is also a sense of tension, even panic and fear in the air.

find more: snatch theft composition

The significance of this criminal offenses can be tested when on January 29th, 2005, the top Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi himself has addressed through the entire country his curious matter on the rise from the crime as well as the need to put into action more severe punishments.

There are lots of content articles in the papers and on the internet to show the seriousness from the offence of snatch theft. On January 30th 2006, our nation’s leading newspaper publishers, namely Kabar Minggu as well as the Star experienced reported take theft offences, which got happened around Ipoh, Perak.

The suspect got snatched the bag via a 60 year old female at a shopping mall for Jalan Kampar, as the woman was walking to her car. The 20 or so year old thief, who had attempted to escape in his car, likewise knocked straight down a man, who also suffered small injuries. The suspect happened to run through the targeted traffic lights and collided with two vehicles. This has caused him to get rid of control of his vehicle, which in turn hit the road indication. The suspect then was detained.

The second example of this kind of snatch fraud crime took place on January 9th june 2006. Berita Minggu had reported another grab theft event, where two female pupils were injured after all their motorcycle damaged into a concrete drain when escaping from a snatch lawbreaker. The think had adopted the girls which has a motorcycle on the way after attending expenses class. Within case, on June 10th 2004, Ros Saliza Burhan, a manufacturing plant worker on her way expecting the bus was followed by two guys on a motorbike. Failed to take the victim’s bag, the criminal got used power against her by stabbing her 3 x so that she is going to release her bag. The victim fainted because of the personal injury.

Those were just between a few cases occur in our country. You will discover other instances, which cause an even more terrifying effect such as fatality, grievous harm, shocked and so forth. The seriousness of this offence can be seen the moment Chin Wai Fong passed away in Brickfields in May the moment she battled back against a snatch thief. Then simply Chong Charge Cheng dropped, went into a coma and died while resisting a snatch thief in Johor Baru in mid-June. This was followed by the killing of Rosli Mohamed Saad who had gone to the help of an Indonesian woman in whose bag was snatched in Ampang in June 30. The magazines also taken statistics on the number of take thefts. Depending on police stats, Penang Main Minister Suntan Sri Doctor Koh Tsu Koon revealed that there have been a total of 515 circumstances of take thefts in Penang between January and may even 2004. At the same time the Perak Chief Officer reported an overall total of 374 cases of snatch thefts in his point out during January to May possibly 2004.

With all the current examples and discussions presented, the issue of whether or not the crime of “snatch theft should be segregated from the offence of “theft and “robbery will inflict a lot of legal conversation in order to make sure public basic safety. The main and crucial concern to be talked about here is that whether the offence of “theft and “robbery sufficiently addresses the offence of “snatch theft. Quite simply, whether or not the aspects of the two accidents, which are currently in the Penal Code happen to be sufficient to be raised for any person who commits snatch thievery. In order to tackle this issue, the elements of “theft, which is under section 378 of the Criminal Code plus the elements of “robbery which is under section 390 of the Criminal Code have to be analyzed 1 by 1. First and foremost, we would like to discuss the elements of “theft which is below section 378 of the Presidio Code. The said provision defines theft as “Whoever, intending to consider dishonestly any kind of movable real estate out of the possession of any person with no that individual’s consent, moves that house in order to such taking, is said to dedicate theft. Quite simply, from the description, there are five elements of “theft.

The initially element is definitely dishonesty. It truly is defined beneath section twenty four of the Presidio Code because “Whoever will anything together with the intention of causing wrongful gain to a single person or wrongful loss to another person, irrespective of whether the act causes actual wrongful loss or gain, is said to do that point “dishonestly.  This implies that the important thing is to determine whether there is a great intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful damage to the different person. Precisely what is “wrongful gain and “wrongful loss after that? It is even more defined in section 3 of the Presidio Code, whereby a person is believed to gain wrongfully when this sort of person maintains wrongfully, and when this sort of person acquires wrongfully. One is said to lose wrongfully when ever such person is wrongfully kept away of virtually any property, and also when this kind of person can be wrongfully starving of the real estate. Since chicanery requires the intention to wrongfully gain or reduce, the intention must are present at the time of going of the house. This is because, it is not theft if you have no purpose at the time of currently taking of the property.

The authority for the first element can be seen in the truth of Hendidura Mohamed sixth is v. R where the basic principle is that there must be an goal to take dishonestly any portable property out of your possession of another individual without that person’s consent in order to amount to theft. Meaning to say, it can be sufficient the fact that person, who has such unethical intention moves the property to be able to such choosing. In addition , it is far from necessary to push such house in order to re-locate of the possession of the other person.

Subsequent, the second factor is that the person must take without approval. It means that there must be an intention to consider another’s house without agreement. The important point here is how the accused conceives of the circumstance whether or not the person whose home is used would agreement to it. In other words, this element depends on the mind from the owner of the property. In the situation when a person consents, then your actus reus of theft is not fulfilled and for that reason there is no theft.

The third element is to get of possession. It means the fact that property should be taken or moved from the possession. If the accused has a dishonest intention and techniques the property, then simply he is said to move the property out of possession. You should be known here that theft is an offence against ownership and not of ownership. Consequently , the offence is resistant to the person who is in possession. A possession with regards to theft pertains to movable real estate and movable property, which can be lost or abandoned may not be in any own any person. Nevertheless , when it is nor lost nor abandoned, even if it is in that case placed in the possession of someone otherwise, the possession may possibly still remain with the true owner.

Therefore, the fourth factor is removable property. Precisely what is “movable property is identified under section 22 in the Penal Code, which says that the phrases “movable property are intended to incorporate corporeal property of every description. Except terrain and points attached to our planet, or forever fastened to anything which can be attached to the earth. It means that as long as to be honest attached to the planet earth, therefore it is certainly not movable.

Furthermore, a thing attached with the earth is usually not movable and may not be a subject of theft until it finally has been cut from the the planet. Land within the meaning of section twenty-two of the Criminal Code is not sold with soil in the land. However , when it is dug out of the area, it is after that known as movable property. In the case of Lim Quickly Gong & Ors., the respondents were charged with committing thievery of fine sand from the foreshore. The basic principle of this circumstance regarding the last element is that sand, that can be dug out of the foreshore can be described as movable property. Eventually, the ultimate element of fraud is there should be a going of the house. It means which the property must be moved out of ownership. This can be noticed in the expert of Raja Mohamed versus. R, the accused acquired removed bins containing two dozens of glasses from the industry’s ground floor storeroom. He was recharged of convicting theft. The principle of the case is that it is sufficient if the person had formed a deceitful intention and moves the house in order to such taking. Moreover, it is not essential to move the exact property fully away of ownership in order to devote theft.

Having fulfilled each of the five components under section 378 in the Penal Code, the offender then may be held liable for committing robbery. Section 379 of the Penal Code even more provides the punishment for robbery, whereby you can be penalized with imprisonment for a term which may extend to eight years or perhaps with great or equally. It further adds that for a second or future offence, one particular shall be reprimanded with imprisonment and also end up being liable to great or to whip. The question being asked is actually the offence of “snatch theft can fall under the offence of “theft beneath section 378 of the Criminal Code. It seems like it is too little as when ever snatch fraud is fully commited, there will be the element of power on the individual that is being seized, whereas the elements of thievery are more mild in the sense there is nothing in the provision declares that there is a use of pressure or even more may result to a more essential situation such as death. As a result, this will associated with punishment for theft does not suit the offence of grab theft. Take theft as being said before can cause injury to the other person this means you will even arrive to the magnitude of triggering death to the other person. Besides that, there should also be an element of force. These elements seem tend not to present in the elements of thievery. Thus, all of us submit that the offence of “theft would not sufficiently addresses the offence snatch theft as snatch theft much more serious to result in more severe personal injury as compared to robbery.

Having discussed the portions of “theft, all of us will go in details the offence of “robbery to be able to come for the conclusion of whether or not really it is adequately address the offence of snatch fraud. Section 390 of the Criminal Code which can be regarding the offence of “robbery will be reviewed. Clause (1) of the explained provision claims that in most robbery there is either fraud or extortion. In other words, intended for the offence of thievery to happen, either both the main elements, which are thievery or extortion has to are present.

Section 390(2) states that theft is definitely “robbery if perhaps, in order to devote theft, or perhaps in committing the theft, or in carrying aside or trying to carry away property received by the thievery, the arrest, for that end, voluntarily causes or endeavors to cause to any person death, or perhaps hurt, or perhaps wrongful restraining, or fear of instant loss of life, or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Section 390(3) describes extortion since robbery, in the event the offender, during the time of committing the extortion, with the presence of the person placed in fear and commits the extortion simply by putting that person in anxiety about instant fatality, of quick hurt, or of instant wrongful restraining to that person or to some other person, and, simply by so putting in fear, induce the person therefore put in fear then and there to deliver up the factor extorted.

Basically, robbery is definitely theft or extortion in an aggravated kind. Hence, the elements of thievery or extortion must be present in addition to the aggravated instances set out in robbery. Section 390 provides for the circumstances the moment theft comprises robbery. What “for that end in section 390 must relate to the commission rate of robbery. Hence in which an strike has no relation to the fraud, robbery can be not fully commited. If, for example , the charged first attacked the complainant and then eventually formed a great intention to adopt his watch, he may not be liable for thievery but simply for theft.

The important point underneath the offence of robbery should be to determine the meaning of the term “for that end. The force or perhaps threat of force must be for the purpose of assigning theft and carrying apart the property. In Karuppa Gounden, it was held that “the word ‘for that end’ in section 390, Penal Code, cannot be read while meaning in those circumstances. It was organised by the Lahore Court in Karmun that, “¦before an individual can be found guilty of robbery the prosecution must prove that hurt was caused to be able to the committing of the theft or in committing the theft or perhaps in having away or attempting to carry away the house obtained by the theft. The hurt contemplated must be a conscious and voluntary do something about the part of the thief when it comes to overpowering resistance on the part of the victim, quite separate and distinct from the act of theft itself¦

In the additional case of Bishambhar Nath v. Emperor AIR, the principle is that in order to make theft in the cash or perhaps in assigning the robbery of cash for carrying away or attempting to hold away house obtained by the theft, the accused pertaining to the thievery voluntarily induced or attemptedto cause injure.

The word “for that end clearly implies that the harm caused by the offender must be with the communicate object of facilitating the commission of theft or hurt has to be caused even though the offender was committing thievery or in carrying apart or in attempting to take away the home obtained by the theft. That mean that the assault or perhaps hurt should be caused inside the same purchase or inside the same conditions. In Nga Po Thet, the fact of theft is that the arrest must cause death, harm or wrongful restraint or fear of fatality, hurt or wrongful restraint in the percentage of fraud or in carrying away the property acquired by fraud. The abuse for robbery is stated in section 392 of the Criminal Code, where it will probably be punished to get a term which can extend to ten years and shall be prone to fine. Additionally , if the thievery is committed between sunset and dawn, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years and shall also be liable to good or whipping.

From the discourse on robbery as in section 390 of the Penal Code, the offence of robbery generally seems to satisfy some elements of snatch theft. Because what have been said previously, the offence of take theft consists of the portions of force as well as the consequences from the act will certainly lead to a severe problems for the patient and sometimes it could lead to death of the sufferer. In fact , section 390 is being used for now as to replace the offence of take theft that is not in the Penal Code but. This shows that snatch thievery is very dangerous to the general public at large because the offence is nearly just like the elements of the offence of robbery under section 390. The punishment for snatch theft is as the same as the abuse for thievery under section 392. This kind of again demonstrates that grab theft can be described as serious criminal offenses.

However , we all strongly feel that there must be some force in snatch robbery. This is because when a person snatches another person’s bag, there is an existence of force utilized against the different person. This is due to, when a person wants to grab the various other person’s bag, it will happen fast. When this occurs, the other person will be hurt and injured since there is push used against him or her. In other words, force and hurt will certainly tend to exist simultaneously if a person commits the offence of take theft.

In the present situation, the Deputy Internal Security Affairs Minister Datuk Noh Omar has solved in Parliament that the Authorities, since early on 2004, got resorted to using the Unexpected emergency Ordinance (Crime Prevention & Public Safety) 1969 against snatch robbers “if the authorities is persuaded that the suspects had dedicated the offence. Under the Ordinance, those supposed may be kept for 60 days after which it the Internal Security Minister can decide to detain them for up to two years devoid of trial. The Deputy Interior Security Affairs Minister further clarified that the Police could also demand snatch robbers under parts 392, 394 and 397 of the Penal Code, that allows for caning, jail terms (up to twenty years in the event that armed, below section 394), apart from impacting fines. This last step is in series with the ideas of another politician, Karpal Singh, who called for changes to sections 392 and 394 with the Penal Code to enforce mandatory to whip of no less than six strokes. It was also the suggestion of Wong Sulong in the Editorial inside the Star about June fifteenth, 2004.

Since there is even now no regulations imposed in snatch thievery, it is to be tabled back in 2005. The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad said legislation dealing specifically with snatch theft accidents would be tabled in Legislative house in This summer, 2005. This individual added that, under the new law, the offenders could possibly be imprisoned between seven and twenty years and whipping could possibly be included included in the punishment. At the moment in the Presidio Code, there is no special dotacion for grab theft besides the separate charges for robbery and theft, which take a optimum jail sentence of several and 20 years respectively. He further added that the law would be powerful by the end of the year 2005 if every thing goes smoothly. The need of using a special legislation for grab theft is caused by the many reported cases of victims getting killed or perhaps seriously hurt. This demonstrates the offence of take theft is indeed a serious criminal offenses.

You may also want to consider the following: grab theft dissertation


< Prev post Next post >