robbery

The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation.

Use of the threat of violence, or of actual violence, in taking property from someone else's possession. This peril is covered on a personal basis through the purchase of a homeowner's insurance policy or renter's insurance or on a business basis through a Special Multiperil Policy (SMP). Specialty items such as art works, jewelry, and coin and stamp collections must be specifically scheduled on a property policy in order for the insured to receive full value for a loss.

noun

The act or crime of taking another's property unlawfully and by force: holdup. Slang heist, stickup. See crimes, give/take/reciprocity.

In the 1990s, the United States experienced a boom in bank robberies, and in 1991, banks reported the greatest number in American history. Los Angeles accounted for 20 percent of the robberies, with an average take of $3,000 and 85 percent of thieves caught. While robbers lacked the drama and flair of such bandits from earlier eras as Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow or Willie "The Actor" Sutton, the new generation brought about the reinstitution of past practices. A holdup that netted $434,000 drove a Wells Fargo bank to post a $10,000 reward, a practice unknown since the 1890s. Automatic teller machines (ATMs) brought theft increases. With more than seventy-seven thousand ATMs nationwide early in the 1990s, they became prime sites for small robberies. In some cases, hackers were able to crack computer codes and steal cash. In rare instances, thieves removed entire machines, opened them, and stole their contents.

While law enforcement officers were successful in tracking down most bank robbers, they were less successful with armored car robberies and solved only one-third of 340 armored car heists between 1988 and 1992. The nation's largest open-road armored car robbery, in which thieves netted $10.8 million, remains unsolved. The theft occurred 26 June 1990, outside a convenience store in Henrietta, New York. In January 1993, in nearby Rochester, New York, thieves held up a Brink's depot and escaped with $7.4 million. Authorities arrested four men, alleging that most of the money was funneled to the Irish Republican Army. In what may have been the largest cash theft in history, owners of Revere Armored Car, Inc., were charged in 1993 with stealing as much as $40 million from client businesses and banks over three years. Attempts to have charges dismissed because the government failed to preserve the company's records failed in 1994.

The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston was the site of the biggest art heist in history on 18 March 1990. Thieves stole thirteen pieces worth an estimated $200 million, including five works by Degas, a Vermeer, a Manet, and three Rembrandts. The thieves made their way through the museum and sliced paintings out of frames. In June 2001, thieves took a small painting by Marc Chagall worth $1 million from the Jewish Museum in New York City. A ransom note that arrived four days later promised to return the work in exchange for peace in the Middle East. The painting later reappeared without explanation in a post office in Topeka, Kansas.

On 15 September 1993, a 1960s radical surrendered in one of the nation's most infamous robbery cases. Katherine Ann Power turned herself in to police twenty-three years after driving the getaway car in a small-time robbery that turned deadly. A student and Vietnam protester, Power was involved in a plot to rob a Boston bank on 23 September 1970. While she waited in the car, an accomplice killed Boston police officer Walter Schroeder, father of nine children. Power fled and lived as a fugitive in various cities before settling in Oregon in 1977 under the name Alice Metzinger. Unable to overcome her conscience, she surrendered to authorities and began serving an eight-to-twelve-year sentence in September 1993; she was released in 1999.

Bibliography

Grabosky, Peter N., Russell G. Smith, and Gillian Dempsey. Electronic Theft: Unlawful Acquisition in Cyberspace. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

King, Jeffery S. The Life and Death of Pretty Boy Floyd. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1998.

Milner, E. R. The Lives and Times of Bonnie and Clyde. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1996.

Palmer, Norman, ed. The Recovery of Stolen Art: A Collection of Essays. London: Kluwer Law International, 1998.

The taking of money or goods in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, by force or intimidation.

Robbery is a crime of theft and can be classified as larceny by force or by threat of force. The elements of the crime of robbery include the use of force or intimidation and all the elements of the crime of larceny. The penalty for robbery is always more severe than for larceny.

The general elements of robbery are the taking of personal property or money from the person or presence of another, the use of actual or constructive force, the lack of consent on the part of the victim, and the intent to steal on the part of the offender. Neither deliberation nor premeditation is necessary, nor is an express demand for the property.

Robbery requires a taking of property from the person or presence of the victim. This means that the taking must be from the victim's possession, whether actual or constructive. Property is on the victim's person if it is in his hand, in the pocket of the clothing he wears, or otherwise attached to his body or clothing. The phrase "from the presence" or "in the presence" has been construed to mean proximity or control rather than within eyesight of the victim. For example, a robber takes property from the victim's presence if the robber locks the victim in one room and then takes the valuable from another room. There is sufficient proximity even though the victim cannot see through the walls into the room where the valuables are stored.

The property taken must be close enough to the victim and sufficiently under his control that had the robber not used violence or intimidation, the victim could have prevented the taking. As an example, if a robber uses force to immobilize a property owner at one place while an accomplice takes the owner's property from a place several miles away, the distance between the owner and the owner's property is such that the owner could not have prevented the taking even if he had been free to try to interfere.

A robbery must also include a taking or asportation, a carrying away by which the goods are taken from the victim's possession and transferred to the possession of the robber. The crime is complete when the robber acquires possession of the property, even for a short time. The robber does not have to transport the property away from the physical presence of the person who has lawful possession of it, or even escape with it. The slightest change of location is sufficient to establish asportation. Once the robber takes possession of the property, the offense is complete, even if the robber later abandons the property.

The personal property that is taken must have some value, but the amount of its value is immaterial. The crime of robbery can be committed even if the property taken is of slight value. Actual monetary value is not essential as long as it appears that the property had some value to the person robbed.

The property does not have to be taken from the owner or holder of legal title. The robber may rob someone who has possession or custody of property, though that person is not the owner of it. The person from whom the property was taken must have exerted control over it.

The taking must be accomplished either by force or by intimidation. This element is the essence and distinguishing characteristic of the offense. Taking by force without intimidation is robbery. Taking by intimidation without the use of actual force is also robbery. Force and intimidation are alternate requirements, and either is sufficient without the other.

The force must be sufficient to effect the transfer of the property from the victim to the robber. It must amount to actual personal violence. The line between robbery and larceny from the person is not always easy to draw. For example, when a thief snatches a purse from the owner's grasp so suddenly that the owner cannot offer any resistance to the taking, the force involved is not sufficient to constitute robbery. Hence that crime would be larceny. If a struggle for the purse ensues before the thief can gain possession of it, however, there is enough force to make the taking robbery. The same is true of pickpocketing. If the victim is unaware of the taking, no robbery has occurred and the crime is larceny. But if the victim catches the pickpocket in the act and struggles unsuccessfully to keep possession, the pickpocket's crime becomes robbery.

The particular degree of force becomes important only when considered in connection with the grade of the offense or the punishment to be imposed. Evidence establishing a personal injury or a blow, or force sufficient to overcome any resistance the victim was capable of offering, is not required.

A robber may also render the victim helpless by more subtle means. Constructive force includes demonstrations of force, menace, and other means that prevent a victim from exercising free will or resisting the taking of property. Administering intoxicating liquors or drugs in order to produce a state of unconsciousness or stupefaction is using force for purposes of robbery. Constructive force will support a robbery charge.

Intimidation means putting in fear. The accused must intentionally cause the fear and induce a reasonable apprehension of danger, but not necessarily a great terror, panic, or hysteria in the victim. The fear must be strong enough to overcome the victim's resistance and cause the victim to part with the property. The victim who is not fearful of harm from the robber so long as she does what the robber says, but who expects harm if she refuses, is nevertheless "put in fear" for the purposes of robbery.

Putting the victim in fear of bodily injury is sufficient. The fear can be aroused by words or gestures, such as threatening the victim with a weapon. The threat of immediate bodily injury or death does not have to be directed at the owner of the property. It may be made to a member of the owner's family, other relatives, or even someone in the owner's company.

The force or intimidation must either precede or be contemporaneous with the taking to constitute a robbery. Violence or intimidation after the taking is not robbery. If, however, the force occurs so soon after the taking that it forms part of the same transaction, the violence is legally concurrent with the taking. Force or intimidation employed after the taking and merely as a means of escape is not a sufficient basis for a robbery charge.

Unless a statute provides otherwise, a robbery cannot be committed without criminal intent. The robber must have a specific intent to rob the owner of the property. The element of force or intimidation is not a substitute for the intent to steal.

The offender's intent must be determined from her words and actions. A person who forcibly takes property by mistake or merely as a joke, without an intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently, is not guilty of robbery. The intent to steal must be present at the time the property is taken, but premeditation is not part of the criminal intent necessary for the commission of robbery.

Most robbery statutes distinguish between simple robbery and aggravated robbery. The most common aggravating factors are that the robber was armed with a deadly weapon or represented that she had a gun, that the robber actually inflicted serious bodily injury, or that the robber had an accomplice.

There are three important federal robbery statutes. The Federal Bank Robbery Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 2113) punishes robbery of property in the custody or possession of any national bank or of any bank that is insured by the federal government. Two provisions (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2112, 2114) punish robbery where the property taken is from the U.S. mail or is property belonging to the federal government. The Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1951) punishes the obstruction of interstate commerce by robbery.

Being robbed of one's valuables may indicate that the dreamer is experiencing an identity crisis or a loss in his or her life (e.g., a divorce, serious illness, or some other irretrievable loss). (See also Burglar; Stealing; Thieves/Theft).

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Law or the Law Portal may be able to help recruit one. (November 2008)

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Criminal law

Part of the common law series

Elements

Actus reus · Mens rea Causation · Concurrence

Scope of Criminal Liability

Complicity · Corporate · Vicarious

Inchoate offenses

Attempt · Conspiracy · Solicitation

Crimes against people

Assault · Battery False imprisonment · Kidnapping Mayhem · Sexual assault Homicide Crimes Murder · Felony murder Manslaughter Negligent homicide Vehicular homicide

Crimes against property

Arson · Blackmail · Burglary Embezzlement · Extortion False pretenses · Larceny Receiving stolen property Robbery · Theft

Crimes against justice

Compounding · Misprision Obstruction · Perjury Malfeasance in office Perverting the course of justice

Defenses to Liability

Defense of: (Self · Others · Property) Consent · Diminished capacity Duress · Entrapment · Ignorance Infancy · Insanity · Intoxication Justification · Mistake (Fact · Law) Necessity · Provocation

Other common law areas

Contracts · Evidence · Property Torts · Wills, trusts and estates

Portals

Criminal justice · Law

v • d • e

For the 1967 film, see Robbery (film).

"Holdup" redirects here. For the contract bridge playing technique, see Holdup (bridge).

"Robbers" redirects here. For the 1782 play by Friedrich Schiller, see The Robbers.

Ronin robbing a merchant's house in Japan around 1860 (1)

Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.^[1] Precise definitions of the offence may vary between jurisdictions. Robbery differs from simple theft by necessarily involving force or a threat of force.

The word "rob" came via French from Late Latin words (e.g. deraubare) of Germanic origin, from Common Germanic raub- = "clothes", as in old times (before modern cheap mechanized mass production of clothes) one main target of robbers was often the victim's clothes.

Among the types of robbery are piracy, armed robbery involving use of a weapon, and aggravated robbery involving use of a deadly weapon or something that appears to be a deadly weapon. Highway robbery or "mugging" takes place outside and in a public place such as a sidewalk, street, or parking lot. Carjacking is the act of stealing a car from a victim by force. Criminal slang for robbery includes "blagging" (armed robbery, usually of a bank), and "steaming", or organised robbery on underground train systems.

Contents 1 English law 1.1 Steals 1.2 Actual or threatened force against a person 1.3 Threat 1.4 Assault with intent to rob 1.5 Jurisdiction and sentence 2 See also 3 References 4 Further reading

English law

Under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968, robbery is an indictable only offence which occurs if the defendant

steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.^[2]

Steals

This requires evidence to prove a theft as set out in s.1(1) Theft Act, 1968. In R v Robinson (1977),^[3] the defendant threatened the victim with a knife in order to recover money which he was actually owed. His conviction for robbery was quashed on the basis that Robinson had an honest, although unreasonable, belief (under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act) in his legal right to the money.

In R v Hale (1979),^[4] the application of force and the stealing took place in different locations, and it was not possible to establish the timing; it was held that the appropriation necessary to prove theft was a continuing act, and the jury could correctly convict of robbery; this approach was followed in R v Lockley (1995)^[5] when the force was applied to a shopkeeper after property had been taken. It was argued that the theft should be regarded as complete by this time, and R v Gomez (1993),^[6] should apply; the court disagreed, preferring to follow R v Hale.

Actual or threatened force against a person

Threat or use of force must be immediate in the presence of the victim. Force used after the completion of theft may not elevate theft to robbery, although another criminal offence, such as assault, may be found. It was held in R v Dawson and James (1978)^[7] that "force" is an ordinary English word and its meaning should be left to the jury. This approach was confirmed in R v Clouden (1987)^[8] and Corcoran v Anderton (1980)^[9], both handbag-snatching cases.

Threat

The victim must be placed in apprehension or fear that force would be used immediately before or at the time of the taking of the property. A threat is not immediate if the wrongdoer threatens to use force of violence some future time.

Robbery occurs if an aggressor forcibly snatched a mobile phone or if he used a knife to make an implied threat of violence to the holder and then took the phone. The person being threatened does not need to be the owner of the property. It is not necessary that the victim was actually frightened, but the defendant must have put or sought to put the victim or some other person in fear of immediate force.^[10]

The force or threat may be directed against a third party, for example a customer in a jeweller's shop.(Smith v Desmond [1965] HL) Theft accompanied by a threat to damage property will not constitute robbery, but may disclose an offence of blackmail.

Dishonestly dealing with property stolen during a robbery will constitute an offence of handling.

Assault with intent to rob

If a robbery is foiled before it can be completed, an alternative offence under section 8(2) of the 1968 Act is assault; any act which intentionally or recklessly causes another to fear the immediate and unlawful use of force, with an intent to rob, will suffice.

Jurisdiction and sentence

Marauders attacking a group of travellers, by Jacques Courtois

The definition applies only to England and Wales, by Section 36 of the Theft act 1968.^[2]

The maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Robbery and assault with intent to rob are also subject to the mandatory sentencing regime under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. On the 25 July 2006 the Sentencing Guidelines Council published Definitive Guideline on Robbery^[11]

Following R v Mitchell (2005) All ER (D) 74, the sentencing guidelines provided in Attorney General's References (Nos 4 and 7 of 2002) (2002) EWCA Crim 127 no longer apply to street robbery involving the use of guns for which more severe deterrent sentences will almost invariably be required. In November 2005, the Sentencing Guidelines Council issued new draft guidelines concerning robbery ^[12].

See also

• Bank robbery
• Brigandage
• Convenience store crime
• Dacoit
• Gangs in the United States
• Hajduk
• Highwayman
• Outlaw
• Klepht
• Looting
• Mafia
• Marauder
• Millionaire tour
• Shanlin
• Snatch theft
• Steaming
• Train robbery
• Bushranger
• Piracy
• Snapphane

References

1. ^ "Carter, Floyd J. vs U.S.". June 12, 2000. http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/000439.php. Retrieved on 2008-05-04. 
2. ^ ^{a b} "Theft Act 1968, as revised". http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1968/cukpga_19680060_en_1. Retrieved on 2009-01-31. 
3. ^ Crim LR 173
4. ^ Crim LR 596, Court of Appeal
5. ^ Crim LR 656
6. ^ [1993] AC 442, House of Lords
7. ^ 68 Cr App r 170
8. ^ TBC
9. ^ 71 Cr App R 104
10. ^ R v Khan LTL (9 April 2001) and Archbold 2006 21-101.
11. ^ Sentencing Guidelines Council
12. ^ Consultations re Sentencing Guidelines Council: Robbery

Further reading

Look up robbery, robber, or hold-up in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Allen, Michael. (2005). Textbook on Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-927918-7.
• Criminal Law Revision Committee. 8th Report. Theft and Related Offences. Cmnd. 2977
• Griew, Edward. Theft Acts 1968 & 1978. London: Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN 0-421-19960-1
• Ormerod, David. (2005). Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, London: LexisNexis. ISBN 0-406-97730-5
• Smith, J. C. (1997). Law of Theft. London: LexisNexis. ISBN 0-406-89545-7

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Dansk (Danish)
n. - røveri, udplyndring

Nederlands (Dutch)
diefstal, roofoverval, afzetterij

Français (French)
n. - vol

Deutsch (German)
n. - Raub

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - ληστεία, καταλήστευση

Italiano (Italian)
rapina

Português (Portuguese)
n. - roubo (m)

Русский (Russian)
грабеж

Español (Spanish)
n. - asalto, atraco, robo

Svenska (Swedish)
n. - rån, plundring

中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
掠夺行为, 强盗罪, 强盗行为

中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 掠奪行為, 強盜罪, 強盜行為

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 도둑질, 약탈을 하다, 강탈

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 強盗, 強盗事件, 強盗罪

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الاسم) سرقه, سلب‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. - ‮שוד, גזל‬

If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.

To select your translation preferences click here.