Private individuals cannot dictate that someone be charged with a crime. They can report the alleged threat to the police. The police will determine whether there is sufficient evidence or suspicion to make an arrest and seek criminal charges.
The word proof contained in the question is used incorrectly. Only sufficient EVIDENCE is needed to charge someone with theft (i.e.: probable cause to believe that the arrestee committed the crime). PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt is what is needed to convict the defendant in court.
You would have to report it to your local law enforcement. They would then investigate your allegations, in the UK they would have to prove that the theft took place i.e. that your property existed, that someone took your property and that they intended to 'permanantly deprive' you of that property, if that can be proved they would pass the case to the procecution authorities, who would press the charges.
Many things can be used as evidence. For example: eyewitness testimony - video recording - being caught with the stolen item in your possession - statements by other persons who accomnpanied you or have knowledge that you did it - etc.
Probable cause to believe that it was YOU that commited the offense and, eventually, sufficient evidence to convince a judge or jury that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
An eye-witness - finger-prints - possession of the stolen item(s)... any one or all of these would be proof !
The defense do not have to prove anything, if the prosecution fail to prove guilt, then the defendant is not guilty (in an ideal world). It may be the case thaat a jury may find guilt when a charge has not really been adequately proved to be true, but in this case the judge must direct them to find "not guilty" through lack of evidence.
The evidence was circumstantial and not enough to prove any guilt.
By using the power of nicolas cage
Not necessarily, as long as enough credible evidence can be presented to prove that you stole it, or had it in your possession after the theft.
The "golden thread" speech indicated the responibiliy and necessity of the proecution to prove the guilt of the defendant.
NO! Lady Macbeth does not kill king Duncan's Guard Macbeth does to prove his guilt.
There is more evidence to prove her innocence than proving her guilt.
That's the Fifth Amendment.
You can sue in Civil Court. Take EVERYTHING you have to prove your case with you.
What kind of theft? Since you are accusing of such a serious crime which can be hard to prove. As long as you have substantial evidence you can file a lawsuit
Exculpatory evidence at trial is evidence which helps to prove the innocence of the person on trial. The opposite word is inculpatory, evidence which proves his guilt.
Strong enough to prove "guilt beyond a REASONABLE doubt." Note: - not ALL doubt just 'reasonable' doubt.