The first offence that Albert would be liable for is theft. Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 creates the offence of theft. It states "a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it." Five things present in order for Albert to be convicted for theft.
Within the actus reus there are three elements - Property, appropriation and belonging to another. Albert would be guilty here because he made out fake invoices, which are the property of Car Parts Plc. Section 4(1) provides that property includes money and all other property, real or personal, which includes things in action and other tangible property.
The appropriation by setting apart of money's out to a larger quantity and belonging to another because it was all from Car Parts Plc. Appropriation is set out by Section 3(1) which states "any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes where he has come by the property without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as an owner" .
Even temporary appropriation is classed as theft as in the case of Corcoran v Anderton (1980) . Another well-known authority for appropriation is R v Gomez (1993). This is a similar case to Albert as the defendant who was an assistant manager of a shop who persuaded his manager to sell goods worth ÃÂ£17,000 to his accomplice. The goods were paid out with cheques, which Gomez knew were worthless.
Belonging to another is provided under section 5(1) stating "property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it proprietary right...