Confusing question

Saw this on twitter before and couldn't understand the confusion

The store have effectively lost £100 worth of cash, albeit the stock is worth whatever they paid for it.
 
Off the top of my head, and it’s been a while, I think he’s stolen £30 and converted £70 in criminal property under section 327(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Or maybe fraud of that sum, as he’s made a false (misleading) and dishonest representation to the shop in order to purchase the £70 worth of goods and thereby cause them a loss. He can’t be guilty of stealing the £70 as he didn’t intend to permanently deprive the shop of it.
 
If he had gone into the shop and bought goods for £70 pounds of his own money and then put his hand in the till and took £100, how much would the shop have lost?
The order doesn't matter and the shop is down £100.
The order does matter for two reasons. What you’ve described is pure theft, the other scenario is not, but also because the shop will be more out of pocket in your scenario because they’ve lost pure cash whereas in the other scenario they’ve lost the £30 and whatever those goods cost to purchase (which will be less than £70).
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.