Confusing question

[Mid Wales blue]

A man steals £100 from a shop’s cash register
He then carries on round the store and picks up £70 worth of goods
He goes to the checkout , pays for the goods with the stolen money and leaves the store with £70 worth of goods and £30 in cash

How much has the store lost?

Nothing, as the police, surrounded his car shot him 35 times. They recovered $530 (£430) giving the shopkeeper $120, and keeping the rest.
There was no sign of any shopping, the shopkeeper didn’t recognise the dead man in the car, but at least he had his cash back.

Happy day’s in the US of fucking A!

 

[Dirty Harry]

I read it as :-
1/ £70 loss via obtaining property by deception.
2/ £30 loss in money stolen.

 

[urban genie]

clearly many here don't cash up tills daily

 

[Blue Mist]

Right. I've thought about this long and hard.
The man takes £100 from the till. As soon as he uses £70 of that money to buy goods he is assuming the rights of the owner. That is theft. It does not matter that it is the store effectively getting its money back it is still theft.
Second, he is stealing £70 worth of goods. If he said to the cashier, 'this is stolen money' she would refuse the transaction so again in the eyes of the law its theft.
He has stolen £100 cash and £70 worth of goods by deception.
(OK you can argue the actual value of the goods is less, i.e. what the store paid for them)

Next.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

“A man steals £100 from a shop’s cash register”.

We’re told already that a crime has been committed and what that crime was in the first sentence. You can’t undo theft. Everything that happens after the theft is irrelevant.

 

[Coatigan]

“A man steals £100 from a shop’s cash register”.

We’re told already that a crime has been committed and what that crime was in the first sentence. You can’t undo theft. Everything that happens after the theft is irrelevant.

This. What he did with the money after that, and whether he or someone else bought £70 or £7000 worth of goods in that shop, and what the buy and sale value and tax on those goods is completely irrelevant. The shop is still £100 down from where it started.

People are overthinking this.

 

[Dirty Harry]

“A man steals £100 from a shop’s cash register”.

We’re told already that a crime has been committed and what that crime was in the first sentence. You can’t undo theft. Everything that happens after the theft is irrelevant.

I clocked that (along with the statement he paid with the stolen money) and put it down to bad wording more than anything having read on, he didn’t actually complete the offence of theft by leaving (or attempting to) leave the store which is generally considered the completion of the act. thereby confirming his intent of permanently depriving the owner of it, so, unless at some point he admits his intent afterwards, I didn’t see it as simple as that, which is why, for me, there’s a separate offence once he tenders that money for goods.

Seems there are at least two ways of looking at this, as the law sees it, and as the retailer sees it from a financial perspective.

 

[Coatigan]

Three friends go out for dinner and split the bill, each putting in in £10, a total of £30.

The meal came to £25, and the waiter gives them £5 in change.

To split it equally between them, they keep £1 each, and leave £2 for the waiter.

After the friends are given £1 back, they have now only paid £9 each. That makes £27, plus the £2 the waiter kept, £29.

Where has the missing pound gone?

 

[Coatigan]

I clocked that (along with the statement he paid with the stolen money) and put it down to bad wording more than anything having read on, he didn’t actually complete the offence of theft by leaving (or attempting to) leave the store which is generally considered the completion of the act. thereby confirming his intent of permanently depriving the owner of it, so, unless at some point he admits his intent afterwards, I didn’t see it as simple as that, which is why, for me, there’s a separate offence once he tenders that money for goods.

Seems there are at least two ways of looking at this, as the law sees it, and as the retailer sees it from a financial perspective.

He 'completed the act' by using the stolen money, as money. If he had left the store, and then come back in and spent it in there, the end result is still the same.

Once the £100 is taken, no matter what happens thereafter (apart from only money being put back into the till directly), the end result is always the same, the shop is £100 down.

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

Whichever way you spin it the guy walked in with nothing and walked out with £100 worth of stolen goods and cash.

So £100.

Not hard is it.

Scouse twat.