You are on page 1of 3

NICHOLAS NAVARON

OFFENCES RELATING TO STOLEN PROPERTIES


THERE ARE FOUR OFFENCES RELATING TO STOLEN PROPERTY. THEY ARE :
1. Dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property S 411
2. Habitually receiving or dealing in stolen property S 413
3. Voluntarily assisting in concealing or disposal of or making away with stolen property S414

DISHONESTLY RECEIVES OR RETAINS STOLEN PROPERTY S 411


Requirements:
1.
2.
3.
4.

The property was stolen;


The accused received or retained the property;
The accused did so dishonestly; and
The accused knew or had reason to believe the property was stolen property

THE PROPERTY WAS STOLEN


Stolen property is defined by Section 410 (1)
Property which possession was transferred by way of theft, extortion, robbery or
misappropriation, criminal breach of trust or cheating within or without Malaysia
Stolen property includes, according to Section 410 (2)
Any property which was converted or exchanged and anything acquired by such conversion
or exchange whether immediately or otherwise
However, it is not necessary to prove that a person had been convicted of the offences listed
in section 410 before the accused can be convicted
Ajendranana v State of Madaya Pradesia
Six persons were convicted of conspiracy and theft after some woollen shirts, mufflers and
bed sheets dispatched by rail were found missing. The appellant was convicted of conspiracy
and assisted in concealment of stolen property under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code
Held : The prosecution has simply to establish that the property recovered is stolen property
as it is not necessary for a person to be convicted under section 414 first before
Goh Khiok Phiong v R
The property is not a stolen property if it is not obtained by any offences enumerated in
section 410 of the Penal code

THE ACCUSED RECEIVED OR RETAINED THE PROPERTY


PP v Hong Ah Huat
The accused must have received it dishonestly or having received it honestly, he retained it
dishonestly. In receiving or retaining, the accused had obtain a possession over the property.
Possession must imply a physical capacity to deal with the stolen property to the exclusion
of the others or otherwise imply dominion and consciousness in the mind of the person

NICHOLAS NAVARON
having dominion over the object. And it must be conscious and intelligent possession and
not mere the physical presence of the accused in the proximity or even close proximity of
the object
Varia v PP
The fact that two appellants who aboard a tongkang where 13 bags of flour were discovered
is no proof that they were in possession of the bags of flour

HE DID SO DISHONESTLY
Sections 24 & 23
HE KNEW OR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THE PROPERTY WAS STOLEN
Section 26 defines reason to believe as having sufficient cause to believe that thing, but not
otherwise
Ahmad bin Ishak v PP
To determine this, one must look at the circumstances such that any reasonable man could
see sufficient cause to believe it was stolen
Samad bin Kamis v PP
The court held that the second appellant clearly had reason to believe that the property,
marine fuel oil, was stolen property. He had purchased the oil at less than half the market
value and he know that the oil was sold to him at a very cheap price
BANTA SINGH V PP
Section 411 is subject to the presumption of Section 114 of the Evidence Act which states
that the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to happen.
Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act provides that the court may presume a
man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the theft or has
received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession
PP v Wan Mohd Rahim bin Wan Mohd Zin
The respondent was arrested for riding a stolen motorcycle which bore false number plates
with a different registration number
Held : There is no inflexible rules about the minimum or maximum lengths of time which
should lapse in order that the presumption may or ought not to be drawn. Each case must
depend on its own facts. For a motorcycle, since it is not easy to be disposed of, a lapse of 17
days or a little more than two weeks may raise such presumption as stated in illustration (a)
to Section 114 of the Evidence Act

NICHOLAS NAVARON
HABITUALLY RECEIVES OR DEALS IN STOLEN PROPERTY S 413
Requirements :
1.
2.
3.
4.

Receives or retain the property Section 411


Dishonest intention SS 24 & 23
Stolen property Section 410
Reason to believe Section 26

Queen Empress v Baburam Kansari


Habitual means constant receipt of or dealing in goods which the accused knows or has reason to
believe that it was stolen
Annuar Hassan v R
There must be a minimum of 3 acts of receiving the stolen property. It is not necessary that he must
be convicted for the previous 3 dealings
Goh Khiok Phiong v R
But, the specific acts of receiving must be proved, nevertheless
ASSISTING TO CONCEAL OR DISPOSE S 414
Any act of receiving or retaining any stolen property which is not covered by sections 411,
412 and 413 will be covered under section 414
THE DEFAULT BUTTON
Abdul Manap v PP
The complainant, who ran a chicken farm on a large scale, discovered one morning that 20
fowls and 6 turkeys were missing. Some eight hours later, a fowl dealer bought four turkeys
from the accused and the four turkeys were identified by the complainant as his by the nails
which had been cut.
Held : the court invoked section 114 illustration (a) of the Evidence Ordinance 1950 and
found that the accused could be convicted for sections 411 and 414. But the accused was
convicted under s 414 because Abdul Manap went beyond receiving the stolen property. He
disposed the property, instead of just retaining it.
Ahmad bin Ishak v PP
RM 2000 government cheque received from an office boy was taken to the goldsmiths
shop to buy jewellery. Convicted
ASSISTING TO CONCEAL/dispose
Chiaw Wai Onn (1997)
Abetting the disposal of 640 computers by providing money to buy the stolen computer.
Convicted of assisting to conceal/dispose