tooo bad they don't jump off a bridge
Posted on 07/14/2016 7:29:11 PM PDT by Elderberry
In an analysis of moral turpitude crimes, the Fourth Circuit recently found that embezzlement is not tantamount to theft for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In the case at bar, it involved a man who was under threat of removal from the United States for having committed an "aggravated felony."
But it also shines a light on a rather peculiar question. Just when is embezzlement theft? Is all property from fraudulently-obtained consent a form of theft?
Mena v. Loretta Lynch
The case at bar follows Francisco Mena, a Dominican Republic native who was served with removal orders following his conviction of two separate crimes involving moral turpitude. Mena applied for a cancellation of his removal on the basis that he'd not been convicted of an "aggravated felony" under 8 U.S.C. sec. 1229b(a)(3). The relevant language within that statute includes within the class of "aggravated felony" any "theft offense (including receipt of stolen property) ... for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year." 8 U.S.C. sec. 1101(a)(G)(3).
Mena had earlier been convicted of crimes involving the illegal trafficking of goods across state lines. In that capacity, Mena took possession of property that he knew to be illegally obtained. When Mena appealed to the BIA, it looked to the language of Section 1101(a)(43)(G), which not only included "theft" in the traditional sense of taking, but also included "receipt of stolen property" within the ambit of theft.
The odd thing here was that Mena's crime, whatever it was, did not involve "taking" and "receiving" of stolen property. Under a previous case under the same circuit, the court found that an aggravated felony of the theft type would not only need receipt as a necessary element, but also the taking without consent by the owner. No such facts? No theft. This, interestingly enough, meant that the lower court erred in dismissing Mena's application for cancellation.
Not everyone was happy with this outcome. Judge Wilkinson intimated that any reasonable person knows that embezzlement is theft.
Pass the biscuits, please.
Third of June seems like a long time ago.
If there was no criminal intent - no way to prosecute in our new judicial system.
So, if you steal to give to someone else, but not yourself, that isn’t theaft?
I think that no intent of being caught is a sufficient defense...
Only if you're an immigrant, minority or an important political person.
tooo bad they don't jump off a bridge
No, that is Socialism. Check with The Bern for details..
And another piece-a apple pie?
Oh they have a lick of sense alright. They think WE don’t have a lick of sense to know that they’re getting ready to pardon or excuse one of their own’s actions. The clue is when they start redefining what constitutes criminal behavior or not when one of theirs is on trial
My plan is to embezzle a million and give it to my wife. My company may not be thrilled, but I think I’ll be immune from prosecution.
There are two crimes. Theft and Murder.
And Murder is simply Theft of Life, so there is only one crime, one root.
All crimes derive from this root. Embezzlement is simply a specific kind of theft, as everyone knows.
To explain why these judges don’t seem to have the common sense that anyone else does, I will give you two words.
Sharia Law.
As much as I would normally agree with you, remember that this ruling is linked to the IMMIGRATION NATURALIZATION ACT.
Now, why do you suppose that would be ?
I thought that under Sharia, thieves had a hand or a foot chopped off.
First offense over a traffic ticket shoud get them deported.
They are guests. Act up and we kick you out.
Be interesting to find out of Obola’s federeal dept of injustice and the homeland Security admin was arguing to release this criminal, or to send him home, or to pay him more welfare and benefits so he can stay even longer in the US.
Meant in general when you see the signs...: )
Correct, it is classified as a charitable activity and the value of items in the transaction is a valid tax deduction...........
That's only if you steal from a Muzzie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.