چکیده:
The concept of theft is closely related to the concept of ownership. Considering the goals of conceptual formation in the legal system, in the first part, these two concepts are examined at the theoretical level. At this level, "ownership" is defined as a collection of four types of rights including "right of possession", "right of alteration", "right of use", and "right of transfer" in relation to all types of property, both tangible and intangible, or movable and immovable, as the subject of these "rights". Corresponding to this definition, the conceptual scope of theft is specified; that is, infringement on one or all of the aforementioned "rights" with respect to one or all types of property (the subject of the "rights") in the aforementioned collection. The main claim of this study is that different understandings of the concept of property and the type and position of ownership in each legal system affect the concept of theft. In the second part, at the empirical level, the position of theft in four legal systems of England, America, Canada, and Iran is examined from a comparative perspective. This comparative investigation shows that in the English legal system, the concept of theft encompasses the entire conceptual domain of ownership. In American law, infringement on three types of rights – "possession", "transfer", and "use" – with respect to all property is criminalized as theft. In Canadian law, theft includes all ownership rights in relation to "movable property". In Iranian law, only infringement on the "right of possession" with respect to movable property constitutes the conceptual scope of theft.
خلاصه ماشینی:
For example, if the material element of theft encompasses encroachment on any of the “rights” of ownership, in order to establish proportionality between the “material element” and the concept of “belonging to another,” the property must belong to the owner and any rightful non-owner.
An interesting point in the laws of England and America (Florida) is the provision of separate definitions for each of the constructive concepts of the concept of theft, such as “property,” “belonging to another,” “material element,” and “intent,” which we will discuss in the next section.
2 Table 1: Conceptual space of ownership based on “types of rights” and their “subject” (Refer to the page image) In different legal systems, depending on the value and position of ownership, infringement of some or even all of these rights, in relation to all or some of the properties, is also criminalized under the title of “theft” (Theft).
In the next section, we will examine the comparative elements of the concept of theft in four legal systems – England, America (Florida), Canada, and Iran – and their place in the conceptual domain of ownership.
” Aside from the criticisms leveled against the legislator, it seems that with the broad definition provided regarding the concept of “obtaining or using” as the material element of theft, at least three types of rights – “use,” “possession,” and “transfer” – from the rights of ownership are within the conceptual scope of theft.
In the criminal law of the state of Florida, the legislator presents a combination of intent and awareness as the mental element in the general definition of theft, following the new approach.
(
, 
, 
)
