Law Criminology

Introduction

The case is related to the theft. Jasper won around $1000. He had a conversation with concierge that night about the money he won. He slept by putting that money in the bathroom. Now he did not find the money in the morning. He blames the concierge for this theft. In return concierge said that he does not have the master key. The hotel manager also agreed about that. Jasper when checked in the hotel he noticed that the door has some problem, but he forget to tell.

Legal issues raised by the fact situation

In the aforementioned case, it clearly defined that Jasper had a money loss. He wants to recover it. He has his physical evidences about the theft he said that he had told about the winning money to the concierge and he is sure that he broke into the room and theft all the money inside. The counter argument is strong from the concierge that he does not have the master key to the room that he might get the money. In addition, the manager of the hotel Best Eastern Hotel supports the argument given by the concierge that he does not have the key.

One more crucial issue is raised in the argument that the door lock was not working properly, and Jasper forgets to tell the administration about that. This statement went against the Jasper.

Because of irresponsibility of Jasper he might have lost his money. This is the whole case there are many arguments against the concierge and the Jasper. It may have the possibility that manager and the concierge go together for this theft. There are several possibilities. Most probably the case is weak because of the Jasper not telling the administration about the door lock problem. The case needs the proper investigation with the valid proofs and evidences.

There is a Criminal Law Code that is applicable on the issue emerged.

Theft Sections

S.322. Any one commit theft who dishonestly and without the permission, or color of rights take, falsely and without color of rights convert to utilize or to the usage of another person things, whether alive or non-living, with the intention to rob, for the time being or completely, the possessor of that thing, or a person who has a unique property or significance in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it (Lear, p.183); to promise it or deposit it as security; to component with it under a circumstance with respect to its arrival that the person who part with it may be unable to perform; or to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it taken or converted (Canada Law, p.122-124).

Time when theft completed

(2) An individual commit theft when, with the intention to take anything, move it or cause it to move or to be stimulated, or begin to cause it to become variable (Canada, p 69-72).

The case falls under the terms larceny and theft ...