The ordinary offence of robbery was abolished for all purposes other than offences committed before 1 January 1969 by section 32(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968. If an offender does not harm a victim, but simply threatens to harm the victim, several additional conditions must be met to prove that a robbery occurred. Threats during a robbery only rise to the level of robbery if they are immediate threats involving the threat of death, assault or destruction of the victim`s home. If a criminal threatens to shame the victim or spread rumors about them, it will not turn a robbery into a robbery. In addition, because of the threats, the victim must have a real and well-founded fear. For example, if a weightlifter is threatened by a young child trying to steal his wallet, it is doubtful that the weightlifter is «reasonably» afraid of the child and it is probably not a theft. There are three major federal laws governing robbery. The Federal Robbery Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 2113) punishes theft of property in the custody or possession of a national bank or a federally insured bank.
Two provisions (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2112, 2114) punish robbery if the stolen property originates from the United States Postal Service or is owned by the federal government. The Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1951) punishes obstruction of interstate commerce by theft. If robbery is thwarted before it can be carried out, an alternative offence (punishable by the same penalty as under section 8 § 2 of the 1968 Act) is assault; Any act that, intentionally or recklessly, causes others to fear the immediate and unlawful use of force with intent to steal is sufficient. THEFT, crime. The criminal and violent removal of another`s person, property or money of any value, through violence or fear. 4 Bl. Com. 243 1 bald head.
102. 2. «Taking from the person» means not only the immediate taking of his person, but also of his presence, when this is done by force and against his consent. 1 Hale, P.O. Box 533; 2 Russ. Crimes, 61. The kidnapping must be done by force or frighten the owner, but the two circumstances do not necessarily have to coincide, because if a man is to be beaten and then robbed while he is insensitive, the offense is always theft. 4 binn.
No. 379. And if the party is frightened by threats and then robbed, there is no need for greater violence. 3. This offence differs from theft of the person in that the latter does not involve violence, whereas in the former case the offence is incomplete without actual or actual violence. Id. empty 2 Swift`s Dig. 298. Prin. Law, chap. 22, § 4, p.
285; and take away; Invito Domino; Theft; Captivating. The federal prosecution of bank robberies has developed a rich history of jurisprudence and examined the nuances of the law. A break and enter at an ATM, for example, may or may not be a Bundesbank robbery, depending on several factual circumstances. According to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) statistics, 422,921 robberies occurred in 2001. This figure was significantly lower than in the previous decade. The FBI estimated that between 1992 and 2001, the number of robberies in the United States dropped by 37.1 percent. According to 2001 statistics, robberies accounted for 29.4% of violent crime in the United States, costing victims a total of $532 million. The average loss per victim this year was $1258. A person is guilty of robbery if he or she flies immediately before or at the time of the robbery and, to do so, uses violence against a person or terrifies a person or attempts to be subjected to violence here and there.
 Robbery is a crime of theft and can be classified as theft by force or threat of violence. The elements of the crime of robbery include the use of force or intimidation and all elements of the crime of theft. The penalty for robbery is always harsher than for theft. In the event of theft, the victim must be put in «fear» of immediate harm by threats or intimidation. The threat does not have to be directed at the victim personally. Threats against third parties are sufficient. The threat must be present rather than future personal harm. Fear does not mean «fear,» it means apprehension – an awareness of the danger of immediate bodily harm. In R. v. Hale (1978), the use of force and theft occurred at different locations, and it was not possible to determine the timing; It was decided that the appropriation required to prove theft was a continuous act and that the jury could justly be convicted of robbery.
This approach was adopted in R. v. Lockley (1995), where violence was applied to a merchant after property was seized. It was argued that the theft should be considered complete at that time and that R. v. Gomez (1993) should apply; The court disagreed, preferring to follow R. v. Hale.