|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 07:29 AM EDT |
PJ, I thought "guilty" was a term only applicable to criminal
offenses, so if conversion is a civil issue and not a criminal offense, how
could SCO have been "guilty" of anything? I think the proper phrasing
would be "SCO was found to have converted Novell's money".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 07:09 PM EDT |
Oh. I was fairly sure conversion attracted criminal as well
as civil penalties, and the criminal ones needed intent to
permanently deprive, but all I've read about in detail is the
UK and Westminster ways of looking at it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tolerance on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 02:20 AM EDT |
Thanks PJ; the Wikipedia article on
conversion was worth
reading, despite low expectations,
and in particular does say it's "a purely
civil wrong"
.
Oddly, though, Wikipedia says elsewhere that
conversion can
be a crime. It directed me at first to a
disambiguation page
which covered something called
Criminal
conversion. That made it clear there is, as I
had thought, criminal
liability as well as civil liability
for conversion;
It
differs from theft in that it does not include the
element of intending to
deprive the owner of the possession
of that property.
The
Wikipedia author then used my example (!) of a "joy
ride" to show when
conversion is not theft, but is a crime.
I gather then, if the circumstances
are right, conversion is
more than just a tort. The other example given had
obvious
CFAA application:
... tapping someone's secured
wireless LAN or public utility
line (which could also amount to theft of
services).
That might be a historical artifact not relevant
to US
definitions.
No matter what the jurisdiction, a prosecutor would
have
to prove mens rea as well as actus reus.
That would surely be
difficult for many CFAA cases.
---
Grumpy old man [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
